Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08 Design Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation Volume 1of2• Cly C(e&sCo(¼1' NSPORTATION„ DESIGN REPORT/ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENT FROM MEADOW STREET IN CITY OF ITHACA TO DUBOISE ROAD IN TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY P ROJECT ID ENTIFICATION NUMBER 3047.04 REPORT NUMBER: FHWA-NY -EIS- 88 : 01:D AUGUST 1988 • VOLUME 1 of 2 REG 97-1 (10/77) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION =01 1"r NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRANKLIN E. WHITE, Commissioner IiLi FHWA-NY-EIS 88-01-D DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION FOR PIN 3047.04 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENT FROM MEADOW STREET IN CITY OF ITHACA TO DUBOISE ROAD IN TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY STATE OF NEW YORK SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 USC BY US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COOPERATING AGENCY U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers ABSTRACT: 303 This report describes the social, economic and environmental effects of the Route 96 Improvement project in Tompkins County, New York. The alternatives being considered are: The Null Alternative (no -build); Alternative A, a low scale facility providing improve- ments only within the City of Ithaca; AlternativeB, a two-lane plus climbing lane facility on new location; Alternative C, a four -lane divided facility on new location. All build alternatives include the provision of a one-way pair utilizing Meadow and Fulton Streets within the City of Ithaca.. DATE 6/ Zv-/ �8' RO RT LAMBERT ` HAROLD J. BROWN DIRECTOR, FACILITIES DESIGN DIVISION DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT FEDERAL HIGHWAY OF TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION AUG 3 0 1988 COMMENTS DUE BY: DECEMBER 12, 1988 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CAN BE RAYMOND F. NOVAK, P.E. ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION #3 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW. YORK 13202 PHONE: 315-428-4351 OBTAINED FROM: HAROLD J. BROWN FHWA, DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR LEO W. O'BRIEN FEDERAL BUILDING CLINTON AVENUE & N. PEARL STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207 PHONE: 518-472-3616 SUMMARY This project involves Route. 96 improvements from Meadow Street in the City of Ithaca to Duboise Road in the Town of Ithaca. This project is a localized improvement and is not part of any long range plan for Route 96 improvements. One of the project needs is to provide relief at the intersection of Routes 13A, 79, 89 and 96 (locally known as the Octopus). A one-way pair utilizing Meadow and Fulton Streets with- in the City of Ithaca is included under all of the build alternatives considered under this project. A single track of the Conrail Railroad bisects the existing city street system. This track•parallels Fulton Street and is at grade throughout the project area. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Three build alternatives have been preliminarily designed and environmentally assessed. Optional design considerations are included under each of the build alternatives. A Null Alternative (No -Build) was also assessed. This alternative would involve continued reliance upon the exist- ing roads and streets without any roadway improvements. ALTERNATIVE A This alternative is a low scale facility that would provide improvements only within the City of Ithaca. The Route 96 improvements would begin at the intersection of Meadow Street and Buffalo Street. The Route 96 traffic would be directed via an improved Buffalo Street extending west from the intersection across the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel and connecting into Cliff Street (existing Route 96) at a point approximately 600 feet north of the existing Route 89 (Park Road) intersection with Cliff Street. A new four -lane bridge would replace the. existing bridge on Buffalo Street crossing over the Old Cayuga Inlet and a new three -lane bridge would be built to cross over the Flood Control Channel. No improvements would be provided north of the above described connection into Cliff Street. Routes 96 and 89 would be separated from the existing Octopus intersection. Alternative A would be at grade with the Conrail Railroad crossing near Fulton Street. The estimated right-of-way and construction cost for this alternative would be 10.7 million dollars. ALTERNATIVE A - OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGNMENT An optional Route 89 alignment was also studied that would connect existing Route 89 (Park Road) to Taughannock Boulevard on the Island and would intersect with the new Route 96 at Buffalo Street. Under this option, all other elements of Alternative A remain the same, except for a slightly sharper curve for new Route 96 crossing over the Flood Control Channel (Buffalo Street extended to Cliff Street). The estimated right-of-way and construction cost for this alternative would be 12.6 million dollars. ALTERNATIVE B Alternative B is a two-lane plus a truck climbing lane facility on new location. This alternative is similar to Alternative A, except that Route 96 would be on new location from the Buffalo Street extension across the Flood Control Channel in the City of Ithaca to the vicinity of the Tompkins Community Hospital in the Town of Ithaca. Route 96 traffic would be directed via an improved Buffalo Street from Meadow and Fulton Streets in the City of Ithaca west across the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control "Channel onto the new Route 96 along the West Hill. A new four -lane bridge would replace the existing bridge on Buffalo Street crossing over the Old Cayuga Inlet and a new three -lane bridge would be built on the Buffalo Street extension crossing .of the Flood Control Channel. The Octopus intersection is improved by removing the Route 96 and 89 traffic. However, the configuration of the intersection would remain unchanged. A portion of existing Route 89 (Park Road) would be modified and retained as a frontage road for the properties along Cliff Street near the Octopus. This frontage road would become a local city street. A new two-lane bridge would be constructed over the new Route 96 near the south end of Cass Park in the City of Ithaca. This bridge would provide access to Cass Park from the West Hill area. Three optional alignments are included near the northern terminus of new Route 96. These optional alignments provide a series of variations in geometric configurations that would potentially satisfy the concerns of the Tompkins Community Hospital and/or the Paleontological Research Institution. ii Alternative B would be at grade with the Conrail Railroad crossing near Fulton Street. Alternative B estimated right-of-way and construction cost is 27.9 million dollars with Optional Alignment No. 1 _ and 28.6 million dollars with Optional Alignments No. 2 and No. 3. ALTERNATIVE C Alternative C is a four -lane divided facility on new location. The four -lane divided section splits into two one- way directional pairs near the southerly end of Cass Park that connects new Route 96 into Meadow Street. The new southbound Route 96 would connect into Buffalo Street and the new northbound Route 96 would connect into Meadow Street near the existing Esty Street intersection with Meadow Street. Buffalo Street would be a one-way street to Meadow Street and a two-way street east of Meadow Street. The existing bridge on Buffalo Street over the Old Cayuga Inlet would be replaced by a new two-lane bridge and a new two-lane bridge would be built over the Flood Control Channel. The Octopus intersection is improved by removing the Route 96 and 89 traffic. However, the configuration of the intersection would remain unchanged. A portion of existing Route 89. (Park Road) would be modified and retained as a frontage road for the properties along Cliff Street near the Octopus. This frontage road would become a local city street. A new two-lane bridge would be constructed over the new Route 96 near the south end of Cass Park in the City of Ithaca. This bridge would provide access to Cass Park from the West Hill area. Three optional alignments are included near the northern terminus of new Route 96. As previously noted under Alterna- tive B, these optional alignments provide a series of varia- tions in geometric configurations that would potentially satisfy the concerns of the Tompkins Community Hospital and/or the Paleontological Research Institution. Alternative C includes an optional high-level grade separated crossing over the single track of the Conrail Railroad and a low-level, at grade crossing of this single track for the northbound one-way new Route 96. The high- level option would include one two-lane bridge crossing Fulton Street extended, the single railroad track, the'Old Cayuga Inlet, the Island and the Flood Control Channel, whereas the low-level option would include two separate iii bridges. A new three -lane bridge would cross over the Old _l Cayuga Inlet and a new two-lane bridge would cross over the ?' Flood Control Channel. The southbound Route 96 traffic on Buffalo Street would be at grade with the Conrail Railroad crossing near Fulton Street. I The estimated right-of-way and construction cost for Alternative C combined with the Optional High -Level North- bound and Optional Alignment No. 1 is 39.8 million dollars, 40.4 million dollars when combined with Optional Alignment No. 2, and 40.3 million dollars when combined with Optional Alignment No. 3. The estimated right-of-way and construction cost for Alternative C combined with the Optional Low -Level Northbound and Optional Alignment No. 1 is 37.7 million dollars and 38.3 million dollars when combined with either Optional Alignment No. 2 or No. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Only the most important environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with each of the alternatives and their options are summarized below. NOISE The number of sites impacted vary from two sites under Alternative A to as many as six sites under Alternatives B and C. The predicted design year noise levels at site number 2 would exceed the noise abatement criteria by 1 to 2 dBA under all of the build alternatives but would be 3 to 4 dBA below the existing noise level. The predicted design year noise level at site number 5 would exceed the noise abatement criteria by 1 dBA under Alternatives A and B and would be 4 dBA above the existing noise level. AIR QUALITY Air quality is not expected to be significantly affected by any of the proposed alternatives. The projected CO con- centrations are within the established standards. LAND USE Some business development is expected along Buffalo Street west to Meadow Street under all the build alterna- tives. Alternatives B and C would encourage additional growth -near the Tompkins Community Hospital but would restrict growth along the West Hill. Alternatives B and C would sever up to 97 acres of undeveloped woodland along the West Hill with no access provided. Also, the construction of Alternative B or C would remove 44 to 53, acres of existing vegetation along the West Hill. iv '1 �1 L (-1 L TAX BASE AND PROPERTY VALUES The real estate tax loss per year for the City of Ithaca is estimated to range from about $13,750 to $20,000 under Alternative A, Optional Route 89 Alignment to about $25,000 to $31,250 under Alternative C, Optional High -Level North- bound. There would be minor real estate tax loss to the Town of Ithaca since most of the land involved along the West Hill and situated within the Town of Ithaca is currently tax exempt. None of the build alternatives are expected to cause --�1�� �6,1vkiG�0 property values to change from their current trends since ;„, ,tr}.1 this project is a localized improvement. REGULATED FLOODWAYS AND NAVIGABLE WATER None of the build alternatives would have a significant impact to the existing flooding conditions of the Old Cayuga Inlet, the Flood Control Channel or to Cayuga Lake. Prelimi- nary analyses indicate that all of the build alternatives would cause no more than 0.1 foot + increase over the existing 100 -year water surface elevation. None of the alternatives would affect navigation on Cayuga Lake. However, Alternative C with the low-level option for the northbound lanes would require a portion of the New York State Barge Canal, situated along the Old Cayuga Inlet, to be deregulated. The deregulated area would run from the northbound crossing, south to Buffalo Street. All of the alternatives would include provisions to maintain the existing rowing course located in the Flood Control Channel. TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY Alternative C, together with any of its options, would provide the most improved traffic flow and safety. Alternative A and Alternative A, Optional Route 89 Alignment would provide the least improved traffic flow and safety. The Null Alternative and Alternative A are estimated to result in 10.9 minutes of travel time measured from the Meadow and State Street intersections in the City of Ithaca, north to the Tompkins Community Hospital driveway in the Town of Ithaca via Route 96 in the year 2010 at the PM peak hour. Alternative B is estimated at 4.6 minutes of travel time and Alternative C, High -Level Northbound Option is estimated at 4.4 minutes of travel time and Alternative C, Low -Level Northbound Option is estimated at 4.7 minutes of travel time. v SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS Alternative A, Optional Route 89 Alignment would result in the least number of residential and commercial displace- ments and Alternative C combined with Optional Alignments No. 2 and No. 3 would result in the largest number of displace- ments. The maximum number of residential displacements would be 10 under Alternative A and the maximum number of business displacements is 10 under Alternative C, High -Level and Option No. 2. The Paleontological Research Institution (PRI) has one of the ten most significant collections of fossils in North America. The PRI would be displaced under Alternatives B and C combined with Optional Alignments No. 2 and No. 3. The PRI has stated their intent to remain in the Ithaca area if their facilities would be displaced by this project. NYSDOT will provide relocation assistance and counseling for those residents who are displaced by this project. Also, NYSDOT will provide relocation assistance to the PRI for relocation costs associated with relocating the fossil collection, if relocation is required as a result of this project. AESTHETICS Any of the build alternatives will have a visual impact on the island area and to Cass Park. Alternative A would result in the least impact due to its limited improvements. Alternative A with the Optional Route 89 Alignment would result in slightly more visual impact because of the new Route 89 alignment. Alternatives B and C would result in adverse visual impacts on the island area, along Cass Park and along the West Hill. Alternative C combined with the Optional High -Level Northbound would have the greatest adverse visual impact. Alternatives B and C would result in adverse visual impact to Cass Park users with retaining walls along Cass Park and greater adverse visual impact with the optional design for fill slopes along Cass Park. CULTURAL RESOURCES Alternative A and. Alternatives B and C when combined with Optional Alignment No. 1 have no impact. Alternatives B and C combined with their Optional Alignments No. 2 and No. 3 would displace Structure C. This structure is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and was part of the original Odd Fellows,Rebekah's Home. This struc- ture currently houses. the Paleontological Research Institu- tion. vi SECTION 4(f) PARK LANDS All of the build alternatives would require some reloca- tion(s) to the existing Cayuga Inlet Trail located along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel. All of the reloca- tions would be grade separated under the new Route 96 im- provements. Each of the build alternatives would involve taking of some land area from Cass Park. The park lands that are required under the build alternatives include park lands that are subject to the section 6(f) process. Alternatives B and C include provisions for construction of either retaining walls or fill slopes along Cass Park. The estimate of required park lands range from 0.1 acre I under Alternative A to 1.7 acres under Alternative C with i fill slopes along Cass Park. All of the required park lands are 6(f), except for 0.1 acre under Alternative C with fill slopes. No existing or planned activities are affected within the 6(f) park lands. Alternative C with fill slopes would result in a minimum distance of about 215 feet from home plate to the proposed right-of-way line at the Little League Ball Field in the 4(f) park land adjacent to Cass Park. The optional design with fill slopes along Cass Park would result in additional impacts under Alternative C, caused by the relocation of the existing 115 KV aerial electric lines along the archery range and the Little League Ball Field. The optional design with fill slopes along Cass Park may result in similar additional impacts noted above under Alternative B. Alternatives B and C would result in minor noise impacts. There would be adverse visual impact to Cass Park users with the retaining walls along Cass Park and greater adverse visual impact with fill slopes along Cass Park. Access to the park lands would be improved under all of the build alternatives. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION I-1 II. PROJECT LOCATION, EVOLUTION AND NEED FOR II -1 THE PROJECT A. PROJECT LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION II -1 B. PROJECT EVOLUTION II -1 C. PROJECT NEED AND RESULTING OBJECTIVES , II -8 III. ALTERNATIVES III -1 A. OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN CRITERIA III -1 B. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES III -3 1. Design Alternatives Considered III -3 from 1976-1984 2. Re-evaluation of the Project, III -3 Corridor Modification and Alternatives Now Under Consideration 3. Features Common to All Build III -4 Alternatives 4. Alternative A III -10 a. Optional Alternative A III -14 Configuration b. Other Options Considered III -17 and Discarded 5. Alternative B III -21 a. Modifications Considered III -26 and Discarded 6. Alternative C III -29 a. Modifications Considered III -35 and Discarded L TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Existing and Proposed Structures 2. Hydraulics for Bridges and Large Culverts 3. Drainage 4. Degree of Maintenance and Maintenance Responsibility a. Existing Responsibilities b. Responsibilities Created Under the Build Alternatives 5. Maintenance of Traffic Including Detours, Alternatives A, B and C a. General b. Alternative A c. Alternatives B and C 6. Traffic Flow and Safety Considerations a. Traffic Flow b. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service (LOS) c. Safety Considerations d. Railroad Issues 7. Utilities 8. Soils a. General Project Area b. Soils Considerations 9. Landscaping 10. Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists a. General b. Bikeways c. Sidewalks 11. Parking Considerations 12. Signing and Signal Considerations 13. Navigation 14. Right -of -Way 15. Lighting 16. Associated Costs 17. Benefit/Cost Ratio D. SUBSTANDARD FEATURES 1. Alternative A a. Level of Service ix PAGE III -42 III -42 III -47 III -49 III -49 III -49 1II-50 III -51 III -51 III -51 III -52 II1-52 I1I-52 III -55 III -56 III -58 III -61 III -64 III -64 III -64 III -66 III -67 III -67 III -68 1II-75 I1I-78 III -82 II1-83 III -83 III -85 III -85 III -87 III -88 III -88 III -88 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) PAGE 2. Alternative A with Optional Rpute 89 III -88 Alignment a. Level of Service III -88 b. Design Speed and Maximum Curve III -88 1. New Route 96 III -88 2. Relocated Route 89 III -89 3. Alternative B III -89 a. Level of Service III -89 b. Design Speed, Maximum Curve and III -90 Minimum Stopping Sight Distance 1. New Route 96 from Buffalo III -90 Street to the north end of Cass Park (Sections A & B) 2. Relocated Route 89 (Under III -91 Section A Criteria) 3. Connection to Existing Route III -91 96 near Tompkins Community Hospital (Section C) c. Maximum Grades (Section C) III -92 4. Alternative C III -92 a. Level of Service .III -92 b. Design Speed, Maximum Curve and III -92 Minimum Stopping Sight Distance 1. Southbound Route 96 from III -93 Buffalo Street to north end of Cass Park (Sections A and B) 2. Relocated Route 89 (Under III -93 Section A Criteria) 3. Connection to Existing Route III -94 96 near the Tompkins Commu- nity Hospital (Section C)_ c. Maximum'Grades (Section C) III -94 IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IV -1 OF ALTERNATIVES A. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT IV -1 1. Regional and Community. Growth IV -1 a. The West End IV -1 b. Tompkins Community Hospital Area IV -2 c. Land Use IV -4 2. Conservation and Preservation IV -4 a. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation IV -4 b. General Ecology of the Area IV -4 c. Parks and Recreational Facilities IV -5 x TABLE OF CONTENTS-(Cont'd) PAGE d. Fish and Wildlife IV -6 e. Historic and Archeological Sites IV -6 f. Prime Agricultural Lands IV -15 g. Regulated Floodways and Navigable IV -15 Waters h. Permits IV -15 3. Public Facilities and Services IV -15 a. Religious, Health and Educational IV -15 Facilities b. Public Utilities IV -17 c. Fire Protection and Other IV -17 Emergency Services 4. Community Cohesion IV -17 a. Residential and Neighborhood IV -17 Character and Stability 5. Air, Noise and Water IV -19 a. Air Quality IV -19 b. Noise IV -19 c. Water IV -22 6. Aesthetics and Visual Quality IV -24 7. Wild and Scenic Rivers IV -25 8. Hazardous Waste IV -25 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IV -31 IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1. Regional and Community Growth IV -31 a. The West End IV -31 b. Tompkins Community Hospital Area IV -32 c. Alignment Between The West End IV -35 and Tompkins Community Hospital d. Land Use IV -35 2. Conservation and Preservation IV -36 a. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation IV -36 b. Ecology of the Area IV -37 c. Park and Recreation Facilities IV -38 d. Fish and Wildlife IV -40 e. Historic and Natural Landmarks IV -40 f. Regulated Floodways and Navigable IV -41 Waterways g. Natural Resources and Energy IV -42 3. Public Facilities and Services IV -43 4. Community Cohesion IV -44 a. Residential and Neighborhood IV -44 Character and Stability b. Impact Upon Conceptual Plans IV -46 For Redevelopment of Cayuga Inlet and Island c. Tax Base and Property Values IV -47 xi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) PAGE 5. Displacement of People and Business IV -49 6. Air, Noise and Water IV -50 a. Air Quality IV -52 b. Noise IV -58 c.. Water IV -67 7. Visual Quality - IV -69 8. Pedestrians and Bicyclists IV -71 9. Construction Impacts IV -72 C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF IMPACTS IV -75 1. Aesthetics and Visual Quality IV -75 2. Noise IV -76 3. Vegetation IV -77 4. Fish and Wildlife IV -77 5. Cultural Resources IV -77 D. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES IV -78 V. PROJECT COORDINATION V-1 A. SUMMARY OF MEETINGS HELD WITH V-1 LOCAL OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, GROUPS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS FROM OCTOBER, 1976, TO OCTOBER, 1984 B. SUMMARY OF MEETINGS HELD WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, GROUPS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS FROM OCTOBER, 19 8 4, TO DATE VI. SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION A. INTRODUCTION B. DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) RESOURCES 1. Park Lands 2. Park Lands Subject to Section 6(f) Process 3. Historic Sites xii V-3 VI -1 VI -1 VI -2 VI -2 VI -5 VI -7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) PAGE C. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR VI -13 IMPACT ON 4(f) RESOURCES 1. Impact on Park Lands VI -13 a. Null Alternative (Do Nothing) VI -14 b. Alternative A VI -14 c. Alternative A Optional VI -16 Route 89 Align. d. Alternative B VI -18 e. Alternative C (Optional High -Level) VI -21 f. Alternative C (Optional Low -Level) VI -24 g. Summary of Impacts on Park Lands VI -26 2. Impact on Historic Sites VI -26 a. Null Alternative VI -26 b. Alternative A VI -26 c. Alternative A with the Optional VI -26 Route 89 Align. d. Alternative B VI -26 e. Alternative C (Optional High -Level) VI -33 f. Alternative C (Optional Low -Level) VI -33 g. Summary of Section 106 Impacts VI -33 D. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR VI -34 IMPACTS 1. Avoidance Alternatives in the VI -34 Vicinity of Cass Park 2. Avoidance Alternatives to VI -35 Impacting Historic Sites E. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM VI -35 1. Park Lands VI -35 2. Historic Sites VI -36 F. COORDINATION WITH APPROPRIATE VI -37 AGENCIES VII. LIST OF PREPARERS VII -1 VIII. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS VIII -1 TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Project Area Location II -3 2. Alternative Corridor Locations from the II -4 1976 FEIS 3. Alternative 2A -Modified Location from the iI-6 1976 FEIS 4. Recommended Corridor Location Route 96 II -7 from 1976 FEIS 5. Functional Classification of Involved II -9 Routes 6. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service II -11 Existing Conditions -1985 7. Typical Sections -Existing Route 96 II -12 Cliff Street and Trumansburg Road 8. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service II -15 Null Alternative -2010 9. Alternatives Considered and Discarded to III -5 November, 1984. 10. Modified Corridor Limits -Route 96 III -6 11. Fulton -Meadow One -Way Pair III -8 12. Alternative A III -12 13. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service III -13 Alternative A-2010 14. Alternative A -Optional Route 89 Alignment III -15 r- 15. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service - III -16 Alternative A - 2010 - Optional Route 89 Alignment 16. General Alignments of Suggestions to III -18 Modify Alternative A -Options No. 1 & 2 17. General Alignments of Suggestions to III -19 Modify Alternative A -Options No. 3 & 4 18. Alternative B II1-22 xiv LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.) FIGURE 19. Traffic Volumes and Level of Alternative B-2010 20. Option No. 1 -Short Route for B & C (1981) 21. Option No. 2 -Short Route for B & C (1985) 22. Alternative C PAGE Service ' III -25 Alternatives III -27 Alternatives III -28 III -30 23. Alternative C (Optional Low -Level Northbound) 24. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Alternative C-2010 25. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Alternative C-2010 (Low -Level Northbound Route 96) 26. General Alignments of Suggestions to Modify Alternative C -Options No. 1 & 2 27. General Alignments of Suggestions to Modify Alternative C -Option No. 3 28. General Alignments of Suggestions to Modify Alternative C -Option No. 4 29. General Alignments of Suggestions to' Modify Alternative C -Option No. 5 30. Major Public Utilities 31. Existing and Proposed Bikeways 32. Alternative A -Affects to Existing and Proposed Bikeways 33. Alternative A -Optional Route 89 Align. - Affects to Existing and Proposed Bikeways 34. Alternative B -Affects to Existing and Proposed Bikeways xv III -31 1II-33 III -34 III -37 III -38 III -39 III -40 III -65 III -69 III -70 III -71 III -72 LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.) FIGURE PAGE 35. Alternative C -Affects to Existing and III -73 Proposed Bikeways 36. Alternative C -Optional Low -Level III -74 Northbound Affects to Existing and Proposed Bikeways 37. West End Neighborhood IV -3 38. Portion of City of Ithaca Zoning Map IV -7 39. Portion of Town of Ithaca Zoning Map IV -9 40. Cass Park and Cayuga Inlet Trail IV -11 41. Cornell Rowing Course IV -12 42. Cultural Resource Inventory IV -13 43. Natural Features Map IV -16 44. Location of Noise, Air & Water IV -23 Quality Receptors 45. Inventory of Existing Visual IV -26 Environment - Cayuga Lake 46. Inventory of Existing Visual IV -27 Environment - West Hill Plateau 47. Inventory of Existing Visual IV -28 Environment - Community Hospital 48. Inventory of Existing Visual IV -29 Environment - Inlet Valley 49. Inventory of Existing Visual IV -30 Environment - Cass Park xvi LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.) FIGURE PAGE 50. Park Lands VI -3 51. Cass Park Existing Development VI -4 52. Cass Park - 6(f) Lands VI -6 53. Location of Historic Structures Within City VI -9 54. Location of Historic Structures Within Town VI -10 55. Required Park Lands - Alternative A VI -15 56. Required Park Lands - Alternative A VI -17 (Optional Route 89 Align.) 57. Required Park Lands - Alternative B VI -19 58. Required Park Lands - Alternative C VI -22 (Optional High -Level) 59. Required Park Lands - Alternative C VI -25 (Optional Low -Level) 60. Alternative B with Optional Alignment VI -27 No. 1 Effects to Structure C 61. Alternative B with Optional Alignment VI -28 No. 2 Effects to Structure C 62. Alternative B with Optional Alignment VI -29 No. 3 Effects to Structure C 63. Alternative C with Optional Alignment VI -30 No. 1 Effects to Structure C 64. Alternative C with Optional Alignment VI -31 No. 2 Effects to Structure C 65. Alternative C with Optional Alignment VI -32 No. 3 Effects to Structure C xvii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Design Criteria III -2 2. Existing Bridges III -42 3. Proposed Bridges -Alternative A II1-44 4. Proposed Bridges -Alternative B III -45 5. Proposed Bridges -Alternative C III -46 6. Estimate of Maintenance Responsibility III -51 7. Known Utilities within the General III -61 Project Area 8. Preliminary Estimate of Affected III -62 Utilities 9. Estimated Grading Quantities III -66 10. Existing Parking Data and Possible III -80 Additional Parking Spaces Replaced on -Street through Further Widening of the Proposed Typical Sections Shown in Appendix D, E and F 11. Approximate Right -of -Way Requirements III -84 In Acres 12. Estimated Cost Per Alternative III -86 13. Benefit -Cost Per Alternative III -87 14. Legend Descriptions for City of Ithaca IV -8 Zoning Map 15. Legend Descriptions for Town of Ithaca IV -10 Zoning Map 16. Existing Noise Levels (1985) IV -21 17. Anticipated Property Acquisitions Per IV -48 Alternative LIST OF TABLES Continued TABLE PAGE 18. Estimated Number of Displaced Families IV -51 and Businesses 19. Summary of Air Quality Results IV -55 • (Level I Analysis) 20. Summary of Air Quality Results IV -56 (Level II and Level III Analysis) 21. Summary of Noise Levels 22. Comparison of Alternatives 23. Comparison of Alternatives and Their Impacts to Park Lands and Historic Sites xix IV -60 & IV -61 IV -79 . VI -38 APPENDICES (Included in volume 2 of 2) A. Glossary of Technical Terms B. Description of Level of Service C. Opening Year 1990 Peak Hour (PM) Traffic Volumes D. Alternative A - Plans, Profiles and Typical Sections E. Alternative B - Plans, Profiles and Typical Sections F. Alternative C - Plans, Profiles and Typical Sections G. Accident Locations and Types, Oct. 1981 -Sept. 1984 H. Alternative Alignments Considered and Discarded Since Nov. 1984 I. Correspondence for Cultural Resource Inventory J. Correspondence from Federal, State and Local Advisory Agencies K. Railroad Issues L. Conceptual Relocation Plan M. Correspondence Relative to 4(f) and 6(f) Lands N. Derivation of Structure Costs xx n L 1 ntroduction I. INTRODUCTION This document is the Design Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for proposed improvements to Route 96 located in the City and Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. This report (DEIS) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) of 1975 and the New York State Department of Transportation Environmental Action Plan, approved Feb. 17, 1984. A public hearing was held for Route 96 and Route 13 projects on July 9, 1970. Subsequent to this hearing a Draft EIS and a Final EIS for these projects were prepared. Pub- lishing of the Final EIS was in June 1976. The Department is now progressing the Route 96 project and this DR/DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the Combined Hearing process of the Department's Environmental Action Plan for a Class 1 Project. The Environmental Action Plan outlines the process followed to ensure full consideration of social, economic and environmental factors for making transportation decisions. Its principal objectives are threefold: 1. to involve other agencies and the public in the systems planning and project development process early enough to influence technical studies and final decisions. 2. to identify and study social, economic, and environmental effects early enough in the systems planning and project development process to permit. their analysis and consideration while alternatives are being formulated and evaluated. 3. to give appropriate consideration to reasonable al- ternatives including alternative modes and the •alternative of not building the project. Since park lands located within the Project Area are affected by the alternatives, a Section 4(f) Evaluation is included as Chapter VI in the report. This DR/DEIS and 4(f) Evaluation is being made available to Federal, State, and Local advisory agencies, as well as the general public, for review and comment. The findings will be presented at a Design Public Hearing, design recommendation will be made. Additional information and copies of the Draft 4(f) Evaluation can be obtained from: after which -a DR/DEIS and Raymond F. Novak, P.E. Acting Regional Director New York State Department of Transportation Region 43 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Harold J. Brown FHWA, Division Administrator Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building Clinton Avenue and N. Pearl Street Albany, New York 12207 I-2 CHAPTER II Project Location, Evolution and Need for the Project II. PROJECT LOCATION, EVOLUTION, NEED FOR THE PROJECT A. PROJECT LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION This project is located in south central New York, within Tompkins County, in the City and Town of Ithaca. The specific project area is bounded on the east by Meadow Street, on the west by State Street, Cliff Street and the area of the intersection of Routes 13A, 79, 89, and 96 (locally known and hereinafter referred to as the "Octopus"); on the south by Six Mile Creek; and on the north by Duboise Road. See Figure 1. Routes 13/34 traverse the project area in the north/ south direction in the City of Ithaca. Also included within the city portion of the project area is the Old Cayuga Inlet. The US Army Corps of Engineers constructed flood protection facilities for the Old Cayuga Inlet about 1970 by dredging a new straighter channel. As a result, a portion of the old channel east of the new channel remains intact. In this report, the new straighter channel is referred to as the Flood Control Channel and the portion of the old channel is referred to as the Old Cayuga Inlet. The Tompkins Community Hospital is a prominent feature located within the Town of. Ithaca portion of the project area. Comments and requests for information regarding the pro- ject should