HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-17 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING & AGENDA
A Special Meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, MARCH 22,
2017 in COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS , City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY.
AGENDA ITEM Start Time
1. Agenda Review 5:30
2. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project — Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (DGEIS)
5:31
A. Review Responses to Comments: Transportation
1. B
.
B. Next Steps & Future Special Meeting Schedule
3. Adjournment 7:00
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
ACCESSING ONLINE PROJECT MATERIALS
Chain Works District Project document submissions can be found on the official project web site at https://chainworksdistrict.com/submissions, or the City’s project
web site at http://www.cityofithaca.org/514/Chain-Works-District-Redevelopment-Proje.
Site Plan Review & Subdivision Applications (and Related Documents) — Site Plan Review application documents are accessible electronically via the “Document
Center” on the City web site (www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter), under “Planning & Development” > “Site Plan Review Project Applications,” and in the relevant
year/month folder. Subdivision application materials can be similarly located, but in the “Subdivision Applications” folder. Zoning Appeal Materials are also accessible
electronically via the “Document Center” on the City web site, under “Board of Zoning Appeals."
Agenda — You may access this agenda (including attachments) by going to the “Agenda Center” on the City web site (www.cityofithaca.org/agendacenter), under
“Planning & Development Board.” For ease-of-access, a link to the most recent Planning Board agenda is always accessible on the Planning Board home page:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/354/Planning-Development-Board.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Division office if you have any questions or you need any assistance accessing the project materials. You are also always
welcome to visit the Planning Division at any time during regular office hours (8:30-4:30, Mond.-Frid.) to view original hardcopy materials.
If you have a disability & would like specific
accommodation to participate,
please contact City Clerk at 274-6570 by
12:00 p.m., the day before the meeting.
3/17/2017 FW: Chainworks Status
https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABmuq%2fS3BPFT5pLl%2fuHF0ZDBwBPJEJUk%2b1HRKUVyKboeHtkAAAAjkYyAABPJ…1/2
FW: Chainworks Status
Eric Hathaway
Sent:Thursday, March 02, 2017 2:58 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: Tim Logue
Hi Lisa,
Please see below for my summary of the current status of Chainworks Transportation. I check with Tina and Jacob from the
DOT and they don't have any issues with these comments.
Eric
Eric Hathaway
Transportation Engineer
City of Ithaca
607-274-6530
From: Eric Hathaway
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:57 AM
To: Crowley, Kristina (DOT) [Kristina.Crowley@dot.ny.gov]
Cc: Jacob.Olds@dot.ny.gov
Subject: Chainworks Status
Hi Tina and Jacob,
Below is a message I was planning to send to the Chainworks applicant summarizing my understanding of their
transportation analysis requirements. Would you mind taking a look at what I have written and letting me know if it is
consistent with your expectations? If possible, I was hoping to send this to the applicant at the end of the day, but I
can understand if you aren't able to take a look today. Thanks.
The following intersections and corridors will be evaluated 1) upon completion of Phase 1 of development, 2) after an
additional 75 vehicle trip ends (as projected by trip generation estimates) per peak hour after Phase 1, and 3) for
every subsequent projected 150 development-related vehicle trip ends. It is our understanding that the seven
locations below owned by NYSDOT will be reviewed and approved by that agency.
Site Accesses 1 and 2
Site Accesses 3, 4 and 5 (NYSDOT owned)
Aurora Street/Prospect Street/Clinton Street
Prospect Street/Turner Place
Columbia Street/Aurora Street
Aurora Street/State Street
State Street/Seneca Way (NYSDOT owned)
State Street/Green Street (NYSDOT owned)
Clinton Street/Cayuga Street
Cayuga Street/Seneca Street (NYSDOT owned)
Cayuga Street/Spencer Street
Pine Tree Road/SR 79 (NYSDOT owned)
State Street/Stewart Avenue
Turner Place corridor between site access and Prospect Street
Cayuga Street corridor between site access and West Spencer Street
As part of a Monitoring and Mitigation Implementation Plan (MMI Plan), these future traffic impact assessments will
3/17/2017 FW: Chainworks Status
https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABmuq%2fS3BPFT5pLl%2fuHF0ZDBwBPJEJUk%2b1HRKUVyKboeHtkAAAAjkYyAABPJ…2/2
provide updated trip distribution and generation figures resulting from development of the Site. These traffic impact
assessments will go beyond standard theoretical capacity analysis, utilizing actual traffic assessment data, such as
intersection delay studies, queuing analyses, and gap studies.
If level of service E conditions are documented for any intersections approach to be monitored, the applicant will be
responsible for mitigation of the condition to LOS D or better before additional development can occur. This criteria is
consistent with NYSDOT's standards for operation, so all study intersections will be subject to the same evaluation
criteria. If no physical mitigation is identified due to technical infeasibility, the applicant will be required to document
a reduction in site trips to the intersection through TDM or other measures allowing for LOS D or better operations
for all movements before further development can occur. Regarding the Turner Place and Cayuga Street corridors,
the applicant will be responsible for ensuring that acceptable traffic operations are maintained along these midblock
sections and that traffic volumes do not cause a change in the character of these roadways. I have asked SRF to
attempt to quantify thresholds for acceptable operations for my review and am awaiting their proposal.
In addition to traffic observations, the MMI Plan will incorporate a transportation modal survey (i.e., similar to the
National Household Travel Survey) to better understand the effectiveness of the Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies employed on-site (discussed later in this response). Quantifiable figures, such as
modal distribution or average vehicle ridership (AVR), will be used to report the effectiveness. AVR is the ratio of the
total number of employees or residents to the average daily number of vehicles used. An agreed upon AVR with
local officials will be determined.
I also want to acknowledge that the Phase 1 site access scheme and internal transportation network cannot be
identified completely or agreed on until the specific locations associated with Phase 1 are finalized. The extent of
the initial phase of development and its location within the site will dictate what access points need to be developed
and whether they should be signalized. This will involve collaboration between the City and State to determine.
Finally, I want to acknowledge agreement with the NYSDOT comment from their February 10, 2017 memorandum
stating concerns about sight distance for northbound vehicles (especially trucks) approaching stopped vehicles
waiting to turn left into Site Access 1. The applicant must investigate sight distance for this potential conflict for
review to determine if left-turns should be permitted at this location. Additionally, no northbound left-turn lane is
proposed at Site Access 2, though Phase 1 traffic projections show a turn lane being warranted. Further justification
for why a left-turn lane is not proposed must be provided or left-turn ingress movement might have to be restricted at
this location. Considering the potential northbound sight distance limitations at Site Access 1, it is possible that Site
Access 2 might be a better candidate for signalization and installation of a left-turn lane, in which case Site Access
1 might better function as a right-in/right-out only driveway.
Eric
Eric Hathaway
Transportation Engineer
City of Ithaca
607-274-6530
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 1
1. The study should clarify on what basis the existing, base condition, and future with development
conditions signal timing/phasing assumptions were based.
Response: According to the Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant, the signal timing information was based
upon a combination of City of Ithaca SYNCHRO files, NYSDOT SYNCHRO files (specifically for the
intersections of State Street/Fulton Street and Fulton Street/Meadow Street/Clinton Street), and field
checks. Refer to Page 5-72 of the DGEIS for more detail on the sources of traffic data utilized in the traffic
analysis.
2. A list of the intersections reanalyzed per the addition of the 203 apartment units described on page
5-108 of the DGEIS should be provided.
Response:
As per the Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant, the following intersections were reanalyzed:
NYS Route 96B at Site Access Driveways 1, 3, 4, and 5
NYS Route 96B/Grandview Avenue
Aurora Street/Prospect Street/Clinton Street
Aurora Street/State Street
Cayuga Street/Seneca Street
Cayuga Street/Clinton Street
State Street/Stewart Avenue
The reanalysis appears at page 5-108 of the DGEIS.
3. Further information on the methodology used to estimate origin/destination of trips to and from the
site should be provided to justify projected trip distribution.
Response:
The proposed arrival/departure distribution of traffic to be generated by the Project is based on several key
parameters, including the following:
Employment centers;
Retail centers;
Population centers;
Ithaca College;
Cornell University;
Existing traffic patterns; and
Existing traffic conditions and controls
Using existing traffic volumes, the Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant calculated percentages of entering
and exiting trips entering and exiting the study area. This information, in turn, provided the basis for
calculating trip distribution for the Site. A particular trip distribution was generated for each sub-area of the
Project with the understanding that access controls and circulation varied between areas of the Site.
A summary of trip distribution pattern percentages for each area of the Site is provided on pages 5-92 to 5-
96 of the DGEIS with a more detailed explanation included in DGEIS Appendix I.
4. Based on a review of the projected site trip distribution, it appears that a higher percentage of
vehicles accessing the site from Cayuga Street/Albany Street from the north and Clinton
Street/Green Street Seneca Street might access the site via the Cayuga Street and Turner Place
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 2
access point than what is projected in the study. Given this potential, there is concern that additional
traffic would impact the character of these existing, low traffic, narrow dead-end roadways. This
raises significant concerns about the impacts on these roadways and whether these are appropriate
access points for the proposed site.
Response:
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant has carefully evaluated this comment and provides the following
analysis in response:
Cayuga Street and Turner Place have historically served as access points to the Site and continued use
for Site access is appropriate. First, in terms of the impact of the Project on the character of these streets,
it is important to differentiate traffic impacts from a resident’s perspective versus the typical drivers’
perspective. Traffic impact studies typically evaluate impacts on Levels of Service. The concept of Levels
of Service as defined in the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Capacity Manual, represents "a
qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by
motorists and/or passengers."
While traffic flow measures in this context are solely from the vehicle occupant’s perspective, an equally
important measure which is generally lacking in most traffic impact studies involving residential areas is to
also take into account a resident’s viewpoint of traffic. As noted in this comment, the influence of traffic on
the quality of life (or livability) of the residents within the vicinity of the project is often as important a
consideration as impacts on Levels of Service.
Each person’s concern for traffic and its impact on his/her quality of life is a function of numerous variables:
traffic volume and speed, vehicle composition, temporal distribution of traffic, dwelling setback from the
street, presence of children, and numerous resident demographic factors. As such, no one single volume
threshold at which residents normally become irritated can be generally applied. The type of roadway and
the perception the roadway exhibits to the residents greatly influences the threshold levels. Residents’
complaints about traffic volumes escalate whenever the actual conditions on the street differ from th e
Residents’ expectations as to what conditions on that particular street should be. Although there is not a
linear relationship between complaints and traffic volume, there is a certain volume range in which Resident
expectations seem most likely to differ from actual conditions.
Local street design considerations, specified in Residential Streets, Third Edition, 2001, developed jointly
by the National Association of Home Builders, American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Urban Land Institute provides definitions of the various street
classifications. As well, Transportation and Land Development, Second Edition, 2002, developed by ITE
was consulted. Based on the definitions provided by that document, Turner Place and Cayuga Street are
categorized as Minor Residential/Local Streets with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) range between 400 –
1,500 vehicles per day.
Based upon the peak hour volumes on Turner Place and Cayuga Street as shown in Figures 5.7-3, 5.7-20,
5.7-25, and 5.7-26 of the DGEIS (existing, background, Phase 1 development conditions, and full
development conditions); the ADT comparisons are shown in the following Table.
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 3
TURNER PLACE AND CAYUGA STREET: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISONS
Adjacent
Roadway
Two-way AM(PM)
Peak Hour Volume (vph) Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume (vpd)
Existing Background Phase 1 Phase 2
Full Dev. Existing Background Phase 1 Phase 2
Full Dev.
Turner
Place 56(69) 58(71) 85(86) 162(164) 690 710 860 1640
Cayuga
Street 41(53) 41(55) 83(70) 144(106) 530 550 700 1060
The above comparison indicates that existing and full development ADTs on both roadways is within, or
slightly above, the threshold limits outlined for Minor Residential/Local Streets.
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant also performed an alternative analysis at the Clinton Street/Turner
Place and Aurora Street/Clinton Street/Prospect Street intersections under the scenario whereby Project
related traffic is prohibited from traveling along Turner Place to determine what the elimination of this access
point would have on surrounding intersections. This alternative analysis, the results of which are presented
in the following table, has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer and will be added to the DGEIS
traffic impact analysis:
ALTERNATIVE CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
PROHIBITED PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC ALONG TURNER PLACE
INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II)
WITH PROHIBITIONS
AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK
Aurora Street/Clinton
Street/Prospect Street
Eastbound left – Clinton Street F(*) F(*) F(*) F(*)
Eastbound right – Clinton Street E(41.7) C(26.0) F(66.3) D(27.2)
Westbound – Prospect Street F(*) F(*) F(*) F(*)
Northbound – Aurora Street A(9.4) A(9.0) A(9.6) A(9.2)
Southbound – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0)
Clinton Street/Turner Place
Westbound – Clinton Street A(9.4) A(9.4) A(9.5) A(9.5)
Northbound – Turner Place C(23.0) E(47.9) C(22.5) E(39.0)
The results show that with the redistributed Turner Place traffic onto Aurora Street, delays are projected to
increase for all approaches during both peak hours at the Aurora Street/Clinton Street/Prospect Street
intersection. However, at the Clinton Street/Turner Place intersection, projected delays decrease for the
northbound approach during both peak hours. Redistributing Project-related traffic away from Cayuga
Street will likely exacerbate the projected conditions at the Aurora Street/Clinton Street/Prospect Street
intersection, therefore it is not recommended. Accordingly, both Cayuga Street and Turner Place are
appropriate access points to the Site.
5. It is unclear from the traffic study if ingress-only or full access will be provided to the site via Cayuga
Street. The site plan shows 2-way circulation. The Phase 1 trip generation figure (5.7-22) shows
ingress and egress traffic, while the Phase 2 trip generation shown no egress traffic from the site.
Response:
As per page 5 and 48 of the Scoping Document, the Project Sponsor is proposing 2-way circulation via
Cayuga Street. The reason that Phase 2 trip generation shows no egress traffic on Cayuga Street is that
trip distribution pattern percentages related to Phase 2 were not projected to utilize Cayuga Street. This is
due to the location of Phase 2 development on-site and the projected travel paths to and from such
development (see Response #3 above for more detail on trip distribution methodology). While there may
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 4
be variability as to how many vehicles may use this street, any Phase 2 traffic is projected to be very low.
Refer to the Response #4 above regarding Minor Residential/Local Street traffic volumes and Figures 5.7-
25 and 5.7-26 of the DGEIS for an illustration of Phase 1 and Full Development traffic volume distribution.
6. Traffic volumes along the main line of Clinton Street/Prospect Street are significantly different
between intersections in Figure 5.7-26.
Response:
According to the Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant, the difference in traffic volumes is due to: (i) temporal
variations between intersections (that is, the time it takes for vehicles to travel between intersections); (ii)
the impact of the traffic detour in downtown Ithaca at the time of data collection (adjustments were made to
the 2014 Existing Conditions based upon historical traffic volumes collected throughout the downtown as
referenced on Page 5-72 of the DGEIS); (iii) peak hours; and, (iv) the existence of side streets and
driveways between the intersections along NYS Route 96B. The traffic consultant employed vehicle
balancing in the analysis to achieve relative balance between intersections, where necessary.
7. A figure should be provided showing anticipated am, pm and daily traffic at key intersections
internal to the site.
Response:
Acknowledged. A figure depicting the scale of trip generation based on the Conceptual Site Layout Plan is
provided in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. ___). Projected turning movement counts during AM and
PM peak hours will be illustrated and addressed during individual Site Plan review phases as the Project
proceeds.
8. No trip distribution is shown to site access driveway 5 with Phase 1 development. Please clarify if
this access point will be open with Phase 1 development.
Response:
The Project Sponsor informs the Lead Agency that the Site Access Driveway 5 will not be operational
for Phase 1 Development.
