Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-DAC-2017-02-01Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes February 1, 2017 Present: Chair Roberts Vice Chair Scriber DAC Members: Lisa Monroe Andrew Rappaport David McElrath CC Liaison Brock Others Present: Information Management Specialist – Myers Director of Engineering - Logue Transportation Engineer – Hathaway Excused: DAC Members: Anderson, Sember-Chase, Approval of Minutes: Approval of the December 7, 2016 Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes - Resolution By DAC Monroe: Seconded by DAC McElrath RESOLVED, That the minutes of the December 7, 2016 Disability Advisory Council meeting be approved as published. Carried 4-0 (DAC Member Rappaport absent during vote) Discussion Items: Discussion with Director of Engineering Logue regarding 2017 Work Projects, 2017 Sidewalk Improvement District Work Plan, the Proposal to Increase Street Permit Fees, and the Proposed Complete Streets Policy for the City of Ithaca: Director of Engineering Logue and Transportation Engineer Hathaway provided the following highlights on the work programs and proposed policies noted above. (All of these documents will be attached at the end of the minutes) Director of Engineering Logue noted that work plans are subject to change, but this information will at least provide an idea of what work the City would like to complete during 2017 and into 2018. Hector Street will be widened so that a sidewalk can be constructed that will connect to Linderman Creek apartments. 2017 will be the first year of a four year program to close all the open drainage ditches. One block on West Green Street will be closed while an 1841 water main is taken out of service and a new water main installed. There are plans to install 12-14 countdown timers at different intersections around the City. Stewart Avenue Bridge over Cascadilla Creek will be repainted; due to its height the City of Ithaca is contracting out the work. Stone Quarry Road intersection at Spencer Road will be closed at times for construction. Spencer Road will dead-end at Stone Quarry Road. All motorists wishing to use Stone Quarry Road will now need to do so through the round-about. A sidewalk will be constructed to connect the apartments on Spencer Road to Meadow Street and Old Elmira Road. Forest Home Drive is being repaired with financial assistance from Cornell University. Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes February 1, 2017 2 Crews will be working to complete the sidewalk system on the 800 block of Hudson Street near the Coddington Road intersection and the path up to Ithaca College. Hudson Street will also be resurfaced. Design Projects: Brindley Street Bridge design will be completed in 2017, with construction scheduled for 2018 The West State/Martin Luther King Jr. Street Enhancement project design will be completed this year, with construction scheduled for 2018/ Reconstruction of University Avenue redesign from Lake Street will be completed in 2017, with construction scheduled for 2018. There is no funding for the redesign of Stewart Avenue will not be done as the City has no funding for the project at this time. Traffic signal redesign will be completed for the intersection of Commercial Avenue and Elmira Road during 2017. The traffic signal at the five corners intersection at Dryden Road, Ithaca Road, Maple Avenue, Cornell Street, and Oak Avenue will either be rebuilt or become a traffic circle. Sidewalk Program: DAC Chair Roberts voiced his pleasure about the reconstructed sidewalk on South Plain Street, which he travels on each day, it’s almost completed and is such a big improvement over the previous very poor condition of sidewalk for many years. He noted that there is a sidewalk in need of repair on North Plain Street by the Immaculate Conception School that has been damaged due to tree heaves. He wondered if it was on the repair list for sidewalk work for 2017. DAC Member Rappaport arrived at the meeting at 12:30 p.m. Director of Engineering Logue responded that it wasn’t; but encouraged him to contact Sidewalk Program Manager Licitra to let him know so that he can take a look at it. It is possible that there might be some additional funding to do small sidewalk projects this year; otherwise it can be added to next year’s sidewalk work plan. He will pass this information on to him. DAC Member McElrath stated that, although not a sidewalk, there is a dip in the road on South Meadow Street near the skate park that wheelchairs get stuck in that should be inspected. Director of Engineering Logue recommended that a call be made to the Street Supervisor, Cliff Murphy, at Streets and Facilities to request that he take a look at the road. DAC Member McElrath responded that he could take a picture of it to send to Director of Engineering Logue so it can be forwarded on to Mr. Murphy. Director of Engineering Logue recommended that anyone who has a concern about the condition of any sidewalk(s) to provide that information to Sidewalk Program Manager Licitra. DAC Chair Roberts stated that, overall, sidewalks are looking fabulous all around the City; they have been in serious need of repair for a very long time. It’s great to know that the sidewalks around the City are being inspected and repaired regularly to keep them safe for everyone. Kudos were given to Transportation Engineer Hathaway, who had been brought in as the City’s first ever Sidewalk Program Manager a few years ago, and all the work and effort he put into getting the program set up as well as the fact that it has become such a successful program for the City of Ithaca. After many years of sidewalks being neglected and in poor disrepair, it is really great to see that a program has been established that is regularly making progress in repairing, replacing, and/or constructing sidewalks all over the City. Everyone has been really Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes February 1, 2017 3 pleased with the program and its management and goals for future work to ensure that everywhere possible in the City, sidewalks are installed and maintained in a safe condition for everyone. DAC Member Rappaport asked who would be going through to make sure all the curb cuts comply with New York State Department of Transportation Guidelines; which are very hard to achieve from his personal experience. Transportation Engineer Hathaway responded that a couple of the new curb cuts had actually had to be ripped out because they weren’t built well enough. The guidelines require retrofitting wherever you they are located, that can be difficult to do in certain areas. He confirmed that the curb cuts are inspected prior to completion to ensure they meet the required guidelines. Director of Engineering Logue stated that curb cuts are one of the challenges for the Sidewalk Program. He noted that the funds in the sidewalk program are not to be used to rebuild curb cuts, although they have been lately. If crosswalks and curb cuts are not in good shape then that’s another program that needs to be set up by the City. Transportation Engineer Hathaway reported that in the future more curb ramps will be re-built in conjunction with road work projects rather than sidewalk projects. Director of Engineering Logue further noted that when the City uses State funding for routine paving that it is required to include curb ramps and cross-walks in the project or update the current curb ramps and cross-walks with the each project. Part of the problem in complying with these regulations is funding and part of it is that there should be four separate programs with their own funding source to take care of these issues. Such as a program for curb cuts/ramps, one for road projects, and one for the traffic signal program. DAC Chair Roberts noted that he will be interested to see if the proposed “Complete Streets” policy addresses the point that curb cuts look nice; however, the connection between curb and street can be either missing or in need of repair. He cited the crossing from West State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street crossing onto the Commons and as well as at the Aurora Street end of the Commons are in need of repair or replacement. Prior to the reconstruction of the Commons they were fine. Someone who uses a manual chair would not be able to use it now, when previously it was accessible, so now it affects their whole path of travel, which can result in much longer routes to get to the same destinations. Director of Engineering Logue responded that at those two cross walks, the construction technique ended up failing, it was not a design flaw. DAC Chair stated that, personally, it would have been better if neither of the cross walks had been touched because in reality it means that people have difficulty using curb ramps even when the City is required to make them easier to access. A solution has to be determined to correct the problem. He further explained that the contractors for the Commons were supposed to come back and refill and pave those intersections, but the City ran out of funding, so now the City will have to come back to do that work. Complete Streets Policy: Chair Roberts stated that he was not aware that the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC) was even working on such a policy, and that such a policy should have included input from the Disability Advisory Council. Director of Engineering Logue explained BPAC brought the proposed policy to the City in December, and it was discussed at the January 23, 2017 Board of Public Works meeting. The policy basically says that each and every street related project, whether it's routine maintenance, new, enhancement of any phase of a project, design, or funding, etc. should be run through a filter to see where improvements can be made or added to the project to better accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and anyone with mobility needs. If any project did not or could not include those accommodations then they would need Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes February 1, 2017 4 to go through a committee to determine what the scope of work would be for the project. This committee would be the ultimate decision making group, and when any decision is made to not include one or more of those accommodations, they have to approve an exception to the policy for that project. CC Liaison Brock questioned why the DAC was not included in discussions about such a policy so their input could be incorporated before it was presented to the City. Director of Engineering Logue agreed that the DAC should have been included. He noted that the there was a little information about making ADA improvements in the City with these types of projects, but not much else. The policy also does not address curb cuts/ramps or accommodations related to ADA. The policy is just about how to make improvements for biking, walking, and mass transit. The policy also talks about things the City might consider doing which require staff to do a lot of data collection - some of which the City has and some of it would have to be collected. He further reported that the Board of Public Works (BPW) likes that efforts are be made to accommodations these needs. They are not so interested in delegating that authority to a committee or away from the BPW. The Board feels that the Department of Public Works (DPW) is doing a fairly good job at meeting those accommodation needs. There is the other big question mark, when we think about making enhancements for bicyclists and pedestrians, considering the City is so far behind in the maintenance of its current infrastructure, does it want or should it add all these amenities and then not have the funds to maintain them in the future. There is also the concern about the City spending its time and money for these amenities, which then means it will only complete a small number of road projects a year compared to what is being done now. The BPW agreed that a policy would be good; it also agreed that the City is already making efforts to see where and what accommodations could be made with road projects already. The plans for road work are not usually finalized or done with public input; nor does it involve a lot of stakeholders, and consists mainly of internal discussions with staff. The Board thought perhaps some way to obtain input from the public might be valuable