HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-16 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaDATE: October 3, 2016
BPW Meetin
TIME: 4:45 pm
LOCATION: 3rd Floor,
Board of Public Works City Hall, Council Chambers
108 E. Green St., Ithaca
AGENDA
Time
Topic Voting? Presenter(s) Allowed
I. Call to Order/Agenda Review No Mayor Myrick 5 min.
2. Mayor's Communications
3. Communications and Hearings from Persons
Before the Board
4. Response to the Public
5. Administration & Cnmmunicatinns
6. New Project Presentation
7. Reports
A. Special Committees of the Board
B. Council Liaison
C. Board Liaisons
D. Superintendent and Staff
8. Buildings, Properties, Refuse & Transit
9. Highways, Streets & Sidewalks
No Mayor Myrick
No Public 5-15
min.
No Commissioners
No Various 15 min.
A. Request That Common Council Approve a Yes Dir. of Eng. Logue 15 min.
Transportation Alternatives Program Grant
Application — Resolution
This project has been discussed by the Board in the past. The application for the grant is due
prior to the Board's next meeting.
10. Parking & Traffic
11. Creeks, Bridges & Parks
A. Recommendation to Accept Donation of Skatepark Yes Supt. Thorne 10 min.
Lighting System to the City of Ithaca — Resolution
Per the Board's discussion, a resolution in support of accepting the donation is enclosed.
12. !Nater & Sewer
13. Discussion Items
B. Spencer Road Sidewalk and Traffic Study No Dir. of Eng. Logue 15 min.
This is a project update, which was last discussed by the Board on July 25, 2016. Three
alternatives were presented at that time, staff has made a recommendation and requests the
Board's input so the project can continue to final design.
C. Citywide Traffic Calming Program Update No Dir. of Eng. Logue 15 min.
Per the Board's discussion regarding traffic calming, Dir. of Engineering Tim Logue has provided
a white paper that was prepared for the City in 2000.
D. Pilot Food Scraps Drop Spot at Cass Park No Supt. Thorne 10 min.
Tompkins County Solid Waste is proposing the establishment of a mobile residential food scrap
drop-off location at Cass Park. Please see the enclosed e-mail chain and proposal for more
information.
Time
Topic Voting? Presenter(s) Allowed
14. New Business No
15. Adjournment
Yes
8A. Request That Common Council Approve a Transportation Alternatives Program
Grant Application — Resolution
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation has noticed the availability of
the federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), wherein the federal -aid share of the
total project cost is 80%, and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed projects previously considered for such funding and
recommended the Hector Street Complete Streets project, and
WHEREAS, this project has been estimated at a total project cost of approximatelv Q1.6
million, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is supportive of applying for funding for the Hector
Street Complete Street project; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends that Common Council authorize
and direct the Mayor to submit an application for funding to the New York State Department of
Transportation in accordance with the provisions of the Transportation Alternatives Program
for the Hector Street Complete Street project.
Page 2
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
Office of City Engineer
Telephone: 607 / 274-6530 Fax: 607 / 274-6415
TO: Board of Public Works, City of Ithaca
FROM: Johnathan Licitra, Sidewalk Program Manager
DATE: 9/29/2016
RE: NYS DOT Grant: Hector Street: Complete Street Project
ENCLOSURE: Bike Lane Feasibility Study
The New York State Department of Transportation has announced funding availability for the
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), a competitive federal -aid transportation funding
program. The City has been awarded "The Cascadilla Creekway" grant through this funding
opportunity about 2 years ago. Staff attended a TAP training recently and we are interested in
applying to the program again. We seek a recommendation to Council to approve a Hector Street
Sidewalk Extension and Uphill Bike Lane grant application (in -development) and provide the local
share (at least 20% of the total project cost).
The City of Ithaca is eligible to compete and submit application requests between $250,000 and
$5 million. Based on past experience, they might award 3 such grants in the region, and we have
heard that the Town of Ithaca is submitting for a sidewalk grant connecting South Aurora St to
Ithaca College, and Tompkins County and the Village of Cayuga Heights are each applying
individually as well. I am requesting for the Board to recommend to Common Council for approval
to submit and for the commitment of the local share. Below are some preliminary details about the
project. Please find enclosed a resolution for your consideration.
The Hector Street Sidewalk
Over the years, a large sidewalk construction project such as Hector Street, from where the
sidewalk ends to the City line, has been a topic of conversation and a possible project for similar
funding. To date, we have decided that such a project would be eligible, but due to the previous
mechanism for paying for sidewalk, it was usually concluded that there would not be enough
community support for such a project, if the adjacent property owners had to pay for a portion of
the project. Additionally, it has not been clear to staff that such a sidewalk project would be
particularly competitive, with the understanding that there may not be enough density of users on
West Hill to make a strong case for the sidewalk. It certainly has its benefits, but we were not sure
how they would rank compared to other projects in Tompkins County or central New York. That
said, it certainly is an eligible project and we don't want to forget about the possibility of using a
program such as TAP as a way to fund a large capital project to construct new sidewalk. A total
project cost estimate for extending the sidewalk from Vinegar Hill Road to the City line would be
about $1.6 million. TAP funds $1.3 million and a capital project funding, potentially using Sidewalk
Improvement District Funds, $300,000 (80%).
Scope details include:
4,100 linear feet of 5 foot concrete sidewalk
• 4,000 linear feet of concrete curbing
• Pavement markings and striping for an uphill bike lane and/or a combined walkway/bikeway
from Floral Ave. to the City Line
• Approximately 6 retaining walls and 500 feet replacement of stormwater pipes
• 2 bus shelters, 1 new street light, cross -walks, and curb ramps.
• Limited ROW acquisition (strips along street) for retaining walls or embankment
Applications are due October 21, 2016. If the BPW can take action at their meeting on October
3rd, we can proceed to City Administration Committee on October 19th before the application is
due (Common Council on Nov 2"d). In the past, DOT has accepted the full Council resolution after
the date, if a committee resolution is submitted at the grant application deadline. With your letter of
community support, this project looks to be competitive and compelling.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587
Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer
Hector St. Bike Lane — Feasibility Study
April 2, 2010
Summary:
A Board of Public Works member has requested that the Engineering Office investigate
the feasibility of installing an uphill bike lane on Hector Street. Additionally, some BPW
members have expressed interest in improving pedestrian conditions along the same
segment. On 4/1/10, Engineering Office staff collected measurements and made
observations regarding the existing conditions along Hector Street.