reference the following identification: ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS Meadow Street to Duboise Road PIN 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY B. PROJECT EVOLUTION The planning process for this project began in 1957 with the development of preliminary location concepts. This was followed by alternative location studies prepared from 1965 thru 1967. These studies resulted in the publication and circulation of Project Information Reports I and II in the spring of 1970. The Reports included the improvement of Routes 13 and 96 from Newfield Hill to Ithaca to Trumansburg. A Corridor Public Hearing was held in the early summer of 1970. Public and governmental input gathered at the Public Hearing was incorporated into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Routes 13 and 96, which was distributed in the spring of 1973. Prior to the publishing of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Routes 13 and 96, a Pro- ject Location Report Conclusions and Recommendations was prepared. Additional public and governmental input gathered through the circulation of the DEIS, and the Department's responses thereto, was included in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Routes 13 and 96 published in June 1976. The originally recommended corridor for a new four -lane Route 13 project was no longer being progressed along with the Route 96 project because it was decided by the Depart- ment, after work was ended on both in 1976, that forecast traffic within the Route 13 corridor could best be accommo- dated by upgrading the existing facilities. To that end, Route 13A was rehabilitated in 198.6 and two other Route 13 projects have been programmed and are under design by the Department. The 1976 FEIS included four build alternatives and a Do -Nothing Alternative for the Route 96 portion of that report. The Do -Nothing Alternative included studies for reconstruction of Route 96 entirely on existing location. The 1976 FEIS concluded that the Do -Nothing Alternative was an unsatisfactory alternative. The build alternatives for Route 96 were designated Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alter. - native 2A and Alternative 2A -Modified. See Figure 2. Alternative 1 was a four -lane divided roadway withcon- trol of access on new location from its intersection with Route 13 (Meadow Street) to its proposed connection into existing Route 96 at a point just south of the Tompkins Community Hospital.. From that point to Trumansburg, Route 96 was to be improved to a four -lane divided roadway. Alternative 2 began at the same point in the city and followed the same alignment as Alternative 1 to a location just south of the Tompkins Community Hospital as a four -lane divided roadway; it then continued as a two-lane roadway in a northerly direction running along the abandoned railroad right-of-way, climbing to the top .of the surrounding plateau, and terminating at existing Route 96 south of Trumansburg. It was to be a facility with right-of-way wide enough for ultimate expansion to a four -lane divided highway. Alternative 2A began at the same point as Alternative 2. and followed the same alignment as Alternative 2 to a point just north of Tompkins Community Hospital as a four -lane II -2 BUFFALO STATE OF WATERTOWN NEW YORK ROCHESTER • SYRACUSE ALBANY• Hayt Co /0/8 Marina, Sewag Disposal NEW YORK CITY IOOF Home CORP /2 9 Renwick UOLO 'LLE GROTON McLEA ° ROAD' LAN H TREMA TATE MARIN:. PARK TRUMAN Marina Course Williams ENFIELD OOKTONOAL PROJECT SITE -LaI SPEEDSVILLE 0 Linderman_ Filtration Plant 1•- TOWER CORNELL UNIVERSITY 1.11 Cemetery;' Water ANDONED> D 936 —~ 'OCTOPUS' Gravel Pit o X FIGURE I PROJECT AREA LOCATION ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER CoY NOTE THE 1976 FEIS INCLUDED DESIGN CONSIDERATION FOR ALTERNATIVE 2A -MODIFIED TO TERMINATE AT EXISTING ROUTE 96 EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH OF THE HOSPITAL AND TO PROVIDE EITHER AN AT GRADE CROSS- ING OR A GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF THE CONRAIL RAILROAD WHICH PARALLELS FULTON STREET IN THE CITY OF ITHACA. SEE III. B.1. MAP NO. 3 FROM 1976 F E. I S ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR LOCATIONS ROUTE 96 613 RELOCATION NEWFIELD HILL- ITHACA- TRUMANSBURG NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION NO. 3 SCALE :1'1=2000 SYRACUSE, N.Y. ----------- INTERCHANGE -<' FIGURE 2 ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR LOCATIONS FROM THE 1976 FE I S HALF INTERCHANGE FULL INTERCHANGE INTERCHANGE TREATMENT TO BE%,DETERMINED DURING DESIGN 1 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I. N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENG IN EC* II 4 divided facility. From thpt point near the hospital, a two- lane, two-way connector was.to pass north of the hospital and connect with existing Route 96. From the point of connec- tion, Alternative 2A was to continue north as a two-way, two- lane facility generally along the old railroad bed, connec- ting to existing Route 96 south of Trumansburg. Alternative 2A -Modified was a four -lane divided roadway with control of access beginning near the intersection of Route 13 in the City of Ithaca and running northerly on new location to its connection into existing Route 96 in the vicinity of the Tompkins Community Hospital. Existing Route 96 from there northerly was to remain a two-lane rural road- way. This alternative was to include design considerations for terminating at existing Route 96, either north or south of the hospital, and to provide either an at -grade crossing or a grade -separated crossing of the Conrail Railroad which parallels Fulton Street in the City of Ithaca. The recommendation in the 1976 FEIS was that Alternative 2A -Modified be adopted as the most desirable location for the improvement of Route 96 based on the fact that it would best meet the project objectives and it was the generally pre- ferred choice by local citizens and officials. See Figure 3. The recommended corridor location for Alternative 2A Modified, (Route 96, Map No.14 of the 1976 FEIS) is shown on Figure 4. The 1976 FEIS also considered various modal alternatives such as busing, rail transportation, air transportation, etc. and it concluded that none of these could serve as a satis- factory alternative for this project. As previously noted, when the original project develop- ment work was done, this project was tied into a much larger scale of improvements that included the Route 13 corridor from Elmira to Cortland. It was also anticipated that addi- tional improvements to Route 96 in the Ithaca -Geneva Corridor would be progressed. The overall growth in traffic was pro- jected to be approximately 2.3 percent per year in the 1976 FEIS. Since deletion of the Route 13 portion of the project that was included in the 1976 FEIS, traffic volume growth rates for the Route 96 corridor were revised downward from the 2.3 percent per year rate used in the 1976 FEIS to 2.0 percent per year. This slightly lower growth rate was based on historical trend analysis and can be explained by changes in household number and size and on increased transit usage. II -5 \ • ALTERNATIVE \ 2A -MODIFIED \ o (SEE NOTE) 1 \ ti\ Cs Lighto /< 1 Sewag Disposal' TOWN OF ' ITHACA • CORP 1z SOY y RenWic CITY OF ^ITHACA Lighto •BU Light \ !2 z ice,. 3e9i Cass Marina•Park \ ;` \\ ' RLL,, NOTE THE 1976 F E I S INCLUDED DESIGN CONSIDERATION FOR TERMINATING AT EXISTING ROUTE 96 EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH OF THE HOSPITAL AND TO PROVIDE EITHER AN AT GRADE CROSSING OR A GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF THE CONRAIL RAILROAD WHICH PARALLELS FULTON STREET IN THE CITY OF ITHACA \ 4 .' Golf Coarse "` e � r - \~,l �<r a I :Sewage'- .." I , j Disposal / / G , : �ii• �'P Sap gli— %tt,l1i 11 .41 i4 ;)) 2000 1000 0 feet 2000 FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVE 2A -MODIFIED LOCATION FROM THE 1976 FE I S ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER II -6 RECOMMENDED CORRIDOR LOCATION • ROUTE 46 FROM 1976 F. E.1.S. PARKLAND ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Sinftb CONSULTING •CIVIL ENGINEER 11-7 The traffic re-evaluation also resulted in a lowering of the estimate for through traffic to approximately 12 percent of the daily traffic volume in the design year along Route 96. The revised 2.0 percent per year growth rate is also considered to be representative of the growth in through traffic over the forecast design period. The alternatives considered in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement are design alternatives based on the loca- tion alternative (Alternative 2A Modified) originally recom- mended in the 1976 FEIS and the revised traffic volume data discussed above. Recommendations from local interest groups and officials noted in the 1976 FEIS have also been con- sidered. This