as well. In addition, the BPW would like to come up with its own complete streets policy; although a more simplified process than the one proposed by BPAC. Every year, in December, DPW publishes its draft work road work plan for the following year and circulates it to stakeholders (i.e. BPAC, DAC, the Planning and Development Board, Tompkins County Office for the Aging, TCAT, etc.) for input. This would also be the time to seek public input; then there would be a month or so in which all input could be considered and, if appropriate, incorporated into the work plan for particular projects. That final work plan, incorporating budgets and financial constraints, would be presented to the Board of Public Works for approval. There is a role for the DAC to play in this process because more specifics should be included in the work plan/policy than just “ADA improvements will be part of the policy”. He thinks that it if will become the policy of BPW that stakeholders would be consulted as DPW Work Plans are established, then that would be good. The Board also wanted to know, in what sense would a complete streets policy not be part of the City’s vision going forward with its work plans. They wondered what BPAC thought is not being done currently by the City that should be in relation to the noted accommodations. A question also needs to be answered as to whether the City should create a maintenance program guide related to what enhancement could be made during planned projects; or should the City develop a strategic plan for the best way to use its funding around the City considering the accommodations that BPAC is referring to in its proposed policy. Should the City have a “Complete Streets” map that shows routes where bike lanes or other accommodations should be, and then when work is done on those streets then include a discussion about the inclusion of particular accommodations that could be done. The Board expressed some interest in that idea. He also noted that the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council has already published a map with this information, which could be shared with the Board of Public Works as this discussion continues. The Board requested that the map be provided to them for use during their discussions about a proposed policy. Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes February 1, 2017 5 CC Liaison Brock stated that if the City had the financial resources, ideally, it would make every effort to include the recommended accommodations wherever it could. Her interpretation of this request from BPAC about the adoption of a “Complete Streets Policy” is that the City of Ithaca has a very active group that has not had a liaison to the Board of Public Works for a long time. They would like one because there has been no communication between BPAC and the BPW in recent years; otherwise, perhaps a policy would not have had to be proposed. If there is an opportunity for the public to comment on DPW work plans, and special efforts are made to reach out to BPAC, DAC, and whomever else may be a stakeholder on this topic, she feels that would be a great plan. That effort by the City might bridge some of the frustration being experienced by the BPAC. She agrees with the BPW that changing or following BPAC’s guidelines as outlined in the proposed “Complete Streets Policy” adds a lot of work for city staff who are already busy enough. She also agreed that it would be a good idea to review the map from the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council as this discussion moves forward. She supports staff’s suggestion to provide all the stakeholders an opportunity to review the draft Work Plan early on and provide input on the proposed projects for the coming year is a better plan for everyone. DAC Members expressed their support for staff’s suggestion of giving all the stakeholders an opportunity to provide input on the annual work plan early on is the best way to proceed. CC Liaison Brock noted that there have been ongoing efforts to create a policy with regards to traffic calming funds approved by Common Council. She stated that many residents have been asking for traffic calming measures recently; when will the policy will be finalized so that it can be used as a guide for neighborhoods or committees to follow. Director of Engineering Logue responded that the draft policy should be done in February or March; staff are actively working on it trying to find a balance between project needs, requirements, and public input. It’s hard for the City to implement “trial” type measures and then come back later when a decision is made as to whether to make them permanent or not. There needs to be a balance within the policy that allows for the City to “get the most bang for its buck” with all the traffic calming projects that have been discussed. There has already been some discussion that when staff brings the policy to the Board of Public Works that there ought to be some sort of public participation as well. Work on the best way to do that so that as many people can participate is being done by staff as the draft policy nears completion. The timeline most likely will be that the policy will be finalized by the end of 2017, with construction of some of the projects to begin in 2018. Transportation Engineering Hathaway stated that staff has been discussing the draft policy with staff from the Ithaca Police Department. The goal is to find a balance between tools that are good for temporary conditions (i.e. feedback signs for motorists in school zones about reducing speed and when traffic is being diverted or detoured during construction projects) and permanent type measures. He further noted that in most cases the feedback signs go up because motorists are speeding; however, after a while of the signs being up, people begin to ignore them. A strategic plan for the type of calming methods to be used, and length of their use in particular areas needs to be established so that that the appropriate equipment can be used in order to make the biggest changes in everyone’s behavior related to traffic calming and reducing speeds. Chair Roberts responded that the DAC has always supported traffic calming and would be very interested in reviewing the draft policy when it is ready to be presented to the Board of Public Works. That way, the DAC will have an opportunity to discuss it and provide feedback to staff in a timely manner. Director of Engineering Logue stated that staff would be happy to bring the draft traffic calming policy back to the DAC to present and discuss it with them. Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes February 1, 2017 6 DAC Member Rappaport brought up another topic for discussion related to upcoming construction at 123 and 126 College Avenue. He thinks that it’s probably an issue that will be part of a bigger question as construction seasons begins, and he has made the Planning and Development Board aware of it already. The question is, will both projects be under construction simultaneously? If they are, he has real concerns about public accommodations during construction. The construction work will affect vehicular traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and wheelchair users having an accessible route in the area. He urged staff to make sure that staff from the City Engineering Department and the Code Enforcement Office are aware of this and that they work with the developer/contractor to make sure the worksite is safe, compliant, and has accommodations for public access at all times. Director of Engineer Logue responded that right now, construction in Collegetown is occurring in many different locations. As the projects come through site plan review he doesn’t believe the requirement for public access accommodations is part of the preliminary design phase discussion and approval process. He thanked DAC Member Rappaport for pointing this important concern out to the Planning and Development Board and for getting it on staff’s radar early. He noted that 123 and 126 College Avenue are also located in the same work zone as 201 College Avenue and Bool Street projects. Staff have already told the developers/contractors for 123 and 126 College Avenue they won’t be given permission from the City to have parking on the street; they will have to figure out how to accommodate deliveries and equipment on site or change the date for construction of the project so that it doesn't coincide with another project at the same location. DAC Member Rappaport further noted that the developers for the “City Center” project, at the last Planning and Development Board meeting snuck in cafe tables that would project out into pedestrian walkway. He would like to know whether, if they are given permission, it will provide full compliant walking spaces, and the possible construction of cross walks in the wrong place. Director of Engineering Logue responded that once site plan approval is given, staff of the Engineering Office become involved with the project because the Engineering Office has the final say as to whether permission will be granted related to the outdoor dining. The City has stated that it wants 8’ wide sidewalks where possible; and in most cases the reality is a sidewalk which is 5’ and that is the minimum width allowed. So, if there is not adequate sidewalk access, the outdoor dining permit will not be approved. DAC Member Rappaport encouraged staff to make every effort to have all sidewalk and accessibility issues taken into consideration as building and street permits are issued by the City of Ithaca. Director of Engineering Logue explained that staff are making requirements for the maintenance of public accommodations on both the sidewalk and street are ensured throughout the construction of projects around the City. These requirements are being included in the building and street permits, and staff are working more with the Building Department to leverage the strength of the building permit to ensure compliance. He stated that at the last Board of Public Works meeting, staff presented a proposal to update/increase the fees for street permits. The proposal would result in increased public access accommodations being required and maintained, and provide for an increase revenue to the City. The goal of the increase in the fee for a street permit is to provide a financial incentive to maintain and/or keep sidewalks/streets open during construction and/or provide alternate accommodations for access for the duration of the project. DAC Members expressed their thanks and appreciation to Director of Engineering Logue and Transportation Engineer Hathaway for the information presented today and the time they spent discussing and answering questions with them. Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes February 1, 2017 7 Next Agenda: Chair Roberts stated that he was hoping to have DAC Member Lisa Monroe and Lisa Holmes (both from Tompkins County Office for the Aging) come and talk with the DAC about “Age Friendly Communities”. This is a national initiative sponsored by the World Health Organization which is intended to help municipalities prepare for rapid population aging. However, recently he was tagged, along with Mayor Myrick and Alderperson Murtagh, in a post by Daniel Keough, a member of the City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council, about construction taking place in front of New Roots Charter School on the 100 block of North Cayuga Street that appeared to block pretty significantly the sidewalk. This is a topic that he would like the DAC to discuss at their next meeting. DAC Chair Roberts explained that he called, Transportation Aide Kent Johnson, from the City’s Engineering Office, about the construction at New Roots Charter School. Mr. Johnson went over to look at the project, and when he called back, he explained that given everything they’re trying to do with the project, he felt that they were doing what was needed in order to maintain an accessible sidewalk; he did not feel it was an egregious violation. That led to a discussion about the need for the DAC to discuss what the City should do when sidewalks are blocked by construction projects. A similar issue was raised by DAC Member Rappaport about the pocket park in Collegetown this past summer. As a result, he invited Mr. Johnson to come to the next DAC meeting to discuss the issue. In