In summary, the lowest part of Hector St. is much too narrow to permit the installation of
an uphill bike lane and the section between Sunrise Rd. and Fall View Terrace is slightly
too narrow. Above Fall View Terrace, the road is wide enough to permit installation. In
regard to pedestrian conditions, a sidewalk is present along the east side of the street from
the base of Hector St. to Vinegar Hill. Above Vinegar Hill, pedestrian conditions are
generally very poor. Along most of the length of Hector St., it is quite difficult to safely
walk across the street because of limited sight distances, traffic speeds/volumes, and lack
of space to stand outside of the travel lanes.
Existing Street Conditions:
The cross-section design and pavement
width vary considerably along Hector
Street (which is approx. 1 % miles long).
At the base of Hector St. (at Floral Ave.)
the road quickly narrows from —31' wide to
—25.5' wide then to —24.5' wide (see
Figure 1). The road then widens to —31.5'
and then narrows back to —28' wide just
before Sunrise Road. From Sunrise Rd. to
Hopper Pl., the road is —27' wide. From
Hopper Pl. to Fall View Terrace, the road
is approximately —28' wide in most places.
Above Fall View Terrace, the road widens
considerably to —33' wide (see Figure 2).
This width continues more or less the same
to the City Line.
Where curbs are present on each side of the
street, a pavement width of at least 29 feet
Figure 1: Curb -to -curb width at the base of Hector
St. is approximately 25 feet wide. This steep and
narrow section poses a conflict point for uphill -
traveling cyclists and motorists because the steep
grade, narrow width, limited sight distance and fast-
moving traffic makes passing cyclists difficult.
is needed to safely permit the installation of an
uphill bike lane (5' bike lane, 11' uphill motor
vehicle lane, 12' shared downhill lane, and l'
buffer to curb). Due to the numerous curves in
the road, the traffic speeds (+/- 36 mph on
average), and the percentage of large vehicles, a
width of 30 feet or 31 feet would be preferable to
a minimum of 29 feet. Where curbs are absent,
additional pavement buffer space is needed
between the downhill shared travel lane and the
open ditch for safety reasons. Based on existing
conditions, the lower 4,280 feet of Hector St. (to
Fall View Ter.) is too narrow to permit
installation of an uphill bike lane — this section
would need to be widened by 2' to 5' depending
on the location, probably necessitating enclosure
of the drainage ditch (which should be done
anyway for safety reasons — see Figure 3). The
upper 2,280 feet of Hector St. (above Fall View
Ter.) is currently wide enough to install an uphill
bike lane.
Existing Sidewalk/Pedestrian Conditions:
Curb and sidewalk are in place along the east
side of Hector St. between Floral Ave. and
Vinegar Hill. In this section, pedestrian
conditions are fairly good, though much of the
sidewalk is deteriorated (see Figure 4). Above
Vinegar Hill, pedestrians must walk in the street
or along the edge of the pavement which is
uneven, littered with debris, obstructed with
branchesibushes, muddy, and/or drops
precipitously into an open ditch (see Figure 5).
Sight distances are insufficient in most locations
to permit safe crossing of the street. Along the
length of Hector St., there are very few places to
walk on the west/south side of the street.
Discussion:
Bicycles
Due to the volume of motor vehicles (8,000
vehicles/day), the speed of motor vehicles (-36
mph on average), the very slow pace of uphill -
traveling cyclists, and the narrow lane widths, an
uphill bike lane is warranted along Hector Street.
A downhill bike lane is not warranted, or
appropriate, because the speed differential
between cyclists and motorists is relatively low
and because a very wide bike lane would be
Figure 2: Above Fall View Ter., Hector St.
widens to around 33 feet, wide enough to
install an uphill bike lane. Despite the
added width, pedestrian conditions are quite
poor.
Figure 3: An open ditch is present along
most of Hector St. which presents a barrier
to pedestrian travel and a hazard to
motorists, motorcyclists and bicyclists who
veer off of the narrow travel lane — this type
of roadside design is very unforgiving.
Figure 4: In this view from Vinegar Hill,
the existing sidewalk can be seen in the
distance. A worn path in the foreground
indicates regular pedestrian activity.
necessary to safely permit bicycle travel (because``
of the likely high bicycle speeds). In the downhill
direction, Shared Lane Markings may be
appropriate.
An uphill bike lane would provide the following
benefits:
1. Motorists could pass slower -moving -
bicyclists without crossing the centerline
or weaving.
2. Since passing would be easier, traffic
would not have to slow down abruptly
near bicyclists.
3. Bicyclists would feel more comfortable Figure 5: Above Vinegar Hill, pedestrian
conditions deteriorate substantially; it is
riding at their own pace without feeling challenging to walk in this area.
that they are hindering/annoying
overtaking motorists.
4. The additional pavement width would make it easier for traffic to pass by stopped
or disabled vehicles.
5. The painted lane lines would better delineate and visually narrow the travel lanes
which may encourage some motorists to drive more slowly.
At this point, no effort has been put toward designing how the street may be
reconstructed to facilitate the addition of a bike lane and no effort has been put toward
developing cost estimates. However, it is clear that widening over N mile of street would
be quite expensive.
Pedestrians
In regard to pedestrian conditions, the current
--
conditions below Vinegar Hill seem mostly
satisfactory (although the sidewalk is only on one
side of the street and it is often difficult to cross the
,UZ. -
street). Conditions above Vinegar Hill are quite
inhospitable to pedestrians and should most
-
certainly be improved either by installing
sidewalks or by providing a usable shoulder that
pedestrians can walk upon out of the main travel
_
path of vehicles (see Figure 6). It seems
worthwhile to invcstigatc an option where
Figure 6: Even where Hector St. is
pedestrians and uphill -traveling bicyclists can
wider, it is difficult to travel as a
share a lane/shoulder since the bicyclists will be
pedestrian because of the limited sight
traveling very slowly and it is unlikely that bicycle
stances and the lack of a defined
pedestrian space away from moving
and pedestrian volumes will be so great as to result
motor vehicles.
in problematic conflicts. Finally, if specific
locations along Hector St. are routinely crossed by
pedestrians, there may be measures
that could improve safety, such as warning signs or improved lighting.