DEIS and all previous reports are available for review through: Raymond F. Novak, P.E. �I Acting Regional Director New York State Department of Transportation Region 3 Office 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: 315-428-4351 C. PROJECT NEED AND RESULTING OBJECTIVES The City of Ithaca is situated at the southern end of Cayuga Lake with its West Hill area, including Tompkins Com- munity Hospital, separated from the city proper by the Old Cayuga Inlet andthe Flood Control Channel. See Figure 1. There are three bridges crossing the Inlet and only one bridge crossing the Flood Control Channel. The one crossing of the Flood. Control Channel which carries Routes 96, 79 and 89 traffic connects into the Octopus intersection on the west bank of the Flood Control Channel. All traffic to and from the West Hill, the Tompkins Community Hospital and Route 96 is dependent on this single bridge crossing. The functional classifications of the involved routes are shown on Figure 5 together with the local road and street systems. Routes 96, 13 and 34 are listed as Principal , Arterials on the Federal Aid Urban Primary System within the city limits. Route 89 is also listed as a Principal Arterial on the Federal Aid Urban Primary System within the city to the northern end of the Route 96 overlap. From the Route 96 overlap, north, Route 89 is listed as a Minor Arterial on the Federal Aid Urban System. Route 96 is listed as a Minor Arterial on the Federal Aid Rural Primary System north of the city. Routes 13A and 96B are listed as Minor Arterials on 11-8 CAY U G A LAKE HAMS SCHOOL + 0 TOWN OF /THACA C/TY OF ITHACA 440 0 SNNOY ROAD LEGEND BRbOAYIje.C� 1) V W 4 i v OCTOPUS PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ON THE FEDERAL AIC% URBAN PRIMARY SYSTEM MINOR ARTERIAL ON THE FEDERAL AID RURAL PRIMARY SYSTEM MINOR ARTERIAL ON THE FEDERAL AID URBAN SYSTEM COUNTY ROADS 0 800 1600 feet SROOK 4' 1111 AI CIL /.4%.�. Mut 0‹.\4 poo020 o� scL L 1 DD CLIFF PARK ,l(wiTAICIEHE t It CLINTON ST. o�� y Wvi 13 nr FIGURE 5 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF INVOLVED ROUTES ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I. N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER IE -9 the Federal Aid Urban System. Route 79 is listed as a Principal Arterial on the Federal Aid Urban Primary System within the city limits to a point 0.25+ mile north of the Route 13A intersection. The Octopus intersection is the confluence of six road- ways which results in complex traffic movements. A portion of this traffic is controlled by a traffic signal while other portions are regulated by yield signs and stop signs. The current PM peak hour traffic volume on this single bridge crossing is 2,410 vehicles and it is expected to increase 42 percent to 3,425 vehicles by design year 2010. The existing traffic volumes and Level of Service are shown on Figure 6, with descriptions of the various Levels of Service given in Appendix B. The Octopus intersection is currently operating under forced flow conditions (Level of Service F). The re- sulting congestion results in traffic backups onto the single bridge crossing the Flood Control Channel and delays access to the West Hill, Tompkins Community Hospital and Route 96. As the traffic demands increase, it is expected that the delays from the forced flow conditions will get worse. Existing Route 96 (Cliff Street) between the Octopus and the city/town line is a narrow two-lane roadway approximately twenty-four feet wide between curbs. See Figure 7. The uphill side is fronted by several large and nearly vertical standing rock outcroppings, with occasional buildings sited in excava- tions adjacent to the roadway along the hillside. The down- hill side has numerous buildings facing the street with mini- mal offset distance between the curb and the buildings. The downhill slope is steep and in some areas, one and sometimes two, retaining walls separate Cliff Street from the build- ings. There is no room to parallel park vehicles along Cliff Street. However; there is a sidewalk along the east side of Cliff Street that is used whenever vehicles attempt to par- allel park. A number of these parked vehicles have been observed straddling thesidewalk with a portion of the—vehi- cle situated within the travelway of Cliff Street. Route 96 intersects with Routes 13 and 34 at the State Street and Meadow Street intersection in the City of Ithaca. Route 79 traffic is carried via Seneca Street (one-way west) to Meadow Street and via Green Street (one-way east) from Meadow Street. This section of Meadow Street (between Green Street and Seneca Street) is currently providing satisfactory Levels of Service with most delays ranging between 7 seconds to 146 seconds, with the worst delay occurring at the Green Street approach to Meadow Street. See Figure 6. However, this section of Meadow Street is a very congested roadway with little or no room for improvements such as widening. II -10 F STREET IST RT. 96 --480 745 - x-25 BRINDL:Y l00�30-- STOP STREE 707 STOP OLD CAYUGA INLET L — I z �`\�. gCi�obi o Lo c w H w IL ,`o 4O W O I j m u LoH m W F I— ,+ 6 J\' W M ALa H� w w 5 cc H Fcc cn 1- to o of o 0) o F f Q O O d. Q Q MI r o O J Lz M f H ! dI o 1 / =� 4Q Li I I— BQ Cf) CC F Z . m- O o B U o \gyp O CO cg U o (A Oo . o o • U �o O W \ Qo 0 ° STOP s I " a / MEADOW M 0 STREET STOP m� UM M 1045 �!\� I L .� t ,�J L LL _ j �10 _ ---830 140 l 10755 ~780 —800 20 1010 `. 120 950 170 X880 150 80_ _ 2C �4_ RT 13, 34 S 96 O 610,'®�- -20 690 r20 590 10—�►�2007� 540 20� I -10 820 15_119-6-710 770 2530 800 - 00 940 1035 85009108010 +�%10 930090 96010302��®/�1066yg80 8—�0 X10 820 70 oo 10-� r-- 700 100 590-1 30� 740 725 } r► 865 70� / t-► 1000 50 1 r-� 10 4 r 40 1070 90 (11 �Q� o O STOP ��� - 00 a - I� Nilto lov STOP �- to N\ (� ti " " ° o• _ I� o o �j�C O / O O N 7 N O a \y v Z i p r f 1 2 p Ztj QF I"- co N t o o C� J W N O% rn O 0 M_W _ ctWW I- N- -F- -7=I - _jI- WF CC 1- cP gto J(n -A U VO Traffic volumes indicated were developed by New York State Department of Transportation. LEGEND 800 - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Q APPROACH LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOP = STOP SIGN CONTROL YIELD = YIELD SIGN CONTROL FIGURE 6 P.I.N. 3047.04. ITHACA - TRUMANSBURG ROUTE 96 IM PROVEMENTS TOMPKINS COUNTY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ANL) LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC P M__ 1985 PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ®v ROBERT E. SMITH - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ROCHESTER, NEW YORK NO SCALE DATE MAY, 1985 AT ROCS 1 2'II 'TI I STEEP CC SS\T OCCASIONAL T ROCK OUTCROP CONC CURS ITTRI * SA!CD ON NEAREST ROCK OUTCROP STEEP SLOPE 241-6" 2' s, I 61. ---- Lo< ORIGINAL — — — 'so GROUND CUIS— d CON! GNC. OITCR DITCH 611 8'-6" PAVED SMOULDER 22'— 6" 9' 2'I PAVED SHOULDER 2' ONC. WALL CLIFF STREET 200 Ft NORTH OF ROUTE 89 INTERSECTION AT RETAINING WALL (LOOKING NORTH) CONG CURS ITTRI CLIFF STREET IN FRONT OF BLDG. NO. 211 (LOOKING NORTH) ROUND LINFi TYPICAL NEAR LOCATION OF EKIIT. SLOGl. STEEP 6' 81P47 -1A '- O" 23'-0" 9' PAVED PAVED IOOCCCASIONAL �I $$OULDCN I I SHOULDER I ROCK OUTCROP) /Gu10C RAIL R CONSOAS ` ISLOPE VARIES 4' CCN ? DITCN TRUMANSBURG ROAD 200 FT. NORTH OF CITY LINE IN TOWN OF ITHACA (LOOKING NORTH) TRUMANSBURG ROAD 300 FT NORTH OF CAMPBELL AVE. INTERSECTION (LOOKING NORTH) 9' B' 22'-6" 6' 9' Iram PAVED SHOULDER SNOULDEII AWN/ OIrcMOW EARTH EARTH DITCH SHALLOW."- TRUMANSBURG ROAD 100 FT NORTH OF ODD FELLOWS BLDG. (LOOKING NORTH) FIGURE 7 TYPICAL SECTIONS EXISTING ROUTE 96 CLIFF STREET AND TRUMANSBURG ROAD ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. L N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E Smith CONSULTING CIVIL CNOI"ICR The design year traffic (2010) will result in Level of Ser- vice F for most of the approaching lanes through this section of Meadow Street with delays ranging from seven seconds to conditions where the delay calculation is not meaningful because the traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the road- way by more than one to two times the calculated capacity of the roadway. A single track of the Conrail Railroad is located within the city along the west side of Fulton Street with at -grade intersections with State Street, Seneca Street and Buffalo Street. Routes 96, 79 and 89 traffic is essentially bisected and halted during periods of train movements through this area. Though the city has been trying to coordinate train crossings with emergency vehicle calls, there is concern within the community of potential conflicts in these move- ments. The Railroad Issues are discussed in detail under Section III.C.6.d of this Report. Accident locations and types for Route 96, within the project area, from October, 1981, thru September, 1984, are shown in Appendix G. These records indicate that the acci- dent rate is slightly higher than the statewide average for the type of highway under which the existing roadway is classified. The current accident rate for Route 96 is 5.62 ' , accidentser million vehicle miles from Meadow Street north to the city /town line as compared to t e sta ewi a average of 7/3 '1/4zr,o) 5. acci encs per million vehicle miles for a two-lane un- divided urban roadway with free access. The current accident Vu' -urt°`` rate . from the city/town line north to Duboise Road is 6.31 accidents per million vehicle miles as compared to the state- ,,,,,K tate- ,,.