preparation for that meeting, he would like DAC members to think about what important needs for public accommodation should be shared with developers/contractors who will be doing work in the public right-of-way to maintain access during construction projects. He would then propose to have the presentation from Tompkins County Office for the Aging on “Age Friendly Communities” at the DAC’s April meeting. Updates: Chair Roberts reported that City Clerk Holcomb put the DAC’s “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)” on the City website. He asked DAC members to review them and let him know their thoughts. He noted that there can be some flexibility in their placement on the website as well. He further reported that he heard back from Chief of Staff Cogan about the City’s self-assessment. In terms of updating the assessment, it is turning out to be a larger project than first expected, so he will be putting a budget together for next year that would allow the City to update it appropriately. Commons Playground – Vice Chair Scriber reported that information from the therapists at the Racker Center had been provided to Jen Kusznir in the City’s Planning Department. Since that time, she has not heard back from anyone. DAC Chair Roberts stated that he would follow up with Ms. Kusznir to check on the status of the proposed redesign and report back at the next DAC meeting. DAC Member Rappaport asked about the project to locate new accessible parking spaces around the City. Chair Roberts explained that the committee had not met yet to determine where those spaces should be. Once they do, he will invite Director of Parking Nagy to a DAC meeting to provide an update. Adjournment: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. ________________________________ __________________________ Sarah L. Myers, Larry Roberts, Information Management Specialist Chair 2017 OPW DRAFIWorlplan Wai€. Slr€.t R.conslrudioh 2@ blk Dry&n i@d;p.v;*rb**..ld tid9*.lkI9p., .200 (xlbll. H@k Place ape, reprirdBm.g. lm /(Xl bb(t Ch. ndEp.w 10O 6q) bldk Willowav.n@ rep.v. (oNdSiF.! M{.hell loSt.t. r.prv. . 1@ 2(r0l/. Liftoln era!. 1@s. 2@ N Alb.ny eblild 1m- 3m bk. Bmkfi.lddei.y .2@bllrallvc*a.&y .tqfy nlpina..aren Il0 Hector Strc€t dEin.g. &ndEa. n.ph.e hn.Ed h..reG .r 5&r . .!nsr.[f.IproFcrionarctryHall,Glac,lYB,ssccands&F IYB HVAC upgrad.t .CCX.rumA Jn .nd F@lRet tr . sscc Exleh.l Buildin, R.pai6 S&F P.imeler F.ncinA 5&F Oa.h..d O@R .P.ni.lso by WTP conlr.ctor. R.m.ind.r ol rc.d by S& t !&F lftrudin, int€6e.tion! at corl.eeloryd.n and 0ry.rervun<r.n s&F To b€ c@din:r.d wth NYSEGi/o.k 9&F-To b€ c@rdin.t.d e h sid.w.lk worl s&F To be c@dii.r.d with NYSEG wo/t 5&F co!!l.ctoL co!!ac-tg! s&!Jil, il\m,r s&F-+ill inrorl s&F tlanar Hopp.rand mov€ uphil Y.arlol4yearpror€d Appror maley 6@ lf proposed lor conntu€r'on neriSn*o/l lor r€taD'^8w.lk carbon Mo.orid. moniron[ !Y!t€m Arberrorandle.dw.terixtureEparB .sn.eded 5 cor..G wai€.& s.w.r o€ii3n univ€6 tyav.nu€ w3t.r & s€wdoes{n coddrn8ton Road water Tant Dom. R€pl.cem.nt lmpr@. Trumansbur3 conn.dion .Jam€s Gibbs s.nn.ry Fore M6r^ compr.re v'ne^vonhtar.r l@p f,.nr€riPhc.s. Gryr.plac€mem Pl.c. fll ov.r raw w.t€r lie fo f@t dam to wTP comprere warer Irearme^r Plani CP.rpr@.d cP!?p@gd Op.ntin8 funds c@rdinare w'rh En8'^eering oad deeiSn Cmdinat€ r h €ngm€.ri^g oad &ri8. lnalnedna/(.rh.l trol..L .C..rlrxdd Prol.ctt: . auelnS Strnon ar si€eis .nd Faciiti.. Conn.uct€n L.k. stc€r B',d8e n.hih'l'lal'on . sn Mib creel wall aeplac.mnt p€d€sr.ia n Sr8na I Countdow n Timc r R. pl..€ 6€ nts sp€nc.r and slone Quarry r@d .^d Sid.walt o€:'8n Srcw.n ArenFJl 'de. pannnS .nd Aburm.ar i.p. Cacdilla Cr.€kw.v Tr.nsportalion Allem.lNes Prol.ct wa(.n Plac. & Tay'or PlJce crlven FeDl.(€menr . s.id8. Mainl.6nc. program rorcn Home orye a^8tne€il3 St€lran Prlk Mnm.nac. RelRepl.c.meni lni€6..tontnhanc.m€nB a..br.dtfionIJnd, € sp.ncer strer R.tanrn! wall Oeig^ On hold u il d.cition mad. ro r.l@r. S&F building D6im8. .dr..tioN (i[ ro mme wqt ro E conpld.dlE, !6r€r Dead.nd optDn ro p.ogr.s to2017 conrrnEtDn consrrucrion ih 2017 Coturucrion 'n 2017 ,ContEcred wolt to be b.s.d on nsp€dan ru.ohm.ndarions MOU Bith CU pendin& ta.8eri6g 2017consrru.rion CP approved m 2017 budFr Planni^B*olk for2017 L,ncoln st.eel Mil& Pave .a8rcrm€nts with .bunina p.op.ny n.u, 2017 conrt^Er'on fom W'llowAve ro C.vuB.srrc.r foF G,een Skeel ro Brfl.lo Slrel DesiS^ .nd cotur*r'on in 2017 Dpw co^stnd'on c@rdinar.d wth Sid.walk Pog..n Albany Steer R€con(iucron GIAC wadin3 Pe Erpanno. 3m bL*k Hudson sl.ei sd€w.lk & codd'n8ron Rd o.ri6 rrelcisl arind l.y str€. r B.id3. Rccon st.ucton w MLx n. sr.et lranrpodation Enha...m.ni Univ€6iryavenrc A.build st.wa n Av.n ue R.construcr ion D ra winae Rerai^in31\/all rnveniory andlnrp.diont almiE Rcd P.v.n.ni R.h.bilir.non Easi slar€ slr.er f, .rainin! w.ll R€hab orieplac! Five core6 rnte6..rion Rftonlrtudon .Finrd.tAn in 201r, Construction in 2018 tinald.s8n 'n 2017, Co.n.ucti{rn 'n 2018 Finald*ign in 2017, const.uctio. i.2014 Prelimrn.ry d.s'gn conplet. Ecomh.ndalioB lor rep:i6to.om€ oesi8^ 'n 2017, Connru.ton n2013 DesEn 'n 2017.nd 2013, Consttu.tion 'n 2019 Grern Ste.r G.EB. Reh:hilit.lion or Aeconst.uction Dryden nlad 6ala8e Stew.n Pa.k Play3DUnd R.pl.c.m.m H.ctor stc€r C6ipLte Sr...tt Prolecr .CPapprovedi^ 2017 bud3.r kop'n8,d b.E'nn'.8 tr..dr.tF$n.nt &.onrd.6l'on or.r'lnyon .Friends otsl.waa P:rl b.s.d d.nslS1M!t xYs lundhs GEnt application rubm,n.d P.rrl,Lrcomnon3 Pay M.chine lnstallarion 2l Add ional pay machnes to b€rnstal.d Commts!ion comnone wner L.tur. T6rtu Ca16n8 P.oa6m .d..ft p.oc6m b.iry pPp:rcd for aP1ll cocid.Erion .ioint Pl.nning Effon w[h oPW, Pl.nnin8 Oe!'t, and tyA Oneoinacharnwo.tsc@rdrn.l;n Privat€ D€veloprenr c@rdin;rion M 'Banon mode 'n3.onracior awad Private Development C@.dinataon Charnworks Coordrnalion NYSEG Flood control channel from NYSTG | 2Alt bt Po(qbl..onrlru.li.n rn 7017 for BPW consideration USGS to WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca seeks to design and maintain a public right of way that safely and adequately accommodates all users and all modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, roads and sidewalk space is a limited public good that must be shared by public transit service, pedestrians, taxicabs, bicycles, vehicles, sidewalk vending and cafes, bicycle racks, newsstands, bus stops and shelters, and planters, among other things; and WHEREAS, increasing public transit use, walking and bicycling offers the potential for a healthier citizenry, cleaner air, reduced traffic congestion, economic development, more livable neighborhoods, less reliance on fossil fuels and imported energy and more efficient use of road space and resources; and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, Plan Ithaca, states that All future projects will prioritize improvements as specified in Plan Ithaca, Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan: pedestrians first, bicycles second, public transit third, followed by passenger vehicles and freight; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Transportation is challenging mayors and local elected officials to take significant action to improve safety for people of all ages and abilities riding bikes and walking; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, SECTION 1: VISION, USERS, AND MODES A. The City of Ithaca shall develop a safe, reliable, efficient, integrated, and connected multimodal transportation system that best-​enables access, mobility, economic development, aesthetics, and health and wellbeing for people of all ages and abilities. B. This transportation system shall be designed and operated in ways that, to the greatest extent possible, ensure the safety, security, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit/paratransit users, assistive mobility device users, skateboarders, motorists, emergency responders, freight providers, and users of other common modes of transportation. C. When there is conflicting needs among users and modes, the following prioritization will apply: (1) above all, safety is paramount, followed by mobility; (2) among modes, pedestrians shall come first citywide, followed by the next most vulnerable types of users; and finally, (3) seek balance among all modes involved. It is recognized that all modes cannot receive the same type of accommodation and space on every street, but the overall goal is that everyone—young, old, and of varying ability—can safely and conveniently travel across the network. SECTION 2. INCLUSION AND EXCEPTIONS A. The City shall approach every transportation improvement and project phase as an opportunity to create safer, more accessible streets for all users. These phases include, but are not limited to: planning, programming, design, right-​of-​way acquisition, subdivision and land development, new construction, construction engineering, reconstruction, operation, repair, and maintenance. Other changes to transportation facilities on streets and rights-​of-​way, including capital improvements, re-​channelization projects and major maintenance, must also be included. B. Any exception to this policy, including for eligible private projects, must be reviewed and approved by a committee comprised of three representatives from the Board of Public Works, two representatives from the Planning Board and two representatives from the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council and be documented with supporting data that indicates the basis for the decision. Such documentation shall be publicly available online and at the City Clerk’s office. C. Exceptions may be considered for approval when the project involves: 1. An accommodation that is not necessary on corridors where specific user groups are prohibited; 2. Costs of accommodation that are excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use, when factoring in both current economic conditions and economic benefits of initial capital cost; 3. A documented absence of current and future need exists; 4. Transit accommodations that are not required where there is no existing or planned transit service; 5. Routine maintenance of the transportation network that does not change the roadway geometry or operations, such as mowing, sweeping, and spot repair, but not including milling and paving and lane restriping; or 6. A reasonable and equivalent project existing along the same corridor that is already programmed to provide facilities exempted from the project at hand. D. Accountability measures tied to performance measures shall be used when granting exemptions, and impacts shall be estimated as needed. SECTION 3. JURISDICTION AND NETWORK CONNECTIVITY A. The policy shall apply to all City-​owned transportation facilities in the public right-​of-way including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, alleys, bridges, and all other connecting pathways. Privately constructed and owned streets, sidewalks, alleys, and parking lots will be encouraged, where possible, to also adhere to this policy through funding requirements and development review. B. The City shall foster partnerships with NYSDOT, Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council, the Ithaca City School District, its municipal authorities, adjacent municipalities, private developers, public and private utilities, to develop facilities and accommodations that further the City's vision of a connected, integrated network and continue such infrastructure beyond the City's borders. C. Ithaca’s street network, while already a robust asset, will further benefit from the following connectivity improvements: • Identify opportunities to enhance the network through maintenance activities • Address deficiencies at railroad crossings • Fill gaps in trail and bike lane network • Identify and repair sidewalk segments that form functional gaps • Continue ADA improvements throughout the City • Consistent enforcement of sidewalk clearing in winter, identify possibilities for city staff snow clearing to be expanded beyond the Ithaca Commons along primary pedestrian routes serving major bus stops and other priority destinations SECTION 4. CONTEXT SENSITIVITY AND COMPLETE STREETS TASK FORCE A. Context sensitivity to the community’s overall surroundings, its current and planned buildings and land uses, and current and expected transportation needs of all people must be a factor in decision-​making. Context sensitive design allows roadway design decisions to be more flexible and sensitive to community values, and to better balance economic, social, and environmental objectives. B. Outreach and involvement of the community is essential to ensuring context sensitivity. As implementation begins, community engagement and education efforts shall accompany tactical pilot projects. Institutional stakeholders that develop their own master plans must be included, and the Ithaca City School District in particular must be coordinated with, which may be best done through the Safe Routes to School program. Other stakeholders shall be identified and engaged, as well, with a special effort made to incorporate minority populations. C. To facilitate this engagement activity, a Complete Streets Task Force shall be established for the City of Ithaca. The Mayor shall appoint members of the task force, with each contributing towards the group’s need for diverse representation of the stakeholders recognized above. There will be no limits to the terms and seats of members of the task force at this time. D. The purpose of the Complete Street Task Force shall be to promote and advance both the broader vision and implementation details of this Complete Streets policy, while ensuring that the needs of all users and all modes are addressed throughout the planning and design process. SECTION 5: DESIGN GUIDANCE AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. The City shall use the best and latest design guidance, standards, and recommendations available to maximize design flexibility and innovation, and always be aware that design solutions should balance user and modal needs. This includes a shift toward designing at the human scale for the needs and comfort of all people and travelers, in considering issues such as street design and width, desired operating speed, hierarchy of streets, and connectivity. Design criteria shall not be purely prescriptive but shall be based on the thoughtful application of engineering, architectural, and urban design principles. These materials include, but are not limited to: • The United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations • The United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Design Control • The United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Traffic Monitoring Guide • The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide • The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide • The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets • The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s (AASHTO) Guide for Planning, Designing and Operating Pedestrian Facilities • ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach • NYC Street Design Manual (Most recent update: 2016) • Documents and plans created for and approved by the City of Ithaca, including but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan, the Bike Plan, the Bicycle Boulevards Plan B. The City shall measure the success of this policy using, but not being limited to, the following performance measures: • Number of crashes and severity of injuries • Injuries and fatalities for all modes • Number of curb ramps • Number of countdown signals • Miles of accessible routes • Sidewalk condition ratings • Travel time in key corridors (point A to point B) • Emergency vehicle response times • Number of audible traffic signals • Number of students who walk or bike to school • Access to industrial property (trucks) • Commercial vacancies in downtown business improvement district (Downtown BID) • Number of mode users: walk, bike, transit • Bike route connections to off-​road trails (equity across all districts of the City) • % of city that is within two miles of a ‘low stress’ bike route • Number of employees downtown • Number of bike share users • Progress towards STAR Community standards: (a) drive alone max 25% and bike/walk min of 5%; (b) 50% of household spending less than 15% of household income on transportation; and (c) bike/pedestrian fatalities – progress toward Vision Zero • Citizen and business surveys of satisfaction with streets and sidewalks • Number of bicycle friendly businesses recognized by the League of American Bicyclists • Number of bike parking spaces The​ ​Board of Public Works ​w​ill present an annual report to the Mayor and City Council showing progress made in implementing this policy. The annual report on the annual increase or decrease for each performance measure contained in this legislation compared to the previous year(s) shall be posted on-​line for each of the above measures. SECTION 6: ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS A. Green Streets: In addition to providing safe and accessible streets in the City of Ithaca, care shall be given to incorporate best management practices for addressing storm water runoff. Wherever possible, innovative and educational stormwater infrastructure shall be integrated into the construction/reconstruction or retrofit of a street. B. Attention to Aesthetic: Complete Streets are beautiful, interesting and comfortable places for people. The design of cities begins with the design of streets, as community places where people want to be. As part of Ithaca’s public realm, streets shall be held to a higher standard for urban design at a human scale. Multi-​modal accommodations and all City projects in the right-​of-​way shall be approached as opportunities to enhance the aesthetic qualities of Ithaca and its public realm through the thoughtful creation of place. Wherever feasible, streetscapes shall protect and include street trees and native plants, and incorporate landscape architecture, public art, pedestrian amenities and wayfinding signage, sidewalk cafes and street-​facing retail, and/or other elements that enhance the attractiveness of Ithaca and foster healthy economic development. SECTION 7. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND STARTING POINTS A. The City of Ithaca shall view Complete Streets as integral to everyday transportation decision-​making practices and processes. To this end, the policy shall be implemented through the following directives: • The Department of Public Works, the Department Community Development, and other relevant departments, agencies, or committees will incorporate Complete Streets principles into all existing plans, manuals, checklists, decision-​trees, rules, regulations, and programs as appropriate (including, but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Program, and other appropriate planning tools) • The Department of Public Works, the Department of Community Development, Department of Planning and other relevant departments, agencies, or committees will review current design standards, including subdivision regulations which apply to new roadway construction, to ensure that they reflect the best available design standards and guidelines, and effectively implement Complete Streets, where feasible • When available, the City shall encourage staff professional development and training on non-​motorized transportation issues through attending conferences, classes, seminars, and workshops • City staff shall identify all current and potential future sources of funding for street improvements and recommend improvements to the project selection criteria to support Complete Streets projects • The City shall promote inter-​departmental project coordination among City departments with an interest in the activities that occur within the public right-​of-​way in order to better use fiscal resources • The City shall develop and institute better ways to measure performance and collect data on how well the streets are serving all users • Every Complete Streets project shall include an educational component to ensure that all users of the transportation system understand and can safely utilize Complete Streets project elements • The City shall educate on and enforce proper road use behavior by all users and all modes, and adopt additional laws and regulations as necessary to ensure people are protected to the greatest extent possible. B. The implementation of Complete Streets shall begin through the consideration of the following potential starting points: • Participate in the U.S. DOT’s Mayors’ Challenge for Safer People, Safer Streets • Continue to pursue certification as a walk friendly and bike friendly city • Adopt stronger laws and regulations against street harassment • Begin work on a Vision Zero policy aimed at preventing all traffic injuries and fatalities • Further engage the Ithaca City School District through the Safe Routes to School program • Identify and build a pilot project • Identify priority streets for potential repurposing • Work on connections to and between trails, including improved signage • Seek funding support through all identifiable sources • Ensure that all bridge projects include sufficient pedestrian and bicycle accommodations • Distribute the policy to NYSDOT, local utilities, and other key agencies • Ensure consistency in street projects to create broader community benefits • Preserve and further maximize on-​street parking for both convenience and commerce • Build intersections right the first time, and correct existing issues wherever possible SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE This policy shall be effective immediately. CITY OF ITFIACA 108 East Green Street. Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 1485O-5690 To: From Date: Re: OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER lblephone: 607274-6530 Fa* 6i7n74-65a7 Board of Public Works Tim Logue, Director of Engineering January 79,2077 Street Permit fees There was a lot of private development in the City this past year, particularly in Collegetown. Many of the buildings were built on land that offered little in the way of staging or room to construct the building, and eventually the work spilled out into the street right of way, closing sidewalks, parking lanes, travel lanes and sometimes the whole street. In order to occupy the street right of way, people need to get a street permit from the Engineering office. There is a fee for this permit: $50 for any and all work except for sidewalk replacemen! which is $25. It doesn t matter what you are doing, whether you are doing a $5,000 roofing job or building a $30 million hotel, the fee is $50. Also, it doesn't matter what the impact on the traveling public would be, whether you are putting a scaffold over a sidewalk or closing a street or flagging traffic in one lane, the fee is $50. We found this past year that this low fee may have distorted the financial incentives for development projects. There was no financial incentive to reduce the impact on the public by occupying less of the street right of way or by accelerating the project schedule. For example, it is considerably less expensive to close a street and put a crane there, and all the construction materials, than it is to try to incorporate a crane into the building itself. Enclosed is a proposal to increase our street permit fees. We are proposing that the fee vary based on impact to the street right of way and by the duration of the permission. I look forward to a discussion with vou about this. 'i{n Equal Opportunity Employer s'ith a commitment to $orkforce diversincatioo." 2017 Street Permit Fee Proposal Occupancy fees to be charged through Street Permits for use of City right of way. Note: these fees do not apply to special events permits or to utility work. PARKING LANE Areas with no meters or pay stations $5/daylspace plus $20 deposit for use of DPW signs Areas with me terc / pay stations $20 / day / space (a space is defined as a 20 linear foot distance within legal parking or loading zones) SIDEWALKCLOSURE Residential area Less than a week One week to a month Each additional month Commercial area Less than a week One week to a month Each additional month $100 $200 $200 $300 $7s0 $7s0 $solday STREET CLOSURE $100/day All days are calendar days and therefore include weekends and holidays. Days and months are not pro-rated for partial occupancy. Additionally, the City reserves the right to assess costs for assurance of compliance with plans and specifications. Assessed costs shall be the City's actual costs or the City may require permittees to provide third party engineering inspections or material certifications at the permittees cost. rNL,7179/77 LANE CLOSURE