Traffic calming
Hector St. does not initially seem to be a good candidate for traffic calming measures
such as speed humps or horizontal deflections (e.g. chicanes) because of the expected
level of truck traffic, the somewhat steep grades, and the classification of the street
(minor arterial). However, visually (not physically) narrowing the travel lanes, gateway
treatments, and other measures that alert motorists to the fact that they are entering a
residential area may be appropriate speed -reduction measures.
Conclusions:
An uphill bike lane, new sidewalk construction, repair of existing sidewalk, and
enclosure of roadside drainage all seem to be warranted actions. Each of these potential
actions will involve significant costs.
Next steps:
Before further investigation is done by staff on any of the above possible actions, the
BPW should indicate their level of support for such actions, including what level of
funding they are willing to allocate. That feedback from the BPW will help staff develop
a feasible project scope.
11A. Recommendation to Accept Donation of Skatepark Lighting System to the City of
Ithaca — Resolution
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates the Wood Street Park, within which a public facility for
skateboarding was installed some years ago; and
WHEREAS, in 2011 the City and TEMS Skate Fund entered into an agreement to partner in
rehabilitating the City's skate park facility; and
WHEREAS, the City completed the skate park rehabilitation project in 2014; and
WHEREAS, TEMS Skate Fund has secured funding from the Park Foundation in the amount
of $20,000 to install lighting to increase usability of the skate park, which funding TEMS Skate
Fund intends to use to pay for installation of the lighting, and then gift the improvements to the
City; and
WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed the lighting plan provided by TEMS Skate Fund, and are
generally supportive of the proposal; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Board of Public Works is supportive of accepting the donation and
recommends that Common Council accept the donation on the behalf of the City.
Page 3
SECOND ADDENDUM
AMENDMENT TO FUNDING FOR SKATE PARK FACILITY
AT WOOD STREET PARK AGREEMENT
This is a second addendum to the original agreement, signed and executed on August 2, 2011,
among:
• The CITY OF ITHACA, a municipal corporation in the State of New York, with offices
at 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850, hereinafter the "CITY,"
• TEM SKATE FUND, an association with offices at 703 S. Plain Street, Ithaca, New York
14850, hereinafter the "FUND," and
• SOCIAL VENTURES, INC., a not-for-profit corporation incorporated in the State of
New York, with offices at 124 Westfield Drive, Ithaca, New York 14850, hereinafter "SOCIAL
VENTURES;"
WITNESS THAT:
WHEREAS, the FUND has obtained grant funding from the Park Foundation in the amount of
$20,000 to install lighting in the skatepark;
WHEREAS, upon the Common Council's authorization to accept the donation from the FUND,
the FUND plans to install lighting and gift the same to the City; and
The parties hereby agree to amend the original agreement referenced above to add the following
provisions:
1. The City is generally supportive of receiving this lighting donation, but requires that the
City's Common Council resolve to accept the donation. Upon Common Council's
authorization to accept, the City authorizes the FUND's contractor to obtain any required
permits and perform the work to install lighting as shown in the plans attached here as
Exhibit A
2. The FUND shall cause the installation, as shown in Exhibit A, to be performed without
any compensation from the City.
3. The FUND agrees that the lighting installation is a gift, and hereby irrevocably and
unconditionally donates the lighting equipment and services to the City of Ithaca. The
FUND agrees to assign and transmit any manufacturer or installer warranties to the City
of Ithaca.
All other provisions of said agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or approved this Contract on the
dates appearing under their signatures.
SIGNED:
CITY OF ITHACA
By:
Print Name:
Title:
1108y L11
By:
Print Name:
Title:
SOCIAL VENTURES, INC.
By:
Print Name:
Title:
Date:
Date:
Date:
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, Director of Engineering
Date: September 27, 2016
Re: Spencer Road Sidewalk and Traffic Study
We last discussed this project at your meeting on July 25th with the idea that we
would circulate the alternatives to emergency services and the Town of Ithaca
before bringing the project back to the Board to select an alternative to progress
to final design. Since then I have been able to connect with both the Ithaca Police
Department and the Ithaca Fire Department, both of whom have stated that they
have no objections to what seems like the preferred alternative with the
neighborhood and at the last Board meeting, namely Alternate Three, the dead
end option. I've also forwarded the plans to the Town of Ithaca, who also did not
have any objections to that alternative, though they did request we address some
drainage and pavement conditions at the bottom of Stone Quarry Road.
To reiterate, alternative three is a dead-end option (attached, see my memo in the
July 25th agenda for the full project description). It forces all traffic from Stone
Quarry Road to the roundabout at South Albany/Spencer/Old Elmira Rd, and
vice versa. A pedestrian and bicycle cut -though would be designed to allow
travel along Spencer Rd, and we would want some provision for emergency
vehicle or DPW vehicle access. With this alternative, since it would significantly
decrease the volume of traffic to South Meadow Street Extension, we can design
for that with narrower travel lanes, which allows us to push sidewalks and curbs
toward the centerline of the street by a couple feet or provide better tree lawns.
If the Board is comfortable with selecting this alternative, I will prepare a
resolution for your meeting on October 24th. If you have questions or concerns,
we can discuss them on Monday. You can also reach me at 274-6535 or
TLogue@cityofithaca.org.
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 40
NAMWINIVEM
0
rAx ADu 1v -re
INSf.
0 W-I-mwn
4� 1
TABLE DDRB 'A
VIAMWABLECM
d
Qe �►,,
rAx i I
aYsr"�b I ,I
LABELIASIMP ROAD- DFM END 215DDB9
A r m ID .D.oeooletae.nPG I au�mie
Cm OF DWICA
-,,, DERARTM TOFPUBIEWORKS FlGURE4
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, Director of Engineering
Date: September 29, 2016
Re: Traffic Calming program
Toward the end of your last meeting, there was a short discussion about traffic calming
and an interest in beginning a larger discussion of how we could organize and respond
to requests and complaints. Additionally, during recent capital planning for next year, it
seems that a small project on the order of $50,000 has been recommended for funding in
an effort to get a traffic calming program back up and off the ground. It will be
important for us to have some guidelines on how to spend this money should Common
Council authorize it, considering there are many more requests than funding will allow
us to address (almost no matter the funding levels).
Attached is a draft white paper from 2000. It was prepared in the City's effort to form a
traffic calming program, which ultimately led to the traffic calming construction on Dey
Street, along Buffalo Street, and in portions of the Southside and South of the Creek
neighborhoods. I will be prepared to give a little history at your meeting on Monday to
describe what we did then, how things went (at least from my perspective), and what
we might do to bring this back around. Some portions of the process will be applicable,
but others are not. We can start to discuss some of these with the idea that it will
probably be a few meetings worth of discussions to get us focused on what elements to
keep, what to discard and what else we might want to introduce.
Some of the bigger questions to consider might be:
How do we decide upon locations to traffic calm? Do we target small areas
(blocks or intersections) or do we take a more neighborhood
wide/comprehensive approach?
Do we try to experiment with different traffic calming devices before
"permanent" construction? Or, do we just build them and move on, with less
evaluation?
• How much public input, participation or approval is appropriate?
"M Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." C0
V0":r. +-
WORKING PAPER #1
Program Development and Pilot Project,
for the
City of Ithaca Citywide Traffic Calming program
Prepared 'for:
City of Ithaca
April 14, 2000
FEIM&PE ATE -1j
Tocon i
2990 Iva Ria Coutt
Suite 200 �`
Rmwilk, CA 95661
916 773-1900
Fax 916 773-2015
Table of Contents
Section Page
LINTRODUCTION ........... NMMM........... ...N ................................. ......................... ...... 1
ILPROCESS STRUCTURE....»...................................................................................3
IILPRIORITIZATION METHOD ..... ............... ...... ........... ..... ........... ................ ..—.. f
IV. APPLICATION GUIDELINES ....... N............................N...................................11
V. -ENGMEBRING & AESTHETICS.».....................................................................13
992-1173
F
E
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Candidate Pilot Sites — Average Data for Study Streets .............................................. 8
ITable 2 Candidate Pilot Sites — Normalized Data.................................................................... 9
Table 3 Candidate Pilot Sites — Scores and Rankings............................................................10
Table4 Application Guidelines..............................................................................................12
c
s
c
List of Figures
Figure 1— Proposed Traffic Calming Process.......................................................................... 4
IFigure 2 — Candidate Pilot Project Locations........................................................................... 7
i
i
City ofld=a Citywide Traffic Calming Program
April 14, 2000
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to document preliminary elements of the City of Ithaca Citywide
Traffic Calming Program, which is currently under development. This paper provides an
overview of the entire process, including tasks accomplished to date and future tasks, as well as
describes the status of the pilot project.
Overview of the Project
The project consist of two basic tasks, shown below:
1) The development of a process for implementing a citywide traffic calming program in the
City of Ithaca, including but not limited to the following elements:
a) Development of a Process for Traffic Calming implementation;
b) Development of a Priority Rating System;
c) Development of Standards and Warrants;
d) Incorporation of Public Input;
e) Incorporation of Emergency Services Input; and
fl Post -Construction Evaluation.
2) The demonstration of key elements of the traffic calming program in pilot locations:
a) Collection of Background Data on Pilot Sites;
b) Prioritize Sites and Select Final Pilot Sites;
c) Incorporate Public Input into an Implementation Plan;
d) Address impacts on Emergency Services and Citywide Planning Documents; and
e) Prepare Schematics & Specifications of Proposed Traffic Calming Devices;
Although there is some overlap in the elements of Tasks 1 and 2 above, the overlapping elements
differ in their scope. The elements of Task 1 have been addressed in the context of a generalized
program that can be applied citywide. Conversely, the elements of Task 2 are focused on the
specific application of the traffic calming process to the pilot sites.
Fehr & Peers AssocWn 1
1 City ofIthaca Citywide Traffic Calming Progrmn
April 14, 2000
The tasks above have been conducted through consultation with a technical advisory committee
(TAC), which comprised members ofthe existing Board of Public Works. The Board oversees
' major decisions of the City of Ithaca Department ofPublic Works. Serving as the TAC for this
process, the TAC's members expressed their views and opinions at two workshops. Workshop
#1, conducted on October 25' 1999, produced the following inputs from the TAC:
• Surveys relating to potential elements of the overall process;
+ Surveys of visual preference for traffic calming devices as presented in photographs;
• A list of ten potential pilot traffic calming sites; and
A list of prioritization criteria and their relative weights.
At Workshop #2, conducted on February 3' 2004, the following input was gathered:
• Feedback on the proposed list of prioritized pilot traffic calming sites;
• Feedback on the proposed process structure;
• Input on guidelines for application of specific types of traffic calming measures; and
• Input on engineering and aesthetic considerations.
This input was used to develop the program elements described in this working paper.
I
Fehr & Peers Associates 2
City oflthaca Citywide Tragic Calming Program
April 14, 2000
II. PROCESS STRUCTURE
At Workshop #1, the technical advisory committee completed a survey relating to the potential
elements of a process for identifying traffic calming sites, selecting sites, incorporating input
from affected parties, and evaluating traffic calming measures (see Appendix A: Process Survey
and Results).
Building on process structures that have been successful in other jurisdictions, we developed a
process that conformed to the average opinions expressed in the surveys. Policies included in the
process were those for which the TAC expressed considerable support. The degree of support
was judged by the average level of agreement with specific statements in the questionnaire. The
questionnaire allowed responses on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 represented complete disagreement
and 7 complete agreement. Only policies that had average scores above 4.0 were included; most
policies in the proposed process had average scores above 5.0.
The draft process was presented to the TAC at Workshop #2. In response to comments, we
modified the process to include additional steps where the Board of Public Works would provide
its approval or disapproval. We also clarified the petition process to require that citizens collect
at least 100 signatures before a problem area can be nominated. Lastly, the public input process
was modified to use an advisory vote that would assist in a BPW decision, rather than a direct
G vote without input from the BPW.
LI
The final proposed traffic calming process is shown in Figure 1.
Fehr & Peers Associates 3
City of Ithaca Citywide Traffic Calming Program
April 14, 2000
Figure I —Proposed Traffic Calming Process,
w^. •. City Staff `
Proposal {
Cittzen Petition is j
Writing -100
signatures
swn Y�•t - ' .•.3
F. ir Data Gatheria6
e `
'v
Impact Area Definedbj'W Ivolumes - z
staff In consultation with Upoeds ' f, -_
,i Planning Staff, BPW, and ,e ' 34ccldents
responsible council members . y 4 othor
` May Re -apply for
factors s following year
Projects Prioritized
Annually by Board of Public
well" MPWi
Dissemiaatiori of
Plan to Impact
Area through
Data
Gathering by
Staff during
Trial:
I.volumes
2.speeds
3.aecidents
approve
the draft
Prieritg Ratiag Computed
by Staff
Development of
Draft PUn by Staff
and NTC through
Charra to Process
y
Trial Iastallatiou of
r
Temporary Plan Measures
P rY
for 3-6 months;
Design may be adjusted as
'.. _
required
fs the
Project a
Priority?
