HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview Application Report & LEAF_APPENDIXNorth Campus
Residential Expansion
Review Application Report Appendix
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
July 12, 2018
Contents
Geotechnical Report .............................................................................................................3
Archaeology Report ..............................................................................................................4
Traffic Study .........................................................................................................................5
Circulation Study .................................................................................................................6
Arborist Report .....................................................................................................................7
Geotechnical Report
Archaeology Report
PHASE 1A CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CORNELL UNIVERSITY NORTH CAMPUS PROJECT TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK MCD 10906 BY: ANDREA ZLOTUCHA KOZUB SUBMITTED TO: TROWBRIDGE WOLF MICHAELS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LLP 1001 SENECA STREET, SUITE 201 ITHACA, NY 14850 MARCH 8, 2018
PHASE 1 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
CORNELL UNIVERSITY NORTH CAMPUS PROJECT
CITY AND TOWN OF ITHACA
TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK
MCDs 10940, 10906
BY:
ANDREA ZLOTUCHA KOZUB
SUBMITTED TO:
TROWBRIDGE WOLF MICHAELS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LLP
1001 SENECA STREET, SUITE 201
ITHACA, NY 14850
APRIL 11, 2018
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND RESEACRH .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Environmental Context ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Site Files Summary ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Prehistoric Context ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Historic Context ................................................................................................................................. 7
III. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................................11
3.1 Phase 1A Methodology ......................................................................................................................11
3.2 Phase 1B Field Methodology .............................................................................................................11
IV. RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................................11
4.1 Phase 1A Results ...............................................................................................................................11
4.2 Phase 1B Results ...............................................................................................................................12
V. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................12
APPENDIX I. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................21
APPENDIX II. SOIL DATA .................................................................................................................................23
APPENDIX III. EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS SURVEY .................................................................................24
FIGURES
Figure 1. Approximate location of the project area in Tompkins County and New York State. ................................. 1
Figure 2. Location of the project area on the 1969/78 Ithaca East, NY 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. ................................ 2
Figure 3. Cornell University campus map showing approximate project boundaries (red) and survey area (yellow). 3
Figure 4. Plan of proposed north campus expansion. ............................................................................................... 4
Figure 5. Vicinity of the project area parcels on the 1853 map of Tompkins County. ............................................... 8
Figure 6. Vicinity of the project area parcels on the 1866 atlas of Tompkins County................................................ 8
Figure 7. Approximate boundaries of the project area on the 1900 15’ Dryden Quadrangle...................................... 9
Figure 8. Approximate boundaries of the project area on a 1954 aerial photo..........................................................10
Figure 9. Approximate Phase 1A photo locations. ..................................................................................................19
Figure 10. Map of Phase 1B testing. ......................................................................................................................20
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1. View of northern end of eastern parcel, facing south from George Jessup Road. .......................................13
Photo 2. View of northern end of eastern parcel, facing west along George Jessup Road. .......................................13
Photo 3. Vicinity of the Moore House Site, facing east to road. ..............................................................................14
Photo 4. Vicinity of Moore House Site, facing north along road. ............................................................................14
Photo 5. View of Cradit Road and a playing field in eastern parcel, facing south from Moore House Site. ..............15
Photo 6. View of slope between playing fields in eastern parcel, facing east. ..........................................................15
Photo 7. View from infrastructure corridor facing east to playing field terrace. .......................................................16
Photo 8. View of paths, stairs, and utilities along the proposed path of the infrastructure corridor, facing west. .......16
Photo 9. View of parking lot berm in western parcel facing south from George Jessup Road. .................................17
Photo 10. View of CC Lot in western parcel, facing east. .......................................................................................17
Photo 11. Southwestern portion of western parcel facing north with the rear yard of the fraternity house. ...............18
Photo 12. View of Sigma Alpha Mu house, facing northwest. Note the drain grate and utility flag on the right. ......18
TABLES
Table 1. Site files summary from CRIS. ................................................................................................................. 6
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 1
I. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Phase 1 cultural resource survey performed by the Public Archaeology
Facility (PAF) for the proposed construction of two student housing complexes within the North Campus of Cornell
University in the City and Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (Figures 1-2). The western project area is
centered on Parking Lot CC, on the southwest corner of George Jessup Road and Sisson Place, and includes the Sigma
Alpha Mu fraternity house lot. The eastern project area is located in the Appel playing fields and ball courts located
west of Pleasant Grove Road and Cradit Farm Drive (Figure 3). Infrastructure and roadway construction may occur
within a connector corridor extending between these parcels. The project area covers approximately 3.5-4 ha (9-10
ac).
The fieldwork summarized in this document was performed under the supervision of Dr. Nina M. Versaggi,
PAF Director. Andrea Zlotucha Kozub served as project director and report author. Dylan Pelton assisted with the
Phase 1B survey fieldwork. Maria Pezzuti performed all related administrative functions. In compliance with the
Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations in New York State (1994) and the National Park Service's Criteria and
Procedures for the Identification of Historic Properties (2000), the area within the project limits is considered the area
of impact for the purpose of conducting the survey. The results of the research performed for this report do not
apply to any territory outside the project area.
Figure 1. Approximate location of the project area in Tompkins County and New York State.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 2
Figure 2. Location of the project area on the 1969/78 Ithaca East, NY 7.5' USGS Quadrangle.
Total Project Area
Survey Location
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 3
Figure 3. Cornell University campus map showing approximate project boundaries (red) and survey area (yellow).
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 4
Figure 4. Plan of proposed north campus expansion.
Key: Light gray = proposed buildings, dark gray = existing buildings, yellow = potential infrastructure/roadway
construction.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 5
II. BACKGROUND RESEARCH
2.1 Environmental Context
The project area is situated within the Northeastern Appalachian Highland Province. The region is
characterized by hardwood forests and farmlands overlaying glacial sediments with shale and sandstone bedrock. The
region’s topography was heavily influenced by glacial activity, with the most prominent feature being Cayuga Lake.
Several streams cut deep gorges as they drain the uplands into the lake, including Cascadilla and Fall Creeks, which
flank the main Cornell University campus. The southeastern corner of the project area is situated about 122 m (400 ft)
from the north rim of the Fall Creek gorge as it bends into the man-made Beebe Lake.
The USDA excluded most of Cornell University from its soil survey, so data on the specific type of soils
expected within the project area is not available. However, PAF has conducted numerous surveys on the Cornell
campus and has found that the A horizon is typically shallow and that deeply buried cultural horizons are not expected.
A recent geotechnical evaluation of the project area parcels found that there are deep fill deposits across both parcels.
The underlying sediments were described as “firm silt”, with no topsoil or A horizon identified at grade or beneath
the fill (Stopen 2018a, 2018b).
2.2 Site Files Summary
PAF conducted an archaeological site files search using the Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS)
administered by the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). The results are
summarized in Table 1. There are two documented prehistoric sites and the Cascadilla Creek Prehistoric
Archaeological District (CPAD) located within a 3.2 km (2 mi) radius of the project area. The Brown Farm Site is
near the north bank of the Fall Creek gorge. It consists of an isolated Early Archaic bifurcated point base.
Twenty Euro-American or historic Native American sites are located within a 3.2 km (2 mi) radius of the
project area. The 18 Euro-American sites are associated with historic structures. One is located within the northern
portion of the eastern project area parcel. The Moore House Site was associated with a house that was moved ca. 2000
to a new location. The house lot and surrounding property was surveyed prior to the move (Nagel and Powers 1999).
The subsequently discovered historic site was evaluated with a Phase 2 site examination and was recommended as not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Gerigan and Nagel 2000), so no further work was conducted.
No architectural survey was conducted for this project. One building is located within the western project
area. The structure was built about 1956 and has been used as the Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity house since 2004. This
structure has not been evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 6
Table 1. Site files summary from CRIS.
Site No. Name Site Type/Affiliation Other Information
10906.000016 Empire Grist Mill Site Historic mill STPs and units in 1950s
10906.000087 Brown Farm Site Archaic stray find Bifurcated point base
10906.000214 Moore House Site Historic house In APE; Not eligible per Phase 2.
10906.000215 Forest Home Mill Site Historic mill Late 18th century
10906.000212 Cornell-Blair Site; SUBi-1843 Historic foundation
10940.002033 CPAD Late Archaic, Early Woodland, early historic Phase 3 Alt. Mitigation
10940.002018 E. Cornell Site Historic house Phase 3 Mitigation
10940.001469 (no name) Historic grist mill 12 STPs and 3 units
10940.001471 Brown Paper Company Site Historic paper mill 6 trenches
10940.001470 Ithaca Paper Company Site Historic paper mill 4 STPs and 4 trenches
10940.002023 Ithaca Gun Factory Site; SUBi-2327 1883 structure, 1866 foundation 8 STPs
10940.002024 Cornell Millrace Site 1832 millrace by Ezra Cornell 1 unit
NYSM 5027 ACP TOMK-10 Historic Native American Parker (1922)
NYSM 5028 ACP TOMK-11; Totierronno Village of Cayuga Tedarighroone Parker (1922)
10940.002109 Film Room Site 1894+ pavilion 14 STPs
10906.000342 Dryden Road Site; SUBi-2766 19th century midden 5 STPs
10906.000343 Dryden Road II Site; SUBi-2767 19th century midden 3 STPs
10906.000340 Ellis Hollow Road Site; SUBi-2764 Historic houselot with stray prehistoric find 9 STPs
10906.000334 Ithaca-Owego RR Inclined Plane 1820s embankment built along South Hill Traces of plane visible
10906.000333 Coddington RR Site 19th-20th century sheet midden 15 STPs
10906.000334 Rich Road Site; SUBi-2796 Houselot 22 STPs
10903.000323 Lamkin Historic Site Historic foundations, well, gravestone
NYSM 5033 ACP TOMK Traces of unidentified prehistoric occupation Parker (1922)
2.3 Prehistoric Context
The prehistory of New York State and the Northeast was characterized by two broad subsistence patterns,
both of which influenced settlement and land use patterns, as well as material culture. The first, designated as the
pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer, began with the arrival of highly mobile groups during the Paleoindian and Early-
Middle Archaic periods around 10,000-4000 BC. Mobility was an important adaptation, as these groups relied on
gathered plants, game animals, and fish for their subsistence. These groups often followed herds of animals or
migrated from one resource-rich landform (e.g., upland wetlands) to another. Starting in the Late Archaic period
and extending through the Middle Woodland (4000 BC to AD 900), hunter-gatherers became seasonally nomadic.
People created relatively large base camps in major river or lake valleys, from which daily foragers would radiate
outward in search of local resources. During seasons of resource dispersal, the camps would break up into smaller,
more mobile units capable of foraging for themselves. Sites associated with hunter-gatherers include the short-term
camps and resource processing stations used by the early nomads, as well as larger base camps and lithic scatters
associated with the daily foragers of the seasonally nomadic groups.
Beginning around AD 900, the Late Woodland period is defined by the widespread shift towards agriculture
as a subsistence base, along with the associated sedentism necessary for agricultural pursuits. While these groups
continued to forage for plant and animal resources, they relied heavily on cultigens as a primary food source.
Permanent villages developed in the region, along with a matrilineal kin structure. Increased needs for defense later
in prehistory prompted many groups to place their villages on elevated landforms above major waterways.
Prehistoric Sensitivity Assessment
The background research on prehistoric occupation in central New York suggests prehistoric groups occupied
diverse landforms within Tompkins County. Food, water, rock, and soil resources were abundant around the valleys.
Archaeological evidence suggests prehistoric groups used this landscape as early as the Paleoindian period (McCosh
1995), and were fully settled in the region by the Late Archaic period. Three prehistoric sites and the Cascadilla Creek
Prehistoric Archaeological District (Kudrle 2005; Rudler 2007a and 2007b; Zlotucha Kozub 2003) have been
identified in the uplands on or near the Cornell University campus, including a stray Early Archaic point recovered
near the project area. Intact ground within the project area therefore has a moderate to high potential for containing
prehistoric sites, particularly small camps and resource procurement/processing locations.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 7
2.4 Historic Context
The Town of Ithaca was organized in 1821, while the City of Ithaca was incorporated in 1888. One of the
most significant developments in Ithaca’s history was the establishment and growth of Cornell University. Cornell
was one of the first “land grant” colleges established under the Morrill Act of 1865. The Act appropriated public lands
to aid the development of state agricultural and mechanical colleges. The University is named for one of its founders,
Ezra Cornell, a local engineer, entrepreneur, and politician whose private land holdings formed a significant portion
of the original parcel. The project area is situated in an area that was rural farmland until the 20th century when the
university expansion and the development of the Cayuga Heights neighborhood to the east prompted the creation of
the North Campus.
Three historic maps are available for the project area (Figures 5-7), which show the rural character of the
project area during the 19th century. One house is depicted within the project area. This house, commonly known as
the Moore House, has been relocated outside the North Campus. Figure 8 presents a historic aerial photo of the project
area dating to 1954. The North Campus was at that time limited to Dickson and Balch Halls and the earliest in a series
of apartment buildings known as Pleasant Grove Apartments. The latter lay within the boundary of the eastern project
area parcel. The completed apartment complex is also depicted on the USGS map (Figure 2). The apartment complex
existed into the 21st century when it was removed and the parcel graded to accommodate the Appel playing fields and
Cradit Farm Drive.
Historic Sensitivity Assessment
The Moore house lot was investigated with Phase 1 and Phase 2 testing (Nagel and Powers 1999; Garigen
and Nagel 2000), leading to the identification and site examination of the Moore House Site (RSMC Dry 008,
10906.000214). The Phase 1 testing extended between the George Jessup Road and just north of the area where the
Cradit Farm Drive intersection was subsequently built. The Phase 2 testing consisted of 89 STPs placed at 5 m (16 ft)
intervals across the house lot. Testing produced a total of 53 historic artifacts, leading to an assessment of low data
potential and a recommendation that the site was not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Garigen and
Nagel 2000; see report excerpt in Appendix III). The Phase 2 report stated that additional STPs would be excavated
after the house was removed (scheduled for May 2000), but it is not clear from the documents on CRIS what the
results of this testing may have been. The house location and immediate rear yard were subsequently impacted by
grading for a playing field.
The remainder of the current project area does not contain map documented structures and therefore has a
low likelihood of containing historic sites.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 8
Figure 5. Vicinity of the project area parcels on the 1853 map of Tompkins County.
Figure 6. Vicinity of the project area parcels on the 1866 atlas of Tompkins County.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 9
Figure 7. Approximate boundaries of the project area on the 1900 15’ Dryden Quadrangle.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 10
Figure 8. Approximate boundaries of the project area on a 1954 aerial photo.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 11
III. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Phase 1A Methodology
The Phase 1A methodology included a literature review and a walkover and photo-documentation of the
proposed project area. Andrea Zlotucha Kozub conducted the Phase 1A fieldwork on February 14, 2018 (Zlotucha
Kozub 2018). Photos of the project area are included on pages 15-20. Figure 9 presents a map of Cornell Campus with
the approximate locations of photos indicated.
3.2 Phase 1B Field Methodology
The Phase 1B methodology consisted of excavating seven shovel test pits (STPs) placed approximately 15
m (49 ft) apart within the level and unpaved portions of the Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity building lot. The fieldwork
was conducted by Andrea Zlotucha Kozub and Dylan Pelton on April 9, 2018. Three STPs are located in the front
(south) yard of the fraternity house, one is located on the east side of the house, and three are located in the rear (north)
yard. The project map is depicted in Figure 10. The STPs were excavated with hand tools and were generally 35 cm
(14 in) in diameter. The goal was to penetrate any surface fill that may be present and determine if intact cultural
horizons are present or if the ground was graded prior to the deposition of fill. The target depth of the STPs was 15
cm (6 in) into sterile subsoil or to 1 m (3.3 ft) in areas of deep fill. All soil was sifted through 7 mm (0.25 in) hardware
cloth, and notation was made of discarded artifacts in the fill soils. Written descriptions of soil color and texture,
artifact content, and digging conditions were made at the time of excavation. The STP soil records are presented in
Appendix II.
IV. RESULTS
4.1 Phase 1A Results
The eastern project area parcel (Photos 1-6) consists of Appel playing fields and ball courts which are visibly
disturbed by cutting and filling. The southern two-thirds of this parcel has been altered at least twice, once by the
construction of a large apartment complex and secondly by the construction of Cradit Farm Drive and the fields. The
geotechnical analysis (Stopen 2018a) demonstrated that this area contains deep fill. It is unlikely that intact A horizon
soils exist beneath the fill either within or adjacent to the fields and courts. The ball court area at the northern end of
the parcel (Photos 1-2) was archaeologically surveyed prior to the construction of the court but did not contain cultural
deposits. The location of the Moore house and its rear yard were impacted by the construction of a playing field. The
vicinity of the northern yard (Photos 3-4) appears relatively undisturbed with larger trees and a less sculpted
topography than in the remainder of this parcel (Photos 5-6). Previous testing for this portion of the Moore House Site
was largely negative (Gerigan and Nagel 2000).
The potential infrastructure/roadway corridor has been previously disturbed by the construction of paths,
stairs, and the installation of existing utilities (Photos 7-8).
The western project area (Photos 9-12) consists of a parking lot, as well as adjacent grassy medians and the
Sigma Alpha Mu house and lot. The majority of this portion of the project area is visibly disturbed by cutting and
filling, and the geotechnical evaluation confirmed that deep fill deposits exist in much of the area (Stopen 2018b). The
shallow A horizon found elsewhere on the Cornell University campus is unlikely to remain intact beneath the parking
lot, and the geotechnical evaluation did not identify the presence of topsoil or A horizon beneath the fill. The
geotechnical report suggests that the fill is somewhat shallower in the vicinity of the fraternity house, which is an area
that does not appear to have been heavily modified when the parking lot was built. It is possible that intact soils may
be found beneath the fill in this vicinity, or that intact ground exists in areas not tested by the geotechnical
investigation, though disturbances from utilities and drainage (see Photo 12) are likely.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 12
4.2 Phase 1B Results
All STPs achieved a minimum depth of 50 cm (20 in), with the deepest STP reaching 1 m (3.3 ft) below the
surface. The STPs in the front yard (#1-3) contained dense fill that was impenetrable due to rock or concrete inclusions
beginning at around 50 cm (20 in) below the surface. The fill was variable between STPs, and included lenses of
gravelly sand, dense clay loam, and crushed asphalt.
STP #4 was excavated in the side yard and contained 75 cm (30 in) of fill consisting of compact silt loam
and a thick layer of very dense clay. Natural subsoil was encountered at 75 cm (30 in), which consisted of very compact
yellowish-brown silt. No A horizon was present in this STP, indicating that the area had been scraped prior to the
deposition of fill.
STPs #5-7 were excavated in the rear yard. The two closest to the fraternity house appeared to contain
relatively intact soils, including brown silty loam A horizon in STP #6 over a yellowish-brown clay loam subsoil. STP
#7 was excavated north of the house near the toe slope of the CC Lot embankment and contained 50 cm (20 in) of
gravel and sand fill. A brown silt loam soil was encountered at the bottom of the gravel layer, but the rockiness of the
fill ultimately obstructed further excavation.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the eastern project area is largely disturbed, and that the undisturbed area on the north
side of the Moore House Site was sufficiently evaluated by prior archaeological testing. We recommend no further
archaeological work in the eastern portion of the project area.
Testing was not recommended for most of the western portion of the project area due to the condition of the
parcel, which consists largely of a parking lot with associated berms and embankments. Testing was, however,
recommended for the yards of the Sigma Alpha Mu house. The Phase1B survey conducted in this area demonstrated
that much of the fraternity yard contains 50 cm (20 in) or more of deep fill. The underlying soils south and east of the
house were cut prior to the deposition of fill, so no intact cultural deposits remain in these areas. The back yard of the
house does not appear to have been scraped though portions of this area do contain deep fill deposits. Intact soils did
not yield any cultural material beyond a few pieces of modern beer bottle glass which were discarded. Based on the
results of the testing, we recommend that the western project area does not contain intact archaeological sites. No
further archaeological work is recommended.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 13
Photo 1. View of northern end of eastern parcel, facing south from George Jessup Road.
Photo 2. View of northern end of eastern parcel, facing west along George Jessup Road.
Shovel Probe
2 1 2
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 14
Photo 3. Vicinity of the Moore House Site, facing east to road.
Photo 4. Vicinity of Moore House Site, facing north along road.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 15
Photo 5. View of Cradit Road and a playing field in eastern parcel, facing south from Moore House Site.
Photo 6. View of slope between playing fields in eastern parcel, facing east.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 16
Photo 7. View from infrastructure corridor facing east to playing field terrace.
Photo 8. View of paths, stairs, and utilities along the proposed path of the infrastructure corridor, facing west.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 17
Photo 9. View of parking lot berm in western parcel facing south from George Jessup Road.
Photo 10. View of CC Lot in western parcel, facing east.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 18
Photo 11. Southwestern portion of western parcel, facing north with the rear yard of the fraternity house on the left.
Photo 12. View of Sigma Alpha Mu house, facing northwest. Note the drain grate and utility flag on the right. This
view encompasses the locations of STPs #2, 3, and 4.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 19
Figure 9. Approximate Phase 1A photo locations.
1
2
3 4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
7 Photo Angle
Previous Survey (Approx.)
Approx. APE
Moore House Site
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 20
Figure 10. Map of Phase 1B testing in the southwestern corner of the western project area parcel.
7
6
1
4
STP – A horizon encountered (no CM)
STP – No A horizon encountered
E
m
b
a
n
k
m
e
n
t
2
3
Sigma Alpha Mu
(10 Sisson Place)
CC
Lot
5
Sisson Pla
c
e
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 21
APPENDIX I. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fagan, L.
1853 Map of Tompkins County, NY from Actual Surveys. Horace and Charles D. Smith, Philadelphia.
Gerigan, Lisa and Brian L. Nagel
2000 Addendum to Phase 1B Cultural Resource Investigations and Phase II Site Evaluation for the Moore House
Property on the Cornell University Campus as Part of the Cornell University/North Campus Residential
Housing Initiative, City and Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, 98PR3404. Rochester Museum
and Science Center, Rochester, New York.
Kudrle, Samuel
2005 Phase 2 Site Examination of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site (SUBi-2524), Cornell Athletic Fields Project Part
2 (03PR00922). Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton
University.
McCosh, R. J.
1995 Development of an Archaeological Database and the Testing of an Archaeological Predictive Model in
Tompkins County, New York. Unpublished Undergraduate Honors Thesis on file in the Archaeology
Program, Cornell University.
Nagel, Brian L. and Paul Powers
1999 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations for the Moore House Property on the Cornell University Campus
as Part of the Cornell University/North Campus Residential Housing Initiative, City and Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, 98PR3404. Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester, New York.
National Park Service
2000 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington
D.C.: National Park Service.
New York Archaeological Council
1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations in New York State.
Rudler, Michael
2007a Phase 2 Site Examination of the Cascadilla Creek 1 Site (SUBi-2385) - Locus 4. Cornell University Gas
Line Project Addendum Survey. Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology
Facility, Binghamton University.
2007b Phase 2 Site Examination of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site (SUBi-2524) - Locus 3. Cornell University Gas
Line Project Addendum Survey. Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology
Facility, Binghamton University.
Stone and Stewart
1866 New Topographical Atlas of Tompkins County, New York. D. Mason & Co., Syracuse, New York.
Stopen, John P.
2018a Report of Geotechnical Evaluations for Foundation Design for Site #2 Appel Fields, Proposed North
Campus Housing, Ithaca, NY. Prepared for Integrated Acquisition and Development, Ithaca, NY.
2018b Report of Geotechnical Evaluations for Foundation Design for Site #1 CC Lot, Proposed North Campus
Housing, Ithaca, NY. Prepared for Integrated Acquisition and Development, Ithaca, NY.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1900 Dryden, New York 15 minute quadrangle.
1969 Ithaca East, New York 7.5 minute quadrangle. (Photorevised 1978)
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 22
Zlotucha Kozub, Andrea
2003 Cultural Resource Management Report, Phase 2 Site Examination of the Cascadilla Creek Site (SUBi-
2385), Cornell Athletic Field Project, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York MCD 10906. Public
Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University.
2018 Phase 1A Cultural Resource Assessment, Cornell University North Campus Project, City and Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York MCDs 10940 and 10906. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton
University.
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 23
APPENDIX II. SOIL DATA
Pa=Pale Lt=Light Md=Medium Dk=Dark
Br=Brown Gr=Gray Yl=Yellow Ol=Olive Tn=Tan Rd=Red Bk=Black Wh=White
Si=Silt Sa=Sand Cl=Clay Lo=Loam Gvl=Gravel
P=Prehistoric H=Historic N=No Cultural Material
Disc.=Discarded
Transec
t
Level Depth Soil Description CM Crew Date
STP 1 1 0-25 Mottled Fill Of Yl Br & Br Lo Cl; Coal - Disc. N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 1 2 25-50 Mottled Fill Of Yl Br & Br Lo Cl; Brick - Disc.; Stopped By Concrete
Chunk (Associated W/ Hollow Space)
N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 2 1 0-32 Yl Br Si Lo; Plastic & Glass - Disc. N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 2 2 32-55 Br Si Lo W/ Br Cl Inclusions; Mortar, Wire & Metal - Disc.; Stopped By
Rock
N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 3 1 0-30 Mottled Yl & Br Cl Lo; Brick - Disc. N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 3 2 30-48 Crushed Asphalt N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 3 3 48-52 Gr Sa & Rock; Stopped By Dense Rock N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 4 1 0-40 Yl Br Compact Si Lo; Plastic & Nail - Disc. N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 4 2 40-75 Br Compact Si Cl; Plastic & Brick - Disc. N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 4 3 75-100 Yl Br Compact Si N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 5 1 0-15 Dk Br Si Lo N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 5 2 15-25 Ol Cl Lo N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 5 3 25-60 Yl Br Cl Lo (Natural Soils) N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 6 1 0-27 Br Si Lo; Beer Glass - Disc. N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 6 2 27-47 Yl Br Cl Lo N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 7 1 0-50 Gr Sa & Gvl Fill N DP/AZK 4/9/18
STP 7 2 50-59 Br Si Lo W/ Rocks & Roots; Stopped By Rock N DP/AZK 4/9/18
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 24
APPENDIX III. EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS SURVEY
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 25
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 26
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 27
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 28
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 29
Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1 Survey Report: Cornell University North Campus p. 30
Traffic Study
for the proposed
North Campus Residential Expansion
City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and
Village of Cayuga Heights
Tompkins County, New York
June 2018
Project No. 38008
Prepared For:
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201
Ithaca, NY 14850
Attn: Ms. Kimberly Michaels
Prepared By:
3495 Winton Place
Building E, Suite 110
Rochester, New York 14623
Traffic Impact Study
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
i June 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF APPENDICIES .................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... iii
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1
II. LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................1
III. EXISTING PUBLIC ROADWAY SYSTEM ......................................................................................2
IV. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................................4
A. Peak Intervals for Analysis ................................................................................................................4
B. Existing Traffic Volume Data ...........................................................................................................4
C. Field Observations .............................................................................................................................5
D. Vehicular Capacity Analysis ..............................................................................................................5
E. Crash Evaluation .................................................................................................................................8
V. FUTURE AREA DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL GROWTH .................................................. 10
VI. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 10
A. Description ....................................................................................................................................... 10
B. Site Traffic and Parking Generation ............................................................................................ 11
C. Vehicular Traffic Distribution ....................................................................................................... 13
VII. FULL DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES ................................................................................................. 13
VIII. CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 13
IX. CORNELL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ..................... 17
X. CONSTRUCTION PHASE TRAFFIC CONSIDERARTIONS ................................................. 18
XI. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 19
XII. FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ 20
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
ii June 2018
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................2
TABLE 1I STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS AND ACTUAL PEAK HOURS ..................................5
TABLE 1II 2018 EXISTING CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS .............................................................6
TABLE 1V SUMMARY OF ACCIDENTS AND COMPARISON OF RATES .....................................9
TABLE V NORTH CAMPUS PEAK HOUR VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION ........................ 12
TABLE VI 2022 BACKGROUND AND FULL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 14
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA
FIGURE 2 LANE GEOMETRY & AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
FIGURE 3A PEAK HOUR VOLUMES – 2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS
FIGURE 3B LEVEL OF SERVICE – 2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PEAK HOUR
FIGURE 3C LEVEL OF SERVICE – 2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR
FIGURE 4A PEAK HOUR VOLUMES – 2022 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
FIGURE 4B LEVEL OF SERVICE – 2022 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS AM PEAK HOUR
FIGURE 4C LEVEL OF SERVICE – 2022 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR
FIGURE 5 PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN
FIGURE 6 DIVERSIONS DUE TO CC LOT AND NORTHCROSS ROAD REMOVAL
FIGURE 7 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 8 SITE GENERATED TRIPS
FIGURE 9A PEAK HOUR VOLUMES – FULL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
FIGURE 9B LEVEL OF SERVICE – 2022 FULL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AM PEAK
HOUR
FIGURE 9C LEVEL OF SERVICE – 2022 FULL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS PM PEAK
HOUR
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
iii June 2018
LIST OF APPENDICES
A1. COLLECTED TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA
A2. MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC DATA AND CALCULATIONS
A3. LOS CRITERIA/DEFINITIONS
A4. LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS – EXISTING CONDITIONS
A5. LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS – BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
A6. LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS – FULL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. HCM 2016 Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board. The National
Academies, Washington, DC: 2016.
2. Trip Generation, Tenth Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington D.C.
2017.
3. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Traffic Data Viewer. 2018.
Retrieved from https://www.dot.ny.gov/tdv.
4. 2014 Comprehensive Plan: Town of Ithaca, NY. Town of Ithaca Planning Department. 2014.
5. North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study. Kimley-Horn. April 2018.
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
1 June 2018
The primary purpose of this report is to identify and evaluate the potential transportation impacts
associated with the proposed North Campus Residential Expansion in the City of Ithaca, Town of
Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County, New York.
In an effort to define traffic impact, this report documents existing traffic conditions, future
background traffic conditions including area growth, and determines the future traffic operations
that result from the proposed development. Future traffic volumes and operating conditions as
well as parking generation and demand associated with the proposed development are evaluated.
In addition, pedestrian circulation, transit service, and bicycle infrastructure are discussed, as well
as any safety concerns within the study area.
II. LOCATION
The proposed development sites are located between Jessup Road, Triphammer Road, Cradit
Farm Drive, and Pleasant Grove Road on the existing CC Lot parking site and recreational fields
site in the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York.
The study area intersections include:
1. Thurston Avenue/University Avenue-Forest Home Road
2. Thurston Avenue/Cradit Farm Drive
3. Thurston Avenue/Wait Avenue
4. Triphammer Road/Wait Avenue
5. Triphammer Road/Jessup Road
6. Northcross Road/CC Lot Driveway
7. Pleasant Grove Road/Jessup Road-Hasbrouck Circle
8. Pleasant Grove Road/Cradit Farm Drive-Hasbrouck Circle
9. Pleasant Grove Road-Forest Home Drive/Judd Falls Road
10. Forest Home Drive/Warren Road
11. Forest Home Drive/Caldwell Drive
12. Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road
13./14. Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road/East Upland
15. Pleasant Grove Road/Hanshaw Road
16. Triphammer Road/East Upland Road
The site location and study area are illustrated in Figure 1 - Site Location & Study Area (all figures
are included at the end of this report).
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
2 June 2018
III. EXISTING PUBLIC ROADWAY SYSTEM
The following outlines the description of the study roadway network in the vicinity of the
proposed project. It is important to mention that the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts
referenced were obtained based upon the most recent traffic counts collected by the New York
State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), turning movement counts performed by SRF &
Associates, and Tompkins County (ITCTC). The roadway network within the study area is
comprised of State arterials, urban collectors, and local streets. Table I describes the existing
roadway system.
TABLE I
EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS
ROADWAY ROUTE1 FUNC.
CLASS2 JURIS.3 SPEED
LIMIT4
# OF
TRAVEL
LANES5
TRAVEL
PATTERN/
DIRECTION
EST.
AADT6
AADT
SOURCE7
Thurston Avenue - Local City of Ithaca 30 2 Two-way/
North-South 3,525 NYSDOT
(2010)
Triphammer Road - Minor
Arterial
Village of
Cayuga
Heights
30 2
Two-way/
North-South,
East-West
5,968 NYSDOT
(2015)
North Triphammer
Road - Minor
Arterial
Village of
Cayuga
Heights
30 2 Two-way/
North-South 11,410 NYSDOT
(2014)
Hanshaw Road - Minor
Arterial
Village of
Cayuga
Heights
30 2
Two-way/
Northwest-
Southeast
9,677 NYSDOT
(2010)
Pleasant Grove
Road - Minor
Arterial
Tompkins
County 30 2 Two-way/
North-South 6,552 NYSDOT
(2014)
Forest Home Drive - Major
Collector
Town of
Ithaca 30 2
Two-way/
North-South,
East-West
5,968 NYSDOT
(2015)
Notes:
1. State Functional Classification of the roadway.
2. Estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) based on most recently collected data in vehicles per
day (vpd).
3. Jurisdiction of the roadway; City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, or Tompkins
County.
4. Number of travel lanes in the “highway proper” (i.e., the highway segment between intersections
and/or interchanges, excluding turning/auxiliary lanes developed at the intersections).
5. General Cardinal Direction (i.e., north/south, east/west) of roadway within study area).
6. Miles per Hour (“MPH”); Limit – posted or statewide limit.
7. Source (Year of Data).
A circulation study prepared by Kimley-Horn addressed pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities.
These facilities are summarized below.
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
3 June 2018
Pedestrian Facilities
Kimley-Horn’s circulation study provided a summary of pedestrian accommodations throughout
the North Campus. Generally, sidewalks are present within and around North Campus. The
report described areas where sidewalks are lacking, such as portions of the following study
roadways: Jessup Road, Triphammer Road, Cradit Farm Drive, Northcross Road and Sisson Place.
Sidewalk conditions, type (e.g., concrete, asphalt), and width vary throughout. Crosswalks are
generally marked with paint or textured materials; however, several crossing locations lack
adequate curb ramps. In Cayuga Heights, sidewalks can be found along both sides of most study
roadways, except for Pleasant Grove Road and East Upland.
Bicycle Facilities
Also contained in the Kimley-Horn report is an evaluation of existing bicycle facilities. There are
marked bicycle lanes “along portions of Thurston Avenue, Jessup Road, and Cradit Farm Drive.”
Where marked lanes are not present, such as along Pleasant Grove Road, there is a shoulder
present. However, not all shoulders within the study area are suitable for bicycle riding, for
example, as the widths vary from two feet to more than five feet. Other roadways, such as Wait
Avenue and Triphammer Road south of Jessup Road lack either shoulder or marked lanes.
Transit Facilities
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) has 33 bus routes, operates 22 hours a day, and
services an area-wide population of over 100,000. Ridership as of 2017 was approximately four
(4) million annual trips. Within the study area, bus stops can be found along routes, such as
Thurston Avenue, Cradit Farm Drive, Jessup Road, Triphammer Road, and Pleasant Grove Road.
All told, routes 30, 31, 32, 37, 41, 70, 72, 75, 81, 82, 90, 91, and 93 service the area. The following
graphic from TCAT’s Winter-Spring 2018 Schedules and Service Guide illustrates the bus routes
adjacent the project site.
Primary Transit Routes
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
4 June 2018
Kimley-Horn has evaluated the conditions of the bus stops in the project study area. According
to the circulation study, sheltered bus stop conditions are generally good. Other bus stops
identified are those with pull-outs or along the roadside in grassy areas. The report identified the
bus stop on the north side of Cradit Farm Drive nearby Helen Newman Hall as the most utilized.
The primary routes likely to be most affected by the proposed project are 81, 82, and 83.
Remaining routes travelling through the study area to the mall, airport, and medical offices on East
Hill will likely experience some level of increased ridership as well.
According to TCAT’s Schedules and Service Guide, route 81 offers service from A Lot to Boyce
Thompson Institute (BTI) primarily during the morning period from 4:40 AM to 6:54 AM; from
7:40 AM to 10:10 AM between A Lot and Dairy Bar. There are 10-minute headways. Route 82
offers 10-minute headways during weekdays from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM between destinations such
as, Hasbrouck Apartments, Appel Commons, Uris Hall, BTI, Vet School, and East Hill Plaza. Route
83 provides service from 8:14 AM to 10:14 AM between Stewart @ University, Uris Hall,
Hasbrouck Apartments, and Goldwin Smith Hall. Headways are approximately 15 minutes. TCAT
anticipates adding two new buses to the north campus routes as a result of this project.
Emergency Services and Access
Emergency services are provided by all three municipalities (City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, and
Village of Cayuga Heights) as well as Cornell University. On site are Blue Light emergency call
boxes that provide a direct connection to the Cornell University Police Department.
IV. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
A. Peak Intervals for Analysis
Given the functional characteristics of the roadways within the study area and the land use
proposed for the site (student housing), the peak hours selected for analysis are the weekday
AM and PM peaks. The combination of site generated traffic and adjacent through traffic
produces the greatest demand during these peak periods.
B. Existing Traffic Volume Data
Peak hour traffic volumes for the study intersections identified in Table II were collected by
SRF & Associates for the weekday AM and PM peak periods between 7:00-9:30 AM and 3:30-
6:00 PM. The count dates and actual peak hour factors for each study area intersection are
depicted in the table. For the purposes of this analysis, the data are utilized with the actual
peak hours at each individual intersection. Using the actual peaks at each intersection provides
a worst-case scenario when adding project related traffic; however, it should be noted that
the peak hours generally occurred between 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:30-5:30 PM.
All counts were taken while local schools and universities/colleges were in session. During
the AM peak period on February 6, there were snowy conditions, but accumulation on the
study roadways did not occur. All other time periods experienced no adverse weather
conditions. The traffic volumes were reviewed to confirm the accuracy and relative balance
of the collective traffic counts. The actual differences in traffic volumes can be attributed to
temporal variations in traffic volumes as well as activity related to driveways located in the
segments between the study intersections.
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
5 June 2018
TABLE II
STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS AND ACTUAL PEAK HOURS
INT.
NUMBER INTERSECTION COUNT
DATE
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
1 Thurston Avenue/University Avenue-Forest Home Drive 2/6/2018 8:00-9:00 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
2 Thurston Avenue/Cradit Farm Drive 2/6/2018 8:00-9:00 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
3 Thurston Avenue/Wait Avenue 2/6/2018 7:45-8:45 AM 4:15-5:15 PM
4 Triphammer Road/Wait Avenue 2/6/2018 7:45-8:45 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
5 Triphammer Road/Jessup Road/Dearborn Place 2/6/2018 8:00-9:00 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
6 Northcross Road/CC Lot Driveway 2/6/2018 7:00-8:00 AM 4:00-5:00 PM
7 Pleasant Grove Road/Jessup Road-Hasbrouck Circle 2/6/2018 8:00-9:00 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
8 Pleasant Grove Road/Cradit Farm Drive-Hasbrouck Circle 2/6/2018 8:00-9:00 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
9 Pleasant Grove Road-Forest Home Drive/Judd Falls Road 2/13/2018 8:00-9:00 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
10 Forest Home Drive/Warren Road 2/13/2018 8:00-9:00 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
11 Forest Home Drive/Caldwell Drive 2/13/2018 8:00-9:00 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
12 Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road 2/13/2018 7:45-8:45 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
13/14 Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road/East Upland Road 2/13/2018 7:45-8:45 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
15 Pleasant Grove Road/Hanshaw Road 2/13/2018 7:45-8:45 AM 4:30-5:30 PM
16 Triphammer Road/East Upland Road 2/15/2018 8:15-9:15 AM 4:45-5:45 PM
The existing weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes are reflected in Figure 3.
C. Field Observations
The study intersections were observed during the peak intervals to assess current traffic
operations. Signal timing information was collected to determine peak hour phasing plans and
phase durations during each interval.
D. Vehicular Capacity Analysis
Capacity analysis is a technique used for determining a measure of effectiveness for a section
of roadway and/or intersection based on the number of vehicles during a specific time period.
The measure of effectiveness used for the capacity analysis is referred to as a Level of Service
(LOS). Levels of Service are calculated to provide an indication of the amount of delay that a
motorist experiences while traveling along a roadway or through an intersection. Since the
most amount of delay to motorists usually occurs at intersections, the capacity analysis
specifically focuses on intersections.
Six Levels of Service are defined for analysis purposes. They are assigned letter designations,
from "A" to "F", with LOS "A" representing the best conditions and LOS "F" the worst.
Suggested ranges of service capacity and an explanation of Levels of Service are included in
the Appendix.
The standard procedure for capacity analysis of signalized and un-signalized intersections is
outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016) published by the Transportation
Research Board. Traffic analysis software, Synchro 10, which is based on procedures and
methodologies contained in the HCM, was used to analyze operating conditions at the study
area intersections. The procedure yields a Level of Service (LOS) based on the HCM 2016 as
an indicator of how well intersections operate.
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
6 June 2018
Existing operating conditions during the peak study periods are evaluated to determine a basis
for comparison with field observation. Table III summarizes the existing capacity analysis
results.
TABLE III
2018 EXISTING CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
INTERSECTION 2018 EXISTING
CONDITIONS
AM PM
Thurston Avenue/University Avenue-Forest Home Drive (S)
Eastbound - University Avenue E 65.1 D 50.2
Westbound - Forest Home Drive C 28.3 C 30.0
Northbound - East Avenue C 29.4 C 33.2
Southbound - Thurston Avenue D 41.1 C 34.1
Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) D 45.8 D 37.4
Thurston Avenue/Cradit Farm Drive
Westbound - Cradit Farm Drive C 15.7 C 16.8
Southbound - Thurston Avenue A 8.2 A 8.5
Thurston Avenue/Wait Avenue
Eastbound - Risley Hall A 9.6 B 11.0
Westbound - Wait Avenue B 14.8 C 17.2
Southbound - Thurston Avenue A 8.0 A 8.1
Triphammer Road/Wait Avenue
Eastbound - Thurston Avenue A 7.9 A 8.0
Southbound - Triphammer Road B 13.5 B 13.7
Triphammer Road/Jessup Road/Dearborn Place
Westbound - Jessup Road B 10.9 B 11.3
Northbound - Triphammer Road A 7.6 A 7.6
Southbound - Triphammer Road A 7.6 A 7.6
Northcross Road/CC Lot Driveway
Eastbound - CC Lot Driveway A 8.9 A 9.1
Northbound - Northcross Road A 7.3 A 7.3
Pleasant Grove Road/Jessup Road-Hasbrouck Circle
Eastbound - Jessup Road B 13.9 C 17.7
Westbound - Hasbrouck Circle B 13.9 B 13.8
Northbound - Pleasant Grove Road A 8.3 A 7.9
Southbound - Pleasant Grove Road A 7.7 A 8.2
Pleasant Grove Road/Cradit Farm Drive-Hasbrouck Circle
Eastbound - Cradit Farm Drive C 16.8 C 17.4
Westbound - Hasbrouck Circle C 16.8 C 17.2
Northbound - Pleasant Grove Road A 8.2 A 7.9
Southbound - Pleasant Grove Road A 7.7 A 8.0
Pleasant Grove Road-Forest Home Drive/Judd Falls Road
Eastbound left - Forest Home Drive-Judd Falls Road A 0.5 A 0.8
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
7 June 2018
INTERSECTION 2018 EXISTING
CONDITIONS
AM PM
Eastbound right - Forest Home Drive-Judd Falls Road A 0.2 A 0.4
Northbound left - Forest Home Drive A 7.9 A 8.7
Northbound thru - Forest Home Drive A 8.8 A 9.4
Southbound thru - Pleasant Grove Road A 8.6 A 8.7
Southbound right - Pleasant Grove Road A 5.6 A 4.6
Forest Home Drive/Warren Road
Westbound - Warren Road B 11.6 A 9.5
Northbound - Forest Home Drive A 9.5 A 9.4
Southbound - Forest Home Drive A 9.6 A 9.6
Forest Home Drive/Caldwell Drive
Eastbound left – Mundy Wildflower Garden NA A 1.8
Eastbound thru – Mundy Wildflower Garden NA NA
Eastbound right – Mundy Wildflower Garden A 3.3 A 2.2
Westbound left - Forest Home Drive A 5.7 A 5.5
Westbound thru - Forest Home Drive NA NA
Westbound right - Forest Home Drive A 3.2 A 3.4
Northbound left - Caldwell Drive A 5.5 A 6.5
Northbound thru - Caldwell Drive A 6.5 A 7.5
Northbound right - Caldwell Drive A 3.1 A 4.6
Southbound left - Forest Home Drive A 0.1 A 0.1
Southbound thru - Forest Home Drive A 0.1 A 0.1
Southbound right - Forest Home Drive A 0.1 A 0.0
Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road
Eastbound left - Hanshaw Road A 9.3 C 20.8
Eastbound thru - Hanshaw Road A 8.9 A 9.5
Westbound thru - Hanshaw Road A 1.2 A 1.6
Westbound right - Hanshaw Road A 0.5 A 0.9
Southbound left - Triphammer Road B 11.3 B 10.6
Southbound right - Triphammer Road A 4.9 A 4.2
Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road/East Upland Road
Eastbound left - Triphammer Road C 21.9 F 129.8
Eastbound thru - Triphammer Road B 10.5 F 65.6
Eastbound right - Triphammer Road A 3.6 NA
Westbound left - Hanshaw Road A 4.4 A 4.5
Westbound thru - Hanshaw Road A 2.0 A 2.8
Westbound right - Hanshaw Road A 1.0 A 1.1
Northbound left - East Upland Road B 12.0 A 0.0
Northbound thru - East Upland Road D 25.6 F 72.8
Northbound right - East Upland Road B 10.7 E 44.1
Southbound left - Hanshaw Road A 1.7 A 1.6
Southbound thru - Hanshaw Road A 1.7 A 1.3
Southbound right - Hanshaw Road A 1.3 A 1.2
Pleasant Grove Road/Hanshaw Road
Eastbound left - Hanshaw Road A 3.3 A 2.6
Eastbound thru - Hanshaw Road A 1.9 A 1.3
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
8 June 2018
INTERSECTION 2018 EXISTING
CONDITIONS
AM PM
Eastbound right - Hanshaw Road A 0.8 A 0.4
Westbound left - Hanshaw Road A 8.9 A 5.4
Westbound thru - Hanshaw Road A 4.3 A 2.7
Westbound right - Hanshaw Road A 1.9 A 0.5
Northbound left - Pleasant Grove Road C 23.7 F 57.3
Northbound thru - Pleasant Grove Road A 5.4 D 29.6
Northbound right - Pleasant Grove Road A 4.5 B 12.7
Southbound left - Express Mart A 9.3 B 11.3
Southbound thru - Express Mart B 14.7 C 23.4
Southbound right - Express Mart A 5.3 C 17.2
Triphammer Road/East Upland Road
Eastbound - East Upland Road A 9.9 B 11.1
Westbound - East Upland Road B 10.6 B 12.1
Northbound - Triphammer Road A 7.5 A 7.5
Southbound - Triphammer Road NA A 7.6
Notes:
1. Green shaded cells indicate low delays, yellow shaded cells indicate moderate delays,
red shaded cells indicate long delays.
2. A (2.6) = Level of Service (Delay in seconds per vehicle).
3. (S) = Signalized. All other intersections are unsignalized.
4. Intersections 9, 11, 12, 13-14, and 15 analyzed using SimTraffic, an extension of
SYNCHRO, due to the unique geometry of the intersections.
E. Crash Evaluation
An accident investigation at the study area intersections was conducted to assess the safety
history from October 2014 through September 2017. The data was provided by the NYSDOT
through a Freedom of Information request.
A total of 34 accidents were documented during the investigation period (3 years). The
severity of the 34 documented accidents is broken down as follows:
8 – Reportable - Injury
12 – Reportable – Non-Injury
14 – Non-Reportable
Reportable (non-injury, injury, and fatal injury) type accidents are defined as damage to one
person’s property in the amount of $1,001 or more. The Non-Reportable type accidents
result in property damage of $1,000 or less.
The accident history was further investigated to identify high incident areas. Table IV
summarizes accidents occurring at each intersection. Based on the number of accidents at
each intersection, accident rates were calculated and compared to the statewide average for
similar intersections. The calculated rates and comparison to statewide averages are also
summarized in Table II. Accident rate calculations are included in the Appendix. Intersection
rates are listed as accidents per million entering vehicles (ACC/MEV). It should be noted that
NYSDOT average accident rates are based on reportable and non-reportable type accidents.
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
9 June 2018
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENTS AND COMPARISON OF RATES
INTERSECTION TOTAL NO. OF
ACCIDENTS
ACTUAL
PROJECT RATE
STATE WIDE
AVERAGE RATE
Thurston Avenue/University Avenue-Forest Home Drive 3 0.34 0.32
Thurston Avenue/Cradit Farm Drive 6 0.88 0.18
Thurston Avenue/Wait Avenue 1 0.18 0.29
Triphammer Road/Wait Avenue 2 0.41 0.18
Triphammer Road/Jessup Road/Dearborn Place 1 0.22 0.29
Northcross Road/CC Lot Driveway 3 0.75 0.29
Pleasant Grove Road/Jessup Road-Hasbrouck Circle 3 0.23 0.29
Pleasant Grove Road/Cradit Farm Drive-Hasbrouck Circle 0 0 0.18
Pleasant Grove Road-Forest Home Drive/Judd Falls Road 1 0.09 0.18
Forest Home Drive/Warren Road 7 0.85 0.29
Forest Home Drive/Caldwell Drive 2 0.26 0.29
Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road 2 0.23 0.18
Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road/East Upland Road 0 0 0.18
Pleasant Grove Road/Hanshaw Road 0 0 0.18
Triphammer Road/East Upland Road 3 2.28 0.18
Many of the study intersections either had no accident occur over the past three years or
have an accident rate matching the statewide average for similar intersections. The
intersections of Thurston Avenue/Cradit Farm Drive, Pleasant Grove Road/Jessup Road &
Hasbrouck Circle, and Northcross Road/CC Lot have significantly higher accident rates than
the statewide averages, so they have been investigated further.
Thurston Avenue/Cradit Farm Drive
A total of 6 accidents were documented during the investigation period (3 years). The
calculated accident rate is approximately five times higher than the statewide average for
other similar 3-legged intersections. The accidents recorded were categorized as rear end
(1), fixed-object (1), and pedestrian/bike collisions (3). All three pedestrian/bike collisions
occurred in the northbound/southbound direction. These types of collisions could be
prevented by providing crosswalk striping with signage, increasing sight distance for both
drivers and pedestrians, or by installing traffic calming devices such as speed humps.
Pleasant Grove Road/Jessup Road & Hasbrouck Circle
A total of 7 accidents were documented at this intersection. The calculated accident rate is
3 times the statewide average for other similar 4-legged un-signalized intersections. The
accidents that occurred were categorized as right-angle (2), side-swipe (1), fixed object (1),
animal (1), bike/pedestrian (1), and other (1). There are no notable accident clusters.
Northcross Road/CC Lot
The calculated accident rate is 12 times higher than the statewide average for similar
intersections. However, only 3 accidents were documented at this intersection. The
accidents that occurred were categorized as left turn (1), right turn (1), and other (1). There
are no accident clusters at this intersection.
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
10 June 2018
Most accidents were caused by either driver inattention, following too closely, or slippery
pavement. Human error contributing factors were the most prevalent causes of the
accidents.
V. FUTURE AREA DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL GROWTH
The proposed North Campus Residential Expansion will be constructed and operational within
four years (2022). The Town and City of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights were contacted to
discuss any other specific developments that are currently approved or under construction that
would generate additional traffic in the study area. The identified projects were the Maplewood
Graduate Student housing development, the potential East Hill Village project the Community
Corners Medical Office. In addition, the Cornell University Tang Welcome Center opened in May
2018 within the study area.
Traffic related to the Community Corners Medical Office development was added to the study
intersections. To account for normal increases in background traffic growth, Maplewood
Graduate Student Housing development, the Tang Welcome Center, the East Hill Village
development, and any other unforeseen developments in the project study area, a growth rate of
1.5% per year has been applied to the existing traffic volumes, based upon historical traffic growth
for the four-year build-out period. Future background traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.
VI. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A. Description
Cornell University is undertaking a project that will add approximately 2,000 student beds
and a dining facility to North Campus by August 2022. For convenience this document will
refer to “approximately 2,000 beds” in the narrative, however, all of the analysis was
conducted for 2,079 beds. This project will address a deficit of on-campus housing for first-
year, second-year, and transfer students, as well as accommodate a planned increase in
undergraduate enrollment beginning in 2021. Cornell University is a residential (not
commuter) campus, and the first two years of the experience are foundational to students’
academic success, personal development, and the ability to build a cohesive community on
campus. The additional residence halls developed in the North Campus Residential Expansion
will provide support during the most formative years of the student experience, enabling
Cornell to house 100% of its first-year students and sophomores on campus.
This project will be developed on two sites on Cornell University’s North Campus in the City
of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County, New York.
The sophomore site is bounded by Jessup Road to the north and Northcross Road to the
east. The site includes the existing CC and CC South parking lots (386 parking spaces), Sigma
Alpha Mu – a university-owned fraternity house, and parts of Sisson Place road.
The first-year student housing site is bounded by Program House Drive and Mews Hall to the
west, Jessup Road at the narrow northern neck, Pleasant Grove Road and Cradit Farm Drive
to the east, and Appel Commons and its adjacent parking lot to the south. Presently, the site
hosts three natural grass recreation fields, two basketball courts, and four tennis courts.
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
11 June 2018
The project will result in removal of the recreation fields north of Appel Commons and CC
Parking Lots as well as the segment of Northcross Road between Triphammer Road and the
Robert Purcell Community Center (RPCC) loading dock access road.
The project will be constructed in two phases as follows:
1. 823 student beds and a dining facility scheduled for completion August 2021.
2. Site 2 – 1,256 student beds scheduled for completion August 2022.
Figure 5 illustrates the proposed concept site plan.
B. Site Parking and Transportation
Site Parking
The North Campus will actually see a reduction in overall parking as a result of development
of this new housing. The existing CC Lot (a 386-space parking lot on Jessup Road) will be
replaced by the Site 1 housing development. These parking spaces will not be replaced. Parking
will be enhanced at the RPCC to accommodate visitors and conference attendees. At both
Sites 1 and 2, parking facilities sufficient to service ADA requirements, residence hall live-in
staff, and maintenance/delivery access will be provided. Accessible parking and service needs
will be redistributed into small lots throughout North Campus with A Lot continuing to be
the primary satellite parking for staff as well as faculty and visitors.
The CC parking lot utilization rates are very low, therefore it is expected that parking
displacement at this site will not impact overall parking on North Campus. A September 2018
survey indicates that there are approximately 20 staff and maintenance vehicles and 90
students who utilize the CC Lot on a daily basis. Vehicles currently parking in CC Lot will be
relocated to A Lot, Hasbrouck, Anna Comstock North Lot, and/or Hurlburt House Lot.
Traffic currently entering and exiting CC Lot during the peak hours [10(10) entering and 4(42)
exiting during the AM (PM) peak hours] were re-distributed to these four lots based upon
the size of each lot and ability to accommodate additional parked vehicles. Figure 6 shows
the re-distributed traffic volumes as each of the study intersections and detailed re-
distribution calculations are included in the Appendix of this Report.
Cornell University anticipates 823 new sophomores and 1,256 new first year students will live
on North Campus. Historical data indicates that approximately 4% of first-year students and
12% of sophomores living on North Campus currently bring cars. Applying these percentages
to the new residents results in 149 additional parked vehicles as a result of North Campus
residents. New students living on North Campus are expected to park in the same four
parking lots mentioned above.
Vehicular Traffic Generation
The effects of this project on the surrounding roadway network and internal circulation
system of North Campus will be minimal. The analysis contained in this report focuses on
morning and afternoon peak intervals that overlap with surrounding commuter traffic. These
are peak intervals when students are going to or coming from class. As such, very little if any
new student vehicles will be added to the surrounding system, during the critical peaks.
However, it is recognized that there will be some vehicular activity related to both students
and staff as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, traffic volumes entering and
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
12 June 2018
exiting CC Lot were used to calculate a ratio of parked vehicles to peak hour vehicular traffic
entering and exiting the parking lots.
Table V shows the total site generated trips for the weekday AM and PM peak hours for the
proposed development. All trip generation calculations are included in the Appendix of this
report.
TABLE V
NORTH CAMPUS PEAK HOUR VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
CC Lot Existing Vehicle Trips 10 4 10 42
Ratio of Vehicles/Occupied
Parking Spaces
(386 spaces @ 50% Occupancy
= 193 occupied spaces)
0.05 0.02 0.05 0.22
North Campus New Student
Trip Generation
(149 new vehicles)
7 3 7 33
The North Campus Housing development is expected to generate approximately 7 entering/3
exiting vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 7 entering/33 exiting vehicle trips
during the PM peak hour.
Pedestrian Circulation During Peak Vehicular Hours
Although student vehicular activity is not anticipated to increase significantly during the peak
commuting intervals, the influx of 2,000 additional students on North Campus will have a
significant effect on pedestrian activity. New trips with origins on North Campus and
destinations on central campus will create additional pedestrian and bicycle flow back and
forth throughout the day. Flow to classes on central campus will coincide with the morning
commuting peak. The pedestrian flow back to North Campus is more staggered throughout
the day. Consequently, there will be no significant increase in flow from central campus to
North Campus in late afternoon during the PM commuting peak (4:30 to 5:30).
Since pedestrian flow is concentrated in the morning and coincides with A.M. peak Cornell
and non-Cornell commuter travel, it will have an impact during that time interval. The number
of new pedestrian trips anticipated is based on the following:
Existing and proposed population on North Campus
Number of existing pedestrian trips on North Campus
Based on an analysis of the above information, it is estimated that approximately 210
pedestrian trips will be added to the surrounding roadway network during the peak 15 minute
time period during the A.M. commuter peak.
Proposed Service Trips
Additional service trips will be required to provide the needs of the new residence halls.
Dependent on the goods delivered and/or services provided, delivery/service trips are
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
13 June 2018
scheduled throughout the day, but substantially decrease by late afternoon. This minimizes
the impact to the internal circulation and surrounding network. Five additional service vehicles
per day (Cornell trades/maintenance/Grounds vehicles) are anticipated during normal
operations. In addition, five delivery vehicles are expected to access the site daily during
normal operations (delivery to dining). It is unlikely that any of these vehicles would arrive or
depart during the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic times. Service and emergency access is provided
by spur roads off the perimeter streets, giving priority to pedestrians in the core area. They
will arrive and depart in similar manner as the existing vehicles servicing the north campus
area.
Transit
Transit will continue to serve the perimeter roads, providing connections to Central Campus,
perimeter parking, and regional destinations. The quantity, location and condition of existing
bus stops have been evaluated by Kimley-Horn in coordination with TCAT.
C. Vehicular Traffic Distribution
The cumulative effect of site traffic on the transportation network is dependent on the origins
and destinations of that traffic and the location of the access drives serving the site.
The proposed arrival/departure distribution of traffic to be generated is considered a function
of several parameters, including the following:
Proximity and access to Cornell University;
Existing traffic counts at the study area intersections;
Retail centers;
Existing roadway network; and
Existing traffic conditions and controls
Figure 7 shows the anticipated trip distribution pattern percentages for the north campus
traffic that will enter and exit the various parking lots during the commuter peak hours and
Figure 8 illustrates the resulting peak hour trips based on those percentages for the weekday
AM and PM peak hour periods.
VII. FULL DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES
Proposed design hour traffic volumes are developed for each peak by combining the background
traffic conditions (Figure 4) and the newly created traffic generations (Figure 8). The resulting
network design hour volumes are illustrated in Figure 9.
VIII. VEHICULAR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The background conditions and future traffic conditions generated by the new residential uses on
north campus were analyzed to assess the operations of the intersections in the study area.
Capacity results for background and full development are listed in Table VI. The discussion
following the table summarizes capacity conditions. All capacity analysis calculations are included
in the Appendix.
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
14 June 2018
TABLE VI
2022 BACKGROUND AND FULL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
RESULTS
INTERSECTION
2022
BACKGROUND
CONDITIONS
2022 FULL
DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONS
AM PM AM PM
Thurston Avenue/University
Avenue-Forest Home Drive
(S)
EB - University Avenue E 76.5 D 54.9 E 77.3 E 55.3
WB - Forest Home Drive C 28.4 C 30.2 C 28.4 C 30.2
NB - East Avenue C 31.5 D 38.7 C 31.5 D 39.5
SB - Thurston Avenue D 46.7 D 37.7 D 46.9 D 38.5
Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) D 51.8 D 41.3 D 52.2 D 41.9
Thurston Avenue/Cradit
Farm Drive
WB - Cradit Farm Drive C 16.9 C 18.4 C 16.9 C 18.7
SB - Thurston Avenue A 8.0 A 8.3 A 8.3 A 8.3
Thurston Avenue/Wait
Avenue
EB - Risley Hall A 9.7 B 11.5 A 9.7 B 12.2
WB - Wait Avenue C 15.6 C 22.8 C 15.6 C 23.3
SB - Thurston Avenue A 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.0 A 8.2
Triphammer Road/Wait
Avenue
EB - Wait Avenue A 7.8 A 7.8 A 8.0 A 7.9
SB - Triphammer Road B 13.6 B 13.8 B 13.7 B 13.8
Triphammer Road/Jessup
Road/Dearborn Place
WB - Jessup Road B 11.2 B 11.7 B 13.0 B 13.3
NB - Triphammer Road A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7
SB - Triphammer Road A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.8
Pleasant Grove Road/Jessup
Road-Hasbrouck Circle
EB - Jessup Road B 14.7 C 19.9 B 14.7 C 19.7
WB - Hasbrouck Circle B 14.4 B 14.6 B 14.5 C 16.1
NB - Pleasant Grove Road A 8.3 A 8.1 A 8.4 A 8.1
SB - Pleasant Grove Road A 7.7 A 8.3 A 7.7 A 8.3
Pleasant Grove Road/Cradit
Farm Drive-Hasbrouck Circle
EB - Cradit Farm Drive C 18.1 C 18.7 C 21.6 C 19.2
WB - Hasbrouck Circle C 17.9 C 18.2 C 21.2 C 18.8
NB - Pleasant Grove Road A 8.2 A 7.9 A 8.2 A 7.9
SB - Pleasant Grove Road A 7.7 A 8.0 A 8.0 A 8.0
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
15 June 2018
Pleasant Grove Road-Forest
Home Drive/Judd Falls Road
EB left - Forest Home Drive-
Judd Falls Road A 0.6 A 0.9 A 0.6 A 1.0
EB right - Forest Home Drive-
Judd Falls Road A 0.3 A 0.5 A 0.3 A 0.5
NB left - Forest Home Drive A 8.7 A 9.9 A 8.4 A 8.7
NB thru - Forest Home Drive A 9.2 A 9.6 A 9.1 A 9.4
SB thru - Pleasant Grove Road B 10.2 B 10.6 A 9.3 A 9.9
SB right - Pleasant Grove Road A 6.4 A 5.8 A 6.2 A 5.4
Forest Home Drive/Warren
Road
WB - Warren Road B 12.3 A 9.7 B 12.4 A 9.7
NB - Forest Home Drive A 9.8 A 9.7 A 9.8 A 9.8
SB - Forest Home Drive A 9.8 A 9.9 A 9.8 A 10.0
Forest Home Drive/Caldwell
Drive
EB left – Mundy Wildflower
Garden NA
NA NA
NA
EB thru – Mundy Wildflower
Garden NA NA NA NA
EB right – Mundy Wildflower
Garden A 2.7 A 3.5 A 1.8 A 2.5
WB left - Forest Home Drive A 5.0 A 4.3 A 6.4 A 5.6
WB thru - Forest Home Drive NA NA NA NA
WB right - Forest Home Drive A 3.2 A 3.5 A 3.4 A 3.3
NB left - Caldwell Drive A 5.8 A 6.5 A 6.1 A 4.6
NB thru - Caldwell Drive A 6.6 A 7.7 A 6.8 A 7.7
NB right - Caldwell Drive A 3.6 A 4.6 A 3.2 A 4.4
SB left - Forest Home Drive A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1
SB thru - Forest Home Drive A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2
SB right - Forest Home Drive A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0
Triphammer Road/Hanshaw
Road
EB left - Hanshaw Road B 10.5 C 23.4 B 12.4 C 21.1
EB thru - Hanshaw Road A 8.3 B 13.0 B 10.1 B 12.4
WB thru - Hanshaw Road A 1.2 A 2.0 A 1.1 A 1.6
WB right - Hanshaw Road A 0.5 A 0.8 A 0.5 A 0.9
SB left - Triphammer Road B 12.7 B 12.4 C 15.4 B 11.6
SB right - Triphammer Road A 4.8 A 4.8 A 5.8 A 4.7
Triphammer Road/Hanshaw
Road/East Upland Road
EB left - Triphammer Road E 39.7 F * D 29.3 F *
EB thru - Triphammer Road B 12.8 F * B 11.3 F *
EB right - Triphammer Road A 7.5 F * A 3.1 F 101.1
WB left - Hanshaw Road A 7.1 A 6.3 A 5.8 A 3.2
WB thru - Hanshaw Road A 2.1 A 3.5 A 2.0 A 3.3
WB right - Hanshaw Road A 1.4 A 1.5 A 1.0 A 1.1
NB left - East Upland Road B 10.9 F * B 14.7 F 91.6
NB thru - East Upland Road E 47.0 F * E 40.2 F *
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
16 June 2018
NB right - East Upland Road C 24.2 F * C 17.1 F 66.8
SB left - Hanshaw Road A 2.0 A 1.6 A 2.1 A 1.4
SB thru - Hanshaw Road A 1.8 A 1.7 A 1.9 A 1.6
SB right - Hanshaw Road A 1.5 A 1.0 A 1.3 A 1.2
Pleasant Grove
Road/Hanshaw Road
EB left - Hanshaw Road A 2.5 A 1.6 A 2.5 A 2.7
EB thru - Hanshaw Road A 1.5 A 1.4 A 1.7 A 1.4
EB right - Hanshaw Road A 0.8 A 0.4 A 0.8 A 0.4
WB left - Hanshaw Road A 8.7 A 5.5 A 8.9 A 5.6
WB thru - Hanshaw Road A 4.9 A 2.6 A 4.6 A 2.2
WB right - Hanshaw Road A 3.5 A 0.7 A 3.1 A 0.7
NB left - Pleasant Grove Road D 29.2 F 66.8 D 27.8 F 69.8
NB thru - Pleasant Grove Road A 6.3 D 33.5 A 7.2 D 33.7
NB right - Pleasant Grove
Road A 3.9 B 14.2 A 3.7 B 15.0
SB left - Express Mart C 17.2 C 15.7 D 27.3 C 15.6
SB thru - Express Mart C 17.3 C 22.8 F 50.4 C 22.2
SB right - Express Mart A 4.0 C 18.6 A 4.7 B 13.8
Triphammer Road/East
Upland Road
EB - East Upland Road B 10.0 B 11.6 B 10.1 B 11.6
WB - East Upland Road B 10.9 B 12.9 B 10.9 B 13.0
NB - Triphammer Road A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5
SB - Triphammer Road NA A 7.7 NA A 7.7
Notes:
1. Green shaded cells indicate low delays, yellow shaded cells indicate moderate delays,
red shaded cells indicate long delays.
2. A (2.6) = Level of Service (Delay in seconds per vehicle).
3. (S) = Signalized. All other intersections are unsignalized.
4. Intersections 9, 11, 12, 13-14, and 15 analyzed using SimTraffic, an extension of
SYNCHRO, due to the unique geometry of the intersections.
There are four (4) locations that experience decreases in levels of service (LOS) as a result of the
traffic changes associated with the proposed development:
1. Eastbound on University Avenue at Thurston Avenue: The delay increases 0.4 seconds
per vehicle resulting in a change in level of service from “D” to “E” during the PM peak
hour. This a result of the background borderline condition as the threshold between LOS
“D” and “E” is 55 seconds per vehicle. This change will imperceptible to users of this
intersection.
2. Westbound on Hasbrouck Circle at Pleasant Grove Road: The delay is projected to
increase 1.5 seconds resulting in a change from LOS “B” to “C” during the PM peak hour
due to the borderline condition for this approach. The threshold between LOS “B” and
“C” is 15 seconds per vehicle. Motorists will notice very little, if any, changes in operating
conditions at this intersection as a result of the proposed housing development.
3. Southbound left turn movement on Triphammer Road at Hanshaw Road: The delay is
projected to increase 2.7 seconds resulting in a change from LOS “B” to “C” during the
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
17 June 2018
AM peak hour due to the borderline condition for this approach. The threshold between
LOS “B” and “C” is 15 seconds per vehicle. Motorists will notice very little, if any, changes
in operating conditions at this intersection as a result of the proposed housing
development.
4. Southbound left and through movements from the Express Mart driveway at Pleasant
Grove and Hanshaw Roads: These movements are expected to operate at LOS “D” and
“F” respectively with moderate to long delays (on the order of 27 to 50 seconds per
vehicle) during the AM peak hour. It is noted that the volume of traffic executing these
movements is extremely low (only 3 vph) and these operating conditions are reasonable
for this driveway.
IX. CORNELL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) or Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) initiatives, if
implemented strategically, can have a noticeable impact on reducing trips from a project. TDM is
the application of strategies and policies to reduce Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel demand,
or to redistribute this demand in space or in time. By definition, TDM includes various strategies
that produce a more efficient use of transportation resources and increase the efficiency of a
transportation system.
TDM programs have many potential benefits. They can reduce the total number of vehicle miles
traveled by promoting alternatives to driving alone. Fewer vehicle miles traveled results in less
ozone pollution. Employers can use TDM programs to reduce overhead costs, enhance
productivity and reduce employee turnover. TDM programs can also improve the use of public
transit services, bikeways, sidewalks and carpool lanes by educating users about their travel
options and coordinating trips between users with similar trip patterns.
Cornell provides funding to TCAT to subsidize the cost of Cornell’s OmniRide bus pass available
to employees and students (first-year students receive a complimentary pass and all registered
Cornell students can ride TCAT at no fare cost after 6 p.m. weekdays and anytime Saturdays and
Sundays) as well as to enable Cornell staff and faculty to ride TCAT at no fare cost within
designated routes on and near campus. Cornell currently offers two primary TDM programs:
OmniRide and RideShare. OmniRide is a transit program where employees agree to forgo a
parking pass and in doing so gain the following benefits:
Unlimited access to TCAT buses anywhere in Tompkins County
Reduced-cost bus pass for out-of-county transit
Occasional-use, one-day parking permits
Flexible short-term parking options
Ithaca Carshare membership discount
First-year students receive the transit benefits of the OmniRide program for free. Other students
can join the program by purchasing an OmniRide pass for $200.
The RideShare commuter program is designed for Cornell employees who do not live in campus
housing and share their ride to the Ithaca campus at least three times a week. Benefits of the
program include:
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
18 June 2018
Discounted parking fees
Flexible parking options
Occasional-use, one day permits
Pre-tax payroll deduction for parking fees
Ithaca Carshare membership discounts
As of Fall 2017, the OmniRide program has approximately 5,700 undergraduate students, 4,600
graduate students, and 2,000 employees participating. The RideShare program has approximately
1,200 employee participants.
In addition to the above, Cornell currently implements or participates in the following to reduce
single-occupancy vehicle trips:
Zimride – this is a ride-sharing service that allows students to ride/travel to off-campus
destinations (i.e. going home for the holidays)
Permitted parking system on campus
Marketing transit routes in coordination with TCAT
Actively encourage students to use sustainable transportation options such as TCAT,
biking, walking
Provide bicycle storage and parking
X. CONSTRUCTION PHASE TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS
The effects that the proposed construction plan will have on the roadway network surrounding
North Campus will be dependent on the activities planned for each phase of construction.
Construction activities are expected to last approximately 1,155 days. Construction activities
typically stretch beyond a typical eight-hour work shift. The daily work force required is
anticipated to average approximately 140 workers. Workers will arrive to the site early morning
and depart late afternoon. It is probable that a good majority of the work force traffic will arrive
prior to the morning commuter peak and depart after the afternoon commuter peak. These are
times when ambient traffic on the network is significantly less, hence the actual effect of work
force added traffic is minimized.
Construction activities will be supported by daily deliveries of materials, supplies and
miscellaneous services. It is anticipated that this traffic will fluctuate between 10 to 20 trucks per
day, dependent on phase and time of the year. The related trips, most of which are trucks, arrive
and depart the site throughout the day. From a peak hour standpoint, this maximally adds
approximately five arrivals and departures during the morning and afternoon commuter peaks, at
the height of the construction activity. This level of increase is minimal when considering the
magnitude of existing traffic volumes already on the network. However, it is recognized that truck
traffic typically requires more time and space for maneuvering, and minor increases in delay can
be expected. No construction truck traffic is anticipated in the Forest Home and/or Cornell
Heights Neighborhoods.
Main construction access gates will be located to minimize conflicts in high pedestrian areas.
Construction vehicles will be directed to use Route 13 (a designated truck route), exit on
Triphammer Road to Hanshaw Road and take Pleasant Grove Road to access the project site.
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
19 June 2018
The University will work with the contractors to coordinate these routes in order to minimize
construction traffic impacts.
Construction workforce parking will be provided and designated in a specific location to avoid
having the workforce park at other locations within the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of
Cayuga Heights, or on campus. Contractor parking will be provided at the University’s
designated contractor parking location at Palm Road. Contractors will be shuttled to the site
along a designated route through campus and will be prohibited from traveling through Forest
Home.
As a result of construction activities, the actual effects to vehicular flow surrounding the site will
fluctuate dependent on tasks performed within each distinct phase. Although it is recognized that
some construction impacts will have a negative effect on the network that surrounds the site,
these effects are temporary, as they are limited to the actual duration of construction. A related
positive impact is the creation of jobs during each phase of construction.
XI. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the projected site generated traffic volumes and projected levels of service, the proposed
North Campus Residential Expansion will not have a significant adverse impact on existing traffic
operations in the area, as documented in this report. The analyses contained in this report indicate
that the existing road network can adequately accommodate the projected traffic volumes and
resulting impacts to study area intersections. The following conclusions are based upon the results
of the analyses:
1. The North Campus will see a reduction in overall parking as a result of development of this
new housing. The existing CC Lot (a 386-space parking lot on Jessup Road) will be replaced
by the sophomore housing. These parking spaces will not be replaced. Parking will be
enhanced at the RPCC to accommodate visitors and conference attendees. At both sites,
parking facilities sufficient to service ADA requirements, residence hall live-in staff, and
maintenance/delivery access will be provided. Accessible parking and service needs will be
redistributed into small lots throughout North Campus. A Lot will continue to operate as it
currently does serving as the primary satellite parking for staff as well as faculty and visitors.
2. Vehicles currently parking in CC Lot were projected to be relocated to A Lot, Hasbrouck,
Anna Comstock North Lot, and/or Hurlburt House Lot. Traffic currently entering and exiting
CC Lot during the peak hours [10(10) entering and 4(42) exiting during the AM (PM) peak
hours] were re-distributed to these four lots based upon the size of each lot and ability to
accommodate additional parked vehicles.
3. The effects of this project on the surrounding transportation network and internal circulation
system of North Campus will be minimal. The analysis contained in this report focuses on
morning and afternoon peak intervals that overlap with surrounding commuter traffic. These
are peak intervals when students are going to or coming from class. As such, very little if any
new student vehicles will be added to the surrounding system, during the critical peaks.
4. It is recognized that there will be vehicular activity related to both students and staff as a
result of the proposed development. The proposed development is expected to generate
approximately 7 entering/3 exiting vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 7
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Student Housing Cornell University
20 June 2018
entering/33 exiting vehicle trips during the PM peak hour which will be spread throughout the
transportation network.
5. Based on a review of existing pedestrian flows and student residential information, it is
estimated that approximately 210 pedestrian trips will be added to the surrounding roadway
network during the peak 15 minute time period during the A.M. commuter peak.
6. There are four (4) locations that experience decreases in levels of service (LOS) as a result
of the traffic changes associated with the proposed development:
a. Eastbound on University Avenue at Thurston Avenue: The delay increases 0.4 seconds
per vehicle resulting in a change in level of service from “D” to “E” during the PM peak
hour. This is a result of the background borderline condition as the threshold between
LOS “D” and “E” is 55 seconds per vehicle. This change will be imperceptible to users of
this intersection.
b. Westbound on Hasbrouck Circle at Pleasant Grove Road: The delay is projected to
increase 1.5 seconds resulting in a change from LOS “B” to “C” during the PM peak hour
due to the borderline condition for this approach. The threshold between LOS “B” and
“C” is 15 seconds per vehicle. Motorists will notice very little, if any, changes in operating
conditions at this intersection as a result of the proposed housing development.
c. Southbound left turn movement on Triphammer Road at Hanshaw Road: The delay is
projected to increase 2.7 seconds resulting in a change from LOS “B” to “C” during the
AM peak hour due to the borderline condition for this approach. The threshold between
LOS “B” and “C” is 15 seconds per vehicle. Motorists will notice very little, if any, changes
in operating conditions at this intersection as a result of the proposed housing
development.
d. Southbound left and through movements from the Express Mart driveway at Pleasant
Grove and Hanshaw Roads: These movements are expected to operate at LOS “D” and
“F” respectively with moderate to long delays (on the order of 27 to 50 seconds per
vehicle) during the AM peak hour. It is noted that the volume of traffic executing these
movements is extremely low (only 3 vph) and these operating conditions are reasonable
for this driveway.
7. Continue to promote and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) actions,
all the while continuing to advance the goals and strategies outlined in the June 2008 Cornell
University Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies report and seek to develop new
programs/policies as information and technology becomes available.
8. The proposed project will not result in any potentially significant adverse traffic impacts to
the study area intersections.
XII. FIGURES
Figures 1 through 9C are included on the following pages.
PROPOSED CORNELL UNIVERSITY
NORTH CAMPUS RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION ·ITHACA, NY
Legend
FIGURE 1 - STUDY AREA
0 500 1000
Feet
2000
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
16
12
13
14
15
Study Intersection
Study Area
UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY
EASTEASTCRADIT FARMCRADIT FARM
THURSTONTHURSTONTRIPHAMMERTRIPHAMMERTRIPHAMMERTRIPHAMMERE UPLANDE UPLANDHANSHAW
HAN
S
H
AW
HANSHAW
HAN
S
H
AWN TRI
PHAMMERN TR
IPHAMMER
WAI
TWAI
T
JESSUPJESSUP H A S B R O U C K C I R C L E
HASBROUCK C
I
R
C
L
EPLEASANT GROVEPLEASANT GROVE
H A S B R O U C K C I R C L E
HASBROUCK C
I
R
C
L
E
F O R E S T H O M E
FORE
S
T
H
O
M
E
F O R E S T H O M E
FOR
E
ST
H
O
M
EWARRENWARREN
FIGURE 3B
LEVEL OF SERVICE
2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS
AM PEAK HOUR
ABC
D
D
EF
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)*
* SIGNALIZED, OVERALL LOS
ABC
DEF
LEVEL OF SERVICE*
* MOVEMENT LOS
10 = Intersection Number
Key
1
2 13
3
4
5
9
10
14
6
7
8
11
12
FIGURE 3C
LEVEL OF SERVICE
2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS
PM PEAK HOUR
ABC
D
D
EF
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)*
* SIGNALIZED, OVERALL LOS
ABC
DEF
LEVEL OF SERVICE*
* MOVEMENT LOS
10 = Intersection Number
Key
1
2 13
3
4
5
9
10
14
6
7
8
11
12
FIGURE 4B
LEVEL OF SERVICE
2022 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
AM PEAK HOUR
ABC
D
D
EF
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)*
* SIGNALIZED, OVERALL LOS
ABC
DEF
LEVEL OF SERVICE*
* MOVEMENT LOS
10 = Intersection Number
Key
1
2 13
3
4
5
9
10
14
6
7
8
11
12
FIGURE 4C
LEVEL OF SERVICE
2022 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
PM PEAK HOUR
ABC
D
D
EF
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)*
* SIGNALIZED, OVERALL LOS
ABC
DEF
LEVEL OF SERVICE*
* MOVEMENT LOS
10 = Intersection Number
Key
1
2 13
3
4
5
9
10
14
6
7
8
11
12
FIGURE 9B
LEVEL OF SERVICE
2022 FULL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
AM PEAK HOUR
ABC
D
D
EF
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)*
* SIGNALIZED, OVERALL LOS
ABC
DEF
LEVEL OF SERVICE*
* MOVEMENT LOS
10 = Intersection Number
Key
1
2 13
3
4
5
9
10
14
6
7
8
11
12
FIGURE 9C
LEVEL OF SERVICE
2022 FULL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
PM PEAK HOUR
ABC
D
D
EF
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)*
* SIGNALIZED, OVERALL LOS
ABC
DEF
LEVEL OF SERVICE*
* MOVEMENT LOS
10 = Intersection Number
Key
1
2 13
3
4
5
9
10
14
6
7
8
11
12
Circulation Study
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
North Campus Residential Expansion
Circulation Study
April 2018
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 3
2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 3
3 FIELD OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................ 4
3.1 Description of Study Area ................................................................................... 4
3.2 General Operations Observation ........................................................................ 5
3.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations ........................................................... 5
3.4 Lighting ............................................................................................................... 6
3.5 ADA Assessment.................................................................................................. 7
3.6 Pavement Conditions .......................................................................................... 7
3.7 TCAT Bus Stops .................................................................................................... 7
3.8 Traffic Control ..................................................................................................... 7
3.9 Wayfinding .......................................................................................................... 8
4 ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................ 9
4.1 Pedestrian Capacity Analyses ............................................................................. 9
4.2 Intersection Capacity Analyses ......................................................................... 11
4.3 Crash History ..................................................................................................... 12
5 FIGURES ......................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
3
1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Cornell University (“Cornell”) engaged Kimley‐Horn of New York, P.C. (“Kimley‐Horn”) to prepare
a circulation study of the existing North Campus transportation system (see Figure 1, attached).
The purpose of the study was to evaluate current and future transportation constraints to
develop solutions for mobility challenges facing vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and Tompkins
Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) modes. This study focused on improving safety, wayfinding,
and circulation for the North Campus area and three (3) priority areas identified by Cornell –
Thurston Avenue between Wait Avenue and Cradit Farm Drive; Pleasant Grove Road between
Jessup Road and Cradit Farm Drive; and Jessup Road between Triphammer Road and Pleasant
Grove Road.
The purpose of this existing conditions report is to document the visual observations made
during the site visit to North Campus and to summarize the operating conditions of the existing
transportation system elements (e.g., intersection and pedestrian levels of service).
2 BACKGROUND
North Campus Residential Expansion
Cornell’s recent Housing Master Plan proposed the addition of 2,000 beds on North Campus by
fall 2022. This North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) will be constructed in two phases
with the first phase — Sophomore — to be completed in fall 2021, and the second phase —First
Year — to be completed in fall 2022. To accommodate this new growth, the university will utilize
the existing CC parking lot for the Sophomore building site and the recreation fields above the
Appel Commons for the First Year Student Housing.
The North Campus Residential Expansion Architecture and Engineering Design Team is leading
the design for the internal roadways, pedestrian pathways, and new parking lots between the
existing housing and proposed housing units. A traffic engineering consulting firm, SRF
Associates, was retained to prepare a transportation impact analysis (TIA) for the NCRE project.
Data and analysis from this TIA were reviewed by Kimley‐Horn and the results are summarized
in other sections of this report.
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
4
3 FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Kimley‐Horn conducted field observations throughout North Campus on March 19 and 20, 2018.
These observations consisted of walking along the sidewalks and driving along the area
roadways to make visual observations and perform spot manual pedestrian counts during peak
periods. During the visual observation, a limited evaluation of ADA accessible paths of travel was
also conducted. Below is a summary of the visual observations.
3.1 Description of Study Area
Jessup Road (Cornell owned)
Jessup Road is a two‐lane undivided roadway which generally runs east‐west between
Triphammer Road and Pleasant Grove Road and is maintained by Cornell University. The
shoulder width on the south side of the road appears to be wide enough for a bicycle lane, but is
not marked or signed as such, and there is a separate pedestrian path. The shoulder width on
the north side of the road appears to be wide enough for a bicycle lane, but is not marked or
signed as such, and a parking lane, which is signed “Loading Zone 30‐minute Limit.” A separate
sidewalk is not present on the north side of the road. There are curbside bus pull‐out stops in
various locations along the north and south sides of the road. The posted speed limit is 30 mph
and there are several mid‐block pedestrian crossings.
Cradit Farm Drive (Cornell Owned)
Cradit Farm Drive is a two‐lane undivided roadway which generally runs east‐west between
Thurston Avenue and Pleasant Grove Road and is maintained by Cornell University. Except for
the section of roadway adjacent to Helen Newman Hall, the shoulder width on the south and
north sides of the road appear to be wide enough for a bicycle lane, but is marked and signed
inconsistently. There are sidewalks on both sides of the road from Thurston Avenue to just east
of Helen Newman Hall. There is a curbside bus pull‐out on the south and north sides of the road
just east of Helen Newman Hall. The posted speed limit is 25 mph and there are several mid‐
block pedestrian crossings.
Thurston Avenue/Wait Avenue/Triphammer Road (City of Ithaca Owned)
In general, Thurston Avenue/Wait Avenue/Triphammer Road are two‐lane undivided roadways
which run north‐south between Cradit Farm Drive and Jessup Road and are maintained by the
City of Ithaca. Thurston Avenue has bicycle lanes from Fall Creek to Wait Avenue, but these
bicycle lanes do not extend further along Thurston Avenue or north along Wait Avenue or
Triphammer Road. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of these streets, with the exception
of the east side of Triphammer Road from Northcross Road/Sisson Place to Jessup Road. There is
a curbside bus pull‐out on the east and west sides of Thurston Avenue, north of Cradit Farm
Drive. Other bus stops are located along the side of the road and indicated by a sign. The posted
speed limit is 30 mph along each of these roadways and there is one mid‐block crossing located
along Thurston Avenue, just south of Cradit Farm Drive.
Pleasant Grove Road (Tompkins County Owned)
Pleasant Grove Road is a two‐lane undivided roadway which generally runs north‐south
between Cradit Farm Drive and Jessup Road and is maintained by Tompkins County. The
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
5
shoulder widths on the east and west sides of the road do not appear wide enough for bicycle
lanes and are not marked or striped as such. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Pleasant
Grove Road. There is one bus stop located along the side of the road at the intersection with
Jessup Road. The posted speed limit is 30 mph and there are no mid‐block crossings.
North Campus Pedestrian Paths
North Campus is served by a network of paths which, in addition to the sidewalks adjacent to
the above roadways, connect the Fall Creek crossings with the many and various buildings on
North Campus. This network also serves to connect the various components of the North
Campus themselves. The paths are mostly constructed of Asphalt and vary in width from 5 to 11
feet. They are generally moderately sloped, although some, especially on the east side of Wait
Avenue have steep grades.
3.2 General Operations Observation
Although Kimley‐Horn’s observations did not discover any current capacity constraints, a
number of locations were identified where there was a considerable amount of conflict
between pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic, as well as with bus traffic and bicycle traffic.
These locations, which are shown on Figure 2 (attached), included:
The mid‐block crossing of Thurston Avenue just south of Cradit Farm Drive
The mid‐block crossing of Cradit Farm Drive just east of Thurston Avenue
Pedestrians crossing Thurston Avenue on the north side of Cradit Farm Drive and on the
south side of Wait Avenue (on either side of the bus stops on Thurston Avenue at that
location)
The mid‐block crossing of Cradit Farm Drive just west of Helen Newman Hall
The intersection of Jessup Road with Triphammer Road
It is noted that the 30‐mph speed limit to which Thurston Avenue, Wait Avenue and
Triphammer Road (from Jessup Road south) are subject is not appropriate for the number and
level of pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle conflicts on these streets. The lowest permissible
speed limit than can be posted is 25 mph (per New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law). This
speed limit is posted for Cradit Farm Drive and Northcross Road (though some additional
signage is required).
3.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations
Below is a summary of the pedestrian accommodations throughout North Campus.
Sidewalks exist throughout most of North Campus
Missing sidewalks are most noticeable at the following locations:
o along the north side of Jessup Road;
o along the east side of Triphammer Road between Northcross Road/Sisson Place
and Jessup Road;
o along Cradit Farm Drive from east of Helen Newman Hall to the north side of
the tennis courts at Appel Fields;
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
6
o various locations along Northcross Road and Sisson Place;
o behind Kay Hall and Mary Donlon Hall; and
o along Program House Drive.
Several sidewalk locations show signs of cracking and upheaval, which creates tripping
hazards and uncomfortable travel conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people in
wheelchairs
The sidewalks are a mixture of concrete and asphalt materials
The width of sidewalks generally varies from 5’ to 13’
Most crosswalks are marked with either paint or a textured material (e.g., brick or brick
paver), although there are several crosswalks and crossings that are unmarked:
o The condition of these marked crosswalks varies from missing or faded paint
lines to uneven textured surfaces
o A few mid‐block crossing locations are not clearly marked or defined
o A few ‘major‐street’ crossing locations are not clearly marked or defined
Several pedestrian crossing locations do not have curb ramps
Many of the curb ramps are in poor shape or do not have detectable warning surfaces
Pedestrian crossing signs (W11‐2) are provided at some crossing locations, but not all,
and a few of the existing signs are not the most current version required by the MUTCD
Below is a summary of the bicycle accommodations throughout North Campus.
Bicycle lanes are marked along portions of Thurston Avenue, Jessup Road, and Cradit
Farm Drive, however, the signs and markings are inconsistent with the MUTCD (in some
cases, the shoulder widths are not sufficient to accommodate cyclists)
No ‘sharrows’ were observed within the study area
Several bicycle racks were observed throughout the study area at various campus
buildings
3.4 Lighting
Kimley‐Horn drove through the study area on the evening of March 19, 2018, to visually observe
the lighting levels along the study area roadways. These observations were high‐level and did
not include using a light meter to take light level measurements. Street lights were observed
along each of the study area roadways, except for Pleasant Grove Road. Per Cornell, some of
these light poles were installed within the past 12‐18 months. Some of the luminaires were
observed not to be lighted and a number of roads and paths appeared to have sections which
were not well lit.
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
7
3.5 ADA Assessment
As part of the review of current conditions, visual observations were made of all sidewalks, curb
ramps, and bus stops within the study area. Based on these observations, many of these
infrastructure elements do not comply with ADA Standards or PROWAG. The deficiencies
include:
Sidewalks with tripping hazards due to cracks and upheaval;
Curb ramps missing detectable warning surfaces;
Missing curb ramps at marked crosswalk locations;
There are steps with no ramp to get around them on the sidewalk between Mews Hall
and JAM and Ujamaa Halls which makes it impassable for disabled pedestrians, and
Bus stops without appropriate loading areas (e.g., the bus stop located at the southeast
corner of Jessup Road & Triphammer Road has no sidewalk leading to the bus stop area
along Triphammer Road).
It should be noted that this ADA assessment did not include the use of a smart level to measure
the slopes of these elements.
3.6 Pavement Conditions
As part of the review of current conditions, visual observations were made of the existing
pavement conditions within the study area. Based on these observations, several roadways have
significant cracking or rutting within the wheel paths (e.g., along Triphammer Road and Wait
Avenue, at bus stop on the west side of Thurston Avenue north of Cradit Farm Drive).
3.7 TCAT Bus Stops
As part of our review of current conditions, visual observations were made of the bus stops
within the study area. Based on these observations, the conditions of the bus stops vary. The
bus stops with shelters are generally in good condition, but the shelters are basic in nature. The
bus stops which are not located within a curbside bus pull‐out are generally located along the
side of the road within a grassy area. These bus stop locations do not have shelters, benches, or
defined loading/unloading areas.
The most heavily utilized bus stop was observed to be on the north side of Cradit Farm Drive,
just east of Helen Newman Hall. However, the bus shelter is located at the beginning of the
curbside bus pull‐out and is not generally occupied. During the peak periods, the number of
TCAT riders trying to board at this location was observed to reach upwards of 25‐30 people.
3.8 Traffic Control
The intersection of Northcross Road with the Sisson Place access to the loading docks has an
unconventional control (southbound and westbound approaches are controlled by a STOP sign
while the northbound approach is uncontrolled).
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
8
3.9 Wayfinding
Certain wayfinding signs out on the northeast perimeter of North Campus do not have lettering
sufficiently large to be read by motorists without stopping and the A‐lot is not signed for visitor
parking on weekends.
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
9
4 ANALYSIS RESULTS
Kimley‐Horn conducted sidewalk capacity analyses for the sidewalks on either side of the
Thurston Avenue Bridge, for the Triphammer footbridge, for the sidewalks on either side of
Cradit Farm Drive between Thurston Avenue and the parking lot serving Helen Newman Hall, as
well as for the sidewalks that extends from the Balch Hall courtyard to the intersection of Cradit
Farm Drive with Thurston Avenue. Kimley‐Horn also reviewed the intersection capacity
analyses performed by SRF Associates to ascertain current intersection performance at the
following intersections:
Thurston Avenue with Cradit Farm Road
Thurston Avenue with Wait Avenue
Wait Avenue with Triphammer Road
Triphammer Road with Jessup Road
Jessup Road with Pleasant Grove Road, and
Pleasant Grove Road with Cradit Farm Road
4.1 Pedestrian Capacity Analyses
Kimley‐Horn has performed an analysis of the existing‐conditions pedestrian operations for
multiple facilities on Cornell University’s North Campus. The pedestrian operations analysis was
performed using methodology published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for calculating
the level‐of‐service (LOS) of exclusive pedestrian facilities (HCM, 6th Edition, Chapter 24: Off‐
Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities).
Sidewalk performance is assessed based on a letter scale, with LOS A representing the best
operating conditions (when pedestrians can walk almost unimpeded) while LOS F represents the
worst operating conditions (where pedestrians have difficulty negotiating past pedestrians
passing in the opposite direction and without being slowed by pedestrians walking in the same
direction).
Table 1 presents the range of densities and flow rates that correspond with each LOS1.
Table 1
Platoon Adjusted Level-of-Service Criteria for Walkways
Level-of-Service Average Space
(ft2/p)
Flow Rate
(p/min/ft)
A >530 ≤0.5
1 Due to the intermittent nature of pedestrian activity caused by the class transition schedule, the conservative platoon‐adjusted
LOS criteria were used for determining sidewalk operating conditions. Platoon‐adjusted LOS is measured as the average space per
pedestrian and the average flow rate over a 5‐minute interval.
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
10
B >90‐530 >0.5‐3
C >40‐90 >3‐6
D >23‐40 >6‐11
E >11‐23 >11‐18
F ≤11 >18
Pedestrian volume spot counts were performed along the Thurston Avenue bridge on March 20,
2018 from 9:50 AM – 10:05 AM, in 5‐minute intervals, during a transition interval between
classes which is representative of the average peak demand on the pedestrian facilities (as well
as at other times). Kimley‐Horn also reviewed the data provided by SRF Associates and
additional data obtained to supplement the SRF data2.
The estimated level of 15‐minute pedestrian traffic activity is presented graphically on Figure 3.
As can be seen from the figure, between 300 and 400 pedestrians are estimated to cross Fall
Creek on the Triphammer footbridge or the Thurston Avenue Bridge (a total of 665 pedestrians
were recorded in the busiest 15 minutes surveyed). The sidewalks leading up to Balch Hall sees
between 200 and 300 pedestrians in the peak 15 minutes, while the sidewalks leading up either
side of Cradit Farm Drive see somewhere between 100 and 200 pedestrians per 15 minutes.
Sidewalk/footbridge capacities, calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual developed by the
Transportation Research Board put the capacity of the Triphammer footbridge at approximately
1,600 pedestrians every 15 minutes while either side of the Thurston Avenue bridge was
calculated to be able to accommodate approximately 1,900 pedestrians every 15 minutes.
Similarly, the sidewalks on either side of Cradit Farm Drive, just east of Balch Hall and of the
sidewalk that comes out from the Balch Hall Courtyard were calculated to have a capacity of
approximately 950 pedestrians every 15 minutes and 2,150 pedestrians per 15 minutes,
respectively.
Based on the estimated level of pedestrian activity (which is presented in Figure 3), it was
calculated that the Triphammer Footbridge normally operates at approximately 20 percent of
capacity, the sidewalk on the east side of the Thurston Avenue bridge normally operates at
approximately 17 percent of capacity, while the sidewalk on the west side of the Thurston
Avenue bridge normally operates at just 2.5 percent of capacity. Considering that on March 20,
when approximately 620 pedestrians were observed to cross the east side of the Thurston
Avenue Bridge (with the Triphammer Footbridge Closed), North Campus pedestrian traffic was
easily able to be accommodated (almost exclusively) on the east side of the Thurston Avenue
2 It is noted that, at the time of the counts, the adjacent Triphammer Falls pedestrian bridge was closed. The Thurston Avenue and
Triphammer Falls bridges are parallel walking routes with similar travel times (no more than 1minute difference); therefore, all or
most of the typical Triphammer Falls pedestrian traffic likely diverted to the Thurston Avenue east sidewalk while the closure was in
place. Using the SRF data (recorded when the Triphammer Footbridge was open), the observed pedestrian volumes were adjusted
to reflect normal operating conditions.
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
11
bridge, it is clear that, with the Triphammer footbridge restored to operation, the two crossings
of Fall Creek are operating well within their carrying capacity.
Based on the estimated level of pedestrian activity, it was calculated that the sidewalk on the
south side of Cradit Farm Drive, just east of Balch Hall, operates at approximately 12 percent of
capacity while the sidewalk on the opposite side of Cradit farm Road operates at 14 percent of
capacity. The sidewalk that leads to Balch Hall was also calculated to operate at 12 percent of
capacity, although that percentage would be higher in the passage up the steps to the entrance
to Balch Hall’s courtyard.
A summary of the estimated sidewalk Levels of Service is presented graphically in Figure 4. As
can be seen from the figure, all of the sidewalks analyzed operate at Level‐of‐Service C or better,
indicating that pedestrians have little difficulty in walking to, from or around North campus.
4.2 Intersection Capacity Analyses
A summary of current peak‐15‐minute pedestrian and vehicular traffic activity at key
intersections on North Campus is provided in Figure 3. As can be seen from the figure, only the
intersections of Pleasant Grove Road experience peak15‐minute traffic volumes in excess of 200
vehicles, with between 150 and 200 vehicles encountered at the intersection of Thurston
Avenue with Cradit Farm Drive and fewer than 150 vehicles encountered at the remaining
intersections.
Intersection performance is also assessed based on a letter scale, with LOS A
representing the best operating conditions (when motorists can proceed almost
unimpeded) while LOS F represents the worst operating conditions (where motorists
have difficulty finding acceptable gaps in the passing traffic stream to enter or exit the
roadway).
Table 2 presents the range of vehicle delays that correspond with each LOS for
unsignalized intersections.
Table 2
Unsignalized Level-of-Service Criteria for Intersections
A review of SRF’s intersection capacity analysis summary revealed that each of the six study
intersections is currently operating well within capacity, as all are functioning at LOS C or better.
The SRF LOS results are presented graphically in Figure 4. As can be seen from the figure, the
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
12
intersections of Thurston Avenue with Cradit Farm Drive and Wait Avenue, as well as the
intersections of Pleasant Grove Road with Jessup Road and Cradit Farm Drive are all operating at
LOS C, while the remaining intersections are operating at LOS B or better.
4.3 Crash History
Historical crash data for the study area for the six‐year period from 2012 to 2017 were obtained
from the New York State Department of Transportation3 (NYSDOT) and from the Cornell
University Campus Planning Department4. The crash data were reviewed and tabulated
according to location and are summarized in Table 3 below. During the six‐year period, a total of
55 crashes occurred in the study area, with one crash resulting in a fatality and injuries occurring
in only 4 crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 4 of the crashes (including the fatal crash) and 1
crash involved a bicyclist.
3 The NYSDOT crash records covered the three‐year period from 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2017.
4 The Cornell University crash records covered the five‐year period from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016.
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
13
Table 3 – Crash History Summary (2012‐2017)
Intersection Total # of
All Crashes
# of Crashes involving
Pedestrians
# of Crashes
involving Bicyclists
Thurston Ave & Cradit Farm Dr 11 2 1
Thurston Ave & Wait Ave/Risley Dr 1 0 0
Wait Ave & Balch Dr 1 0 0
Triphammer Rd & Wait Ave 3 0 0
Triphammer Rd & Northcross Rd/Sisson Pl. 6 0 0
Triphammer Rd & Jessup Rd 6 0 0
Sisson Place (parking lot) 1 0 0
Jessup Rd & Northcross Rd 1 1 (fatality) 0
Jessup Rd & Program House Dr 4 0 0
Jessup Rd & Pleasant Grove Rd 13 0 0
Pleasant Grove Rd & Cradit Farm Dr 4 0 0
Sisson Pl & RPCC Loading Dock 2 0 0
Cradit Farm Dr midblock locations 2 1 0
Total 55 4 1
A more detailed analysis of the data was performed for six (6) of the locations highlighted above
in which there were a notable number of crashes at key north campus gateways or crashes that
involved pedestrians or bicyclists. The crash records were then further tabulated by collision
type (rear‐end, right‐angle, fixed object, etc.) which is presented in Table 4 below. As shown in
the table, there were a total of 39crashes at the six (6) key locations, with the most crashes (13)
occurring at the intersection of Jessup Road with Pleasant Grove Road. At this location, 3
crashes involved collisions with fixed objects, 3 crashes were categorized as “other”, and rear
end and right‐angle collisions were involved in 2 crashes each. Sideswipe, overtaking, and
animal collisions were involved in 1 crash each.
As shown in the Table 4, there were a total of 11 crashes at the intersection of Thurston Avenue
with Cradit Farm Drive. Of these crashes, 2 involved pedestrians and one involved a bicyclist. Of
the remaining crashes, 3 were listed as “other,” two were rear‐end crashes, and one each were
right turn, overtaking, and fixed object crashes. The number of crashes at the remaining
locations were all in the single digits, two of which involved pedestrians; one at an unspecified
location on Cradit Farm Drive and the second, which resulted in a fatality, at the intersection of
Northcross Road with Jessup Road.
The fatal crash occurred on Monday January 26, 2015, at 7:21 a.m. NYSDOT records indicate
that a bus traveling southbound from A Lot on Northcross Road turned to the east (left) onto
Jessup Road and struck a pedestrian who was crossing Jessup Road. The road surface condition
at the time was noted as “snow/ice” and the apparent factors contributing to the crash were
listed as “view obstructed/limited” and “unknown” for the bus driver and “pedestrian’s
error/confusion” and “not applicable” for the pedestrian.
While the fatal crash at the intersection of Northcross Road with Jessup Road was clearly tragic,
it was the only crash at this location and, based on the information available, there appears to
be no discernable contributory factor that is a correctable condition. Of the remaining crashes,
as indicated in Table 4, it appears that there is no discernible pattern of crash type that would
North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study
Existing Conditions
April 2018
14
warrant modifications to any of the intersections analyzed except, perhaps, at the intersection
of Thurston Avenue with Cradit Farm Drive, where there were three crashes involving
pedestrians or bicyclists during the six‐year period.
Table 4 – Detailed Accident Summary at Key Locations
Note: * Crash with fatality occurred on Monday, January 26, 2015, at 7:21 a.m. NYSDOT records indicate that a bus
travelling southbound from A‐Lot on Northcross Road turned to the east (left) onto Jessup Road and struck a
pedestrian who was crossing Jessup Road. The road surface condition at the time was noted as “snow/ice” and the
apparent factors contributing to the crash were listed as “view obstructed/limited” and “unknown” for the bus driver
and “pedestrian’s error/confusion” and “not applicable” for the pedestrian.
Intersection Total # of
Crashes
Collision Type
Ped Bicycle
Rear
end
Right-
turn
Right-
angle
Left-
turn
Side-
swipe
Over-
taking
Fixed
object Animal Other Unknown
Thurston Ave/East Ave &
Cradit Farm Dr 11 2 1 2 1 1 1 3
Triphammer Rd &
Northcross Rd/Sisson Pl. 6 1 1 2 2
Triphammer Rd &
Jessup Rd 6 2 1 1 2
Jessup Rd &
Northcross Rd 1 1*
Jessup Rd &
Program House Dr 4 1 1 1 1
Jessup Rd &
Pleasant Grove Rd 13 2 2 1 1 3 1 3
Cradit Farm Dr midblock
locations 2 1 1
Total 43 4 1 7 2 3 1 4 2 7 1 8 3
Figure 1 – Existing Vehicular and Pedestrian Conflict Points
STUDY AREA
Figure 2 – Existing Vehicular and Pedestrian Conflict Points
Pedestrians Crossing to catch
bus at undesignated locations
Pedestrians Crossing at busy
midblock locations
Pedestrians Crossing at busy
midblock locations
Pedestrians Crossing at multiple
locations simultaneously
Existing Pedestrian Activity2
1. Based on raw data from SRF Associates Traffic Study
300-400 pedestrians per 15 minutes
200-299 pedestrians per 15 minutes
100-199 pedestrians per 15 minutes
50-99 pedestrians per 15 minutes
25-49 pedestrians per 15 minutes
0-24 pedestrians per 15 minutes
Existing Vehicular Activity1
200-250 vehicles per 15 minutes
150-199 vehicles per 15 minutes
100-149 vehicles per 15 minutes
50-99 vehicles per 15 minutes
0-49 vehicles per 15 minutes
2. Based on spot observations conducted March 19 and 20, 2018, as well as video counts conducted in February and March
Figure 3 – Existing Vehicular and Pedestrian Peak-15-minute Activity
Existing Pedestrian Level of Service2
1. Based on raw data from SRF Associates Traffic Study
Existing Vehicular Level of Service1
F
E
D
C
B
A
2. Based Kimley-Horn Pedestrian Capacity Analysis
Figure 4 – Existing Intersection and Sidewalk Operating Conditions
F
E
D
C
B
A
Arborist Report
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400
www.twm.la
May 29, 2018
Existing Trees on the Site of the Proposed North Campus Undergraduate Student Housing Project
To Whom It May Concern:
I was recently asked to inventory and assess the trees growing on the site of the proposed Undergraduate
Student Housing Project located on Cornell University’s North Campus. The proposed project will impact
many of the trees in this area, and having details about their size, species, and condition can inform the
strategic planning of their potential preservation, replacement, and removal.
During March and April of 2018, I performed a tree-by-tree inventory and assessment in the project area.
Cornell’s campus tree inventory, which was last updated in 2012, provided a starting point for my work, and
the data I collected is organized in a way so that it could easily be incorporated into future updates of
Cornell’s inventory. For each tree, I recorded detailed information:
Tree ID: a unique identifying number for each tree, taken from the project survey data
Species: the botanical and common names for each tree
DBH: diameter at breast height. The measurement of trunk diameter (in inches) taken at
approximately 4.5’ above the ground. This is the most common way to describe the size of
a tree. It is not an absolute measure of size, as the relationship between DBH and tree
height or canopy spread can vary greatly
Condition: the condition of each tree was assessed based on observations of the root flare,
trunk, branches, and twigs. For evergreen species, the leaves also played a role in
determining a condition rating (Poor, Fair, or Good). Unfortunately, because of the season,
the leaves of deciduous species could not be assessed
Field Notes: obvious signs of disease or damage and other notes were recorded as needed
Status: based on the schematic design drawings for the proposed project, I have noted
which trees are designated to be preserved, and which are designated to be removed. Of
the trees called out for removal, I have also noted the ones with the most potential for
successful transplanting.
Findings of the inventory and assessment are summarized i n the included report. In total, 555 trees in the
project area were inventoried. Of these, 291 are slated for removal in the project. The planting of 320 new
trees will occur as part of the project, but analyzing the new tree additions is beyond the scope of the report.
I have been performing tree inventories and assessments for seven years. My Master’s degree from Cornell
is in horticulture with a focus on trees in urban landscapes, and I maintain an arborist certification from the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). I also helped to develop the forestry master plan for the City of
Ithaca.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns,
Bryan R. Denig
SITES AP, ISA Certified Arborist®
brd@twm.la
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400
www.twm.la
A REPORT ON
THE EXISTING TREES OF
THE PROPOSED NORTH CAMPUS
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT HOUSING PROJECT
AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Prepared by:
Bryan R. Denig, SITES AP
ISA Certified Arborist® NY-5980A
May 29, 2018
2 of 15
SUMMARY OF THE TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
In total, 555 trees were inventoried, representing approximately 62 different species. The most common
species present were London Planetree (Platanus x acerifolia), Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and
Crabapple (Malus spp.). Out of all the inventoried trees, 12.25% of them are London Planetree, 8.83% are
Northern Red Oak, and 6.85% are Crabapple.
Map showing the approximate boundaries of the proposed project and the inventoried trees. All trees within
the project area (and a few that are adjacent to it), were inventoried and assessed.
3 of 15
Species Distribution
Maintaining a diverse species and genus composition is a best practice for sustaining a resilient tree
population. As a general rule, no one tree species should constitute more than 10% of the overall population,
and no one tree genus should exceed 20% of the population. Looked at as a whole, the 555 inventoried
trees are a diverse population, with only London Planetree representing more than 10% of the population
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME # OF TREES % OF TREES
Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 68 12.25%
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 49 8.83%
Malus species Flowering Crabapple 38 6.85%
Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 37 6.67%
Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 33 5.95%
Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 33 5.95%
Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 29 5.23%
Acer rubrum Red Maple 28 5.05%
Pinus resinosa Red Pine 23 4.14%
Acer platanoides Norway Maple 22 3.96%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 14 2.52%
Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 12 2.16%
Quercus palustris Pin Oak 12 2.16%
Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 11 1.98%
all other species (less than 10 trees per species) 146 26.31%
555 100%
Species distribution of the trees inventoried on Cornell’s North Campus
4 of 15
Size Distribution
DBH, the tree trunk diameter at breast height (roughly 4.5’ above the ground), is a widely accepted method
for measuring tree age and size, and it is also used as a metric to estimate the benefits provided by
individual trees. For the most part, trees that are older and larger provide more benefits than smaller trees.
Still, a healthy tree population must necessarily be composed of large numbers of small young trees. These
young trees will grow into the large, highly beneficial trees that make up the future landscape. Because of
this fact, young trees must always represent a significant portion of the tree population to account for the
loss of trees over time.
DBH
CLASS # OF TREES % OF TREES
0" - 3" 38 6.85%
4" - 6" 181 32.61%
7" - 12" 239 43.06%
13" - 18" 61 10.99%
19" - 24" 19 3.42%
25" - 30" 10 1.80%
31" - 36" 5 0.90%
37" - 42" 2 0.36%
555 100%
Size distribution of the trees inventoried on Cornell’s North Campus
5 of 15
Tree Condition
Overall, the majority of the trees inventoried were found to be in good condition. However, it must be noted
that because of the season, the leaves of deciduous species were not assessed. Nutrient deficiencies,
disease presence, and other health issues are more easily observed in trees with leaves. If the inventory was
conducted during the summer, it is likely that some “good” trees would instead be rated as “fair” or possibly
even “poor.”
TREE CONDITION # OF TREES % OF TREES
GOOD 389 70%
FAIR 124 22%
POOR 42 8%
555 100%
Summary of the condition of the assessed trees
Map showing the assessed conditions of the inventoried trees
6 of 15
Impacts of the Proposed Project
Map showing the trees proposed to remain, to be removed, and the removals with the potential for being
transplanted. These designations are based on the schematic design drawings for the proposed project.
DBH
CLASS
TOTAL
TREES
TREES TO
REMAIN
TREES TO BE
REMOVED
0" - 12" 458 208 250
13" + 97 56 41
555 264 291
Summary of the potential tree impacts
CONDITION
TOTAL
TREES
TREES TO
REMAIN
TREES TO BE
REMOVED
POTENTIAL
TRANSPLANTS
GOOD 389 184 205 17
FAIR 124 57 67 -
POOR 42 23 19 -
555 264 291 17
Potential tree impacts, sorted by tree condition
7 of 15
DBH
CLASS
TOTAL
TREES
TREES TO
REMAIN
TREES TO BE
REMOVED
POTENTIAL
TRANSPLANTS
0" - 3" 38 16 22 17
4" - 6" 181 77 104 -
7" - 12" 239 115 124 -
13" - 18" 61 36 25 -
19" - 24" 19 13 6 -
25" - 30" 10 3 7 -
31" - 36" 5 3 2 -
37" - 42" 2 1 1 -
555 264 291 17
Potential tree impacts, sorted by tree DBH class
8 of 15
THE LARGEST TREES
Compared to other areas of the Cornell University campus, the project area has relatively few large, mature
trees. Of the trees inventoried, there are only eight that are 30” or greater in DBH. These larger individuals
are noteworthy components of the landscape, and extra efforts should be made in order to preserve them, if
feasible. These eight trees are described below:
White Oak at Akwe:kon (#4696)
A 30” White Oak (Quercus alba) in good condition grows near Akwe:kon. Out of the 555 trees inventoried, it
was the only Quercus alba. For comparison, the oldest tree on the Cornell campus is an approximately 350-
year-old White Oak on Libe Slope that measured 57” in 2009. According to the schematic design drawings
for the proposed project, this tree would be preserved.
9 of 15
Eastern White Pine near Appel Basketball Courts (#5328)
A mixed planting of mostly pines and maples exists between the Appel North Playfields and the Appel
Basketball Courts (Tree IDs #5311 - #5336). Not all of the trees here are significant, but the number of larger
(>20” DBH) trees makes this planting a prominent feature of the landscape. The largest tree in this area,
and the only one over 30” DBH, is a 37” Eastern White Pine in good condition (#5328). The trunk of this tree
divides into two leaders just a few feet from the ground, giving the appearance of two mature trees when
viewed from a distance. According to the schematic design drawings for the proposed project, this tree, as
well as the others in this planting, would be removed.
10 of 15
Pin Oak near Hasbrouck Apartments (#5446)
Near Hasbrouck Apartments and close to Pleasant Grove Road is a 34” Pin Oak (Quercus palustris) in good
condition. According to Cornell’s 2012 campus tree inventory, another large (28”) Pin Oak previously grew
next to this one, but it no longer exists. This tree is preserved in the schematic design drawings for the
proposed project.
11 of 15
Freeman Maple at the International Living Center (#5925)
Near the International Living Center building is a 33” Freeman Maple (Acer x freemanii) in good condition.
According to the schematic design drawings for the proposed project, this tree would be preserved.
12 of 15
Katsura Tree at Clara Dickson Hall (#4469)
Next to Clara Dickson Hall is a 34” Katsura Tree (Cercidiphyllum japonicum) in fair condition (Tree ID #4469).
This is not a very common species on the Cornell Campus, and this individual was the only one seen during
the inventory. According to the schematic design drawings for the proposed project, this tree would be
preserved.
When this inventory was being conducted, major underground utility work was occurring in the area of Clara
Dickson Hall. Trenching near this tree has likely severed its roots, and using heavy construction equipment
on wet soggy ground has most likely compacted the surrounding soil. Construction impacts such as these
are often detrimental to tree health.
13 of 15
Trenching for utility work next to this tree has likely severed its root system
Heavy construction equipment working on wet soils has likely compacted the soils around the tree
14 of 15
Three Northern Red Oaks at Clara Dickson Hall (#4421, #4455, #4550)
Tree #4550 near Clara Dickson Hall
Trees #4455 and #4421 near Clara Dickson Hall, with nearby construction work clearly visible
Also near Clara Dickson Hall are three large Northern Red Oaks (Quercus rubra), all in good condition. Tree
#4550 has a 40” DBH, the largest of all the trees inventoried, and according to the schematic design
drawings for the proposed project, this tree would be preserved. Trees #4421 (32” DBH) and #4455 (33”
15 of 15
DBH) are slated for removal. Unfortunately, like the nearby Katsura Tree, these trees have also been
impacted by the recent underground utility work. It is very likely that these trees have experienced some
severing of their root systems, as well as severe soil compaction.
Construction activities occurring in the root zone of tree #4421
A torn up lawn and tire tracks are evidence of the recent construction work near tree #4550
TREE ID BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DBH (IN) CONDITION FIELD NOTES
STATUS AS OF
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
49 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 18 GOOD LARGE SEAM ON TRUNK TO REMAIN
66 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
67 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 19 GOOD TO REMAIN
78 Quercus species Oak 1 GOOD POSSIBLY QUERCUS BICOLOR TO REMAIN
83 Maclura pomifera Osage Orange 2 GOOD TO REMAIN
93 Quercus species Oak 1 GOOD POSSIBLY QUERCUS BICOLOR TO REMAIN
152 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
199 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
220 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 11 GOOD TO REMAIN
221 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 9 POOR MAJOR CAVITY, WOUND TO REMAIN
249 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 8 FAIR TO REMAIN
287 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 17 POOR HUGE TRUNK WOUND TO REMAIN
413 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 18 GOOD TO REMAIN
443 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 19 GOOD TO REMAIN
505 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
549 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 5 GOOD PROBABLY MALE TO BE REMOVED
551 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 6 GOOD FEMALE TO BE REMOVED
552 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 6 GOOD PROBABLY MALE TO BE REMOVED
554 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 6 GOOD FEMALE TO BE REMOVED
555 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 5 GOOD FEMALE TO BE REMOVED
556 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 5 GOOD FEMALE TO BE REMOVED
572 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
575 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 13 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
576 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 11 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
618 Metasequoia glyptostroboides Dawn Redwood 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
619 Metasequoia glyptostroboides Dawn Redwood 10 GOOD TO REMAIN
620 Metasequoia glyptostroboides Dawn Redwood 10 GOOD TO REMAIN
661 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
662 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 12 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
663 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 17 FAIR MISIDENTIFIED AS QUERCUS PALUSTRIS IN CU INVENTORY TO BE REMOVED
664 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 9 FAIR BAD FORM TO BE REMOVED
676 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
677 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 13 FAIR TO REMAIN
764 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
768 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
770 Acer rubrum Red Maple 5 POOR MAJOR WOUNDS. LOST LEADER TO BE REMOVED
772 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 7 POOR MAJOR TRUNK WOUNDS TO BE REMOVED
773 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 6 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
776 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 6 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
777 Maackia amurensis Amur Maackia 2 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
782 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 12 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
785 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 11 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
788 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
792 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
840 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
841 Acer rubrum Red Maple 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
842 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 9 GOOD CODOM. LEADERS. MISIDENTIFIED AS QUERCUS RUBRA IN CU INVENTORY TO REMAIN
858 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 7 FAIR LARGE TRUNK WOUND TO BE REMOVED
859 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
876 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 8 FAIR MISIDENTIFIED AS QUERCUS RUBRA IN CU INVENTORY TO BE REMOVED
877 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 8 FAIR MISIDENTIFIED AS QUERCUS RUBRA IN CU INVENTORY TO BE REMOVED
878 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 8 FAIR CODOM. LEADERS, INCLUDED BARK TO BE REMOVED
909 Fraxinus excelsior European Ash 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
910 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
920 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
949 Acer rubrum Red Maple 5 GOOD TO REMAIN
956 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
959 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 7 FAIR LARGE SEAM TO BE REMOVED
976 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 7 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
984 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
994 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 7 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
1005 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 8 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
1006 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 8 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
1028 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1030 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1060 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1062 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 5 FAIR LARGE WOUND AT BASE TO BE REMOVED
1083 Fraxinus excelsior European Ash 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1084 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
1146 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1196 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
1215 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
1246 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 10 FAIR TO REMAIN
1250 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
1257 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
1258 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
1260 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
1271 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 8 FAIR TO REMAIN
1272 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 7 POOR TO REMAIN
1276 Acer rubrum Red Maple 8 FAIR LARGE TRUNK WOUND TO BE REMOVED
1282 Acer rubrum Red Maple 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1283 Picea glauca White Spruce 5 POOR BROWN TIPS. BAD, SHEARED FORM TO BE REMOVED
1290 Picea glauca White Spruce 5 FAIR BAD, SHEARED FORM TO BE REMOVED
1295 Fraxinus excelsior European Ash 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1302 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 2 GOOD TO REMAIN
1303 Acer x freemanii Freeman Maple 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
1305 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 10 GOOD TO REMAIN
1306 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 11 FAIR TRUNK WOUND TO REMAIN
1315 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
1317 Acer rubrum Red Maple 8 FAIR CANKER IN MAIN LEADER TO BE REMOVED
1319 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 3 GOOD TO REMAIN
1369 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
1372 Acer rubrum Red Maple 5 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
1444 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1452 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 6 FAIR TO REMAIN
1453 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 7 FAIR TO REMAIN
1454 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 5 POOR TO REMAIN
1455 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 6 FAIR TO REMAIN
1480 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 19 GOOD TO REMAIN
TREE ID BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DBH (IN) CONDITION FIELD NOTES
STATUS AS OF
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
1561 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 2 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
1586 Ulmus species Hybrid Elm 3 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
1595 Acer x freemanii Freeman Maple 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1663 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 2 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
1899 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 10 FAIR LARGE TRUNK WOUND TO REMAIN
2062 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 17 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2131 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 16 GOOD TO REMAIN
2143 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 18 GOOD TO REMAIN
2153 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 5 FAIR MULTISTEM, ROOT SUCKERS TO REMAIN
2154 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 5 FAIR MULTISTEM, ROOT SUCKERS TO REMAIN
2155 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 5 FAIR MULTISTEM, ROOT SUCKERS TO REMAIN
2199 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 POOR LARGE WOUND UP ENTIRE TRUNK TO BE REMOVED
2237 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
2345 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 19 GOOD TO REMAIN
2360 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
2361 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 4 GOOD TO REMAIN
2363 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2364 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
2368 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2383 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 16 POOR HUGE TRUNK WOUND TO REMAIN
2385 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 17 GOOD TO REMAIN
2393 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
2394 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 5 FAIR LARGE TRUNK WOUND TO BE REMOVED
2395 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2396 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2415 Acer rubrum Red Maple 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2421 Acer rubrum Red Maple 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2430 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2455 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2471 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
2493 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 10 GOOD SOME BASAL SPROUTS TO BE REMOVED
2540 Ulmus species Hybrid Elm 1 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
2541 Phellodendron amurense Amur Corktree 12 GOOD FEMALE TO BE REMOVED
2608 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 9 FAIR LONG CRACK UP ENTIRE LENGTH OF TRUNK TO BE REMOVED
2618 Pyrus calleryana Callery Pear 4 FAIR POOR FORM, MANY LEADERS, WATER SPROUTS TO BE REMOVED
2627 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 13 FAIR MAJOR WOUNDS TO BE REMOVED
2643 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 11 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
2648 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 13 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
2658 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 9 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
2667 Picea species Spruce 2 FAIR LARGE BARE SPOT TO BE REMOVED
2686 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 15 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
2761 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 13 GOOD TO REMAIN
2904 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
3352 Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweetgum 4 GOOD TO REMAIN
3361 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
3430 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
3431 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
3462 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
3492 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
3498 Crataegus crus‐galli Cockspur Hawthorn 3 FAIR STUNTED TO REMAIN
3499 Crataegus crus‐galli Cockspur Hawthorn 3 FAIR STUNTED TO REMAIN
3507 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 3 GOOD FEMALE POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
3508 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 4 GOOD POSSIBLY MALE TO BE REMOVED
3529 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 2 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
3530 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
3531 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 4 FAIR POSSIBLY MALE TO BE REMOVED
3541 Cornus mas Cornelian Cherry 3 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
3555 Acer rubrum Red Maple 3 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
3627 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
3650 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
3732 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 14 FAIR SMALL CAVITY TO BE REMOVED
4120 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 15 GOOD TO REMAIN
4131 Catalpa species Catalpa 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
4133 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 2 GOOD TO REMAIN
4134 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 2 GOOD TO REMAIN
4143 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 21 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4166 Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweetgum 16 GOOD TO REMAIN
4214 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
4216 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
4217 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 13 GOOD TO REMAIN
4218 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 11 FAIR TO REMAIN
4219 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 13 POOR TO REMAIN
4220 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 14 POOR TO REMAIN
4221 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 10 FAIR TO REMAIN
4222 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 10 POOR TO BE REMOVED
4223 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 8 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
4224 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 11 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
4225 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 9 POOR TO BE REMOVED
4226 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 9 POOR TO BE REMOVED
4227 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 24 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4228 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 10 FAIR TO REMAIN
4229 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 11 FAIR TO REMAIN
4233 Picea species Spruce 6 GOOD SCRAGLY TO REMAIN
4246 Betula papyrifera Paper Birch 7 GOOD MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
4247 Betula papyrifera Paper Birch 9 FAIR SINGLE STEM TO REMAIN
4248 Betula papyrifera Paper Birch 5 GOOD MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
4258 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 18 GOOD TO REMAIN
4268 Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 9 FAIR TO REMAIN
4269 Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 9 FAIR TO REMAIN
4270 Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 7 POOR TO REMAIN
4282 Metasequoia glyptostroboides Dawn Redwood 17 GOOD BRANCHED TO GROUND TO REMAIN
4304 Taxus species Yew 23 GOOD LARGE MULTISTEM TO REMAIN
4307 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 23 FAIR LARGE CAVITY HIGH IN TRUNK TO REMAIN
4337 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 25 GOOD TO REMAIN
4338 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
4368 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 9 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
4389 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 17 GOOD TO REMAIN
4391 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 6 FAIR NEEDLES YELLOWING TO BE REMOVED
4392 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
TREE ID BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DBH (IN) CONDITION FIELD NOTES
STATUS AS OF
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
4395 Prunus species Flowering Cherry 8 FAIR LARGE WOUNDS. BAD FORM TO REMAIN
4396 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 18 GOOD TO REMAIN
4407 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
4411 Prunus species Flowering Cherry 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
4414 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood 5 GOOD TO REMAIN
4420 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 15 POOR VERY LARGE CAVITY IN BASE. BAD FORM. LARGE APPLES (~2" DIA) TO BE REMOVED
4421 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 32 GOOD MISIDENTIFIED AS GLEDITSIA IN CU INVENTORY TO BE REMOVED
4435 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4436 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 12 FAIR TOP OF LEADER IS DEAD TO BE REMOVED
4437 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4439 Crataegus species Hawthorn 5 GOOD MISIDENTIFIED AS MALUS IN CU INVENTORY TO BE REMOVED
4440 Acer rubrum Red Maple 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4441 Acer rubrum Red Maple 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4443 Crataegus species Hawthorn 5 GOOD MISIDENTIFIED AS MALUS IN CU INVENTORY TO BE REMOVED
4446 Crataegus species Hawthorn 6 GOOD MISIDENTIFIED AS MALUS IN CU INVENTORY TO BE REMOVED
4448 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 13 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4449 Fraxinus excelsior European Ash 17 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4450 Fraxinus excelsior European Ash 17 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4451 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 15 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4452 Crataegus species Hawthorn 5 GOOD MISIDENTIFIED AS MALUS IN CU INVENTORY TO BE REMOVED
4453 Picea omorika Serbian Spruce 5 FAIR SCRAGLY, VERY SPARSE TO BE REMOVED
4455 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 33 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4458 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 25 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4469 Cercidiphyllum japonicum Katsura Tree 34 FAIR MULTISTEM. INCLUDED BARK, A FEW CAVITIES TO REMAIN
4499 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
4533 Prunus virginiana Common Chokecherry 5 GOOD TWO STEMS. DBH IS FOR LARGER STEM TO REMAIN
4542 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood 6 FAIR TO REMAIN
4550 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 40 GOOD NEARBY UTILITY WORK HAS LIKELY DAMAGED ROOTS TO REMAIN
4682 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 9 FAIR SPARSE TO BE REMOVED
4683 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 10 FAIR SPARSE TO BE REMOVED
4684 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 7 FAIR SPARSE TO BE REMOVED
4685 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 9 FAIR SPARSE TO BE REMOVED
4686 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood 11 FAIR LARGE WOUNDS. BRANCHED AT BASE TO BE REMOVED
4696 Quercus alba White Oak 30 GOOD IMPRESSIVE TREE. MISIDENTIFIED AS Q. ROBUR TO REMAIN
4697 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
4714 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 13 GOOD TO REMAIN
4724 Betula populifolia Gray Birch 4 GOOD IDENTIFIED AS BETULA PENDULA IN CU INVENTORY. MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
4739 Betula populifolia Gray Birch 4 GOOD IDENTIFIED AS BETULA PENDULA IN CU INVENTORY. MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
4740 Betula populifolia Gray Birch 4 GOOD IDENTIFIED AS BETULA PENDULA IN CU INVENTORY. MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
4742 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 21 GOOD TO REMAIN
4746 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4747 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 18 FAIR A FEW LARGE WOUNDS TO BE REMOVED
4753 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 10 GOOD TO REMAIN
4755 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
4757 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
4758 Betula populifolia Gray Birch 5 GOOD IDENTIFIED AS BETULA PENDULA IN CU INVENTORY. MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
4767 Acer ginnala Amur Maple 7 POOR CRACK DOWN ENTIRE TRUNK TO REMAIN
4769 Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam 7 FAIR TO REMAIN
4773 Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 2 GOOD TO REMAIN
4779 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
4782 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 POOR LARGE WOUNDS, DOUBLE LEADER TO BE REMOVED
4783 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 3 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
4785 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 8 FAIR TO REMAIN
4786 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4787 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4788 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4789 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4790 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
4791 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
4792 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
4793 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 8 FAIR LONG TRUNK CRACK TO REMAIN
4794 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 POOR DIPLOIDA BLIGHT TO BE REMOVED
4796 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 6 FAIR TO REMAIN
4797 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4798 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
4799 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4800 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4801 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4803 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4804 Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4813 Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 3 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4825 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 POOR HUGE WOUNDS, CLEARLY DYING TO BE REMOVED
4832 Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4872 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 2 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM, ABOUT 4' TALL POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
4877 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 2 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM, ABOUT 4' TALL POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
4897 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4909 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 3 POOR SICKLY TO BE REMOVED
4950 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4951 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4955 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4956 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4957 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4960 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 2 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
4961 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4963 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4964 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 2 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
4965 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 2 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
4967 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4968 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4969 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4971 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4995 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4997 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
4998 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
4999 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5000 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5001 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5005 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5006 Acer rubrum Red Maple 5 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
TREE ID BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DBH (IN) CONDITION FIELD NOTES
STATUS AS OF
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
5121 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 4 POOR LARGE WOUND TO BE REMOVED
5195 Crataegus crus‐galli Cockspur Hawthorn 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5196 Crataegus crus‐galli Cockspur Hawthorn 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5197 Crataegus crus‐galli Cockspur Hawthorn 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5198 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5200 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5201 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 7 FAIR LARGE WOUND AT BASE TO BE REMOVED
5204 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5206 Acer rubrum Red Maple 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5207 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5208 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5211 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5212 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5213 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5214 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5215 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5216 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5219 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 4 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
5220 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 4 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
5221 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 4 POOR LOST LEADER TO BE REMOVED
5222 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5223 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5226 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5228 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 7 POOR LARGE CAVITY. INTERNAL ROTTING TO BE REMOVED
5229 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5233 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5244 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5256 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 4 FAIR LARGE WOUND TO BE REMOVED
5257 Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweetgum 5 POOR LARGE WOUND TO BE REMOVED
5258 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5259 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5262 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5263 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5265 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5266 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5267 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5268 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5270 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5271 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5272 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5273 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5275 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5311 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 24 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5312 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 18 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5313 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5314 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 13 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5315 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5316 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 9 GOOD MISIDENTIFIED AS A. RUBRUM IN CU INVENTORY TO BE REMOVED
5322 Acer rubrum Red Maple 5 FAIR TRUNK WOUND TO BE REMOVED
5327 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 12 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5328 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 37 GOOD TWIN WITH CONJOINED TRUNKS TO BE REMOVED
5329 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 19 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5330 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5331 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5332 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 26 FAIR TRIPLET. BAD FORM WITH INCLUDED BARK TO BE REMOVED
5333 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 12 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5334 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5335 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 12 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5336 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 27 FAIR TRIPLET. BAD FORM WITH INCLUDED BARK TO BE REMOVED
5337 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 28 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5338 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5339 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5340 Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5342 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5343 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5345 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5346 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5357 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5361 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 GOOD TO REMAIN
5368 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 4 FAIR SPARSE TO REMAIN
5371 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 15 FAIR LARGE WOUNDS TO REMAIN
5372 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
5379 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
5380 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 FAIR SPARSE TO REMAIN
5382 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 FAIR SPARSE TO REMAIN
5401 Ulmus parvifolia Lacebark Elm 4 GOOD TO REMAIN
5405 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 4 POOR VERY SPARSE CANOPY TO REMAIN
5414 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5417 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 13 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5418 Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock 17 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5419 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 4 FAIR WOUND TO BE REMOVED
5420 Acer x freemanii Freeman Maple 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5421 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 27 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5422 Picea glauca White Spruce 3 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5423 Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock 17 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5428 Picea abies Norway Spruce 28 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
5429 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 3 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
5430 Prunus species Flowering Cherry 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5431 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
5432 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5433 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5446 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 34 GOOD TO REMAIN
5450 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 4 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5453 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
5454 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5455 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
5457 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 FAIR TO REMAIN
5462 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
5463 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
TREE ID BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DBH (IN) CONDITION FIELD NOTES
STATUS AS OF
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
5464 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
5465 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 6 FAIR WOUND TO REMAIN
5466 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
5467 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 10 GOOD TO REMAIN
5468 Abies concolor Concolor Fir 5 GOOD TO REMAIN
5469 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 9 FAIR TO REMAIN
5470 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
5471 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 7 POOR POSSIBLE DIPLOIDIA? DYING TO REMAIN
5472 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 6 POOR POSSIBLE DIPLOIDIA? DYING TO REMAIN
5474 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 5 FAIR MOWER DAMAGE AT BASE TO REMAIN
5475 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 5 FAIR MOWER DAMAGE AT BASE TO REMAIN
5476 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 5 FAIR MOWER DAMAGE AT BASE TO REMAIN
5477 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5481 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
5483 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
5484 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
5485 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
5486 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
5495 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 FAIR TO REMAIN
5497 Cornus mas Cornelian Cherry 5 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM TO REMAIN
5498 Cornus mas Cornelian Cherry 5 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM TO REMAIN
5499 Cornus mas Cornelian Cherry 5 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM TO REMAIN
5501 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 7 FAIR TO REMAIN
5502 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
5503 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 9 FAIR TO REMAIN
5504 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
5515 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
5516 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
5517 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 FAIR TO REMAIN
5518 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 9 POOR TO REMAIN
5522 Styphnolobium japonicum Japanese Pagoda Tree 5 POOR HUGE TRUNK WOUND TO REMAIN
5526 Styphnolobium japonicum Japanese Pagoda Tree 5 GOOD TO REMAIN
5527 Styphnolobium japonicum Japanese Pagoda Tree 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
5528 Styphnolobium japonicum Japanese Pagoda Tree 10 GOOD TO REMAIN
5534 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 6 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
5535 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 9 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5539 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5564 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 7 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
5565 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 5 POOR LARGE CANKERS ON BRANCHES TO BE REMOVED
5566 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5567 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5568 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 10 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5578 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 5 GOOD TO REMAIN
5579 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 5 GOOD TO REMAIN
5580 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5589 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
5661 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 4 GOOD FEMALE TO BE REMOVED
5662 Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree 5 GOOD FEMALE TO REMAIN
5690 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 6 GOOD POSSIBLY A DIFFERENT QUERCUS SPECIES? TO REMAIN
5691 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 6 POOR HUGE TRUNK WOUND. POSSIBLY A DIFFERENT QUERCUS SPECIES? TO REMAIN
5692 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 7 GOOD POSSIBLY QUERCUS COCCINEA TO REMAIN
5695 Prunus virginiana Common Chokecherry 7 GOOD MISIDENTIFIED AS PRUNUS SARGENTII IN CU INVENTORY TO REMAIN
5704 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 17 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
5717 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 9 FAIR SPARSE TO BE REMOVED
5718 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 FAIR SPARSE TO REMAIN
5719 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 10 FAIR SPARSE TO REMAIN
5720 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood 2 GOOD TO REMAIN
5771 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
5806 Cornus kousa Kousa Dogwood 5 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM TO REMAIN
5807 Cornus kousa Kousa Dogwood 4 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM TO REMAIN
5808 Cornus kousa Kousa Dogwood 5 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM TO REMAIN
5810 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
5811 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
5812 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
5813 Catalpa species Catalpa 8 GOOD TO REMAIN
5818 Fagus sylvatica European Beech 6 GOOD VERY SHORT. DWARF CULTIVAR? <10' TALL TO REMAIN
5823 Betula nigra River Birch 7 GOOD MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO BE REMOVED
5824 Betula nigra River Birch 9 GOOD MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
5825 Betula nigra River Birch 9 GOOD MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
5840 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 15 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5841 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 16 GOOD TO REMAIN
5842 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 17 FAIR TO REMAIN
5850 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
5851 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
5852 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
5872 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 18 GOOD TO REMAIN
5875 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 18 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5881 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 21 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5882 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 11 FAIR TO BE REMOVED
5883 Picea glauca White Spruce 3 GOOD TO REMAIN
5884 Picea glauca White Spruce 3 GOOD TO REMAIN
5885 Picea glauca White Spruce 3 GOOD TO REMAIN
5895 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 15 POOR TO REMAIN
5896 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 13 GOOD TO REMAIN
5902 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 22 GOOD TO REMAIN
5907 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 20 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
5910 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 11 POOR TO REMAIN
5911 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 15 POOR TO REMAIN
5925 Acer x freemanii Freeman Maple 33 GOOD TO REMAIN
5927 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 20 GOOD TO REMAIN
5935 Tilia cordata Littleleaf Linden 9 POOR TO REMAIN
5948 Tilia cordata Littleleaf Linden 18 FAIR TO REMAIN
5952 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
5953 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 11 FAIR TO REMAIN
5954 Tilia cordata Littleleaf Linden 14 GOOD TO REMAIN
6004 Prunus virginiana Common Chokecherry 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
6005 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 13 GOOD TO REMAIN
6011 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
6013 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 10 GOOD TO REMAIN
TREE ID BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DBH (IN) CONDITION FIELD NOTES
STATUS AS OF
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
6014 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 12 GOOD TO REMAIN
6020 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 16 GOOD TO REMAIN
8303 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 5 GOOD TO REMAIN
8315 Cornus kousa Kousa Dogwood 5 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM TO REMAIN
8338 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
8346 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 4 POOR TO REMAIN
8350 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 5 FAIR TO REMAIN
8404 Betula populifolia Gray Birch 4 GOOD IDENTIFIED AS BETULA PENDULA IN CU INVENTORY. MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
8408 Acer ginnala Amur Maple 7 POOR CAVITY TO REMAIN
8409 Acer ginnala Amur Maple 8 FAIR WOUND TO REMAIN
8410 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 15 FAIR POSSIBLE INTERNAL ROT AT CROTCH TO REMAIN
8424 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 19 GOOD TO REMAIN
8425 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 15 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
8426 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 18 GOOD TO REMAIN
8429 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 20 GOOD TO REMAIN
8430 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
8431 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 10 GOOD TO REMAIN
8446 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 19 GOOD TO REMAIN
8447 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 10 FAIR TO REMAIN
8474 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 10 FAIR TO REMAIN
8475 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 17 GOOD TO REMAIN
8477 Tilia americana American Linden 21 GOOD TO REMAIN
8481 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 14 GOOD TO REMAIN
8482 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 14 POOR TO REMAIN
8484 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 16 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1289‐A Cornus kousa Kousa Dogwood 6 GOOD MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST TRUNK. 6 TRUNKS, EACH 4‐6" IN DIA TO REMAIN
1289‐B Picea glauca White Spruce 5 FAIR BAD, SHEARED FORM TO BE REMOVED
1318‐A Acer rubrum Red Maple 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
1318‐B Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐001 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 26 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐002 Betula populifolia Gray Birch 4 GOOD IDENTIFIED AS BETULA PENDULA IN CU INVENTORY. MULTISTEM. DBH OF LARGEST STEM TO REMAIN
N‐003 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 15 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
N‐004 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
N‐005 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
N‐006 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
N‐007 Acer rubrum Red Maple 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
N‐008 Acer rubrum Red Maple 7 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
N‐009 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 28 GOOD LOW BRANCHING "TWIN" TO BE REMOVED
N‐010 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 11 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐011 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 5 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐012 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 18 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
N‐013 Acer rubrum Red Maple 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐014 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood 3 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐015 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 8 GOOD TO BE REMOVED
N‐016 Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree 6 POOR HUGE WOUND TO REMAIN
N‐017 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 9 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐018 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 7 POOR MAJOR WOUNDS TO BE REMOVED
N‐019 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 11 POOR MAJOR WOUNDS TO BE REMOVED
N‐020 Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 4 FAIR TO REMAIN
N‐021 Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 8 FAIR TO REMAIN
N‐022 Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 5 FAIR TO REMAIN
N‐023 Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweetgum 17 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐024 Cornus kousa Kousa Dogwood 5 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM TO BE REMOVED
N‐025 Cornus kousa Kousa Dogwood 5 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM TO BE REMOVED
N‐026 Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 6 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐027 Catalpa species Catalpa 7 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐028 Aesculus species Horse Chestnut 4 FAIR LARGE WOUND TO REMAIN
N‐029 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 2 GOOD TO REMAIN
N‐030 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 1 GOOD POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
N‐031 Malus species Flowering Crabapple 2 GOOD SHRUBBY MULTISTEM, ABOUT 4' TALL POTENTIAL TRANSPLANT
APPEL
BASKETBALL
COURTS
APPEL
NORTH
P LAYFIELDS
APPEL
SOUTHEAST
FIELDS
APPEL
S OUTHW E ST
FIE LDS
GEORGE JAM ESON
HALL
HASBROUCK
APARTMENTS
APPEL
TENNIS
COURTS
S IGMA ALPHA M U
KAY HA LL
BAUER HA LL
APPEL COMMONS
10
UJAM AA
AKW E :KON
3091
DE LTA GA MMA
KAPPA DE LTA
8
INTERNA TIONA L
LIVING CENTE R
9
(JAM )
JUST ABOUT MUSIC
ROBERT PURCELL
COMMUNITY CE NTER
COURT HALL
M EW S HA LL
CLARA
DICKSON HA LL
7
6
5
BALCH HALL
MARY DONLON HALL PLEASANT GROVE ROADCRADIT FARM DRIVE
SI SSO N PLACE
SISSON PLACE
CRADIT FARM DRIV E
GEORGE JESSUP ROAD
G E O R G E J E S S U P R O A D
JESSUP PLACETRI
PHAMMER ROADWAI
T AVENUEPROGRAM HOUSE DRIVEN-031
N-030
N-029
N-028
N-027
N-026 N-025
N-024
N-023
N-022N-021N-020
N-019
N-018
N-017
N-016
N-015
N-014
N-013
N-012
N-011
N-010
N-009
N-008
N-007
N-006
N-005
N-004
N-003
N-002
N-001
1318-B
1318-A
1289-B
1289-A
8484
848284818477
84758474
8447 8446
843184308429 84268425
8424
8410
84098408
8404
83508346
8338
8315
8303
6020
60146013
6011
6005
6004
5954
5953
5952
5948
5935
5927
5925
59115910
5907
5902
58965895
5885
58845883 5882
5881
5875
5872
5852
5851
5850
58425841
5840
582558245823
5818
5813
5812
5811
5810
5808
58075806
5771
5720
5719
5718
57175704
5695
5692
5691
5690
5662
5661
5589 5580
5579
5578
5568
55675566
5565
5564
5539 55355534
5528
5527
5526
5522
55185517
5516
5515
5504
5503
5502
5501
5499
54985497
5495
54865485
5484
5483
5481
5477
54765475
5474 5472
5471
5470
5469
5468
54675466
5465
54645463
5462
54575455
5454
5453
5450
5446
5433543254315430
5429 5428
5423
5422
5421
5420
5419
5418
5417
5414
5405
5401
5382
5380 5379
5372
5371
5368
5361
5357
5346 5345
5343
5342 5340
5339
53385337
5336
533553345333533253315330
5329
53285327
5322
5316
53155314531353125311
5275
5273
5272
5271
5270
5268
5267
5266
5265
5263
5262
5259
5258
5257
5256
5244
5233
5229
5228
5226
522352225221
52205219
52165215
5214
52135212
52115208
5207
5206
52045201
5200
5198
519751965195
5121
5006 5005 5001 5000 4999 4998 4997 4995
4971
4969
4968
4967
49654964
49634961
4960
49574956
4955
4951
4950
4909
4897 4877 4872
48324825
4813
4804
4803
4801 4800 47994798
4797
4796
4794 4793 4792 4791 4790
4789
4788 4787 4786
4785
4783
4782
4779
4773
47694767
4758
4757
4755
4753
4747
4746
4742
4740
4739
4724
4714
4697
4696
4686
4685468446834682
4550
4542
4533
4499
44694458
4455
4453
4452
4451
4450 4449 4448
4446 4443
4441
4440
4439
4437
4436
4435
4421
4420
4414 4411
4407 4396
4395 4392
4391
4389
4368
4338
4337
4307
4304
4282
42704269
4268
4258
424842474246
4233
42294228
4227
4226
42254224
42234222
4221
4220 4219
4218
42174216 4214
4166
4143
413441334131
4120
3732
3650
3627
3555
3541
3531
3530
3529
3508
3507
3499
3498
3492
3462
3431
3430
3361
3352
2904
2761
2686
2667
2658
2648
2643
26272618
2608
2541 2540 2493
2471 2455
2430
2421
2415
2396 2395
2394
2393
23852383
2368
23642363
2361
2360 2345
2237
2199
2155
2154
2153
2143
2131
2062
1899
1663
1595
1586
1561 1480
14551454
14531452
144413721369
1319
1317
1315
1306
1305
1303
1302
1295
1290128312821276
1272
1271
1260
1258
1257
1250
1246
1215
1196
1146
1084
1083
1062
1060
10301028
10061005
994
984
976
959
956
949
920 910 909
878
877
876
859
858
842 841 840
792
788
785
782
777
776773
772
770
768
764
677 676 664
663
662
661
620 619
618
576
575572
556555
554
552551
549
505 443 413
287249221220
199
152938378
67
66
49
0 > ft