9. As stated in the traffic study, the pedestrian network between the site and anticipated pedestrian
destinations (particularly in the City) is not complete. The internal sidewalk network is also not
complete. Due to this limitation, it appears some of the trip reduction assumptions for walking might
be lower than assumed in the report. Further justification of the reduction or proposed
improvements to the pedestrian network should be evaluated. As an example, the existing sidewalk
along Cayuga Street near the site is in very poor condition.
Response:
In conjunction with the Project, the Project Sponsor will improve the adjacent sidewalk network in
coordination with City Staff as the Site is developed. The Lead Agency understands that the portion of the
Site within the City’s jurisdiction is located within Sidewalk Improvement District 4. Therefore, any
development that occurs will be subject to the required associated fees for such construction projects. The
internal sidewalk network will be fully developed in the Site Plan Review phase in coordination with LEED
ND requirements. Thus, the trip reduction assumptions in the traffic analysis appear to be appropriate.
10. A queue analysis is needed at the proposed site access locations to determine if anticipated queues
will spill back into internal intersections or onto adjacent roadways. Available queue spacing
appears especially limited exiting the site at Site Access 1.
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 5
Response:
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant provided the following table which depicts the results of queuing
analysis at the proposed site access driveways during Phase 1 and Full Development Conditions.
Supplementary queuing analysis is provided in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).
DRIVEWAY QUEUING ANALYSIS: PHASE I AND FULL DEVELOPMENT
AM PEAK HOUR QUEUING RESULTS
Site Access
Driveway
Phase 1 Queue Length
(in feet)
Full Development
Queue Length
(in feet)
Full Development with
Mitigation Queue Length
(in feet)
Conceptual
Available
Storage to
First
Intersection
(in feet) Average 95th
Percentile Average 95th
Percentile Average 95th
Percentile
Driveway I 20 49 46 78 52 91 160
Driveway II NA NA NA NA NA NA N/A
Driveway III 7 26 36 60 19 39 211
Driveway IV 6 24 40 72 52 83 475
Driveway V NA NA 36 73 29 48 422
PM PEAK HOUR QUEUING RESULTS
Site Access
Driveway
Phase 1 Queue Length
(in feet)
Full Development
Queue Length
(in feet)
Full Development with
Mitigation Queue Length
(in feet)
Conceptual
Available
Storage to
First
Intersection
(in feet) Average 95th
Percentile Average 95th
Percentile Average 95th
Percentile
Driveway I 31 69 290 358 98 154 160
Driveway II NA NA NA NA NA NA N/A
Driveway III 9 29 115 231 30 52 211
Driveway IV 24 54 60 117 63 106 475
Driveway V NA NA 35 53 41 73 422
Based on the above queuing analysis there are sufficient storage lengths at Driveways IV and V during
both peak hours. Driveway III during the PM peak hour is borderline based on 95th percentile queues.
However, queues of this length are expected to be infrequent and are intended to illustrate a worst-case
scenario. On the other hand, Driveway I during the PM peak hour shows queues that are longer than the
conceptual available storage. Accordingly, to mitigate this impact, the internal roadways interior to the
Driveway I access onto Aurora Street shall be required to be designed to mitigate potential spillback into
internal intersections.
11. Capacity analysis should be provided for the intersection of Cayuga Street/Spencer Street
Response:
Acknowledged. The capacity analysis has been added to the corresponding figures which are presented
in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).
12. A sight distance evaluation should be provided for all proposed access points.
Response:
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 6
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant provided the following sight distance evaluation:
North South
Drive I > 500 ft 400 ft
Drive II* 400 ft > 500 ft * - Note: Drive II is proposed to be an entrance only.
Drive III > 500 ft > 500 ft
Drive IV > 500 ft > 500 ft
Drive V > 500 ft > 500 ft
AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance is:
40 mph 445 ft
45 mph 500 ft
Based upon the above data, there is sufficient sight distance at all the proposed access points except for
Drive I, south and Drive II, north. The Project Sponsor’s proposed mitigation for Driveway I includes
installing advanced intersection warning signage (MUTCD W2-2L) for northbound approaching vehicles.
Drive II is an entrance only and therefore does not require mitigation. In addition, NYSDOT stated a concern
about sight distance for northbound vehicles (especially trucks) approaching stopped vehicles waiting to
turn left into Site Access 1. This can be addressed by removing trees/brush and other obstructions within
the NYS 96B right-of-way or providing a left-turn lane at Site Access Drive #1. This mitigation will be
reviewed by NYSDOT and the City during the Site Plan Review phase.
13. Warrants should be provided to demonstrate the potential need for left-turn phasing on eastbound
State Street at Stewart Avenue before and after development of Phases 1 and 2 of the site.
Response:
The Lead Agency understands that the guidelines for the use of left-turn phasing described by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) are as follows:
1. Product of opposing and left-turn hourly volumes exceeds a value of 50,000
2. Left-turn maneuver crosses three of more lanes of opposing through traffic
3. The posted speed limit of opposing traffic is greater than 45 MPH
4. A recent crash history for a 12-month period indicates five or more left-turn collisions that could
be prevented by the installation of a left-turn signal
5. Sight distance to oncoming traffic is less than the minimum recommended distance
6. The intersection has unusual geometric configurations
7. An opposing left-turn approach has a left-turn signal or meets one of the criteria listed above
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant has provided the following analysis:
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 7
ANALYSIS OF LEFT-TURN PHASING BASED ON THE FHWA GUIDELINES
Guideline
No Build – Phase 1 No Build – Full
Development
Phase 1 Development Full Development
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
1 Met
(50,622)
Met
(50,112)
Met
(52,394)
Met
(51,935)
Met
(53,600)
Met
(52,930)
Met
(65,700)
Met
(65,912)
2 Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
3 Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
6 Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
7 Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
Based on the guidelines above and the Level of Service results listed in the DGEIS at page 5-113 which
indicates a “B” or better during the AM and PM peak hours under all conditions, with the exception during
the AM peak hour under Full Development Conditions (LOS “E”), it does not appear that left-turn phasing
is required as mitigation. However, the intersection shall be monitored in conjunction with the Monitoring
and Mitigation Implementation (MMI) Plan to determine at what point in the future mitigation, if any, is
needed. Refer to Response #19 below for more information regarding the MMI Plan.
14. AutoTURN analysis of the fire truck should be expanded to include access to Cayuga Street, Turner
place and Site Access 4.
Response:
Acknowledged. The AutoTURN analysis has been updated to include access to Cayuga Street, Turner
Place and Site Access IV. The analysis demonstrates that the fire apparatus operated by the City and Town
Departments that serve the area are able to maneuver through the Site. This analysis is included in the
DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).
15. The assumption of a 40-mph travel speed on S Aurora Street stated on Page 5-125 should be
verified with a speed count.
Response:
A 2006 NYSDOT Speed Count for the NYS 96B from the Ithaca City Line to CR 179 indicates that the
average speed for northbound traffic is 42.3 mph and 43.3 mph for southbound traffic. This information is
included in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).
16. Please provide clarification of what sections of the site pertain to “Areas A-G” shown in figures 5.7-
15-21.
Response:
The designation of the TIS Areas corresponds to the proposed Site Plan Sub Areas as follows: Area A =
CW3, Area B = CW3, Area C = CW4, Area D = CW3, Area E = CW3, Area F = CW3, and Area G = CW2
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 8
17. A technical appendix must be provided with the HCM analysis spreadsheets, any traffic signal and
turn lane warrants and trip generation and reduction analysis (including relevant sheets from Trip
Generation Handbook and Shared Parking). More detailed spreadsheets illustrating the specific
trip reductions for internalization, transit, walking, pass-by trips and other factors should be shown
separately for verification of calculations.
Response:
This information is provided in the Appendices to the TIS which is located in Appendix I of the DGEIS.
18. Analysis for signalized intersections should show operations of individual turning movements at the
intersection instead of just overall level of service.
Response:
Acknowledged. The associated Figures have been updated (see FGEIS p. ___).
It is unclear which of the mitigation measures that are listed in the DGEIS the applicant is proposing to
accomplish as part of developing the site and which mitigation measures are recommended by the traffic
study, in general. A list of the proposed mitigation measures (signal optimization, road diets, other) by the
applicant should be provided with associated timeline in development when the mitigations measures will
be implemented.
Response:
Page 5-131 of the DGEIS highlights the proposed mitigation measures for the Project. These measures
are divided between Phase 1 of the Project and post-Phase I development at the Site. The Project Sponsor
informs the Lead Agency that Phase 1 has a proposed build-out timeframe of approximately two years. The
remaining phases are projected to be developed over a period of eight years following occupancy of Phase
1. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that future development beyond Phase 1 has a moderate degree of
variability. Therefore, traffic mitigation measures should be commensurate to identified traffic impacts, as
well as be responsive to potential deviations from the proposed Project phasing and timeline.
Relative to Phase 1, NYSDOT has specified certain mitigation requirements relative to Route 96B (see
Response # 26). In addition, the Project Sponsor shall introduce and implement Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies to reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips to and from the Site. The
following TDM strategies have been proposed for Phase 1 implementation:
Market-priced parking
Preferential parking for ridesharing services
Bicycle parking facilities
Subsidized transit passes
Connections to transit stops (i.e. construct sidewalks to existing stop at Hillview Place)
Dedicated shuttle service
Transportation Alternatives Information
Coordination with Smart Trips Ithaca
Connected and improved pedestrian network on and adjacent the Site (i.e., improvements to
sidewalks within Sidewalk Improvement District #4)
Pedestrian oriented design within the Site
Bicycle network facilities within the Site and connections to nearby Gateway Trail
Follow CPTED principles in all design
Coordination with Ithaca College and South Hill Business Park
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 9
It is noted that these TDM strategies are consistent with actions Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation
Council (ITCTC) has identified in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Cornell University's
tGEIS TDM program. Several of these TDM actions will need to be implemented on a tenant by tenant
basis. The Lead Agency understands that Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program
and CTR Efficiency Act, a law passed by the State Legislature, requires local governments in urban areas
with traffic congestion to develop programs that reduce SOV trips and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) per
capita. This program targets workplaces with 100 or more full-time employees. The Project Sponsor has
committed to adapt and scale this program to the projected employment centers proposed within the CWD.
In order to mitigate post Phase 1 traffic impacts to the maximum extent practicable, following completion of
Phase 1, the Project Sponsor will implement an on-going Monitoring and Mitigation Implementation Plan
(MMI Plan). The MMI Plan will include an update of traffic conditions after full occupancy of Phase 1 of the
development and before the next phase of development begins to verify underlying assumptions and
evaluate the effectiveness of TDM strategies. For instance, the implementation of TDM programs and the
integration of the sidewalk and trail system between the Site and adjacent neighborhoods could have a
greater benefit than is currently estimated. This post Phase 1 occupancy traffic update will evaluate the
following intersections: (i) Aurora Street/Prospect Street/Clinton Street, (ii) Aurora Street/State Street, (iii)
State Street/Seneca Way, (iv) State Street/Green Street, (v) Clinton Street/Cayuga Street, (vi) Cayuga
Street/Seneca Street, and, (vii) Cayuga Street/Spencer Street. This post Phase 1 occupancy traffic update
will also include an evaluation of whether a traffic signal is warranted at all site access driveways.
The MMI Plan will also provide for additional traffic study updates at the following stages of development:
(i) immediately following tenant occupancy of Phase 1 of the Project; (ii) when proposed post Phase 1
development within the CWD results in more than 75 vehicle trips per hour (cumulative over Phase 1); and
(iii) each time proposed post Phase 1 development within the CWD will result in more than 150 vehicle trips
per hour (cumulative over the 75 vehicle trips per hour post Phase 1 traffic study update). In addition, per
NYSDOT, a traffic study update will be required for each phase of the project where modifications and/or
additional mitigation is proposed in the NYSDOT R.O.W (See Comment #29) Traffic study updates will
verify trip distribution models and confirm when traffic mitigation measures identified in the DGE IS should
be implemented. Other than the update immediately following tenant occupancy of Phase 1 of the Project,
all updates will be submitted and reviewed, per the thresholds established herein, in conjunction with
proposed site plans for each phase of development. The intersections to be analyzed in each traffic update
include:
Site Accesses 1 and 2
Site Accesses 3, 4 and 5 (NYSDOT owned)
Aurora Street/Prospect Street/Clinton Street
Prospect Street/Turner Place
Columbia Street/Aurora Street
Aurora Street/State Street
State Street/Seneca Way (NYSDOT owned)
State Street/Green Street (NYSDOT owned)
Clinton Street/Cayuga Street
Cayuga Street/Seneca Street (NYSDOT owned)
Cayuga Street/Spencer Street
Pine Tree Road/SR 79 (NYSDOT owned)
State Street/Stewart Avenue
Turner Place corridor between site access and Prospect Street
Cayuga Street corridor between site access and West Spencer Street
If traffic conditions at the above intersections degrade to LOS E or degrade to a higher delay LOS E
condition for any approach relative to the previous phase of development condition, mitigation will be
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 10
required before further development can occur.
An operations methodology shall be established for the Turner Place and Cayuga Street corridors to ensure
that development does not degrade operations to unacceptable levels on these narrow residential streets.
The applicant will propose an analysis methodology for approval by the City. If corridor traffic conditions
are projected to degrade beyond acceptable levels, mitigations must be provided before further
development can occur.
The timing of all proposed mitigation identified in the DGEIS associated with Phase 2 will be determined
based on projected trip generation of development proposals. This will ensure that the proposed mitigation
at that point is commensurate with projected impacts. As part of the MMI Plan, these future traffic impact
assessments to be performed at the Site driveways and intersections identified above and will provide
updated trip distribution and generation figures resulting from development of the Site utilizing actual traffic
assessment data. The MMI Plan will provide that additional intersections will be added to traffic updates if
any previous traffic study projected a Level of Service of E or worse. These traffic impact assessments will
go beyond standard theoretical capacity analysis, utilizing actual traffic assessment data, such as
intersection delay studies, queuing analyses, and gap studies. Overall, the MMI Plan will be used to refin e
the projected traffic impacts and determine the most effective and responsive mitigating strategies.
Moreover, impacts to the Site Driveways are expected to be mitigated through signalization of Driveway I
and IV. As well, Danby Road/Aurora Street is recommended to be restriped, as part of a road diet, to
include left-turn lanes at Driveway IV and Driveway III. This is described on Pages 5-121 and 5-122 of the
DGEIS. These improvements are recommended when the associated warrants are met and through close
coordination with the City, NYSDOT and the Town of Ithaca. These additional traffic study updates shall
be reviewed and considered by the appropriate Planning Boards at the site plan review stage.
In addition to the MMI Plan, as further mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the Project,
implementation of TDM will be required throughout the life of the Project. Long-term, TDM strategies may
be the most effective form of traffic mitigation. For instance, one strategy to address impacts to
intersections, such as Aurora Street/Clinton Street/Prospect Street and State Street/Aurora Street, is high
capacity people moving systems. This strategy will require dedicated shuttles and a commitment to working
closely with TCAT to expand transit routes and increase headways. Off-Site Park and Rides (existing or
new) or underutilized parking lots (through shared use agreements) can be utilized to shuttle employees,
visitors, and residents to and from the Site. The Lead Agency understands that an example of this is Guthrie
Packer Hospital in Sayre, PA. All employees are required to park at an off-site lot and are shuttled to the
Hospital. The Project Sponsor commits to providing two on-site transit stops. TCAT service is flexible and
can be increased to respond to any increases in demand (i.e., vehicle trips and, ultimately, person trips).