Es#abilshme nt of a Neighborhood
Traffic Committee (including • r
representatives of entire impact
area, tire -rescue,. police, and
school district officials)
r �r
Fehr & Peers Associates 4
-s
From
5.
Fehr & Peers Associates 4
t
I
I
City of Ithaca 00,Mde 7)-afflc Calming Program
I April 14, 2000
Figure 1— Proposed Traffic Calming Process (cont)
Possible Removal
0) R'
... .. Possible
Process
IL
as
Fehr & Peers Associates 3
'
City of Ithaca Citywide Traffic Calming Program
1
April i4, 2000
III. PRIORITIZATION METHOD
The goal of a prioritization process is to provide an objective method of evaluating several
candidate traffic calming sites using salient criteria. At Workshop #1, the TAC was asked to
identify potential criteria, then to vote on which criteria were most important, using a nominal
group process.- The seven criteria that received at least three votes each were selected for
inclusion in the priority rating process, using weights equal to the number of votes they received.
These criteria, along with their respective weights, are:
• 85'h Percentile Speed — 6 votes;
9 Emergency Response Route — 4 votes;
• Average Daily Traffic — 7 votes;
Pedestrian/Bicycle Accidents — 3 votes;
• Street Classification — 3 votes;
o Child Pedcatrian Generators — 7 votes; and
• Gateway Streets — 3 votes.
To begin the pilot site demonstration process, the TAC was asked at Workshop #1 to identify
problem sites within the City of Ithaca that should be considered for traffic calming. Using a
nominal group Process again, a list of sites -was compiled and members voted on the -sites to
determine which should be considered candidates for the pilot program. To minimize data
collection costs, only ten candidate sites were selected. These sites were:
1. 1" Street/V Street/3rd Street/Dey Street;
2. North Aurora/Cayuga/Tioga;
3. University Avenue;
4. Ithaca RoadWtchell Road;
5. Hudson Street;
6. South Aurora Street;
7. South Albany/South/Wood/Spencer;
8. Court Street/Buffalo Street;
9. Hector Street; and
10. Cliff Street.
'I Figure 2 shows the location of each of these sites within the City of Ithaca.
Fehr do Peers Associates 6
l
J�
V
M9
N
W
n
t
City of Ithaca Citywide Traffic Calming Program
April 14, 2000
Following Workshop #1, data pertaining to each of the seven evaluation criteria above were
collected for each of the candidate sites at representative street segments selected in cooperation
with city staff. The data for selected streets segments within each candidate site were averaged,
resulting in the values listed in Table 1.
pp v
T"LE 1
CAmEDATE Pum Srrzs — AVERAGE DATA FOR STUDY STREETS
85%lle
ADT
Ped/Bicyde
jjtw* 14ft
ChUd
Speed
Emergency
(veh/
Accidents/
Strew
Pedestrian
Gateway
Area
(mph)
Routes
day)
iM Veh-Mile
Clan cations
Land Uses
Street
1"/2w/3'4/Dey
28.5
No
3,610
2.88
Yes
No
Collector
N. Aurora/
28.8
Partial
4,950
1.92
Minor Arterial
Yes
N4
Cayupmop
University Ave.
32.0
Yes
5,770
0.00
Minor Arterial
No
No -
Ithaca RdJ
36.5
Yes
7,760
1.59
Minor Arterial
No
yes
Mitchell VA
Hudson St
29.5
Yes
5,250
0.00
Collector
No
Yes
South Aurora St
31.0
Yes
15,000
0.73
Minor Arterial
Yes
yes
S. Albany/
South/Wood/
29.5
Partial
6,130
5.54
I'OArterial
No
Yes
Spencer
Court StJ Buffalo
26.3
No
5,450
7.67
Minor Arterial
Yes
:'No
Hector St.
35.0
Yes
6,600
0.00
Minor Arterial
No
Yes
Cliff Street
37.5
Yes
13,630
0.22
Minor Arterial
No
yes
To bring variables into scales that are comparable to each other, first the non numeric variables
were translated into numeric variables. For example, in the Emergency Response category, areas
where the study streets were emergency response routes were given a score of "1" and areas
where the study streets were not emergency response routes were given a score of "0". Next, all
of the data were normalized by converting each value into a number of standard deviations above
or below the mean value of each variable. As a result, all variables became unit -less with
average scores of "0". Also, for variables where a higher number indicates a less suitable
candidate site, the scale of the variable was reversed by multiplying its values by —1.
Consequently, for all of the normalized variables, a positive score indicates a more suitable site
and a negative score indicates a less suitable site. The resulting normalized scores for each of the
candidate pilot sites are summarized in Table 2.
Fehr & Peers Associates 8
We S
r.
City ofhhaca Citywide Traffic Calming Program
April 14, 2000
TABLE 2
CANDIDATE PILOT SrrEs - NoRmAi.izEn DATA .
85%11e
Emergency
Land
Speed
Route
ADT
Ped/Bicycle
Classifi-
Use
Gateway
Area
Index
Index
Index
Acddents Index
cation Index
Index
Street Index
1-1/2°d/Yd/Dey
-0.79
1.66
-1.00
0.31
1.98
1.16
-1.16
N. Aurora/
-0.73
0.47
-0.65
-0.05
-0.60
1.16
-1.16
Cayaga/Tioga
University Ave..
0.15
-0.71
-0.43
-0.78
-0.60
-0.77
-1.16
Ithaca RdJ Mitchell
1.35
-0.71
0.09
-0.18
-0.60
-0.77
0.77
Rd.
Hudson St.
70.53
-0.71
-0.57
-0.78
1.12
-0.77
0.77
South Aurora St
-0.12
-0.71
1.99
-0.50
-0.60
1.16
0.77
S. Albany/
South/Wood/
-0.53
0.47
-0.34
1.32
1.12
-0.77
0.77
Spencer
Court StJ Buffalo
-1.38
1.66
-0.52
2.13
-0.60
1.16
-1.16
St
Hector St
0.95
-0.71
-0.21
-0.78
-0.60
-0.771
0.77
Cliff street
1.62
-0.71
1.63
-0.70
.0.60
.0.771
0.77
The scores shown in Table 2 were multiplied by each of the criteria's respective weights. For
each candidate pilot site, these weighted scores were then averaged to determine the site's final
score. Finally, the sites were ranked by overall score, with higher scores receiving a higher
priority rank. The ranked sites and their scores are shown in Table 3.
The top five sites listed in Table 3 (indicated by shaded boxes) received the highest overall.
scores and, therefore, were the first five priority sites for pilot projects. This ranking was
presented and approved at TAC Workshop #2. Please note that in the ongoing traffic calming
program (which would begin upon completion of this pilot program), the priority rating system
described above would be applied to all sites within the City of Ithaca that had been identified by
citizen petition or staff recommendation, rather than to a limited set of candidate sites.
Fehr & Peers Associates 9
City of1thaca Citywide Traffic Calming Program
April 14, 2000
TABLE 3
CMDMATE PILOT SITES - SCORES Am RAmaNGS
Scores
Emerg-
Mile
ency
Ped/Bicycle
Classiti-
Land
Gateway
Speed
Route ADT
Accidents
cation
Use
Street
Overall
Area
Score
Score Score
Score
Score
Score
Score
Score
�
r:��j(l�
=1i 8��xr
• �
.2�}�q
.'a°
1 f.T ��7 y
�
}3.�
'i5 �,'Ag li
� 1
��r
,'>'t7G
-.F`-� fss7T�7wLyf
�5y0
1iV2-
a
/:t
�V',e7�..
.+i:.:!^r..t:7
4�
"A
r-
r'
'"+.."£': ■ +
arvr�
w� �-
h 1<
i
�w7L
S `,
r�''#`..,
��.;..
� �...'.�
x
.(4i
S'bi.
Z
�
V.i77
''+.'_"=
!:.ItY _�'•..�'!".
_ e
. 1. r
t' s?.z�
� r_ -ii. �.
y.jk
-
Ithaca Rd.!
6
8.12
-2.85 0.63
-0.53
-1.81
-5.42
2.32
0.07
Mitchell Rd.
7
N Aurora/
-4.36
1.90 -4.54
-0.15
-1.81
8.13
-3.49
-0.62
CayugaCfioga
8
Hector St.
5.70
2.85 -1A9
-2.34
-1.81
-5.42
2.32
-0.84
9
Hudson St
-3.15
2.85 -398
-2.34
336
-5.42
2.32
-1.72
10
University Ave.
0.87
-2.85 -3.03
-2.34
-1.81
-5.42
•�� � �i,Lr�" �rfjG'7.t- f' �d�e. �wLt Chit �bG�' �
�Crt H&L'"AG
ioc �Gti Ccl 7;rKvchc-r"$ P�L/v -
'dtryr� A197 p400, *tdid fgo-r
Fehr & Peers Associates 10
City of Ithaca Citywide Traffle Calming Program
April 14, 2000
IV. APPLICATION GUIDELINES
Based on the street geometry of the City of Ithaca, as well as guidance from other U.S.
jurisdictions and foreign countries, application guidelines were formulated for use in Ithaca (see
Table 4). These guidelines apply to:
• Minor Arterials (e.g., Court Street);
• Urban Collectors (e.g., Cascadilla Street); and
• Local Streets (e,g., Wood Street).
We recommend that the City of Ithaca consider excluding State Highway 13, the only principal
arterial in the City of Ithaca, from traffic calming due to its high volume of traffic and its
■ functional classification
The guidelines establish maximum volumes and speeds for different measures (see Table 4).
Beyond these volumes and speeds, it becomes difficult to justify the use of measures from a
traffic safety and/or traffic efficiency standpoint. The guidelines for posted speeds refer to the
speed limits on the streets themselves. Lower advisory speeds may be posted at traffic calming
measures.
The maximum values in Table 4 are based on:
• Guidelines df established traffic calming programs fine tuned through experience'; and
r • Ranges of volumes and speeds for successful U.S. and foreign applications.
�j ' Guidelines were synthesized iaom: Devon County Council, Trq* Calming Guidelines, Great Britaia,1991; L
Marstrand at al., Urban Trar`ic Area - Part 7. Speed Reducers, Vejdkekborstet - Vejregeludvdget, The
Netherlands, 1991; Rent County Council, Treec Calming. A Code ofPractice, Maidstone, Great Britain,1992;
and Transportation Association of Canada, Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming, Ottawa, 1998.
Among U.S. guidelines, the recently updated guidelines of Bellevue, WA are most complete. They were given
considerable weight in the synthesis.
Volume and speed data for nearly 500 U.S. traffic calming applications are presented in Traf`ic Calming State-of-
the,Pracdce. Volume and speed data for applications outside the U.S. are presented in County Surveyors Society,
Traffic Calming in Practice, Landor Publishing, London, 1994; C. Hass-Klau at al., Civilised Streets —A Guide to
Traffic Calming, Environment & Transport Planning, Brighton, Eagland,1992; and L. Heastedt et al., An bmpro ved
Traffic Environment --A Catalogue of Edeas, Danish Road Directorate, Copenhagen, Denmark 1993.
Fehr & Peers Associates 11
i
F
11
City ofldhaca Citywide Traf% Calming Program
April 14, 2000
There are no minimum traffic volumes or speeds for any of these measures. Rather, the priority
rating system described above gives weight to traffic volumes and speeds, along with other
factors, in deciding which areas will receive traffic calming first.
TABLE 4
APPLICATION Gum=as
Traffic
Street Classification
Minor Urban
Local
Calming
Other
Measure
Arterials Collectors
Streets
Restrictions
v
-
Only as a last
Full Closures
No No resort after other
measures fail
Half Closures
500-5,000 vpd
Diagonal Diverters
No No ? 25% non -local
Median Barriers
.mac
Forced Turn islands
'.'
-r.. �:;:�,ti„'r-
��i��ya���' S
iX �v �....ar , •� _ �a � i� r Ski `, a
Y�� _. .�.tri� � .'.�..'
Daily volume < 5,000 vpd
Speed Humps No Posted speed <_ 30 mph Grade t 8%
Not on primary emergency routes or
bus routes
Speed Tables
Daily volume < 10,000 vpd
Raised Crosswalks
Posted speed <35 mph . - -
Grade <— 8%
Raised Intersectic ms
Not on primary emergency response routes
. ..r 4F Klii._
.v an
Mimi Traffic Circles
NO
Entering daily volume <_ 5,000 vpd
Entering
cha� 10%
speed ¢ 35 mpti
Roundabouts
Entering daily volume:5 20,000 vpd
No
Grade � 5%
(one circulating lane)
Posted speed <_ 45 mph
—
Daily volume:5 20,000 vpd
Lateral Shifts
Posted speed:S 45 mph
Two -Lane Chicanes
NO
Entaft daily volume:5 5,000 vpd
o
Grade 5+ S/o
Realigned Intersections
Posted speed:5 35 mph
Ono -Lane Chicanes
Daily volume 2,000 vpd
(2 -way operation)
NO
_5
Posted speed < 25 mph
..ypi` 1 %.v'y "C..p pL,[{.Y
•S' i+'.. MRiaey�Jn� "_'.'.C..i}Y4 - �n''ti'-'�` iC� $£. �• N� �Y'Y=. 4_ �.
ptit:r
'4eim��y!sx
i�
Neckdowns
Daily volume -<20,000 vpd
Center Island Narrowings
Posted speed < 45 mph
Two -Lane Chokers
One -Lase Chokers
Daily volume:5 2,000 vpd
operation)N4
Poosted speed < 25 mph
�(2-way
''froxnbfmted�4Sessr�es' r
:�a3fi17�e44 W i'LilliWi 574 �7aaviaN• � � � Fr
Fehr & Peers Associates 12
City of Ithaca Citywide Traft Calming Program
April 14, 2000
V. ENGINEERING & AESTHETICS
jDuring Workshop #2, the TAC was asked to provide input on proposed engineering and
aesthetic considerations, including the geometrics and appearance oftraffic calming measures as
well as signage and marking that would accompany the measures. The session resulted in the
following general guidance:
• For speed humps, a sinusoidal profile is preferred to accommodate non motorized
vehicles and snow plows.
• All traffic calming measures should conform to Chapter 25 of the NYSDOT Highway
Design Manual (HDM). The city should adopt standard designs for each traffic calming
measure to maintain uniformity.
' • Treatment at schools should be e.. raised intersections t be used
uniform, g , night
V consistently around schools.
t
• Use of raised crosswalks/raised intersections needs further examination to consider the
potentially negative aspects, e.g. small childrenwandering into the street because no curb
is there to alert them.
• Solutions developed for one street type/lasid use context should be applied to similar
contexts. Again, this is a reflection of the TAC's desire for uniformity.
• Signage should:
o Be consistent with EDM and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD);
o Make use of symbol signs rather than word signs to identify types of traffic
cahning measures;
o Include gateway/entry signs to alert drivers when entering a traffic calmed area;
and
o Include supplemental warning signs at cross streets, e.g., where internal
collectors connect with a traffic calmed street.
• Marking patterns for vertical measures (e.g., speed humps and raised crosswalks) should
be of the shark's tooth variety.
Fehr & Peers Associates
13
Appendix A
Process Survey and Results
Citizen Reguest/Application
WHO:
Requests for traffic calming can be made by anyone. 12 3 4 5 6r (4.25)
Requests for traffic calming can be made only by people on the affected street (3.25)
Requests for traffic calming can be made only through a group, such as a neighborhood association, a
traffic committee, or residents gathered for the purpose of requesting traffic calming. (3.67)
Requests for traffic calming can be made only through an elected official; such as a Common Council
member. (1.67)
City staff can inflate traffic calming projects. (6.17)
HOW:
Requests for traffic calming can be made with a phone call to a city agency. (3.36)
Requests for traffic calming must be made in writing. (5.33)
Requests must be made by filling out application form. (3.75)
Applications must be accompanied by petitions showing strong public support. (4.6)
ON
Neighborhood Traffic Committee
To participate in the traffic calming program, residents mustform a neighborhood traffic committee. (4.08)
To participate in the traffic calming program, residents must be appointed by elected representatives to a
it, neighborhood traffic committee. (2.75)
Membership of the neighborhood traffic committee should include people outside the affected area, such
it! as representatives from adjacent neighborhoods. (5.0)
I
v
�f
Plan Development
City staff develops a traffic calming plan for subsequent presentation to the public. (3.5)
City staff develops traffic calming options for subsequent review and selection by a neighborhood traffic
committee. (4.82)
City staff and the neighborhood traffic committee develop a traffic calming plan together through a
charrette process. (6.0)
City staff and the public at large develop a traffic calming pian together through a chaffette process. (3.58)
Dissemination of Plan
' Traffic calming plan is publicized through a neighborhood newsletter. (5.73)
Traffic calming plan is publicized through a public workshop. (5,17)
Traffic calming plan is publicized through a public hearing. (5.0)
1 Public Consensus
HOW.
Consensus for traffic calming is demonstrated through a mail -in survey/ballot (4.0)
Consensus Is demonstrated through public petitions with signatures. (3.42)
Consensus for traffic calming is demonstrated by approval of 51 % of respondents. (3.0)
Consensus for traffic calming is demonstrated by approval of 67% of respondents. (4.25)
Consensus for traffic calming is demonstrated by approval of 75% of respondents. (5.0)
Consensus for traffic calming is demonstrated by approval of 51 % of all households, not just households
-responding to survey or ballot. (4.58)
IWHERE:
Those Noting" on traffic calming must be from:
r treated street(s) only. (2.0)
L
treated street(s) and streets with no alternative ingress/egress. (4.0)
treated street(s) and larger impact area (I.s.: whole neighborhood).(5.7)
WHO:
Those eligible to vote on traffic calming are:
property owners only. (2.33)
all residents. (5.54)
all residents and business owners. (5.83)
r
Role of FlEtBescue, Police, and School Officials
Fire, police, and school officials are notified at the time of construction of traffic calming measures. (2.87)
i t=ire, police, and school olffdals are notified of proposed traffic plans and allowed to express support or
opposition before the Common Council or Board of Public Works. (5.33)
Fire, police, and school officials are involved in plan development from the outset (6.83)
Fire, police, and school officials should have the power to veto traffic calming measures that may interfere
with their operations. (2.92)
I.
Lf,
Ll
Aog!rQval and Anneals
The Common Council must approve individual traffic calming projects, and may consider appeals to re -
prioritize projects. (2.92)
The Board of -Public Works must approve Individual traffic calming projects, and may consider appeals to
re -prioritize projects. (8.08)
Rsmovai
Neighborhoods can have traffic calming measures removed by following the exact same process as for
Installation. (4.92)
Neighborhoods must meeta" higher standard of public approval to have traffic diming measures removed
than installed in the first place. (3.55)
Neighborhoods must pay for removal of traffic calming measures. (1.55)
3
Testing
installed
Testing Is required before measures are permanently. (5.75)
Testing will last: 3-6 months (5.5)
6-9
months (4.28)
Other. (4.0)
Funding
Traffic calming is funded on a first-come, fht served basis. (1.73)
Traffic calming is funded on the basis of a priority rating, based on traffic speeds, volumes, and other
traffic problems. (6.58)
Traffic is funded by
calm! ng pibjects only government agencies (cities, state, DOT). (3.42)
Traffic calming is funded by governments geographically. with a set amount of money allocated per area.
Neighborhoods are allowed to pay for some or all traffic calming measures themselves. (5.18)
Neighborhoods can move up the priority list by helping pay for traffic cairning. (3.27)
I.
Lf,
Ll
Aog!rQval and Anneals
The Common Council must approve individual traffic calming projects, and may consider appeals to re -
prioritize projects. (2.92)
The Board of -Public Works must approve Individual traffic calming projects, and may consider appeals to
re -prioritize projects. (8.08)
Rsmovai
Neighborhoods can have traffic calming measures removed by following the exact same process as for
Installation. (4.92)
Neighborhoods must meeta" higher standard of public approval to have traffic diming measures removed
than installed in the first place. (3.55)
Neighborhoods must pay for removal of traffic calming measures. (1.55)
3
FW: Pilot Food scraps drop spot -Cass Park https://mail.cityofithaea.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgA...
FW: Pilot Food scraps drop spot -Cass Park
Michael Thorne
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 10:14 AM
To: Kathy Servoss
Cc: beckstrom@tompkins-co.org
Attachments:Cass Park Drop Spot Draft —I.pdf (1 MB)
Hi Kathy,
Please include the attached proposal and email chain below to the BPW agenda for October 3rd.
Thanks
Michael Thorne, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-274-6527
From: Barb Eckstrom [beckstrom@tompkins-co.org]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:41 PM
To: Michael Thorne
Cc: Leo Riley; Jim Goodreau; Ray Benjamin; Seth Dennis
Subject: Pilot Food scraps drop spot -Cass Park
Mike:
I've attached a proposed program plan for your consideration to establish a mobile residential food
scrap drop off location to replace the curbside collection. This mobile unit (see attached pictures) will
be at the location starting in January, 2017 on Thursdays from 3-6pm. One of our Assistant Recycling
Specialists will supervise the drop off as an attendant to prevent contamination, provide education and
make sure the area is left clean and free of debris.
We are receiving questions about the proposed drop spot location from City residents participating in
the curbside program. I have instructed my staff to indicate that we have not formalized the location
until we receive City approval of the plan. I understand that you intend to review this with the City
Attorney and the Board of Public Works. Please let Leo and I know if you want our participation during
the review process.
I hope that we can share information with residents by the end of October or early November. I'll be
here through Wednesday and while I'm on vacation (9/29-10/20) Leo is your contact person here.
Thanks for meeting with us in the past about this proposal and we look forward to working with you
and your staff.
Best,
1 of 2 9/28/2016 10:27 AM
FW: Pilot Food scraps drop spot -Cass Park https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgA...
Barb Eckstrom
From: Leo Riley
Sent: Friday, September 23, 201610:26 AM
To: Jim Goodreau
Cc: Barb Eckstrom; Seth Dennis
Subject: Food scraps drop spot -Cass Park
Hi Jim, I have attached a revised plan for a Food scraps drop spot at Cass park. We believe the Ice rink
parking lot location will work well. I believe we have addressed your concerns and very much
appreciate your comments and recommendations during this process. I'll be happy to answer any
questions or concerns as we begin to implement this project.
Leo D. Riley
Tompkins County Solid Waste
Assistant Solid Waste Manager
122 Commercial Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607)273-6632
2 of 2 9/28/2016 10:27 AM
Food Scrap Recycling Drop Spot for Cass Park
Site Proposal
Summary
September 20, 2016
The Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Division (TCSW) seeks to site a food scrap recycling drop spot in Cass
Park in the City of Ithaca, to expand food scrap recycling options for residents on West Hill. This staffed location would
be open once a week to provide clean, convenient, and comfortable material handling options for Tompkins County
residents. Collected material will be transported to Cayuga Compost for processing.
Time Frame & Staffing
The new mobile drop spot would operate on a weekly basis, beginning January 5, 2017. Collection at this location will
occur on Thursdays from 3pm to 6pm, in the parking lot of the Cass Park Ice Rink. A TCSW staff member will act as the
attendant for this site. This project will be a one-year pilot, to be evaluated for continuation by September 2017.
Data Collection
To monitor program success, staff will count how many users drop off materials during operating hours. Cayuga
Compost will provide data on the weight of food scraps recycled per collection. The Division will also collect and track
information from users who receive free caddies and transportation containers.
Outreach
TCSW will provide outreach materials to be used at the site, and will promote the program through social media and
communication efforts to target participants. Kick-off promotion will be provided by the County and will occur in
advance of the first collection day. This will include reaching out through electronic communications, posted fliers, and
potential mailings. Written outreach could also be shared through applicable listservs and websites.
Equipment
The following equipment will be supplied by TCSW for use at the drop spot. These materials will be stored in the
enclosed mobile unit between events. This mobile unit would be provided by TCSW, and sited Thursday before the
event, and removed immediately after operating hours.
• Signs
o Sandwich board(s) -a 47" x 27" frame with a coroplast insert that is 36" x 24"
• Traffic cones or delineators
• Educational handouts
• Supply of food scraps collection caddies and transportation containers
• Compostable bin liners
• Cayuga Compost totes for collection
• Hand sanitizer
• Canopy, table, and chair(s)
September 20, 2016
Site Layout
The collection location will be sited at a location mutually agreed upon by stakeholders. Traffic flow, storage, and access
will be key considerations of site layout and will be taken into account during set-up.
The current location is proposed at the Cass Park Ice Rink parking lot, 701 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca, NY 14850.
= Mobile Unit
[�
=Sign
*, ,