•-wide average of 5.80 accidents per million vehicle miles for (cok. 4 a two-lane undivided suburban roadway with free access. 11,440 LAI Considering the foregoing, it would appear that any improvement to Route 96 must address the following project needs: 1. Relieve traffic congestion at the Octopus inter- section and improve the quality of traffic flow through that area. 2. Improve accessibility to and from the West Hill area, including the Tompkins Community Hospital, with the rest of the City of Ithaca. 3. Improve safety and traffic capacity on Route 96 within the project area. 5 The Null Alternative (Do -Nothing) will not satisfy the identified needs, since motorists will continue to have to rely on the confusing Octopus intersection which will cause more frequent delays to the traveling public as traffic in- creases over the design period established for this project. The single track of the Conrail Railroad will remain at -grade with Route 96, and the State Street bridge crossing the Flood Control Channel will continue to be the only bridge providing access to and from the West Hill, including access to Route 96 and the Tompkins Community Hospital. As a result, access to the West Hill area for all vehicles will become worse, including the access by emergency vehicles. Selection of the Null Alternative would also mean that traffic would continue to have to use the narrow two-lane roadway between the Octo- pus intersection and the city/town line. Figure 6 shows the traffic volumes and Level of Service through the project area for the existing conditions, and Figure 8 shows the traffic volumes and Level of Service through the project area as pro- jected for the Null Alternative (Do -Nothing) in design year 2010. As noted earlier, the traffic volumes are expected to increase approximately 42 percent by the design year 2010. The Null Alternative (2010) will result in Level of Service F for many of the intersections within the project area and it is expected that the accident rate would increase as the traffic volumes increase. Based on the established transportation needs and commu- nity input, thefollowing objectives must be considered in the development and evaluation of design alternatives for this project: 1. Provide a facility that relieves the confusion and traffic congestion at the Octopus intersection. 2. Provide a facility that improves the accessibility to and from the West Hill area including the Tompkins Community Hospital. 3. Provide a facility that improves safety and traffic capacity for Route 96 from Meadow Street to the vicinity of Duboise Road. II -14 0 4 I/ 4 /20 \/9S /OS� ih S 40 est" e1 e1 X50, ,®o STOP YIELD BRINDIL STOP STRE - m, l Noy .` ■■■. o O �I1 1545-'-115 °9,-44.1. .) N. t45 -.-100 O 5 �® 5 ---40 J ® 55 115'.3 7 1 211,(2 15---; -60-1 1 R ° I R`.tco Y--35 T 140 oo~ 0 ,or " w w cnH o a + a 0 0 1•- M 1- N 2'1 Lots, rn FULTON "IN- STR �t'1-1585-170 _jR �L20.._70 �L25530 5 4��` r70 115--6�~ 1 t ~50 180 60��� • 15 5i4�60 2511 1}0 Lnoo O555 - a co v r- O N - .. rSTOP to ro ✓ LO 1 r 1- N w v w Cr H tno a1 0 CLIFF STREET 675 --680 �5 1060 FLooD EXIST T. 9'6 TAUGH4NNOCK BLVD. Q 4. ' w h Z 0 -.—I485 q hh © STOP 0 � o RT 13, 34 & 96 zoo-r'�®r 151070 `I l05 1 X301120 865- —30 980 X30 840 15-._1___., 5 X285 116/ IOO7�h�� 15- �� 1401 " 1 STOP I 102 o z a w J w w� > wI- J U zo w, I- w zcc J � c.)(1) 1'- w 0 N NO ,0 m N `` 30 + L170I165 76545 I'S mm Traffic Volumes indicated were generated by Robert E. Smith from information provided by New York State Department of Transportation for the Years of 1981 and 2001. 0 CO i 0) M 0 0 O 1 044,4 u7 N N 1 IVIL HUVYY Cr N. L240 _ 11010 35—'��455l135 1030 20 1095100- I -- Na ET —300 STREET O M m H w H 0 C U 0- N 0a 0) Ln a 15___.1,04-.--,,.,- 1335— r 0 7 �air coo Inco co STOP 0 cy t 0- L TRUMANSBURG RD" PARK ROAD CONTROL CHANNEL EXEXIST. RT 96 RUMANS 515 x- 7305 l85g10--®��30 99��• � ✓ a - N U) I r Z �p Y = 0 m N 01— F Z i 0 0 U RT 89 OLD CAYUGA INLET 30 153515-01r-15 15 1320 1465®� so STOP f'� �� ho O a J J 0 U in U � v 30 �0-15 --- 1220 1395-- 130-\ 0 0 M 95 .-545 885 LEGEND 800 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Q APPROACH LEVEL OF SERVICE ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOP = STOP SIGN CONTROL YIELD = YIELD SIGN CONTROL FIGURE 8 PLN. 3047.04 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS ITHACA - TRUMANSBURG TOMPKINS COUNTY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE NULL ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PM 2010 PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY ROBERT E. SMITH - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ROCHESTER, NEW YORK NO SCALE DATE:" MAY, 1985 II -15 Alternatives III. ALTERNATIVES A. OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN CRITERIA The general project objectives identified in Chapter II for improving the Route 96 facility from Meadow Street in the City of Ithaca to the vicinity of Duboise Road in the Town of Ithaca are: to relieve the traffic congestion at the Octopus intersection; provide improved accessibility to and from the West Hill area including the Tompkins Community Hospital; and improve the safety and traffic capacity of Route 96. To achieve these general objectives, and to accommodate the desires of local community groups to consider a wide range of design alternatives, the Department has determined that design alternatives must meet one or both of the fol- lowing specific objectives: 1. Develop a design for the Octopus that should satisfy urban Level of Service D minimum using 20 year projected traffic (2010). AND/OR 2. Reconstruct Route 96 from Meadow Street to existing Route 96 in the vicinity of the Tompkins Community Hospital to Level of Service D using 20 year pro- jected traffic (2010). To accomplish this, the design criteria for the project was established for a series of specifically defined sec- tions, as indicated in Table 1. This criteria recognizes the fact that the project area involves both urban and rural design considerations. TABLE 1 DESIGN CRITERIA RELOCATED ROUTE 96 PARK RD. RELOCATED CONNECTION ROUTE 89 TO CLIFF ST. A. Meadow Street B. Octopus Intersection C. Cass Park Area SECTION Intersection. Cass Park Area. Road Area. . to the Octopus to the to the Duboise Element Section AB C Design Year 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 .ccess Control None Partial Partial None None revel of Service D D D-uninter- rupted flow) D D Design Speed (MPH) 40 50 60 40 40 Pravel Lane 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' Shoulder 10'(1) 10' 10' 10'(1) 6' ?arking Lane (2) 8' -- -- -- -- Sidewalk -- -- -- -- 5' 4ax. Grade 8% 7% 4% 8% 15% 4ax. Curvature (Degree) 10 6.75 4.25 10 10 4ax. Superelevation 0.04 ft/ft 0.06 ft/ft 0.06 ft/ft .04 ft/ft .04 ft/ft Roadside Clear Distance 1.5 ft. 30 ft.* 30 ft.* 1.5 ft. 1.5 ft. Nin. Stopping Sight 275 ft. 400 ft. 525 ft. 275 ft. 275 ft. Distance (1) Where appropriate, a curbed section providing a one foot curb offset is used in lieu of a shoulder section. (2) AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets - 1984" Page 576. * The AASHTO "Guide for Selecting, Locating, and Designing Traffic Barriers" will be used where an adequate clear distance cannot be obtained. Required Minimum Vertical Clearance at Bridges 22'-0" 16'-6" 14'-6" over Railroad over Arterial Roadway over Local Roadway III.B. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 1. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FROM 1976-1984 Twenty different alignments of four -lane divided road- ways connecting into the City of Ithaca (Urban Portion) and nine separate alignments of four -lane divided roadways con- necting to existing Route 96 in the Town of Ithaca (Rural Portion) were considered during the period extending from 1976 to November, 1984. The general locations of these design alternatives are shown on Figure 9. All except one of these alternatives have been discarded for various reasons, such as extremely high costs, unacceptable traffic opera- tions, or adverse social and environmental impacts. The alternate alignments that connect into existing Route 96 north of the Hospital were included with these discarded alternatives. The remaining alternative was originally referred to as the U-7 Modified 3 scheme (Urban) combined with the Town of Ithaca scheme (Rural). See Figure 9. This alternative is now referred as Alternative "C" and will be discussed later in this chapter. The alternatives considered and discarded are defined and discussed in more detail in a separate report entitled Alternatives Considered and Discarded to November, 1984. This report is available for review through: Raymond F. Novak, P.E. Acting Regional Director New York State Department of Transportation Region #3 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone 315-428-4351 2. RE-EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT, CORRIDOR MODIFICATION AND ALTERNATIVES NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION Since publication of the 1976 FEIS, this project has involved the evaluation of several four -lane designs based on the recommended location Alternative 2A (Modified). Support from all elements of the local community could not be achieved for the single four -lane divided design alternative. There continued to be a local concern that the four -lane facility exceeded the project needs and that a lower scale alternative should be evaluated. The project was re-evaluated during late 1984 and early 1985. The conclusion was that the project objectives and the design criteria would be modified to allow the consideration of lower scale alternatives to the four -lane divided facil- ity. The result of this re-evaluation was the development of Alternatives A and B representing the lower scale alterna- tives and Alternative C representing the intent of the loca- tion Alternative 2A (Modified) as originally recommended in the 1976 FEIS. The corridor limits have been modified to encompass these alternatives as well as the Null Alternative. The modified corridor limits are shown on Figure 10. This re-evaluation of the project and the range of alternatives to be considered were presented to the local community at a Public Informational Meeting held in April, 1985. At that meeting, the Department offered to conduct additional meetings with specific local interest groups and governmental groups, in order to explain the project further and to solicit local input. This led to subsequent meetings in the summer of 1985, which resulted in a series of proposed options and/or modifi- cations to each of these a-lternatives. These options and modifications were evaluated and the results presented to the local community at a Public Informational Meeting held in November, 1985. As a consequence of this process, an Op- tional Alternative A alignment was adopted. Also, another option for both Alternatives B and C near the Tompkins Commu- nity Hospital (previously there had been two options at this location) was adopted. A total of three build alternatives together with options plus the Null Alternative resulted from this process. Each of these alternatives is discussed in detail in later sections of this report. 3. FEATURES COMMON TO ALL BUILD ALTERNATIVES The time period that has been determined.to control the intersection designs for this project is the PM peak hour. During the course of evaluating the traffic operations for the design alternatives, it became apparent that Meadow Street could not accommodate the design hour traffic demands as a two-way street. Many of the existing intersections are operating satisfactorily for the current traffic volumes but will not be capable of handling the design year traffic III -4 `.�"CCLIFF ST. lot! , 4111r°82: 4- C�.S `1 ij . Are Zjdir / �► F rTO' 1 ` ,� U'41,6.4 :., Wil' ��II „� o a� °,.0PU 1►8 "'1+ c Mo' O' N. I I I Eck °11 • f I' .3 D. r`•.. ��IIit W i,q;icci' d p C �Ij fir- I.I cn 0 tid,MEAD0w STol t;o � L.a.° L_ 0 3 _� � 1 ( �i kl Z ° p 08 ° o 0 1.)Q ropoco *r;.----.::.-3=-7:::=)- ."- �' !•• I Ta SAkQ 2 17 O Ez CIO O II 1:1 , , ° o O ctoJ .. 'r = L c. f9� cQN QoRo 1-f� o O J� 3...1 1-ji t °r_' � x'4.3 #4 ll� cWl1 yO I=17 Abp a�$, ))� �110o cF�r- O 11 °''11 SRN CtI-I u� d$IhO o �f{n O u0 o 011 Z\idq'' )..mm��I CORNIIc�O 11©0 °�1�' ° O o 0 ` pc° 18 v`� I call yZit Li �3 8 U•�,__ a„� ST.1Io btu �'m`c_cr�oi) `M �llc�: oo J „°• 00\\ Vo ,3 ^��}-� _ �O° °.118°o o lr--==_-a,Oo ,Wk °• -� �o� \\ 4 , ,r-'1 'L _o °J WASH .._L �•�� L� am ��j�c o ,�3\' �O 200' 0 200. CO FIGURE 9 ALTERNATES CONSIDERED AND DISCARDED TO NOV., 1984 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMLNTS P I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER MODIFIED CORRIDOR LIMITS • ROUTE 96 PARKLAND ME■ CORRIDOR LIMITS -1976 EE.I.S. EXTENDED CORRIDOR LIMITS - 1986 0 1000 2000 feet Renwick U 1 NAVAL,; ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER III -6 volumes. Moreover, the existing city streets are too narrow. to provide adequate width for two-way traffic flows at.the intersection of Route 96 with Routes 13, 34 and 79 within the city. An evaluation of possible options to a two-way Meadow Street resulted in the development of a north -south one-way pair consisting of Fulton Street coupled with Meadow Street. The increased traffic capacity afforded by a one-way Fulton -Street (southbound) and a one-way Meadow Street (northbound) is an essential element for providing a workable traffic pattern'in the design year. All the build alterna- tives considered include improvements to Fulton Street and Meadow Street to form the one-way pair. Generally, Fulton Street would be reconstructed and -extended to provide three - lanes -southbound and Meadow Street would be converted to.pro- vide four -lanes northbound to accommodate the PM.peak hour traffic demand in the design year. The Fulton -Meadow one-way pair is shown on Figure 11. The elements of specific construction required in order to make the Fulton Street/MeadowStreet one-way pair operate at a minimum Level of Service D for the year 2010 PM design hour traffic volumes are as follows: 1 Extend and/or reconstruct Fulton Street from its intersection with Meadow Street near Six Mile Creek, north to a point located on the existing four -lane section of Meadow Street between Hancock Street and Fifth .Street. Fulton Street would provide three travel lanes, totaling thirty five feet wide through most of this area. No parking lanes would be pro- vided. 2 Widen the south side of West Clinton Street approx- imately 3.5 feet between Corn Street and Meadow Street. This would provide three travel lanes for a total width of thirty five feet. No parking lanes .would be provided. Widen State Street approximately two feet on the north side from Corn Street west to Fulton Street. This would provide three travel lanes for a total width of thirty four feet. An eight foot parking lane would be provided on the north side of State Street, as requested by the city. Reconstruct State Street west of Fulton Street to its intersection with Seneca Street to three -lanes, in- cluding a separate turning lane for right turns to III -7 n 1i 15 o , — GI4 OCTOPUS 03'0 .01111(."'"a° .01111(."'"a° ° _ T 110 �C `G °oa 0oo° pg O00 p<,�\\OO8 0 \O.�/C9\0\\�%o/\` o 00:o�PO,�O//04 o \ 0 co -p V ) 0-00, o° o °�'�!ooff:0 d>jc�° \ • , X\°00C> 0v�///ea A 0 'O 0s/<*. i" \\\ 000 O. . % O%4I. O oo\ \•h6O.\' • ,\� \ OG �\\- s� \ O • //0.•\ • � C§) mo^ ,e0 44<°o°�00% r• / . \ c,�°006 8. \\40 Q • /0.0O0(y0.Gi e08 005\V/00 *f ••••%s0.Vi>°°/\\//4,00.G`0/rJ O!V.p0: s °/0 • O\0�J/'i900/\O � 0, `O 0 OqO 0 N.,/O 0:0\ < `. • \°°0OQ<0v• \G 0A\N 0OO//0 /0.v �'P/• O O \\0 4. • 00✓//. O .\\y 0** O\ o � 0et) rz, 0.cboo. <°J a. O)r00 0 �Ftio08°�/o09)t>°Ndoo//o oF\\0 O �F0p\`4, mo°°q20$Jr 0 v\ts s t\..ooi^yy s/��c• dF4, o 4\0C°C°sOcv//0 v\`0o //j0 • CV 0 /o ti 200 0 200 feet • \\\4 FIGURE II FULTON-MEADOW ONE WAY PAIR ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER UE -8 Fulton Street. The existing two-lane State Street bridge over the Old Cayuga Inlet would be replaced with a new three -lane bridge. Existing sidewalk patterns will be maintained. 4 Replace the existing Seneca Street bridge over the Old Cayuga Inlet. This bridge is currently posted with a four ton weight limit and must be replaced by a new bridge capable of supporting design highway loadings to accommodate the anticipated mix of traffic for the immediate area. 5 Buffalo Street requirements vary with each alterna- tive and they will be discussed later in this chapter under the description of each respective alternative. 6 Extend Esty Street from its westerly limit to the proposed Fulton Street extension. This would be re- quired for proper circulation of Esty Street traffic with the adoption of the Fulton Street/Meadow Street one-way pair. Esty Street extension would match the existing street width of twenty-eight feet and would provide for two travel lanes. No parking lanes would be provided. 7 Construct a cul-de-sac on North Titus Avenue near its intersection with West Clinton Street near the Meadow Street crossing of Six Mile Creek. This would be re- quired in order to control the movement of vehicles in the immediate area of the signalized intersection of Meadow Street/Fulton Street and West Clinton .Street. