Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-11 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING A meeting of the Board of Public Works will be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2011, at 4:45 p.m. in Common Council Chambers — Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. enda 1. Additions or Deletions to Agenda (Items 1 -5:15 min.) 2. Mayor's Communications 3. Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board 4. Response to the Public 5. Reports Special Committees of the Board Council Liaison Board Liaisons Superintendent and Staff Other Department Heads 6. Approval of Minutes (5 min.) 6.1 April 20, 2011, Regular Meeting Minutes — Resolution 7. Administration and Communications 8. VOTING ITEMS 8.1 Buildings, Properties. Refuse and Transit 8.2 Highways. Streets and Sidewalks (20 min.) A. Appeal of Snow Removal Bill for 205 Thurston Avenue — Resolution B. Award of Bid for Route 89 Bike Lane Construction and Overlay Project — Resolution C. Award of Bid for New Asphalt Finisher — Resolution 8.3 Parking and Traffic 8.4 Creeks. Bridges and Parks 8.5 Water and Sewer 8A. Tabled Items SA.1 Approval of Decorative Chain in Front of Monuments in DeWitt Park (Resolution can be found in the April 13, 2011, agenda.) 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS (60 min.) 9.1 Curb Lawn Gardens 9.2 Cornell Bridge Means Restriction — Update 9.3 Possible New Sidewalk on Plain Street at Baker Park — Introduction 9.4 Wood and South Street Traffic Diverters — Update 10. New Business 11. Adjournment If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 607- 274-6570 at least 48 hours before the meeting. The Board of Pudic Works meets on the second, third and fourth Wednesdays of the months at 4:45 p.m. All meetings are voting meefings, opening with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are created from prior public input, Department operating, planning issues, and requests made to the Superintendent The Board reserves the right to limit verbal comments to three minutes and to request written comments on lengthy or complex issues. This information may then be used to create committee agendas, with the speaker a author invited to attend. Page 2 Notes for BPW Aaenda. June & 2011 8.2A Appeal of Snow Removal Bill for 205 Thurston Avenue The Board discussed this appeal at the May 25, 2011, meeting and agreed to deny the appeal The resolution is included for your review and passage. 8.26 Award of Bid for Route 89 Bike Lane Construction and Overlay Proiect- Proposed Resolution Bids for this project will be received on June 7, 2011. The bid tabulation and award recommendation will be provided at the meeting on June 8, 2011. 8.2C Award of Bid for a New Asphalt Finisher The City received bids in May 2011 for a new asphalt paver. The recommendation, resolution and bid tabulation are attached. 8A.1 Approval of Decorative Chain in Front of Monuments in DeWitt Park (Resolution can be found in the April 13. 2011. agenda.) The City Attorney is waiting for the church to provide some requested information. 9.1 Curb Lawn Gardens I was not sure the Board had finished its discussion. 9.2 Cornell Bridge Means Restriction — Update Please see my notes from the May 25, 2011, agenda. Attached is a copy of an e-mail from the Cornell University Architect with a design update and a July 2e meeting with the Planning Board. If you want to read material from the opposition, most of it seems to be circulating under the name of "Ithaca is Fences." If you are not getting it, I believe your Common Council member is. 9.1 Possible New Sidewalk on Plain Street at Baker Park — Introduction Our Transportation Engineer, Tim Logue, has recommended some sidewalk be installed along the western edge of Baker Park in coordination with some park improvements. Attached is his memo, including a map of the area and a portion of the City Charter related to sidewalk construction. 9.2 Wood and South Street Traffic Diverters — Update Attached is our follow -up to the Board's earlier discussion and request for a follow -up study once the weather allowed the collection of representative data. We believe that it supports our recommendations originally contained in Tim Logue's memo of October 2007, copy attached. w0.agA j. grain, P.E. supevimtewdewt of Public Works J"M 2, 2011 Page 3 8.2A Appeal of Snow Removal Bill for 205 Thurston Avenue —Resolution WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received an appeal of the invoice for sidewalk snow removal by the Department of Public Works on February 10, 2011, at 205 Thurston Avenue,and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed photos and other information provided by city staff and the protest written by the owner of the property, and WHEREAS, it appears that the adjacent property owner at 205 Thurston Avenue failed to remove snow in a timely manner as required by City ordinance, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board denies the appeal Page 4 8.26 Award of Bid for Route 89 Bike Lane Construction and Overlay Proiect — Proposed Resolution WHEREAS, bids were received on June 7, 2011, for the Route 89 Pavement Improvement project, and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the bids received and made recommendations for award, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works hereby awards the contract for Route 89 Pavement Improvements Project to for their low bid meeting specifications of $ , and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor be and hereby is authorized to execute this contract, and that the Superintendent of Public Works be and hereby is authorized to administer the same. Page 5 8.2C Award of Bid for a New Asphalt Finisher WHEREAS, bids were received on May 10, 2011, for one new Asphalt Finisher to replace a 1994 Ingersoll Rand Paver currently owned by the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, staff has determined that the lowest bid machine meets all specifications, and WHEREAS, staff has concluded that the same vendor has also allowed the highest amount for trade in, and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Board of Public Works award the bid to the lowest bidder, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards the bid of the Asphalt Finisher to Gateway Equipment, 5857 Fisher Road East Syracuse, NY for their low bid amount, including options and trade -in allowance, of $276,050, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board authorizes the Assistant Superintendent of Public Works, Streets & Facilities Division to enter into a contract with Gateway Equipment for the purchase of the Asphalt Finisher. Page 6 a §!| § § §! , k( }§ §� \ ) ■ ®!! ®! _ | | ED £! �| 5 § E]2/ §k k - #[ , | ;§ Hm. _ § �!!`© )§ - - �§ - )0 _ M. } a0 &| !00 _ -� § /); (§ _ -gww ( 22 O r{ _ ! (()( ) j\ §0000 \ k\ �\( |(� - <z } �, 7700 /t® Page 1 of 2 Bill Gray - Re: Correction: Bridge Means Restriction Designs - Update From: Bill Gray To: Dimick, Jessie Subject: Re: Correction: Bridge Means Restriction Designs - Update >>> Jessie Dimick <Ijd7 @comell.edu> 5/27/2011 1:01 PM >>> Good Afternoon, There was an error in the message below. Under the upcoming key dates for the project, the second item should be: July 26: meeting of the City of Ithaca Planning Board (open to the public): we anticipate being on the agenda to present and discuss our proposed designs Regards, Jessie Jessie Dimick Assistant to the University Architect 102 Humphreys Service Building Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 -3701 Phone: 607 - 255 -6658 FAX: 607 - 255 -1968 E -mail: UD7@cornell.edu From: Jessie Dimick Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:26 PM To: Subject: Bridge Means Restriction Designs - Update Dear Committee Members, I would like to update you on some of the recent changes to the bridge means restriction designs that have occurred while refining and developing the designs during the schematic design phase. The mtionale for these modifications is largely based on Planning Board and community concerns about views and technical discussions with both our architectural and structural consultants and the Ithaca Fire Department. In summary, our design approach has moved away from bar system designs, vertical cable mesh and long span fly nets and has settled on the proven and robust approach of utilizing horizontal net systems on the six of the seven of bridges (the design for Suspension Bridge will continue to involve replacing the current vertical bars installed decades ago with a tensile mesh "sock. "). As it turned out, the structural thickness of the bar systems could not be as supple and delicate as had been anticipated during the pre - schematic design process. During our further investigations in schematic design we had the opportunity to speak with the engineers involved in five successful horizontal net system installations on iconic, and in many cases, historic bridges in aboutblank 6j2/2011 Page 2 of 2 Switzerland. Some of these systems have been in place since 1999 and there have been no suicides or required rescues from nets on any of the bridges. The systems are robust in construction and undemanding in their maintenance requirements while at the same time provide unobstructed views and preserve the aesthetic character of the historic assets they are attached to. The proposed means restriction design for each of the bridges is as follows: Stewart Avenue Cascadilla Bridge: horizontal tensile mesh net underneath bridge Stewart Avenue Fall Creek Bridge: horizontal tensile mesh net underneath bridge Suspension Bridge: vertical tensile mesh at sides of bridge Thurston Avenue Bridge: horizontal tensile mesh net underneath bridge Beebe Lake Bridge: horizontal tensile mesh net underneath bridge Trolley Bridge: horizontal tensile mesh net underneath bridge Stone Arch Bridge: horizontal tensile mesh net underneath bridge The Means Restriction website will be updated soon to reflect the plan submission (including images). Upcoming key dates for the project are: May 31: design document submission to the City of Ithaca for environmental review and Planning Board site plan approval July 2: meeting of the City of Ithaca Planning Board (open to the public): we anticipate being on the agenda to present and discuss our proposed designs With thanks for your ongoing engagement in these important conversations, Gilbert Delgado Gilbert Delgado, AIA University Architect Senior Director Capital Projects and Planning Cornell Universtiy Telephone; 607, 255.3426 Cell: 607.229.5205 about:blank 6/2/2011 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850.5690 OFFICE OF THE MY ENGINEER Telephone: 6072746530 Fax: 607/2746587 To: Board of Public Works From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer Date: June 3, 2011 Re: New Sidewalk at Baker Park and 805 South Plain Street The Department of Public Works is looking to install new sidewalk along the western edge of Baker Park, extending from the sidewalk on Old Elmira Road to the northern edge of the Park. The City can complete this work without much process; it is straight and flat and the only potential obstacles are trees and shrubs, some of which will be removed by a landscape project coordinated by Jeanne Grace, Forestry Technician. This section is shown on the attached drawing as section "C." Once section "C" is complete, there will remain a sidewalk gap (section "B") in front of 805 South Plain Street approximately 27 linear feet long. In order to construct this sidewalk, the City needs to follow a process, which is spelled out in Sections 73 and 80 of the City Charter, both of which are attached as well. Though there are many interesting things to discuss in this process, the first step in the process is to have the Board of Public Works express their interest in following the process and to call for a public hearing, which needs to be advertised at least 5 days before holding the hearing. After the hearing, the Board can decide to have the sidewalk installed, either by our own crews, by contract or by delegation to the property owner. Also, after the hearing, the Board will need to have a discussion about costs and apportionment thereof. For the moment, however, the Board just needs to call for a public hearing. I would suggest June 22nd, if that works for the Board, because that will give us time to publish the hearing in the newspaper and mail a letter to property owner. "M Equal Opportunity Fmployer with a commimenl ,o worklomc divcnificatlon." 0 Paac I u� I 0* ef Ithaca Pro perties- 6/3/20/1 Legend L 06400984 0- 6 04500 col 2007 eIXdBr ♦ J i c Props _ dl. m in I6WLt) k Histotic w5mct Cam. — Null g � - �� Praper9e6 Property a- - - Addre66 L � �y� __ - Waterway • � T Z D r J}_ Exisbw� 13: NO s,JcwY l $o5 0 fl Megmempolr data representtAhas been deeebrped,f m wriom,onblic rin Ns onddam sarvices. Urers of nris mapping applimlion an hereAvnotfed lhanbr I mlimedpuhlir pdmary in /ommiw sources shodd be co mdkdfn er�mlian u /the ill- -lion mnoainned on Jris websile."de lff�m lwve been made louse the mosr nrvenland acnaate now. TOnrpbns Como', awes no legal responsibillnJw the it lion ranmmed wthis imern& -b ed Geographir II atian Svs,,e. User msrmes no fisY and mspnnsibilin, for delemuni, whether this map is srnIcient lorprrposes onoolm. http: / /gisweb. tompkins- m.org/gview /prinVPRINT MARASP 6/3/2011 Ithaca City Charter §C -73. Sidewalks. [Amended 9 -7 -1988 by L.L. No. 1 -1988; 45 -1989 by L.L. No. 3 -1989; 8 -5- 1992 by L.L. No. 3 -1992; 10 -7 -1992 by L.L. No. 8 -1992; 7 -2 -2008 by L.L. No. 42008] A. Authority. 1. The Board of Public Works shall have jurisdiction over the construction, repair and maintenance of all sidewalks, approaches and street driveways abutting any of the streets, highways, alleys and public places in the City and shall have power to make rules and regulations with respect thereto, relating to materials, grade, location, manner and method of construction, dimensions and all other matters in connection therewith, not inconsistent with the provisions of this section. 2. The Board of Public Works shall have the power to make rules and regulations regarding the removal of%e, snow, and other obstructions from sidewalks and to require the area, if any, between the sidewalk and curb to be kept in a safe condition and the grass on such area, if any, to be properly mowed. B. Duties of owner. The owner of lands abutting any such street, highway, alley or other public place in the City shall construct, repair and maintain the sidewalks, approaches or street driveways adjoining such lands and shall keep the same in a safe state of repair and free from defects and freaand clear of and from snow, ice and all other obstructions, and the area, if any, between the sidewalk and curb in a safe condition and the grass thereon, if any, properly mowed. Such owner shall be liable for any injury or damage by reason of omission, failure or negligence to make, maintain or repair such sidewalk and keep it free from defects, snow, ice or other obstructions. Such owner shall also be liable for any violation or nonobservance of any ordinance or regulation relating to making, maintaining and repairing sidewalks, keeping them free from defects and removing snow, ice and other obstructions therefrom. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent such owner, by lease or otherwise, from delegating to a tenant or occupant the duties and liabilities hereby imposed, but such delegation shall not relieve the owner of his/her primary duties and liabilities hereunder. 2. The construction and repair of such sidewalks, approaches, and street driveways shall be only upon application, in writing, to the Superintendent of Public Works, without expense to the City and in conformity with the rules and regulations of the Board. C. Failure to comply. 1. The Superintendent of Public Works, by notice, given personally or by mail, may require the owner of any land adjoining a sidewalk, approach or street driveway to construct or repair such sidewalk, approach or street driveway in conformity with rules and regulations of the Board of Public Works. In such notice, the Superintendent shall fix a reasonable deadline for the completion of such work, which deadline shall not be less than 60 days after the date of the notice. Upon the failure of the owner to complete such construction or repair within the time limit, the Superintendent of Public Works may cause such sidewalk, approach or street driveway to be constructed or repaired, either by contract or by the Department of Public Works, at the expense of the owner, to be collected as set forth in Subsection E. 2. Nothing within this section shall prevent the Superintendent of Public Works from demanding or causing the immediate repair or replacement of a sidewalk, approach or street driveway if the failure to immediately repair or replace such sidewalk poses a significant public health or safety risk. 3. The Superintendent of Public Works may cause the removal of ice, snow or other obstruction from such sidewalk and may cause the area between the sidewalk and curb to be rendered in a safe condition and the grass thereon mowed, at the expense of the owner. D. Uniform sidewalk improvements; construction of new sidewalks on a street or part thereof. 1. On petition of interested property owners or on its own motion, the Board of Public Works may direct that new sidewalks and street driveways be laid on any street or part thereof pursuant to plans and specifications prepared and adopted by it. Before determining to make such improvement, the Board shall hold a public hearing on such proposed improvement upon not less than five days' notice, given personally or by mail or by publication in the official newspaper. After such public hearing, the Board may determine to make such improvement, either by contract or by delegation to the property owner(s), or by the City, under the direction of the Superintendent of Public Works. E. Assessments for sidewalk improvements. 1. The determination of cost, apportionment and assessment of any sidewalk improvement carried out pursuant to Subsection C or D herein shall be governed by the provisions relating to improvement assessments (in § C -89 of the Charter), except that the entire cost thereof shall be deemed to benefit the adjoining owners. 2. Any expense incurred by the City pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be billed to the property owner, together with an overhead fee of 25 %. The bill shall be payable to the City Chamberlain within 30 days of the billing date or, upon written request to the City Chamberlain within 30 days of the billing date, shall be payable in no more than five annual installments. If any bill or annual installment is not paid by November 1 of each year, the City Chamberlain shall enter the same as a lien against the premises as provided in § C -54 of the Charter of the City of Ithaca. The Chamberlain shall add the same to the next assessment roll of general City taxes and shall collect and enforce the assessment in the same manner and by the same proceedings, at the same time and with the same penalties as the general City tax and as a part thereof, except that, in addition to the penalties provided for in the aforementioned provisions, interest shall accrue on any unpaid balance from the date of billing to the date of actual payment at 12% per annum or $3 per month, whichever is greater. §C -89. Street and Pedestrian Mall Improvements and Assessments. [Amended 5 -19 -1976 by L.L. No. 41976; 3 -2 -1977 by L.L. No. 2 -1977] A. Authorization of paving and other street work and pedestrian mall. The Board of Public Works, on its own motion or upon petition of owners of abutting property, may consider and tentatively authorize the paving, repaving, resurfacing or surface treatment of any street or portion of a street and the construction of curbs and gutters in any street or portion of a street and the construction, reconstruction of or addition to a pedestrian mall and may determine all matters relating to the type, materials and method of construction thereof. The Board may hold a public hearing in regard to any such improvement and shall hold such a hearing whenever such improvement is assessable as hereinafter provided, after giving notice by publication at least once in a local newspaper not less than five days before such hearing. Any such hearing most be held before the Board and tentatively authorizes such improvement. The Board shall then make an estimate of the cost of such proposed improvement and file with the Common Council such estimate and a requisition for appropriation of the funds necessary for the work. [Amended 12 -7 -1983 by L.L. No. 1 -1983] B. Definition of terms. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions of terms shall be controlling: PAVING - A roadway constructed with or without a cushion or binder, with a base course and a wearing course consisting of blocks or slabs or constructed with a cement or bituminous binder. PEDESTRIAN MALL - A public thoroughfare designed as a promenade for pedestrians from which motorized vehicles are to be restricted or prohibited. REPAVING - Renewal of a pavement. RESURFACING - Renewal of the surface of a pavement. SURFACE TREATMENT - Treatment of the finished surface of a roadway with bituminous material. C. Assessment of cost for paving. The cost of the original paving of any street shall be home as follows: The area of street intersections and 50% of the remainder of such original paving shall be a charge against the City at large, and the remaining 50% shall be a charge against the abutting properties, apportioned according to their respective front - footages. The cost of repaving, resurfacing and surface treatment and the widening of paved streets shall be charged against the City at large, and no part of such expense shall be levied against the owners of abutting properties. D. Assessment of cost for construction of curbs and gutters. The cost of original curbs and gutters, when constructed or installed in connection with the original paving of a street anywhere in the City or when constructed or installed in connection with already existing streets in the City, except in those areas of the City zoned R -1 a, R -2a, R -3a, R -U, R -lb, R -21, and R -3b, shall be apportioned as follows: Fifty percent of such cost shall be a charge against the City at large, and the remainder shall be a charge against the abutting property owners, apportioned according to their respective front - footages. The cost of construction, installation, renewal or repair of curbs and gutters for already existing paved streets in zoned areas of the City designated R -1 a, R -2a, R -3a, R -U, R -]b, R -2b and R -3b shall be a charge upon the City at large. [Amended 45 -1978 by L.L. No. 3 -1978; 12 -7 -1983 by L.L. No. 1983] E. Assessment of cost of constructing, reconstructing or constructing an addition to a pedestrian mall. The cost of constructing, reconstructing or constructing an addition to a pedestrian mall shall be home as follows: Not less than 15% shall be a charge against the City at large, and not more than 85% shall be a charge against properties which the Board of Public Works, subject to confirmation by the Common Council, shall determine and specify to be especially benefited, apportioned in accordance with a rate schedule to be established therefor from time to time by the Board of Public Works, to be determined on any equitable basis, including but not limited to a system of classification for purposes of establishing differential rates, which rate schedule shall be subject to confirmation by the Common Council. Before any such rate schedule is finally established, the Board of Public Works shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, after giving notice by publication at least once in a local newspaper not less than five days before such hearing. F. Manner of assessment. Upon the completion of any improvement of which all or any part of the cost is charged to abutting owners' properties as above provided, the Board shall cause to be prepared a map and a statement showing the cost thereof and the apportionment and assessment against the respective properties benefited and shall give notice by publication three times in a local newspaper of a public hearing thereon on a date specified, which date shall not be less than 10 days from the first publication, at which time any person interested may appear and be heard in relation thereto. The Board may thereupon alter or correct any such assessment as justice may require, finally approve the same and file a schedule thereof with the Common Council, which shall confute the same, and when so confirmed, the amount of each assessment shall be alien upon the real property so assessed. The Council may prescribe and apportion deferred payments, make such regulations as may be deemed advisable for the payment thereof and provide for a percentage addition to any such deferred payments at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum, to be determined and fixed by said Council, together with any fees and expenses which may be incurred in connection therewith. Such assessments, percentages, fees and expenses shall be collected in the manner provided for the enforcement, levy and collection of City taxes. To: From Date: Re: CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 OFFICE OF TI IE CnY ENGMEER Telephone: 6072746530 Fu: 607/274-6587 William Gray, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer June 1, 2011 Wood and South Street Traffic " Diverters" After the discussions over the early spring of this year with the Board of Public Works in reference to the traffic " diverters" on Wood and South Street, I have collected additional traffic data and am prepared to restate a recommendation to remove the two "diverters." In early May, we collected four daily traffic counts - two on Wood Street and two on South Street. One count for each street was between Meadow and Fair Street and the other was between Fair Street and Plain Street. Thus, we counted on either side of the diverters. The data is presented below with comparisons to our previous counts, which were taken in 2005 and 2006. Wood Street 300 block (between Plain Street and Fair Street) • Count taken September 21 -23, 2005 (Wed - Fri) o Average Daily Traffic = 857 vehicles o Average Speed = 20mph 0 85 %ile speed = 26mph 0 1.8% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit • Count taken April 26 -May 5, 2011 (Week and weekend) • Average Daily Traffic = 728 vehicles • Average Speed =18mph • 85 %ile speed = 24mph c, 0.9% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit Wood Street 400 block (between Fair Street and Meadow Street) • Count taken April 26 -May 5,2011 (Week and weekend) o Average Daily Traffic = 954 vehicles o Average Speed =18mph 0 85%ile speed = 23mph 0 0.3% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit "M Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitmem to woridome tl v nificanon." 0 S. Titus Ave. 300 block (between Albany Street and Plain Street) • Count taken week of April 10, 2006 (Mon - Fri) o Average Daily Traffic = 849 o Average Speed = 21mph 0 85 %ile speed = 27mph 0 12% of vehicles traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit S. Titus Ave. 400 block (between Plain Street and Fair Street) • Count taken May 6-13,2011 (Week and weekend) o Aver-age Daily Traffic =1,291 vehicles o Average Speed =19 mph 0 85 %ile speed = 24 mph 0 0.3% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit South Street 100 block (between Fair Street and Meadow Street) • Count taken May 6-13,2011 (Week and weekend) o Average Daily Traffic =1,089 vehicles o Average Speed =18 mph 0 85 %ile speed = 25 mph 0 1.4% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit I am still comfortable with my former recommendation (memo from October 26, 2007) to remove the old " diverters," mostly on the basis that they are unsightly, potentially unsafe (they are falling apart), and, perhaps, unnecessary. The volumes and speed of traffic recorded for these street segments are well within what 1 would consider residential street characteristics. I am ambivalent about the mid -block speed humps. They do seem to help moderate speeds, but the Fire Department has requested that they be removed. I suppose they could be rebuilt with a gentler profile to be more speed table and less speed bump. If the Board directs that the "diverters" be removed, I will replicate our traffic counts a month or two later and again about a year later to provide some after action information. If traffic volumes or traffic speeds increase dramatically, we can make recommendations for alternative traffic calming designs. oF177'�i CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 OFFICE OF THE CrrY ENGINEER cOgPoRAtEO `� Telephone: 607274-6530 Fu: 607274-6587 To: William Gray, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer Date: October 26, 2007 Re: Wood Street Traffic Diverter In your September 25th letter to Brenda Westfall, Executive Director of the Ithaca Housing Authority, you asked me to review the traffic diverters and speed humps on Wood Street and South Street and to make a recommendation as to their future. I visited the area and collected the most recent data shown below. Wood Street between Plain Street and Fair Street (300 block) Count taken week of September 21 -23, 2005 (Wed - Fri) Average Daily Traffic = 857 vehicles Ave AM Peak Hour = 42 vehicles Ave PM Peak Hour = 86 vehicles Average Speed = 20mph 85 %ile speed = 26mph 1.8% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit South Titus Ave between Albany Street and Plain Street (300 block) Count taken week of April 10, 2006 (Mon - Fri) Average Daily Traffic = 849 Ave AM Peak Hour = 30 vehicles Ave PM Peak Hour = 77 vehicles Average Speed = 21mph 85 %ile speed = 27mph 2.2% of vehicles traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit Based on this information and my visit I would recommend removing the old diverters at the intersections of Fair Street with Wood Street and South Street mostly on the basis that they are unnecessary and unsightly. The semi - diverter at Fair and Wood Street also likely restricts turning movements into the relocated Titus Towers II driveway. I would recommend keeping the mid -block speed humps in place. An Equal 0pponunlry Employer Mth a.o next to IV no, divenlficadon" 0 I do not know if the Board of Public Works continues to support the goal of discouraging vehicular traffic on Wood Street and South streets. There are still signs posted on the semi - diverters stating "No Thm Traffic: Except Emergency Vehicles." However, it is clear that motorists at the intersections have no qualms about crossing over the diagonal bumps. Due to the capacity improvements at the edge of the neighborhood (along Route 13 and West Spencer Street), and based on observations and the above traffic counts, it does not seem that there is a significant volume of cut- through traffic. It seems to me that most through motorists have found alternate routes and that these streets see fairly average volumes of traffic for residential streets in the city. If the Board desires to retain the semi - diverters on Fair Street for some reason, I would recommend removing the existing signage and replacing it with object marker signage. The existing signs are not obeyed and are not enforceable. The boxes of rocks are not well delineated with reflective markings for nighttime visibility. However, I would not recommend retaining the box of rocks. If the Board desires to replace the semi - diverters with some sort of traffic calming, I would note that a few years ago there was a good deal of outreach from the Planning Department and a few traffic calming concepts were considered acceptable by attending residents. Since that time, the southwest area has largely built out and the abovementioned road projects were completed. My sense is that the fears of overwhelming traffic in the neighborhood have not played out and so there has been less interest in traffic canning. My suggestion would be to remove the semi- diverters, to monitor traffic volumes and speeds in the spring, and then to decide whether replacement traffic calming is warranted. I don't see any reason to remove the mid -black speed humps on the two streets. They help to moderate speeds along a three block stretch and seem to be in fairly good condition. We could probably touch up the signage a bit by adding location arrows and make it more visible by pruning a few trees.