The Project Sponsor is also committed to providing, in part, resources to study the feasibility of a larger,
integrated people-mover system; automated transit and gondola to/from Chain Works District. This is also
supported by the 2010 Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Feasibility Study for the City of Ithaca. Within the
document, it is recognized that there are challenges to implementing such a system; however, it is
consistent with the overall systems approach to transit (or similar) that ITCTC has stated in their LRTPs.
This PRT was conceptually laid out through the Project to be a part of a system wide circulator system. The
Project Sponsor has committed to contributing towards further study of this emerging technology.
In order to monitor this effort and the implementation of other TDM strategies, in addition to traffic study
updates, the MMI Plan will incorporate a transportation modal survey (i.e., similar to the National Household
Travel Survey) to better understand the effectiveness of the TDM strategies employed on-site. Quantifiable
figures, such as modal distribution or average vehicle ridership (AVR), will be used to report the
effectiveness. AVR is the ratio of the total number of employees or residents to the average daily number
of vehicles used. An agreed upon AVR with local officials will be determined. This is an appropriate
mitigation strategy since the Project Sponsor has control over the entire site and therefore will be able to
provide accurate population data including numbers and types of users. The TDM strategy evaluation will
also include discussion of new or developing TDM strategies for consideration.
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 11
19. The following intersections are projected to degrade to Level of Service E or worse operation under
Phase 1 operations. Mitigation measures should be provided by the Project Sponsor to prevent this
degradation:
a. Prospect Street/ S Aurora Street
b. S Aurora Street/Columbia Street
c. S Aurora Street/Site Access 3
d. E State Street/Pine Tree Road
Response:
It should be immediately noted that physical capacity-oriented improvements at intersections may not be
feasible due to physical constraints. With that, the following intersections and recommended mitigation
measures are described:
a) Prospect Street/S Aurora Street – The context of this intersection and adjacency to nearby structures
make physical capacity improvement difficult to implement. Therefore, TDM strategies are highly
recommended to offset any adverse impact to the intersection. A thorough review of the 2035 Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) prepared by ITCTC showed that this corridor is in a state of congestion under
exiting conditions. A future land use and transportation scenario prepared as part of the report showed that
an increase in alternative vehicle mix (i.e., more efficient vehicles and greater variety of higher occupancy
vehicles) along with reducing Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips can reduce congestion through this
area. Refer to the response for Comment ID 8 for more detail. Further analysis by the Project Sponsor’s
traffic consultant using an extension of Synchro, SimTraffic, show that delays may be less than those
indicated (LOS B during both AM and PM peak hours for the eastbound and westbound approaches).
Delays will be even less for all other times of the day.
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant considered a traffic signal for this intersection. The Lead Agency
understands that the MUTCD describes nine warrants for use when determining the need for a signal.
As part of this analysis, the MUTCD provides guidance on evaluating minor street traffic, particularly
for approaches with separate left and right-turn lanes. In this case, the degree of conflict of Clinton
Street traffic is considered to be minimal based on field observations and the capacity analysis.
Therefore, the volume of traffic for this approach is not solely considered, and does not meet the
warrants for a traffic signal.
The volume of Project-related traffic is approximately 5-6% of the total traffic entering this
intersection.
Limited ROW and existing building limit the ability to add capacity through additional traffic lanes.
Grade and weather considerations.
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant’s SYNCHRO analysis results with a traffic signal in place are
included at xxx of the FGEIS. The results are depicted in the following table.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS – AURORA STREET/CLINTON STREET/PROSPECT STREET
DESCRIPTION OF APPROACHES
FULL DEVELOPMENT
(PHASE I)
FULL DEVELOPMENT
(PHASE II)
FULL DEVELOPMENT
(PHASE II) WITH
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK
Eastbound left – Clinton Street F(78.0) F(*) F(*) F(*) C(25.7) D(40.4)
Eastbound right – Clinton Street C(17.3) C(16.8) E(41.7) C(26.0) B(19.9) B(17.4)
Westbound – Prospect Street F(107.5) F(*) F(*) F(*) C(24.1) C(31.6)
Northbound – Aurora Street A(8.6) A(8.4) A(9.4) A(9.0) D(44.7) D(54.8)
Southbound – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) NA
Southbound thru – Aurora Street
NA NA
A(3.9) A(2.8)
Southbound right – Aurora Street A(0.8) A(0.7)
Overall LOS C(27.0) C(34.1)
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 12
Note:
(*) = delays greater than two minutes
NA = Approach does not exist and/or not analyzed under this condition
The eastbound left and westbound approaches increase from LOS “F” to “D” or better during both peak
hours under signalized conditions. As well, the eastbound right LOS improves from LOS “E” and “C” to “B”
and “B” during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. However, the results for the major approach, in
this case the northbound Aurora Street approach decrease from LOS “A” to LOS “D” during both peak
hours. The overall LOS is “C” during both peak hours under signalized conditions.
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant performed a traffic safety review at this intersection using the
Tompkins County High Crash Road Segment and Intersection Report (ITCTC). For the most recent six-
year period, any intersection reporting six or more crashes were included for analysis. This intersection
reported five or less intersections over the six-year period; thus, offering no discernable crash pattern.
A field inspection was also performed by the consultant to determine the feasibility of installing a northbound
left-turn lane. This inspection determined that due to the vehicle mix of traffic (e.g., cars, buses), turning
radii of such vehicles, and required tapers needed to install this configuration, the physical constraints of
this intersection do not allow for this treatment.
For these reasons, as well as the position the LRTP takes, no physical improvements are recommended
for this intersection under Phase 1 Development Conditions.
TDM strategies are needed to reduce added vehicle trips to the intersection and reduce delays. Thes e
actions include, for example, the use of shuttles or higher capacity people-movers. At full occupancy and
operation of Phase 1, a shuttle service or other transit opportunity will be provided to reduce SOV trips. As
it relates to the commercial component of Phase 1, the Project Sponsor is committed to work with
commercial tenants to establish staggered arrival and departure of employees during off-peak time periods
for the Project site. Reducing directional vehicle trips of 20 northbound vehicles during the PM peak hour
can reduce side road delays. Thus, the TDM strategies that the Project Sponsor has committed to are
appropriate mitigation measures for Phase 1 and beyond.
b) S Aurora Street/Columbia Street – Columbia Street is a low volume side street (fewer than 10 vehicles
exiting Columbia Street during the AM and PM peak hours. Very little to no traffic is projected to be added
to the Columbia Street traffic volumes. The project delays are characteristic of side streets on heavily
trafficked roads, such as S Aurora Street. All approach Levels of Service are projected to be "C" or better
during both peak hours. Volume warrants for a traffic signal are not met. One vehicle every 6 to 8.5 minutes
is projected to exit Columbia Street during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Residents will have
the ability to use the traffic signal at Hillview Place during peak times or adjust their travel times and routes
to avoid delays.
c) S Aurora Street/Site Access 3 – Mitigation to improve capacity conditions is addressed via mitigation
measures at Site Access Driveways 1 and 4. Over time, visitors and residents of the Project Site will learn
the most efficient ways to exit the Site in order to reduce their delay. Additionally, as the Project Site
develops and more intensive mitigation measures are installed (e.g., traffic signals), those users can be
guided to use those access points giving them a guaranteed opportunity to exit the Project Site with reduced
delay. Thus, prior to signalization of Driveways I and IV, the projected traffic volumes exiting Driveway III
are 111 lefts and 71 rights. The projected traffic volumes exiting Driveway III under redistributed conditions
are 38 lefts and 27 rights. The LOS for this approach is "C" during the AM peak hour and "B" during the
PM peak hour. Figure xxx appears at xxx of the FGEIS.
d) E State Street/Pine Tree Road – This intersection, as is stated in the TIS (page 5-118), should be
monitored to determine at what point in the future mitigation (e.g., traffic signal), if any, is necessary for
implementation. Currently, the southbound approach operates at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour. The
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 13
v/c ratio, which the Lead Agency understands is referred to as degree of saturation which represents the
sufficiency of an intersection [or approach] to accommodate the vehicular demand, is 0.83. At 0.85-0.95,
an intersection or approach operates near capacity. The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant performed a
signal warrant analysis was performed under existing conditions, of which the description of such a study
is presented in the DGEIS at page 5-123. Based on the volume warrants alone for this intersection, Warrant
1 (eight hour) Condition A is satisfied for 8/8 hours; Warrant 1 (eight hour) Condition B is satisfied for 5/8
hours; Warrant 2 (four hour) is satisfied for 4/4 hours; and Warrant 3 (peak hour) is satisfied. Therefore, the
traffic consultant concludes that a traffic signal may be warranted under existing conditions using only the
volume warrants. The traffic consultant’s analysis with a traffic signal installed at this intersection shows
Level of Service "B" or better under existing and Phase 1 conditions and appears at Page XXX of the
FGEIS.
The warrants presented are an initial assessment and provide a guideline to determining the need for a
traffic signal. Additional design and coordination with NYSDOT will be performed during the permitting
process with the Involved Agency.
20. The following intersections are projected to degrade to Level of Service E or worse operation under
Phase 2 operations. Mitigation measures should be provided to prevent this degradation. The
proposed peak hour parking restriction on Eastbound E State Street at Aurora Street is not
acceptable for the City.
a. Prospect Street/ S Aurora Street
b. S Aurora Street/Columbia Street
c. S Aurora Street/Site Access 3
d. Cayuga Street/Clinton Street
e. E State Street/Pine Tree Road
f. E State Street/Aurora Street
g. E State Street/Seneca Way
Response:
The intersections and recommended mitigation measures are described as follows:
a) Prospect Street/S Aurora Street – Refer to response to Comment ID 2. Impacts to Aurora Street/Clinton
Street/Prospect Street and potential mitigation does not include physical improvements to the intersection,
as ROW and existing buildings limit the ability to expand the intersection. Additionally, a traffic signal is not
an appropriate treatment due to the reasons described in Comment ID 2. Therefore, higher capacity people
mover systems (i.e., new TCAT routes and improved headway, and potential automated transit service
between the Commons and the Site or a gondola) are needed.
b) S Aurora Street/Columbia Street – Refer to response to Comment ID 2. Traffic signal warrants are not
met at this intersection to alleviate delays for Columbia Street traffic. All traffic can be accommodated, as
needed, at the existing traffic signal at Aurora Street/Hillview Place. The reduction of SOV trips and
increased mode share of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips will reduce total site generated traffic passing
through this intersection.
c) S Aurora Street/Site Access 3 – Refer to response to Comment ID 2. Delays at Driveway III are projected
to decrease from LOS "F" to LOS "E" with the installation of traffic signals at Driveway I and IV. The effect
of these traffic signals is described on pages 5-124 through 5-126 in the DGEIS.
d) Cayuga Street/Clinton Street – The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant developed signal timing
adjustments for the PM peak hour and the associated capacity analysis results which are presented at xxx
of the FGEIS. These adjustments reduce the projected LOS “E” for the northbound thru/right approach and
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 14
LOS “F” for the southbound left approach to LOS “D” for both approaches.
The Project Sponsor has had discussions with ITCTC about an automated fixed route system along Cayuga
Street that would shuttle people between the Commons and the Site. The Lead Agency recommends that
a feasibility study of such a system be performed by ITCTC with participation from the Project Sponsor.
As stated in the TIS (page 5-131) and found within the 2035 LRTP, it is recommended that a review and
possible upgrade of the traffic signals in downtown Ithaca be performed to address existing conditions. This
would entail assessing the need for improved coordination, installation of smarter vehicle and multi-modal
sensors, signal phasing priority given to transit, and an overall better integration of pedestrian and bicycle
systems. Traffic signal timing updates are recommended, as well as system-wide optimization of the traffic
signal network, to reduce the projected delays. This will be accomplished over time as part of typical
operations and maintenance of the system by City Forces. The Project Team has had discussions with
ITCTC about an automated fixed route system along Cayuga Street that would shuttle people between the
Commons and the Site. The Lead Agency recommends that a feasibility study of such a system is
recommended to be performed with the participation of the Project Sponsor
The Project Sponsor developed signal timing adjustments for the PM peak hour and the associated capacity
analysis results (included with this submittal). These adjustments reduce the projected LOS “E” for the
northbound thru/right approach and LOS “F” for the southbound left approach to LOS “D” for both
approaches.
e) E State Street/Pine Tree Road – Refer to response to Comment ID 2. NYS Route 79/Pine Tree Road
currently meets traffic signal warrants that deal solely with existing traffic volumes. Introduction of project-
related traffic will increase delays.
f) E State Street/Aurora Street – Refer to response to Comment ID 3, Item D. Page 5-127 of the DGEIS
describes an alternative to reduce vehicular delay and increase the LOS for the westbound approach from
"F" to "E". The westbound approach can be restriped to include separate left and right-turn lanes. The right-
turn lane would include 100 feet of storage and would require restriction of peak hour parking for two
metered parking spaces. During off-peak hours, drivers can continue using the parking spaces. However,
this mitigation is not feasible based on the presence of a loading zone along the north side (westbound
approach) of State Street.
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant reassessed the physical geometry of the intersection based on
actual operating conditions. The traffic consultant concluded that, although a northbound right-turn
channelized turn lane is present in the capacity analysis conditions described in the DGEIS, the effect is
not apparent in the analysis. The following table depicts the revised analysis during both peak hours under
all conditions. The net effect this revision has is the reduction of the northbound LOS.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS – AURORA STREET/EAST STATE STREET
DESCRIPTION OF
APPROACHES
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
NO BUILD
PHASE I
NO BUILD
PHASE 2
FULL
DEVELOPMENT
PHASE 1
FULL
DEVELOPMENT
PHASE 2 W/
MITIGATION
AM
PEAK
PM
PEAK
AM
PEAK
PM
PEAK
AM
PEAK
PM
PEAK
AM
PEAK
PM
PEAK
AM
PEAK
PM
PEAK
WB – State Street C(26.8) E(68.4) C(27.3) E(76.0) C(27.9) F(84.5) C(32.4) F(83.1) D(51.0) D(54.7)
NB Thru – Aurora Street B(16.1) B(15.2) B(16.3) B(15.3) B(16.5) B(15.5) B(16.5) B(16.0) C(24.2) D(36.9)
NB Right – Aurora Street A(6.3) A(5.9) A(6.4) A(6.0) A(6.5) A(6.1) A(6.4) A(6.4) A(9.7) B(18.3)
Overall LOS B(19.5) D(41.4) B(19.9) D(45.4) C(20.2) D(49.8) C(22.4) D(47.7) C(34.9) D(41.7)
The Lead Agency agrees with the traffic consultant’s recommendation that signal timing adjustments be
implemented to increase the green time given to the westbound approach under Full Development Phase
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 15
2 Conditions. Doing so keeps the projected Levels of Service at an acceptable “D” or better during both
peak hours.
g) E State Street/Seneca Way – Refer to response to Comment ID 3, Item D. TDM and higher capacity
people moving systems are needed to mitigate traffic impacts. Physical constraints restrict the ability to
increase capacity through adding travel lanes. This intersection will also be included in the review and
optimization of the traffic signal network to ensure peak performance.
The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant examined the impact of signal timing adjustments during the PM
peak hour and concluded that the projected LOS under Full Development Phase 2 Conditions will be
improved. The following table depicts the LOS results.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS – EAST STATE STREET/SENECA WAY
DESCRIPTION OF
APPROACHES
FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II)
WITH TRAFFIC SIGNAL
AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK
Eastbound – State Street D(44.1) F(*)
No mitigation
recommended
D(54.4)
Westbound – State Street D(40.5) E(68.7) D(35.8)
Northbound left – Seneca Way C(24.8) C(26.0) C(27.8)
Northbound thru – Seneca Way C(24.5) C(29.9) C(31.7)
Overall LOS D(36.6) E(67.1) D(38.5)
The Lead Agency understands that with the recommended signal timing adjustments in place, the
eastbound and westbound approaches improve in LOS from “F” and “E” to “D” and “D”, respectively, during
the PM peak hour. Meanwhile, the overall LOS improves from LOS “E” to “D”.
TDM or other recommendations to consider in order to reduce SOV trips are dedicated shuttles between
the Site and common destinations (e.g., The Commons, retail along NYS Route 13, Cornell University,
Ithaca College) or automated people mover systems (i.e., Personal Rapid Transit) mentioned by ITCTC.
Refer to the response for Comment ID 8 for more detail on short term implementation of TDM strategies.
21. A plan must be provided for proposed timing of installation of a traffic signal at site Access Point 1
and 4 relative to development.
Response:
Refer to Response to #19 above (specifically the response regarding the MMI Plan) and pages 5-115 and
5-123 of the TIS for a description of the traffic signal mitigation and warrants at the proposed Access Points.
During redevelopment and construction of Phase I, underground traffic signal conduit should be installed
at the Aurora Street/Proposed Driveway I or 2 intersection with the assumption that a future traffic signal
will be required to mitigation traffic impacts. Upon completion of Phase 1, a subsequent traffic signal warrant
study will be performed to evaluate actual traffic patterns and delays at Driveways I and 2, and determine
when construction of the proposed traffic signal is warranted.
Installation of a traffic signal at this intersection is projected to attract a portion of exiting vehicle trips from
the Site. This will have the effect of reducing trips added to the Project driveways, specifically Driveway III.
22. The proposed signalized traffic signal on Aurora Street at Site Access 1 is located approximately
325 feet from the existing traffic signal at the intersection of S Aurora Street and Hillview Place.
Given the close proximity of the proposed traffic signal spacing, it will be necessary to coordinate
the traffic signals in order to prevent unacceptable queueing and delay between the intersections.
Detailed analysis must be provided proving that adequate progression can be provided with this
minimal spacing. Additionally, the existing controller at the Hillview Place/S Aurora Street
intersection is likely not capable of such coordination and would probably need to be replaced by
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 16
the applicant along with any related infrastructure in order to accomplish coordination of the two
traffic signals.
Response:
The mitigated conditions at the proposed Site Access 1 driveway are coded with a coordinated signal
system with the nearby S Aurora Street/Hillview Place signalized intersection. The Project Sponsor will be
required to provide the proposed mitigation. The Project Sponsor will also be required to perform all
necessary upgrades to the traffic signal at S Aurora Street/Hillview Place to allow for coordination between
the subject traffic signal and the proposed signal at Driveway I. A detailed analysis of this condition is
included in Appendix I of the DGEIS.
23. The TDM section of the report describes many strategies that could be used at the site but does
not provide a plan to ensure implementation. A more structured plan is needed to justify trip
reductions.
Response:
The Project Sponsor proposes the following TDM strategies for short-term, Phase 1 implementation as the
early development of the Project advances:
Market-priced parking
Preferential parking for ridesharing services
Bicycle parking facilities
Subsidized transit passes
Connections to transit stops (i.e. construct sidewalks to existing stop at Hillview Place)
Dedicated shuttle service / rideshare participation (i.e. Zipcar)
Transportation Alternatives Information
Coordination with Smart Trips Ithaca
Connected and improved pedestrian network on and adjacent the Site (i.e., improvements to
sidewalks within Sidewalk Improvement District #4)
Pedestrian oriented design within the Site
Bicycle network facilities within the Site and connections to nearby Gateway Trail
Follow CPTED principles in all design
Coordination with Ithaca College and South Hill Business Park
As the Site continues to be built-out, as discussed in Response #19 above, regular traffic updates will be
prepared pursuant to the MMI Plan and these traffic updates will incorporate a transportation modal survey
to better understand the effectiveness of the TDM strategies. The TDM strategy evaluation will include
discussion of new or developing TDM strategies for consideration. Existing research of TDM strategies by
the Project Team are presented in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).
24. NYSDOT’s preferred mitigation is installing a signal and left/right turn lanes at the Coddington
Rd./proposed driveway before any site work begins. Traffic/accident patterns in this location cause
some concern for us not mitigating before Phase 1. However, we are also aware that the expense
of full mitigation at the initial project startup can hinder development. For this reason, we are
requesting that you supply a table or a list which would clearly state at what level of traffic volume
per intersection mitigation would be needed. In this case, we would require an update on traffic
counts at a specified interval to verify the traffic patterns to require mitigation should this be the
approved method to move forward. Basically, we will be requiring a sensitivity analysis so we can
determine when to implement all appropriate mitigations for the entire project.
Response:
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 17
The following table notes at approximately what point in future traffic generation from the proposed CWD
will trigger the need for mitigation assigned to the noted intersections.
INTERSECTION SENSITIVITY ANLAYSIS
INTERSECTION RECOMMENDED
MITIGATION
FUTURE TRAFFIC
VOLUMES TRIGGERING
MITIGATION NEEDS
Route 96B/
Proposed Driveway I Three-color traffic signal 40 eastbound exiting vehicles
during PM peak hour
Route 96B/
Proposed Driveway III Northbound left-turn lane 13 northbound left-turn
vehicles during AM peak hour
Route 96B/
Coddington/Proposed
Driveway IV
Install three-color traffic signal 30 eastbound left/thru
vehicles during PM peak hour
Route 96B/
Proposed Driveway V Northbound left-turn lane 18 northbound left-turn
vehicles during AM peak hour
Route 96B/
Hillview Place Upgrade existing traffic signal In conjunction with Route 96B/
Proposed Drive I or II mitigation
Route 79/
Pine Tree Road Install three-color traffic signal Consider installation under
existing conditions
Cayuga Street/
Clinton Street Review/update signal timing
settings (system-wide)
1340 total intersection
volumes
E State Street/
Seneca Way Review/update signal timing
settings (system-wide)
1070 total intersection
volumes
The need for additional mitigation at Route 96B/Coddington Road/Proposed Driveway IV, aside from the
left-turn lanes along Route 96B will be reviewed at Site Plan approval of projects beyond Phase 1.
25. NYSDOT will require the following Phase 1 mitigation relative to Route 96B
a) Changing the four-lane section of NY 96B south from the city/town line to past Bella Vista
Dr. by reconfiguring the two southbound lanes to one thru lane and incorporating left turn
lanes for both directions at intersections, and hatching where appropriate.
b) Sidewalk will be required along the frontage of the site on the western side of Route 96B,
from the city/town line to the Coddington Rd. intersection.
c) The proposed driveway, immediately south of city/town line, will be a one-way ingress only;
no traffic will be allowed to exit onto Route 96B at this location.
Response:
These comments are acknowledged. The Project Sponsor will seek to partner with the Town of Ithaca,
Ithaca College, the South Hill Business Park, and others, as applicable, to implement the noted
reconfiguring project.
26. NYSDOT will not consider signal timing adjustment as an option for or form of mitigation during
Phase 1 of the project. Should larger traffic volumes than expected result from Phase 1
construction, it may be necessary to look at utilizing the signal to help, but will not be the main
form of mitigation. It should also be noted we found numerous errors in the TIS for the modeled
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 18
signals, but for Phase 1 we will not require resubmitting a revised TIS. We will work with the
developer on the next submittal to correct any errors.
Response:
These comments are acknowledged. These changes will be incorporated in future analyses.
27. The unsignalized driveway at the Coddington Rd. intersection can only be a one lane exit, rather
than dual exit lanes as modeled on SYNCHRO. This can be changed once a signal is installed, but
we do not allow dual exiting lanes at un-signalized intersections.
Response:
This comment is acknowledged.
28. NYSDOT will require a revised TIS for each phase of the project where modifications and/or
additional mitigation is proposed in the NYSDOT R.O.W.
Response:
This comment is acknowledged.
29. Currently, a cross-property connection with the business park immediately to the south of CWD is
not show. NYSDOT would support property owners should they desire to pursue the connection of
properties, since this business park has a signalized access to Route 96B.
Response:
This comment is acknowledged.
30. The driveway between Coddington Road and the southernmost access will not be allowed by
NYSDOT; this is the access proposed near building N18.
Response:
This comment is acknowledged.
31. Additionally, NYSDOT has concerns with potential sight distance at the northern-most access drive,
northbound on Route 96B, when crossing from the town to the city-owned portion of Route 96B.
Our concern is with regard to the significant downhill grade, which continually increases when
traveling north into the city. Large vehicles, specifically trucks, will have a difficult time slowing down
for left-turning vehicles waiting to turn left into the site. For this reason, we strongly encourage the
consideration of a northbound left-turn lane at this intersection.
Response:
The applicant recognizes that the northernmost driveway (Driveway 1) has potential sight and horizontal
curve characteristics that might make Site Access 2 a better candidate for signalization. Further analysis is
needed and will be provided with Phase 1 application. Regardless of whether Site Access 1 or 2 is
signalized, interconnect and coordination will be required with the Hillview Place/Aurora Street intersection.
Per Comment 22, this will require replacement of the existing traffic signal equipment at the Hillview
Place/Aurora Street intersection per Comment 22. It is acknowledged that left-turn lane warrants are met
for Site Accesses 1 and 2 per Phase 1 projections. The applicant acknowledges that left-turn lane
construction or restriction will be required for southbound vehicles entering the site at Site Accesses 1 and
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 19
2.
32. Please provide documentation of conversations with TCAT regarding plans for transit
accommodation on and near the site. How will TCAT handle future demands for transit?
Response:
TCAT is a vital Interested Agency in the GEIS process. The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant made initial
verbal contact with TCAT in August 2014. There was an additional meeting between Project Sponsor’s
consultant team and TCAT on December 18, 2014. The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant recently had a
conversation with TCAT on July 14, 2016. Documentation of that conversation is provided at xxx of the
FGEIS. TCAT will continually be an Interested Agency during the Site Plan Review of each Phase.
As of July 14, 2016, TCAT (Matt Yarrow) stated that Route 65 is not ideal for the Project as it is a commuter-
based Route. Route 11 is best situated to service the Site once critical demand is met; this demand will be
closely monitored through continued coordination between Site employers, Site residents, the Project
Sponsor, City Staff and TCAT. An additional Route may be necessary to meet future demand and will be
considered as part of the Monitor and Mitigation Implementation Plan.
The current service frequencies and capacity may not likely be able to handle the anticipated need of future
residents, visitors, and employees of the Site upon full development of the Project. Therefore, the Project
Sponsor has committed, through continued coordination with TCAT, to monitor future demands of transit
during the course of the development; this includes adding two transit stops on-site and potentially
increasing the headway needed to meet these demands.
33. It is unclear why the site plan does not show proposed sidewalk along the S Aurora Street frontage
near Residential Area N18.
Response:
The Project Sponsor has revised the Conceptual Site Layout Plan to include sidewalks along all Sponsor
controlled properties (see FGEIS p. __). Sidewalk design and details will be addressed during individual
Site Plan Review of each Phase.
34. It appears that the orientation of vehicles accessing Lower Morse Place from the parking lot south
of Building 18 could create sight distance limitations based on its acute intersection angle. The
intersection of Lower Morse Place with South Cayuga Street presents similar limitations. Sight
distance should be investigated at these locations.
Response:
The final design and geometry of the internal roadway network, including providing turn movement analysis,
will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase. Specific to the comment, the Lead
Agency understands that the Lower Morse Place roadway will have a speed limit of 20 mph as well as be
one way which will improve site distance.
35. The site plan shows significant gaps in the internal sidewalk network in the vicinity of Scout Path
and the two parking areas nearby. Please provide analysis of how pedestrian access will be
accommodated.
Response:
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 20
Acknowledged. The Project Sponsor has revised the Conceptual Site Layout Plan to add these connections
(see FGEIS p. __). The final design of the internal pedestrian network will be addressed during the
individual Site Plan Review of each Phase.
36. It is unclear from the site plan where the proposed bus stop locations will be provided and whether
these bus accommodations at these sites will be accessible the ADA standards. Further information
should be provided, including timeline for implementation.
Response:
The Conceptual Site Layout Plan identifies two potential bus stop locations. The final locations will be
addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase.
37. Some areas of the site plan are labeled with the total number of parking spaces. Please label all
parking areas with total spaces per area for ease of review and provide analysis to verify that
sufficient parking will exist for all land uses without need for long walking distances.
Response:
Acknowledged. The Project Sponsor has revised the Conceptual Site Layout Plan to label all surface
parking areas as depicted. The final design of the parking areas will be addressed during individual Site
Plan Review of each Phase.
38. A site plan should be provided illustrating what portion of the internal site circulation path and site
access points will be developed with Phase 1 of development.
Response:
The internal site circulation and roadway network is included with the Phase 1 Site Plan Drawings (see
Appendix B-2 of the DGEIS).
39. Turning movement analysis should be provided to demonstrate that the roadway area south of
Residential Area N38 is sufficient for turnaround of vehicles.
Response:
The final design and geometry of the internal roadway network, including providing turn movement analysis,
will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase.
40. It is unclear where stop signs will be provided in the grid of streets in the vicinity of Housing areas
N27 – N38.
Response:
Internal traffic controls will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase.
41. Stop signs are not shown on the site plan for egress from Site Access 3.
Response:
Acknowledged. The Project Sponsor has revised the Conceptual Site Layout Plan to show proposed stop
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 21
sign locations (see FGEIS p. __). The final location of Internal traffic controls will be addressed during
individual Site Plan Review of each phase of Project development.
42. The stop sign shown near Residential Area N4 appears to be misplaced. It was probably intended
to be located at the nearby four-leg intersection with only one stop sign shown.
Response:
As noted above, the final location of internal traffic controls will be addressed during individual Site Plan
Review of each phase of Project development.
43. The driveway access to Residential Area N2 appears as if vehicles will need to pull in and out
directly into an internal intersection. Clarification should be provided on the access scheme.
Response:
The final design and geometry of the internal roadway network, including providing turn movement analysis,
will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase.
44. The number of PM peak egress trips shown in Figure 5.7-22 appears to show 124 egress vehicles,
while the trip generation table shows 143 egress trips.
Response:
Acknowledged. The correct trips are shown on Figure 5.7-22. The revised trip generation table to reflect
the correction is included in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. ___).
45. Eastbound Clinton Street traffic left-turn and through volumes approaching Turner Place on Figure
5.7-22 appear to be switched. Please verify that the analysis reflects correct volumes.
Response:
Acknowledged. The corresponding figure has been revised and is presented in the DGEIS updates
(see FGEIS p. __).
46. Phase 1 and Phase 2 PM Peak development scenarios shown in Figures 5.7-28 and 5.7-30 show
improvement of the eastbound Columbia Street approach to S Aurora Street relative to background
condition. Please verify that this reflects the analysis results correctly.
Response:
Acknowledged. The corresponding figure has been revised and is presented in the DGEIS updates (see
FGEIS p. __).
47. There appear to be discrepancies between some vehicles leaving and entering adjacent
intersections on Figure 5.7-23. Additionally, PM trips do not appear to match trip generation shown
in the traffic study trip generation tables.
Response:
Acknowledged. The corresponding figures have been revised and are presented in the DGEIS updates
(see FGEIS p. __).
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 22
48. Figure 2.7-24 shows some trip distribution as percentages and some as actual trips.
Response:
Acknowledged. The corresponding figures have been revised and are presented in the DGEIS updates
(see FGEIS p. __).
49. No capacity analysis has been provided for the existing roundabout at the Spencer Street/Albany
Street/Park Street intersection.
Response:
Acknowledged. The corresponding figures have been revised and are presented in the DGEIS updates
(see FGEIS p. __).
50. The “help document” just provided by the applicant indicates (p. 32) that several intersections on
the list have apparently not been studied. The first of these, “State/Tuning Fork” has, I think, been
addressed as “State/Seneca Way,” but the last three (Stone Quarry/Spencer, S. Meadow
Ext./Spencer, and S. Meadow Ext./Elmira) appear from the list on pp. 5-67 and 5-68 to be missing
from the DGEIS.
Response:
As noted in the DGEIS, Page 5-68, “Reviewing agencies, such as the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT), use a guideline that if a proposed project is projected to add 100 vehicles per
hour (vph), then it should be studied for potential traffic impacts. Given that the Proposed Action is
anticipated to generation 68 vph or fewer at the S. Meadow Ext./Elmira Road intersection, and negligible
traffic volumes at the S. Meadow Ext./Spencer Road and Stone Quarry Road/Spencer Road intersections
during any of the peak hours, the adjacent intersections and surrounding roadway network are unlikely to
experience any significant adverse traffic impacts; thus, no further study is required. This is supported by
the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca in review and acceptance of the September 2014 Phase 1
Scoping/Trip Generation/Trip Distribution Report.
51. The DGEIS also does not include King Street and Stone Quarry in terms of its parking, traffic
impacts and for the volume of individuals who are coming down from out of town, I do believe that
it will impact those individuals who will just bypass Aurora and go down Stone Quarry to get into
town and that should be included in the traffic analysis.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to Comment 50. Based on the low projected trips to
travel down King Road, the impact from the Proposed Action is very little.
52. Analyze existing intersections during peak hour and including the following: Please add the
following intersections into this analysis (pg 26): ~ Stone Quarry/Spencer Road ~S. Meadow St.
Extension/Spencer Road ~S. Meadow St. Extension/Elmira Road/Meadow St.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to Comment 50.
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 23
53. The following intersections should be included in the traffic study: a)West King Road/Stone Quarry
Road, b) Stone Quarry Road/Spencer Road, c)Spencer Road/South Meadow Street Extension,
and d)Old Elmira Road/South Meadow Street Extension/South Meadow Street
Response:
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to Comment 50.
54. What specific ITE land use category was the basis for the trip generation estimate for a certain land
use? What is the pre-adjustment average trip generation rate for the land use categories? Do the
“AM Peak” and “PM Peak” projections represent just one peak hour, or the two-hour peak ranges
(7:00 AM - 9:00 AM, 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM) the DGEIS uses elsewhere? Also, limiting data and
projections to peak hours doesn’t give a full picture of impacts throughout the day, including vehicle
trips during off-peak hours (about 60% of the total). If applicable, describe any adjustment for
purpose-built student housing (lower vehicle ownership, shuttle service, etc.).
Response:
Refer to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) in Appendix I1 for a breakdown of the ITE land use categories used
for trip generation purposes. The “AM Peak” and “PM Peak” projections represent trip generation for a one-
hour peak during the two peak periods analyzed. Typically, traffic impact studies analyze traffic during the
peak hours of operation on adjacent roadways and project-related travel. These times reflect the greatest
potential impact of critical movements. Although daily traffic is considered, peak traffic is more appropriately
used if/when traffic control measure changes are needed in the study area. Purpose-built student housing
was not explicitly analyzed as part of the trip generation estimates since that is not part of the site program.
All residential components were estimated using typical apartment rates within a denser setting offering a
more conservative approach. The inclusion of student housing and available alternative modes of
transportation can reduce overall trip generation estimate.
55. The Appendix briefly touches on the long-term impacts of a “no build” alternative, but not the
DGEIS. While trip generation numbers for Chain Works seem daunting, its overall impact should
be lower than the alternative -- conventional suburban development that would otherwise satisfy
market demand.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged.
56. The Trip Reduction Adjustments - The methodology for trip generation reduction on pages 5-89
through 5-91 is reasonable, and the adjustment seems conservative.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged.
57. The office, retail and industrial areas in Table 2.7-3 (Anticipated Employee Population) do not
match those of the traffic projections in Table 5.7-4 (Projected Generated Trips). Which information
is correct?
Response:
The trip generation rates utilized for the TIS is based on size of the projected land use except for the
residential component which is based on number of units.
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 24
58. Complete streets: Complete Streets consider the needs of all users, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, public transportation riders, motorists and citizens of all ages and abilities, including
children, the elderly and the disabled. The internal street network of the project should be required
to provide sidewalks on both sides of all streets, high-quality pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, and
narrow streets to help calm traffic and promote an urban neighborhood experience.
Response:
Acknowledged. This is a key component of developing the Project in accordance with LEED ND principles.
59. The TIS will estimate the add'l demand for transit. I don't see a demand analysis included. They
seem to state that there should be a motor vehicle trip reduction of 4% based on transit, but that's
not a demand analysis. That same paragraph states there will be a detailed on-site multi-modal
transportation plan including detailed locations and descriptions of sidewalks, bicycle lanes, trails
and pedestrian connections to both IC and downtown. I don't see a detailed plan, just some more
generalized notes. Maybe this is still forthcoming because it's in the mitigation measures section,
but it also seems to be something that was to be included in the TIS.
Response:
The Conceptual Site Layout Plan includes detailed locations for sidewalks, trails and and pedestrian
connections. Additional specifics on the geometry for lanes and sidewalks are included in the Design
Guidelines under the Thoroughfare Assemblies section.
60. The Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Trip Reduction section states that the transportation study
assumes a 7% trip generation credit for active transportation (bicycling and walking). This is
ambitious considering the Chain Works project is on a hill and reaching the area from the flats on
foot or by bicycle will be a challenge for most users. Chain Works offers a unique configuration of
housing and employment that makes it difficult to predict how the existing averages from active
transportation use from other parts to the Ithaca Urban area will relate to the project. Except for
connecting to Ithaca College, the GEIS does not make any particular proposals to facilitate
bike/pedestrian movement to destinations outside the project area other than linking to the City’s
sidewalk network and linking the Gateway Trail to the South Hill Recreation Way. I suggest that the
developers work with City staff to identify preferred bike/pedestrian routes to connect the Chain
Works project to outside destinations: the Commons, TCAT’s Green St. bus facility, Cornell
University, west end shopping area, etc. These routes could be considered for enhancements that
will facilitate the effective use of active transportation to access the Chain Works project. I will
gladly meet with project or City representatives to explore potential enhancements to better connect
the project area to the rest of the urban area via active transportation.
Response:
The comment is addressed via a supplemental narrative to the DGEIS.
61. The On-Site Multimodal Transportation Plan calls for the use of sharrows and signage on roads
too narrow to accommodate bike lanes. Sharrows and signs by themselves do not provide
adequate bicycle facilities, nor do they indicate a street is bike friendly. Assuming the installation of
a dedicated bicycle right-of-way - i.e. some form of bicycle lane - is not possible, the use of sharrows
and signs must be accompanied by installation in low traffic areas and/or by significant traffic
calming in order to reduce the speed differential between cars and bicycles.
Response:
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
DGEIS TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
AND DRAFT RESPONSES
Last Revised: March 17, 2017 Page 25
The comment is acknowledged. All relevant and required signage and/or markings will be used when
designating a particular roadway, a recognized bicycle facility.
62. If level of service E conditions are documented for any intersections approach to be monitored, the
applicant will be responsible for mitigation of the condition to LOS D or better before additional
development can occur. This criteria is consistent with NYSDOT's standards for operation, so all
study intersections will be subject to the same evaluation criteria. If no physical mitigation is
identified due to technical infeasibility, the applicant will be required to document a reduction in site
trips to the intersection through TDM or other measures allowing for LOS D or better operations for
all movements before further development can occur. Regarding the Turner Place and Cayuga
Street corridors, the applicant will be responsible for ensuring that acceptable traffic operations are
maintained along these midblock sections and that traffic volumes do not cause a change in the
character of these roadways.
Response:
It is our understanding that existing conditions, such as an LOS of E, are not the responsibility of the Project
Sponsor and that mitigation by the Project Sponsor is commensurate of our Project Impacts. Obviously,
the Project Sponsor will be required to obtain permits through NYSDOT and will comply with their standards
of mitigation.
63. The Phase 1 site access scheme and internal transportation network cannot be identified
completely or agreed on until the specific locations associated with Phase 1 are finalized. The
extent of the initial phase of development and its location within the site will dictate what access
points need to be developed and whether they should be signalized. This will involve collaboration
between the City and State to determine.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged.
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes50Transportation Study ScopeScoping document 5.7.1 (p. 32): I have not had the time available to thoroughly check the traffic data. I note, however, that the “help document” just provided by the applicant indicates (p. 32) that several intersections on the list have apparently not been studied. The first of these, “State/Tuning Fork” has, I think, been addressed as “State/Seneca Way,” but the last three (Stone Quarry/Spencer, S. Meadow Ext./Spencer, and S. Meadow Ext./Elmira) appear from the list on pp. 5-67 and 5-68 to be missing from the DGEIS.Scoping document included three additional intersections(Stone Quarry/Spencer, S. Meadow Ext./Spencer, and S. Meadow Ext./Elmira) that were not included in the DGEIS.22D Y Y 5.7As noted in the DGEIS, Page 5-68, “Reviewing agencies, such as the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), use a guideline that if a proposed project is projected to add 100 vehicles per hour (vph), then it should be studied for potential traffic impacts. Given that the Proposed Action is anticipated to generation 68 vph or fewer at the S. Meadow Ext./Elmira Road intersection, and negligible traffic volumes at the S. Meadow Ext./Spencer Road and Stone Quarry Road/Spencer Road intersections during any of the peak hours, the adjacent intersections and surrounding roadway network are unlikely to experience any significant adverse traffic impacts; thus, no further study is required. This is supported by the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca in review and acceptance of the September 2014 Phase 1 Scoping/Trip Generation/Trip Distribution Report.Adequacy. Pre-Comment Period.51TransportationExisting ConditionsThe DGEIS also does not include King Street and Stone Quarry in terms of its parking, traffic impacts and for the volume of individuals who are coming down from out of town, I do believe that it will impact those individuals who will just bypass Aurora and go down Stone Quarry to get into town and that should be included in the traffic analysis. I requested it in the scoping document. I was told that it would be included in the scope so I was surprised that it indeed was not included.King Street and Stone Quarry Road intersection should be included in the TIS.88E Y Y 5.7The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to Comment ID 2D. Based on the low projected trips to travel down King Road, the impact from the Proposed Action is very little.52TransportationExisting ConditionsChapter 4.8 (sic) Impact on Transportation and Circulation a. Analyze existing intersections during peak hour and including the following: Please add the following intersections into this analysis (pg 26): ~ Stone Quarry/Spencer Road ~S. Meadow St. Extension/Spencer Road ~S. Meadow St. Extension/Elmira Road/Meadow St.Same.88T Y Y 5.7 Refer to response to Comment ID 2D.18TransportationExisting ConditionsChapter 5.7.1.1 (page 5-67) Existing Transportation Facilities. dGEIS Statement: The study locations consist of the following 30 existing intersections. Comment: i) The study should clearly separate Spencer Road and Spencer Street. The dGEIS currently mis-identifies parts of Spencer Road as Spencer Street, as seen in intersection 14: Spencer Street/Albany Street/Park Street/Elmira Road Roundabout. From the roundabout, Spencer Road spurs south and Spencer Street spurs north.Same.88U Y Y 5.7 The associated figures in the DGEIS have been revised.52TransportationExisting Conditionsii) The following intersections should be included in the traffic study: a)West King Road/Stone Quarry Road, b) Stone Quarry Road/Spencer Road, c)Spencer Road/South Meadow Street Extension, and d)Old Elmira Road/South Meadow Street Extension/South Meadow StreetSame.88VY Y 5.7 Refer to response to Comment ID 2D.50TransportationExisting ConditionsAccording to the City’s Comprehensive Plan Draft Influences Report, South Aurora Street/Danby Road typically sees 14,000 vehicles per day and is a main artery into and out of the City.1 As Figure 5.7-42 shows, 26% of incoming morning peak traffic turns west onto King Road, and presumably a significant portion of that traffic will enter the city through Stone Quarry Road and Spencer Road. Likewise, fully 59% of peak afternoon traffic exits the city on King Road and turns south onto Route 86B. Given the expected increases in rush hour traffic on Route 86B due to kids crossing the street to go to South Hill Elementary School or Ithaca College, or to go to work, it is expected that travelers entering the city from Route 96B will come to rely on Stone Quarry Road and Spencer Road as direct and non-congested avenues into the city and to shopping on Route 13 south. These intersections should be included in the traffic impact study and analysisSame.88W Y Y 5.7Refer to response to Comment ID 2D. Additionally, a drive-time assessment was performed using Google Maps during peak and off-peak hours based upon historical data. The assessment, as well as the projected trip distribution for the Site, show that travelling to and from the Site is more conducive using NYS Route 96B to the north of the Site; as opposed to travelling NYS Route 96B to the south and using King Road/Stone Quarry Road.50TransportationExisting ConditionsThe draft also indicates that the traffic will not be an issue from Danby Road, through West King Road down Stone Quarry Road to Spencer Road. I don't agree with that. Being that traffic is a big issue here on the 400 block and especially now with the new Stone Quarry Apts. I watch school age children, disabled persons and families navigating the the road with no sidewalk and a blind corner to deal with to catch school buses, walk their pets or catching city bus and or just walking from shopping or biking down to Buttermilk Falls or wherever people go. The traffic will increase from up above to down the hill where there are no traffic lights only a single stop sign at the bottom of the hill. I believe the traffic will continue to grow and be more of a problem in the future. The Commenter disagrees with the DGEIS finding that the traffic will not be an issue from Danby Road, through West King Road down Stone Quarry Road to Spencer Road.1616E Y Y 5.7The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to Comment ID 2D. Based on the low projected trips to travel down King Road, the impact from the Proposed Action is very little.52TransportationExisting ConditionsNo capacity analysis has been provided for the existing roundabout at the Spencer Street/Albany Street/Park Street intersection.Same.21 21AJ Y Y 5.7 Refer to response to Comment ID 2D.50TransportationExisting ConditionsCapacity analysis should be provide for the intersection of Cayuga Street/Spencer StreetSame.2121Y Y Y 5.7 Refer to response to Comment ID 2D.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 1 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes17Transportation Analysis DataA technical appendix must be provided with the HCM analysis spreadsheets, any traffic signal and turn lane warrants and trip generation and reduction analysis (including relevant sheets from Trip Generation Handbook and Shared Parking). More detailed spreadsheets illustrating the specific trip reductions for internalization, transit, walking, pass-by trips and other factors should be shown separately for verification of calculations.Same.2121L Y Y 5.7This information is provided in the Appendices to the TIS which is located in Appendix I of the DGEIS.46Transportation Analysis DataPhase 1 and Phase 2 PM Peak development scenarios shown in Figures 5.7-28 and 5.7-30 show improvement of the eastbound Columbia Street approach to S Aurora Street relative to background condition. Please verify that this reflects the analysis results correctly. Same.21 21AD Y Y 5.7Acknowledged. The corresponding figure has been revised and is presented in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).18Transportation Analysis DataThe following intersections and corridors will be evaluated 1) upon completion of Phase 1 of development, 2) after an additional 75 vehicle trip ends (as projected by trip generation estimates) per peak hour after Phase 1, and 3) for every subsequent projected 150 development-related vehicle trip ends. It is our understanding that the seven locations below owned by NYSDOT will be reviewed and approved by that agency.• Site Accesses 1 and 2 • Site Accesses 3, 4 and 5 (NYSDOT owned)• Aurora Street/Prospect Street/Clinton Street• Prospect Street/Turner Place• Columbia Street/Aurora Street• Aurora Street/State Street• State Street/Seneca Way (NYSDOT owned)• State Street/Green Street (NYSDOT owned)• Clinton Street/Cayuga Street• Cayuga Street/Seneca Street (NYSDOT owned)• Cayuga Street/Spencer Street• Pine Tree Road/SR 79 (NYSDOT owned)• State Street/Stewart Avenue• Turner Place corridor between site access & Prospect Street• Cayuga Street corridor between site access & West Spencer StSame.21 21AI Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged. See Response to Comment 21A.2Transportation Analysis DataA list of the intersections reanalyzed per the addition of the 203 apartment units described on page 5-108 should be provided for review.Same.21 21AK Y Y 5.7Per to the Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant, the following intersections were reanalyzed:• NYS Route 96B at Site Access Driveways 1, 3, 4, and 5• NYS Route 96B/Grandview Avenue• Aurora Street/Prospect Street/Clinton Street• Aurora Street/State Street• Cayuga Street/Seneca Street• Cayuga Street/Clinton Street• State Street/Stewart Avenue15Transportation Analysis DataThe assumption of a 40 mph travel speed on S Aurora Street stated on Page 5-125 should be verified with a speed count.Same.21 21AM Y Y 5.7A 2006 NYSDOT Speed Count for the NYS 96B from the Ithaca City Line to CR 179 indicates that the average speed for northbound traffic is 42.3 mph and 43.3 mph for southbound traffic. This information is included in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __). 18Transportation Analysis DataAnalysis for signalized intersections should show operations of individual turning movements at the intersection instead of just overall level of service.Same.2121U Y Y 5.7 Acknowledged. The associated Figures have been updated (see FGEIS p. ___).1Transportation Analysis DataThe study should clarify on what basis the existing, base condition, and future with-development conditions signal timing/phasing assumptions were based.Same.2121V Y Y 5.7According to the Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant, the signal timing information was based upon a combination of City of Ithaca SYNCHRO files, NYSDOT SYNCHRO files (specifically for the intersections of State Street/Fulton Street and Fulton Street/Meadow Street/Clinton Street), and field checks. Refer to Page 5-72 of the DGEIS for more detail on the sources of traffic data utilized in the traffic analysis. 16Transportation Analysis DataPlease provide clarification of what sections of the site pertain to “Areas A-G” shown in figures 5.7-15-21.Same.21 21W Y Y 5.7The designation of the TIS Areas corresponds to the proposed Site Plan Sub Areas as follows: Area A = CW3, Area B = CW3, Area C = CW4, Area D = CW3, Area E = CW3, Area F = CW3, and Area G = CW244Transportation Trip DistributionThe number of PM peak egress trips shown in Figure 5.7-22 appears to show 124 egress vehicles, while the trip generation table shows 143 egress trips.Same.21 21AA Y Y 5.7Acknowledged. The correct trips are shown on Figure 5.7-22. The revised trip generation table to reflect the correction is included in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. ___).45TransportationTrip DistributionEastbound Clinton Street traffic left-turn and through volumes approaching Turner Place on Figure 5.7-22 appear to be switched. Please verify that the analysis reflects correct volumes.Same.21 21AC Y Y 5.7Acknowledged. The corresponding figure has been revised and is presented in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 2 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes47Transportation Trip DistributionThere appear to be discrepancies between some vehicles leaving and entering adjacent intersections on Figure 5.7-23. Additionally PM trips do not appear to match trip generation shown in the traffic study trip generation tablesSame.21 21AE Y Y 5.7Acknowledged. The corresponding figures have been revised and are presented in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).48Transportation Trip DistributionFigure 2.7-24 shows some trip distribution as percentages and some as actual trips.Same.21 21AF Y Y 5.7Acknowledged. The corresponding figures have been revised and are presented in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).8Transportation Trip DistributionNo trip distribution is shown to site access 5 with Phase 1 development. Please clarify if this access point will be open with Phase 1 development.Same.21 21AG Y Y 5.7The Project Sponsor informs the Lead Agency that the Site Access Driveway 5 will not be operational for Phase 1 Development6Transportation Trip DistributionTraffic volumes along the main line of Clinton Street/Prospect Street are significantly different between intersections in Figure 5.7-26.Same.21 21AH Y Y 5.7According to the Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant, the difference in traffic volumes is due to: (i) temporal variations between intersections (that is, the time it takes for vehicles to travel between intersections); (ii) the impact of the traffic detour in downtown Ithaca at the time of data collection (adjustments were made to the 2014 Existing Conditions based upon historical traffic volumes collected throughout the downtown as referenced on Page 5-72 of the DGEIS); (iii) peak hours; and, (iv) the existence of side streets and driveways between the intersections along NYS Route 96B. The traffic consultant employed vehicle balancing in the analysis to achieve relative balance between intersections, where necessary.4Transportation Trip DistributionBased on a review of the projected site trip distribution, it appears that a higher percentage of vehicles accessing the site from Cayuga Street/Albany Street from the north and Clinton Street/Green Street Seneca Street might access the site via the Cayuga Street and Turner Place access point than what is assumed in the study. Given this potential, there is concern that additional traffic would impact the character of these existing, low traffic, narrow dead-end roadways. This raises significant concerns for the impacts on these roadways whether these are appropriate access points for the proposed site.Same.2121C Y Y 5.7The Project Sponsor s traffic consultant has carefully evaluated this comment and provides the following analysis in response:Cayuga Street and Turner Place have historically served as access points to the Site and continued use for Site access is appropriate. First, in terms of the impact of the Project on the character of these streets, it is important to differentiate traffic impacts from a resident’s perspective versus the typical drivers’ perspective. Traffic impact studies typically evaluate impacts on Levels of Service. The concept of Levels of Service as defined in the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Capacity Manual, represents "a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and/or passengers."While traffic flow measures in this context are solely from the driver’s perspective, an equally important measure which is generally lacking in most traffic impact studies involving residential areas is to instead take into account a resident’s viewpoint of traffic. As noted in this comment, the influence of traffic on the quality of life (or livability) of the residents within the vicinity of the project is often as important a consideration as impacts on Levels of Service. Each person’s concern for traffic and its impact on his/her quality of life is a function of numerous variables: traffic volume and speed, vehicle composition, temporal distribution of traffic, dwelling setback from the street, presence of children, and numerous resident demographic factors. As such, no one single volume threshold at which residents normally become irritated can be generally applied. The type of roadway and the perception the roadway exhibits to the residents greatly influences the threshold levels. Residents’ complaints about traffic volumes escalate whenever the actual conditions on the street differ from the Residents’ expectations as to what conditions on that particular street should be. Although there is not a linear relationship between complaints and traffic volume, there is a certain volume range in which Resident expectations seem most likely to differ from actual conditions.Local street design considerations, specified in Residential Streets, Third Edition, 2001, developed jointly by the National Association of Home Builders, American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Urban Land Institute provides definitions of the various street classifications. As well, Transportation and Land Development, Second Edition, 2002, developed by ITE was consulted Based on the definitions provided by that document Turner Place7Transportation Trip DistributionA figure should be provided showing anticipated am, pm and daily traffic at key intersections internal to the site.Same.2121E Y Y 5.7Acknowledged. A figure depicting the scale of trip generation based on the Conceptual Site Layout Plan is provided in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. ___). Projected turning movement counts during AM and PM peak hours will be illustrated and addressed during individual Site Plan review phases as the Project proceeds.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 3 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes3Transportation Trip DistributionFurther information on the methodology used to estimate origin/destination of trips to and from the site should be provided to justify assumed trip distribution.Same.2121I Y Y 5.7The proposed arrival/departure distribution of traffic to be generated by the Project is based on several key parameters, including the following:• Employment centers;• Retail centers;• Population centers;• Ithaca College;• Cornell University;• Existing traffic patterns; and• Existing traffic conditions and controlsUsing existing traffic volumes, the Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant calculated percentages of entering and exiting trips entering and exiting the study area. This information, in turn, provided the basis for calculating trip distribution for the Site. A particular trip distribution was generated for each sub-area of the Project with the understanding that access controls and circulation varied between areas of the Site. A summary of trip distribution pattern percentages for each area of the Site is provided on pages 5-92 to 5-96 of the DGEIS with a more detailed explanation included in DGEIS Appendix I.39Transportation Trip DistributionTurning movement analysis should be provided to demonstrate that the roadway area south of Residential Area N38 is sufficient for turnaround of vehicles.Same.2121P Y Y 5.7The final design and geometry of the internal roadway network, including providing turn movement analysis, will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase.54Transportation Trip Generation5.7.2.2 Project Trip Generation Table 5.7-4 (Project Generated Trips) needs more explanation. What specific ITE land use category was the basis for the trip generation estimate for a certain land use? What is the pre-adjustment average trip generation rate for the land use categories? Do the “AM Peak” and “PM Peak” projections represent just one peak hour, or the two-hour peak ranges (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM, 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM) the DGEIS uses elsewhere? Also, limiting data and projections to peak hours doesn’t give a full picture of impacts throughout the day, including vehicle trips during off-peak hours (about 60% of the total). Expand upon the specific uses for trip generation estimates and provide pre-adjustment rates for individual land uses.Explain the difference between one and two-hour peak ranges and the adequacy of exiaming peak hour only.18 18AK Y Y 5.7Refer to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) in Appendix I1 for a breakdown of the ITE land use categories used for trip generation purposes. The “AM Peak” and “PM Peak” projections represent trip generation for a one-hour peak during the two peak periods analyzed. Typically, traffic impact studies analyze traffic during the peak hours of operation on adjacent roadways and project-related travel. These times reflect the greatest potential impact of critical movements. Although daily traffic is considered, peak traffic is more appropriately used if/when traffic control measure changes are needed in the study area.54Transportation Trip Generation*(The following section was presented as a table in the actual letter. Each set of [ ] contains the info as it would be read across the rows. The following is an example of how the info is laid out in the brackets [ ] in the order of the column titles: [Phase, Land Use, AM PEAK (7-9 AM), (PM PEAK 4-6 AM), DAY (ADT)]) here is the comment-> Recreating the table (below) using default variables in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th edition) for trip generation rates (per apartment, or 1000 ft² GFA for non-residential uses), and two-hour AM and PM peak periods (peak hours of adjacent street traffic), the results are much different. Even adjustment for TND or urban mixed use projects does not seem like it would account for the difference. [1, Office (General office 710), 257, 246, 909] [1, Residential (Apartment 220), 82, 99, 532] [1, Industrial (General light industrial 110), 314, 331, 1,189] [1, Subtotal, 653, 676, 2,630] [2, Office (General office 710), 579, 553, 2,047] [2, Residential (Apartment 220), 852, 1,035, 5,553] [2, Retail (Shopping center 820 (most general)), 100, 387, 2,228] [2, Restaurant (Sit-down restaurant 932), 156, 142, 915] [2, Industrial (General light industrial 110), 454, 478, 1,718] [2, Subtotal, 2,141, 2,595, 12,461], [Total, Total project generated trips (ITE), 2,794, 3,271, 15,091] [Total, Chain Works EIS table on page 5-88, 1,124, 1,341, n/a] Please explain the input variables and ITE land use categories for peak hour trip generation in the DGEIS. If applicable, describe any adjustment for purpose-built student housing (lower vehicle ownership, shuttle service, etc.).Explain the input variables and ITE land use categories for peak hour trip generation in the DGEIS. If applicable, describe any adjustment for purpose-built student housing (lower vehicle ownership, shuttle service, etc.).1818ALY Y 5.7Refer to response to Comment ID 18AK and the TIS in the Appendix I1. Purpose-built student housing was not explicitly analyzed as part of the trip generation estimates since that is not part of the site program. All residential components were estimated using typical apartment rates within a denser setting offering a more conservative approach. The inclusion of student housing and available alternative modes of transportation can reduce overall trip generation estimates.55Transportation Trip GenerationThe Appendix briefly touches on the long-term impacts of a “no build” alternative, but not the DGEIS. While trip generation numbers for Chain Works seem daunting, its overall impact should be lower than the alternative -- conventional suburban development that would otherwise satisfy market demand. Same.18 18AM Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.56Transportation Trip Generation5.7.2.3 Trip Reduction Adjustments The methodology for trip generation reduction on pages 5-89 through 5-91 is reasonable, and the adjustment seems conservative. Same.18 18AN Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 4 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes57Transportation Trip Generation2.7.7 Anticipated Project Population The office, retail and industrial areas in Table 2.7-3 (Anticipated Employee Population) do not match those of the traffic projections in Table 5.7-4 (Projected Generated Trips). Which information is correct?Explain the discrepancy between trip generation rates and project population estimates.18 18W Y Y 5.7The trip generation rates utilized for the TIS is based on size of the projected land use except for the residential component which is based on number of units.58Transportation Complete StreetsComplete streets: Complete Streets consider the needs of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation riders, motorists and citizens of all ages and abilities, including children, the elderly and the disabled. The internal street network of the project should be required to provide sidewalks on both sides of all streets, high-quality pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, and narrow streets to help calm traffic and promote an urban neighborhood experience.CWD proposes to include Complete Streets that should consider the needs of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation riders, motorists and citizens of all ages/abilities.17 17G Y Y 5.7Acknowledged. This is a key component of developing the Project in accordance with LEED ND principles.14Transportation Complete StreetsAutoTURN analysis of the fire truck should be expanded to include access to Cayuga Street, Turner place and Site Access 4.Same.21 21AI Y Y 5.7The AutoTURN analysis has been updated to include access to Cayuga Street, Turner Place and Site Access IV. The analysis demonstrates that the fire apparatus operated by the City and Town Departments that serve the area are able to maneuver through the Site. This analysis is included in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).9TransportationPedestrian and Bicycle Facilities5.7.3 says they will specifically analyze routes to the Commons, IC and SH Elementary, including any gaps in the routes. Also that the routes will be inventoried to include a range of things including accessibility. I don't see a specific analysis of these routes or an inventory. For example, they state that one could use sidewalks on Rt 96B to get to SH Elem, but they don't specifically state a route, how to cross Aurora St, and if there are any gaps. Lastly, the last sentence in the scope paragraph says they will evaluate the safety & operations of existing conditions as it relates to ped/bike facilities. I don't see that at all. For example, there is a sidewalk that runs up the west side of S Cayuga St, almost to the site (though there is a gap), but it is in horrible condition and certainly is not accessible or safe. Seems that this ought to be included.Scoping document included the review of pedestrian/bicycle routes to Commons, IC and SH Elementary depicting existing conditions and any gaps.4 4A Y Y 5.7 See Response to Comment 21D.59 TransportationPedestrian and Bicycle Facilities6.7 (page 48) says the TIS will estimate the add'l demand for transit. I don't see a demand analysis included. They seem to state that there should be a motor vehicle trip reduction of 4% based on transit, but that's not a demand analysis. That same paragraph states there will be a detailed on-site multi-modal transportation plan including detailed locations and descriptions of sidewalks, bicycle lanes, trails and pedestrian connections to both IC and downtown. I don't see a detailed plan, just some more generalized notes. Maybe this is still forthcoming because it's in the mitigation measures section, but it also seems to be something that was to be included in the TIS.Demonstrate how motor vehicle trip generation reduction of 4% due to multi-modal access is reasonable.4 4B Y Y 5.7The Conceptual Site Layout Plan includes detailed locations for sidewalks, trails and and pedestrian connections. Additional specifics on the geometry for lanes and sidewalks are included in the Design Guidelines under the Thoroughfare Assemblies section.60TransportationPedestrian and Bicycle FacilitiesThe Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Trip Reduction section states that the transportation study assumes a 7% trip generation credit for active transportation (bicycling and walking). This is ambitious considering the Chain Works project is on a hill and reaching the area from the flats on foot or by bicycle will be a challenge for most users. Chain Works offers a unique configuration of housing and employment that makes it difficult to predict how the existing averages from active transportation use from other parts to the Ithaca Urban area will relate to the project. Except for connecting to Ithaca College, the GEIS does not make any particular proposals to facilitate bike/pedestrian movement to destinations outside the project area other than linking to the City’s sidewalk network and linking the Gateway Trail to the South Hill Recreation Way. I suggest that the developers work with City staff to identify preferred bike/pedestrian routes to connect the Chain Works Identify preferred bike/pedestrian routes to connect the Chain Works project to outside destinations: the Commons, TCAT’s Green St. bus facility, Cornell University, west end shopping area, etc. These routes could be considered for enhancements that will facilitate the effective use of active transportation to access the Chain Works project.13 13A Y Y 5.7 The comment is addressed via a supplemental narrative to the DGEIS.9TransportationPedestrian and Bicycle FacilitiesPedestrian-friendly: The redevelopment should provide a comfortable, safe and efficient pedestrian network with sidewalks, seating, and other pedestrian features. The City and Town should ensure that sidewalks will be provided on both sides of all streets with related amenities, including street lights and appropriate and variable landscaping.The City and Town should ensure that sidewalks will be provided on both sides of all streets with related amenities, including street lights and appropriate and variable landscaping to insure CWD is pedestrian friendly1717C Y Y 5.7 See Response to Comment 21D.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 5 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes33TransportationPedestrian and Bicycle Facilities5.7.3.2 Adjacent Roadway Network The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy for “Relationship with Ithaca College” reads, in part, “The feasibility of recommendations for pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian connections along NYS Route 96B as it related to the on-going Route 96B Pedestrian Corridor Study remain to be seen.” This seems to reflect some uncertainty about the need for a pedestrian connection between Chain Works and Ithaca College. Considering the scale of Chain Works, a safe, uninterrupted, all-season pedestrian connection to Ithaca College will be a necessity, not something that “remains to be seen”. The intent of the Route 96B Pedestrian Corridor Study was to assess current pedestrian needs under existing conditions. The preliminary draft report does, however, acknowledge future development potential within the corridor and includes the statement that “…as the Chain Works District develops and becomes more of a destination, sidewalks should be constructed as part of that development…”The intent of the Route 96B Pedestrian Corridor Study was to assess current pedestrian needs under existing conditions. The preliminary draft report does, however, acknowledge future development potential within the corridor and includes the statement that “…as the Chain Works District develops and becomes more of a destination, sidewalks should be constructed as part of that development…”18 18AO Y Y 5.7The comment is acknowledged. The Project Sponsor intends to construct a sidewalk along its frontage contiguous to NYS Route 96B with the understanding that connections to a future sidewalk network within the Town of Ithaca will be made at such time. However, the community does not implement all season (covered) pedestrian facilities.35TransportationPedestrian and Bicycle FacilitiesThe site plan shows significant gaps in the internal sidewalk network in the vicinity of Scout Path and the two parking areas nearby. Please provide analysis of how pedestrian access will be accommodated.Same.21 21AL Y Y 5.7Acknowledged. The Project Sponsor has revised the Conceptual Site Layout Plan to add these connections (see FGEIS p. __). The final design of the internal pedestrian network will be addressed during the individual Site Plan Review of each Phase.9TransportationPedestrian and Bicycle FacilitiesAs stated in the traffic study, the pedestrian network between the site and anticipated pedestrian destinations is not complete. The internal sidewalk network is also not complete. Due to this limitatation it appears some of the trip reduction assupmtions for walking might be lower than assumed in the report. Further justification of the reduction or proposed improvements to the pedestrian network should be evaluated. As an example, the existing sidewalk along Cayuga Street near the site is in very poor condition.Same.2121D Y Y 5.7In conjunction with the Project, the Project Sponsor will improve the adjacent sidewalk network in coordination with City Staff as the Site is developed. The Lead Agency understands that the portion of the Site within the City’s jurisdiction is located within Sidewalk Improvement District 4. Therefore, any development that occurs will be subject to the required associated fees for such construction projects. The internal sidewalk network will be fully developed in the Site Plan Review phase in coordination with LEED ND requirements. Thus, the trip reduction assumptions in the traffic analysis appear to be appropriate.33TransportationPedestrian and Bicycle FacilitiesIt is unclear why the site plan does not show proposed sidewalk along the S Aurora Street frontage near Residential Area N18.Same.2121K Y Y 5.7The Project Sponsor has revised the Conceptual Site Layout Plan to include sidewalks along all Sponsor controlled properties (see FGEIS p. __). Sidewalk design and details will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase.32Transportation TransitTransit: The proposal seems to require residents to leave the new neighborhood and cross 96B in order to ride the bus. While it is probably not feasible to change existing bus routes to travel through this new neighborhood, establishing a shuttle to conveniently connect residents and employees from several locations within the new neighborhood to downtown and Ithaca College should be considered. This shuttle could be operated by TCAT or independently. This approach has been incorporated as part of the Collegetown Crossing development and should be explored as part of Chainworks; as well.The proposal seems to require residents to leave the new neighborhood and cross 96B in order to ride the bus. Establishing a shuttle, operated by TCAT or others, to conveniently connect residents and employees from several locations within the new neighborhood to downtown and Ithaca College should be considered. 1717HY Y 5.7 See Response to Comment 21AN.32Transportation Transit5.7.1.5 Transit While “existing demands for transit in the South Hill area are met”, the DGEIS doesn’t go into much detail about future needs. Can current service frequencies and capacity handle the anticipated need? How will TCAT handle future demands for transit? Provide documentation that the anticipated demand for transit will handled by TCAT.18 18AJ Y Y 5.7The current service frequencies and capacity may not likely be able to handle the anticipated need of future residents, visitors, and employees of the Site upon full development of the Project. Therefore, the Project Sponsor has committed, through continued coordination with TCAT, to monitor future demands of transit during the course of the development; this includes adding two transit stops on-site and potentially increasing the headway needed to meet these demands.32Transportation TransitThis section also states that the project will have “opportunities for enhanced public transit and connectivity between downtown, East and South Hill, and their academic institutions.” However, the DGEIS doesn’t describe the impact on transit service at current service levels, or what improvements TCAT might need to provide adequate service at buildout. The DGEIS doesn’t describe the impact on transit service at current service levels, or what improvements TCAT might need to provide adequate service at buildout. 1818I Y Y 5.7 See Response to Comment 21AN.32Transportation TransitPlease provide documentation of conversations with TCAT regarding plans for transit accommodation on and near the site.Same.21 21AN Y Y 5.7TCAT is a vital Interested Agency in the GEIS process. The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant made initial verbal contact with TCAT in August 2014. There was an additional meeting between Project Sponsor’s consultant team and TCAT on December 18, 2014. The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant recently had a conversation with TCAT on July 14, 2016. Documentation of that conversation is provided at xxx of the FGEIS. TCAT will continually be an Interested Agency during the Site Plan Review of each Phase.As of July 14, 2016, TCAT (Matt Yarrow) stated that Route 65 is not ideal for the Project as it is a commuter-based Route. Route 11 is best situated to service the Site once critical demand is met; this demand will be closely monitored through continued coordination between Site employers, Site residents, the Project Sponsor, City Staff and TCAT. An additional Route may be necessary to meet future demand and will be considered as part of the Monitor and Mitigation Implementation Plan.36Transportation TransitIt is unclear from the site plan where the proposed bus stop locations will be provided and whether these bus accommodations at these sites will be accessible the ADA standards. Further information should be provided, including timeline for implementation.Same.2121N Y Y 5.7The Conceptual Site Layout Plan identifies two potential bus stop locations. The final locations will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each PhaseLast Revised: 3/16/2017Page 6 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes18Transportation PermittingNYSDOT comments identify the mitigation we will require for you to commence work within our Right-of-Way (ROW) for the first stage (Phase I) of the project. All subsequent stages of this project will need to be coordinated through our Regional Traffic and Safety office to review any proposed work.Same.2222A Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.18Transportation PermittingThe SYNCHRO model provided indicates that the driveway immediately south of the city/town line is proposed to be utilized during this phase. We do not see an issue with this driveway being utilized for Phase I, provided the required Phase I mitigation is completed. Same.2222B Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.Adequacy Transportation MitigationImplementation of transportation improvements are divided into those needed for Phase I and those needed at full buildout of the project. This needs to be finer grained. Check TIS Same.11AA Y Y 5.7The is a level of complexity and variability of full build-out of the Project Site. The sequence of the Project Site developing may change based on market conditions and other outside factors. Thus, the Mitigation Measures highlighted in the DGEIS on Page 5-131 reflect a “big picture” improvement plan. Future snapshots of traffic conditions at various stages of development of the Project Site will be evaluated to determine what, if any, mitigation measures are needed; and at what point they need to be implemented.Adequacy Transportation Mitigation Who will pay for and implement off-site transportation improvements? Same.11Z Y Y 5.7Off-site transportation mitigation costs for structural improvements to the project drive intersections will primarily be born by the Project Sponsor in coordination with all relevant agencies overseeing the implementation of such improvements. Additional improvements to pre-development deficiancies shall be funded in the usual manner.18Transportation MitigationThe TDM program described in the DGEIS is comprehensive and should be implemented. However, the TDM section needs to include a commitment to fund staff capacity to manage its implementation. TDM programs can be very effective, but they are time intensive and need dedicated mobility management staff. Without dedicated staff the programs will not be implemented.TDM Section needs to included a commitment or means to fund staff capacity to manage implementation.1313B Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.61Transportation MitigationThe On-Site Multimodal Transportation Plan calls for the use of sharrows and signage on roads too narrow to accommodate bike lanes. Sharrows and signs by themselves do not provide adequate bicycle facilities, nor do they indicate a street is bike friendly. Assuming the installation of a dedicated bicycle right-of-way - i.e. some form of bicycle lane - is not possible, the use of sharrows and signs must be accompanied by installation in low traffic areas and/or by significant traffic calming in order to reduce the speed differential between cars and bicycles.The use of sharrows and signs must be accompanied by installation in low traffic areas and/or by significant traffic calming in order to reduce the speed differential between cars and bicycles.1313C Y Y 5.7The comment is acknowledged. All relevant and required signage and/or markings will be used when designating a particular roadway, a recognized bicycle facility.33Transportation Mitigation5.7 Transportation/Circulation The DGEIS directs most of its attention towards motor vehicles. For example, the mitigation implementation scenario for intersections on page 5-131 focuses entirely on motor vehicles – not the needs of pedestrians or cyclists. Other forms of transportation – walking, cycling, and public transit -- should not be an afterthought in the review or design of Chain Works, especially considering its urban setting, and its aspirations of sustainability and walkability. Mitigation should place a greater priority on how to better move people, not just cars and trucks. Are sidewalks proposed for the portion of the project along Aurora Street/NYS Route 96B?Traffic mitigation should focus on other modes of travel and not entirely on motor vehicles.1818AIY Y 5.7The comment is acknowledged. A sidewalk is proposed along the Project Site contiguous to NYS Route 96B/Aurora Street.18Transportation Mitigation2.7.5 Transportation Network This section describes projected transportation network improvements that different phases of the project will require. Who will be responsible for those improvements? Define the responsible party for the TDM traffic mitigation.1818V Y Y 5.7 See comment response 13B.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 7 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes18Transportation MitigationIt is unclear which of the mitigation measures listed in the report the applicant is proposing to accomplish as part of developing the site and which mitigation measures are recommended by the traffic study, in general. A list of the proposed mitigation measures (signal optimization, road diets, other) by the applicant should be provided with associated timeline in development when the mitigations measures will be implemented. The following intersections are projected to degrade to LOS E or worse operation under Phase 1 operations. Mitigation measures should be provided by the applicant to prevent this degradation: Prospect Street/ S Aurora Street, S Aurora Street/Columbia Street, S Aurora Street/Site Access 3, E State Street/Pine Tree Road The following intersections are projected to degrade to LOS E or worse operation under Phase 2 operations. Mitigation measures should be provided to prevent this degradation. The proposed peak hour parking restriction on Eastbound E State Street at Aurora Street is not acceptable for the City. Prospect Street/ S Aurora Street, S Aurora Street/Columbia Street, S Aurora Street/Site Access 3, Cayuga Street/Clinton Street, E State Street/Pine Tree Road, E State Street/Aurora Street, E State Street/Seneca WayClarify mitigation measures and timeframes, especially for the following intersections for Phase 1 development: Prospect Street/ S Aurora Street, S Aurora Street/Columbia Street, S Aurora Street/Site Access 3, E State Street/Pine Tree Road; and for Full Development: Prospect Street/ S Aurora Street, S Aurora Street/Columbia Street, S Aurora Street/Site Access 3, Cayuga Street/Clinton Street, E State Street/Pine Tree Road, E State Street/Aurora Street, E State Street/Seneca Way2121A Y Y 5.7Page 5-131 of the DGEIS highlights the proposed mitigation measures for the Project. These measures are divided between Phase 1 of the Project and post-Phase I development at the Site. The Project Sponsor informs the Lead Agency that Phase 1 has a proposed build-out timeframe of approximately two years. The remaining phases are projected to be developed over a period of eight years following occupancy of Phase 1. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that future development beyond Phase 1 has a moderate degree of variability. Therefore, traffic mitigation measures should be commensurate to identified traffic impacts, as well as be responsive to potential deviations from the proposed Project phasing and timeline.Relative to Phase 1, the Project Sponsor shall introduce and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips to and from the Site. The following TDM strategies have been proposed for Phase 1 implementation:• Market-priced parking• Preferential parking for ridesharing services• Bicycle parking facilities• Subsidized transit passes• Connections to transit stops (i.e. construct sidewalks to existing stop at Hillview Place)• Dedicated shuttle service• Transportation Alternatives Information• Coordination with Smart Trips Ithaca• Connected and improved pedestrian network on and adjacent the Site (i.e., improvements to sidewalks within Sidewalk Improvement District #4)• Pedestrian oriented design within the Site• Bicycle network facilities within the Site and connections to nearby Gateway Trail• Follow CPTED principles in all design• Coordination with Ithaca College and South Hill Business ParkIt is noted that these TDM strategies are consistent with actions Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) has identified in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Cornell University's tGEIS TDM program. Several of these TDM actions will need to be implemented on a tenant by tenant basis. The Lead Agency understands that Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program and CTR Efficiency Act a law passed by the State13Transportation MitigationWarrants should be provided to demonstrate the potential need for left-turn phasing on eastbound State Street at Stewart Avenue before and after development of Phases 1 and 2 of the site.Same.21 21AB Y Y 5.7The Lead Agency understands that the guidelines for the use of left-turn phasing described by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are as follows:1. Product of opposing and left-turn hourly volumes exceeds a value of 50,0002. Left-turn maneuver crosses three of more lanes of opposing through traffic3. The posted speed limit of opposing traffic is greater than 45 MPH4. A recent crash history for a 12-month period indicates five or more left-turn collisions that could be prevented by the installation of a left-turn signal5. Sight distance to oncoming traffic is less than the minimum recommended distance6. The intersection has unusual geometric configurations7. An opposing left-turn approach has a left-turn signal or meets one of the criteria listed aboveThe Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant has provided the following analysis: (See Table) Based on the guidelines above and the Level of Service results listed in the DGEIS at page 5-113 which indicates a “B” or better during the AM and PM peak hours under all conditions, with the exception during the AM peak hour under Full Development Conditions (LOS “E”), it does not appear that left-turn phasing is required as mitigation. However, the intersection shall be monitored in conjunction with the Monitoring and Mitigation Implementation (MMI) Plan to determine at what point in the future mitigation, if any, is needed. Refer to Response #19 below for more information regarding the MMI Plan. 18Transportation MitigationAs part of a Monitoring and Mitigation Implementation Plan (MMI Plan), these future traffic impact assessments will provide updated trip distribution and generation figures resulting from development of the Site. These traffic impact assessments will go beyond standard theoretical capacity analysis, utilizing actual traffic assessment data, such as intersection delay studies, queuing analyses, and gap studies.Same.21 21AJ Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged. See Response to Comment 21A.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 8 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes62Transportation MitigationIf level of service E conditions are documented for any intersections approach to be monitored, the applicant will be responsible for mitigation of the condition to LOS D or better before additional development can occur. This criteria is consistent with NYSDOT's standards for operation, so all study intersections will be subject to the same evaluation criteria. If no physical mitigation is identified due to technical infeasibility, the applicant will be required to document a reduction in site trips to the intersection through TDM or other measures allowing for LOS D or better operations for all movements before further development can occur. Regarding the Turner Place and Cayuga Street corridors, the applicant will be responsible for ensuring that acceptable traffic operations are maintained along these midblock sections and that traffic volumes do not cause a change in the character of these roadwaysSame.21 21AK Y Y 5.7It is our understanding that existing conditions, such as an LOS of E, are not the responsibility of the Project Sponsor and that mitigation by the Project Sponsor is commensurate of our Project Impacts. Obviously, the Project Sponsor will be required to obtain permits through NYSDOT and will comply with their standards of mitigation.18Transportation MitigationIn addition to traffic observations, the MMI Plan will incorporate a transportation modal survey (i.e., similar to the National Household Travel Survey) to better understand the effectiveness of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies employed on-site (discussed later in this response). Quantifiable figures, such as modal distribution or average vehicle ridership (AVR), will be used to report the effectiveness. AVR is the ratio of the total number of employees or residents to the average daily number of vehicles used. An agreed upon AVR with local officials will be determined. Same.21 21AL Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged. See Response to Comment 21A.63Transportation MitigationI also want to acknowledge that the Phase 1 site access scheme and internal transportation network cannot be identified completely or agreed on until the specific locations associated with Phase 1 are finalized. The extent of the initial phase of development and its location within the site will dictate what access points need to be developed and whether they should be signalized. This will involve collaboration between the City and State to determine.Same.21 21AM Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.12Transportation MitigationI want to acknowledge agreement with the NYSDOT comment from their February 10, 2017 memorandum stating concerns about sight distance for northbound vehicles (especially trucks) approaching stopped vehicles waiting to turn left into Site Access 1. The applicant must investigate sight distance for this potential conflict for review to determine if left-turns should be permitted at this location. Additionally, no northbound left-turn lane is proposed at Site Access 2, though Phase 1 traffic projections show a turn lane being warranted. Further justification for why a left-turn lane is not proposed must be provided or left-turn ingress movement might have to be restricted at this location. Considering the potential northbound sight distance limitations at Site Access 1, it is possible that Site Access 2 might be a better candidate for signalization and installation of a left-turn lane, in which case Site Access 1 might better function as a right-in/right-out only driveway.Same.21 21AN Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged. See Response to Comment 23A.21Transportation MitigationA plan must be provided for proposed timing of installation of a traffic signal at site Access Point 1 and 4 relative to development.Same.2121B Y Y 5.7Refer to Response to #XX above (specifically the response regarding the MMI Plan) and pages 5-115 and 5-123 of the TIS for a description of the traffic signal mitigation and warrants at the proposed Access Points. During redevelopment and construction of Phase I, underground traffic signal conduit should be installed at the Aurora Street/Proposed Driveway I intersection with the assumption that a future traffic signal will be required to mitigation traffic impacts. Upon completion of Phase 1, a subsequent traffic signal warrant study will be performed to evaluate actual traffic patterns and delays at Driveway I, and determine when construction of the proposed traffic signal is warranted.Installation of a traffic signal at this intersection is projected to attract a portion of exiting vehicle trips from the Site. This will have the effect of reducing trips added to the Project driveways, specifically Driveway III.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 9 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes23Transportation MitigationThe TDM section of the report describes many strategies that could be used at the site but does not provide a plan to ensure implementation. A more structured plan is needed to justify trip reductions.Same.2121F Y Y 5.7The Project Sponsor proposes the following TDM strategies for short-term, Phase 1 implementation as the early development of the Project advances:• Market-priced parking• Preferential parking for ridesharing services• Bicycle parking facilities• Subsidized transit passes• Connections to transit stops (i.e. construct sidewalks to existing stop at Hillview Place)• Dedicated shuttle service / rideshare participation (i.e. Zipcar)• Transportation Alternatives Information• Coordination with Smart Trips Ithaca• Connected and improved pedestrian network on and adjacent the Site (i.e., improvements to sidewalks within Sidewalk Improvement District #4)• Pedestrian oriented design within the Site• Bicycle network facilities within the Site and connections to nearby Gateway Trail• Follow CPTED principles in all design• Coordination with Ithaca College and South Hill Business ParkAs the Site continues to be built-out, as discussed in Response #3 above, regular traffic updates will be prepared pursuant to the MMI Plan and these traffic updates will incorporate a transportation modal survey to better understand the effectiveness of the TDM strategies. The TDM strategy evaluation will include discussion of new or developing TDM strategies for consideration. Existing research of TDM strategies by the Project Team are presented in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).5Transportation MitigationIt is unclear from the traffic study if ingress-only or full access will be provided to the site via Cayuga Street. The site plan shows 2-way circulation. The Phase 1 trip generation figure (5.7-22) shows ingress and egress traffic, while the Phase 2 trip generation shown no egress traffic from the site.Same.21 21G Y Y 5.7As per page 5 and 48 of the Scoping Document, the Project Sponsor is proposing 2-way circulation via Cayuga Street. The reason that Phase 2 trip generation shows no egress traffic on Cayuga Street is that trip distribution pattern percentages related to Phase 2 were not projected to utilize Cayuga Street. This is due to the location of Phase 2 development on-site and the projected travel paths to and from such development (see Response #3 above for more detail on trip distribution methodology). While there may be variability as to how many vehicles may use this street, any Phase 2 traffic is projected to be very low. Refer to the Response #4 above regarding Minor Residential/Local Street traffic volumes and Figures 5.7-25 and 5.7-26 of the DGEIS for an illustration of Phase 1 and Full Development traffic volume distribution.22Transportation MitigationThe proposed signalized traffic signal on Aurora Street at Site Access 1 is located approximately 325 feet from the existing traffic signal at the intersection of S Aurora Street and Hillview Place. Given the close proximity of the proposed traffic signal spacing, it will be necessary to coordinate the traffic signals in order to prevent unacceptable queueing and delay between the intersections. Detailed analysis must be provided proving that adequate progression can be provided with this minimal spacing. Additionally, the existing controller at the Hillview Place/S Aurora Street intersection is likely not capable of such coordination and would probably need to be replaced by the applicant along with any related infrastructure in order to accomplish coordination of the two traffic signals.The proposed signalized traffic signal on Aurora Street at Site Access 1 is located approximately 325 feet from the existing traffic signal at the intersection of S Aurora Street and Hillview Place. Given the close proximity of the proposed traffic signal spacing, it will be necessary to coordinate the traffic signals in order to prevent unacceptable queueing and delay between the intersections. Detailed analysis must be provided proving that adequate progression can be provided with this minimal spacing. 2121H Y Y 5.7The mitigated conditions at the proposed Site Access 1 driveway are coded with a coordinated signal system with the nearby S Aurora Street/Hillview Place signalized intersection. The Project Sponsor will be required to provide the proposed mitigation. The Project Sponsor will also be required to perform all necessary upgrades to the traffic signal at S Aurora Street/Hillview Place to allow for coordination between the subject traffic signal and the proposed signal at Driveway I. A detailed analysis of this condition is included in Appendix I of the DGEIS.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 10 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes10Transportation MitigationA queue analysis is needed at the proposed site access locations to determine if anticipated queues will spill back into internal intersections or onto adjacent roadways. Available queue spacing appears especially limited exiting the site at Site Access 1. Same.2121J Y Y 5.7The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant provided the following table which depicts the queuing results at the proposed site access driveways during Phase 1 and Full Development Conditions. Supplementary queuing analysis is provided in the DGEIS updates (see FGEIS p. __).AM PEAK HOUR QUEUING RESULTSSite Access Driveway Phase 1 Driveway I 20 49 46 78 52 91 160Driveway II NA NA NA NA NA NA N/ADriveway III 7 26 36 60 19 39 211Driveway IV 6 24 40 72 52 83 475Driveway V NA NA 36 73 29 48 422PM PEAK HOUR QUEUING RESULTSSite Access Driveway Phase 1 Driveway I 31 69 290 358 98 154 160Driveway II NA NA NA NA NA NA N/ADriveway III 9 29 115 231 30 52 211Driveway IV 24 54 60 117 63 106 475Driveway V NA NA 35 53 41 73 422Based on the above queuing analysis there are sufficient storage lengths at Driveways IV and V during both peak hours. Driveway III during the PM peak hour is borderline based on 95th percentile queues. However, queues of this length are expected to be infrequent and are intended to illustrate a worst-case scenario. On the other hand, Driveway I during the PM peak hour shows queues that are longer than the conceptual available storage. Accordingly, to mitigate this impact, the internal roadways interior to the Driveway I access onto Aurora Street shall be designed to mitigate potential spillback into internal intersections.40Transportation MitigationIt is unclear where stop signs will be provided in the grid of streets in the vicinity of Housing areas N27 – N38.Same.21 21O Y Y 5.7 Internal traffic controls will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase.41Transportation MitigationStop signs are not shown on the site plan for egress from Site Access 3.Same.21 21Q Y Y 5.7Acknowledged. The Project Sponsor has revised he Conceptual Site Layout Plan to show proposed stop sign locations (see FGEIS p. __). The final location of Internal traffic controls will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each phase of Project development.42Transportation MitigationThe stop sign shown near Residential Area N4 appears to be misplaced. It was probably intended to be located at the nearby four-leg intersection with only one stop sign shown.Same.2121R Y Y 5.7As noted above, the final location of internal traffic controls will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each phase of Project development.43Transportation MitigationThe driveway access to Residential Area N2 appears as if vehicles will need to pull in and out directly into an internal intersection. Clarification should be provided on the access scheme.Same.2121S Y Y 5.7The final design and geometry of the internal roadway network, including providing turn movement analysis, will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase34Transportation MitigationIt appears that the orientation of vehicles accessing Lower Morse Place from the parking lot south of Building 18 could create sight distance limitations based on its acute intersection angle. The intersection of Lower Morse Place with South Cayuga Street presents similar limitations. Sight distance should be investigated at these locations.Sight distance estimates should be investigated at the intersections to Lower Morse at Building 18 Parking and South Cayuga Street.2121T Y Y 5.7The final design and geometry of the internal roadway network, including providing turn movement analysis, will be addressed during individual Site Plan Review of each Phase. Specific to the comment, the Lead Agency understands that the Lower Morse Place roadway will have a speed limit of 20 mph as well as be one way which will improve site distance. 12Transportation MitigationA sight distance evaluation should be provided for all proposed access points.Same.2121Z Y Y 5.7The Project Sponsor’s traffic consultant provided the following sight distance evaluation: North SouthDrive I > 500 ft 400 ftDrive II* 400 ft > 500 ft * - Note: Drive II is proposed to be an entrance only.24 Transportation MitigationOur preferred mitigation is installing a signal and left/right turn lanes at the Coddington Rd./proposed driveway before any site work begins. Traffic/accident patterns in this location cause some concern for us not mitigating before Phase I. However, we are also aware that the expense of full mitigation at the initial project startup can hinder development. For this reason, we are requesting that you supply a table or a list which would clearly state at what level of traffic volume per intersection mitigation would be needed. In this case, we would require an update on traffic counts at a specified interval to verify the traffic patterns to require mitigation should this be the approved method to move forward. Basically, we will be requiring a sensitivity analysis so we can determine when to implement all appropriate mitigations for the entire project.Same.2222C Y Y 5.7The following table notes at approximately what point in future traffic generation from the proposed CWD will trigger the need for mitigation assigned to the noted intersections. (See attached Table). The need for additional mitigation at Route 96B/Coddington Road/Proposed Driveway IV, aside from the left-turn lanes along Route 96B will be reviewed at Site Plan approval of projects beyond Phase 1.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 11 of 12
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICTDGEIS COMMENT MATRIXComment X-ReferenceComment CategoryComment SubcategoryCommentSummary of CommentCommenter IDComment ID Sub. RelRelevant DGEIS Response to CommentNotes25Transportation MitigationThe following shall be the Phase I mitigation requirements: a) Changing the four-lane section of NY 968 south from the city/town line to past Bella Vista Dr. by reco.nfiguring the two southbound lanes to one thru lane and incorporating left turn lanes for both directions at intersections, and hatching where appropriate.Same.2222D Y Y 5.7These comments are acknowledged. The Project Sponsor will seek to partner with the Town of Ithaca, Ithaca College, the South Hill Business Park, and others, as applicable, to implement the noted reconfiguring project.25Transportation MitigationThe following shall be the Phase I mitigation requirements: b) Sidewalk will be required along the frontage of the site on the western side of Route 968, from the city/town line to the Coddington Rd. intersection.Same.2222E Y Y 5.7These comments are acknowledged. The Project Sponsor will seek to partner with the Town of Ithaca, Ithaca College, the South Hill Business Park, and others, as applicable, to implement the noted reconfiguring project.25Transportation MitigationThe following shall be the Phase I mitigation requirements: c) The proposed driveway, immediately south of city/town line, will be a one-way, ingress only; no traffic will be allowed to exit onto Route 968 at this location.Same.2222F Y Y 5.7These comments are acknowledged. The Project Sponsor will seek to partner with the Town of Ithaca, Ithaca College, the South Hill Business Park, and others, as applicable, to implement the noted reconfiguring project.26Transportation MitigationSignal timing adjustment will not be considered as an option for a form of mitigation during this phase (Phase 1) of the project. Should larger traffic volumes than expected result from Phase I construction, it may be necessary to look at utilizing the signals to help, but will not be the main form of mitigation. It should also be noted we found numerous errors in the TIS for the modeled signals, but for Phase I we will not require re-submitting a revised TIS. We will work with the developer on the next submittal to correct any errors. Same.22 22G Y Y 5.7 These comments are acknowledged. These changes will be incorporated in future analyses.27Transportation MitigationThe unsignalized driveway at the Coddington Rd. intersection can only be a one lane exit, rather than dual exit lanes as modeled on SYNCHRO. This can be changed once a signal is installed, but we do not allow dual exiting lanes at unsignalized intersections.Same.2222H Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.28Transportation MitigationWe will require a revised TIS for each phase of the project where modifications and/or additional mitigation is proposed in the NYSDOT R.O.W.Same.2222I Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.29Transportation MitigationCurrently, a cross-property connection with the business park immediately to the south of CWD is not shown. We would support property owners should they desire to pursue the connection of properties, since this business park has a signalized access to Route 968.Same.2222J Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.31Transportation MitigationAdditionally, we have concerns with potential sight distance at the northern-most access drive, northbound on Route 968, when crossing from the town to the city-owned portion of Route 968. Our concern is with regard to the significant downhill grade, which continually increases when traveling north into the city. Large vehicles, specifically trucks, will have a difficult time slowing down for left-turning vehicles waiting to turn into the site. For this reason, we strongly encourage the consideration of a northbound left-turn lane at this intersection. Same.2222K Y Y 5.7 The comment is acknowledged.30Transportation MitigationOne thing we had mentioned in the meeting and forgot to include in our TIS response was restricting the number of access points to NY-96B. The driveway between Coddington Road and the southernmost access will not be allowed; this is the access proposed near building N18. This wasn’t proposed until a later phase anyways, but we wanted to be clarify our initial standpoint from the meeting. Same.2323AY Y 5.7This can be addressed by removing trees/brush and other obstructions within the NYS Route 96Bright-of-way or providing a left-turn lane at Site Access Drive #1. This will be reviewed by NYSDOTand the City during the Site Plan Review phase. The Project Sponsor will revisit this concern inconsultation with the City of Ithaca once actual data can be collected and analyzed with theProposed Driveway I in operation.Last Revised: 3/16/2017Page 12 of 12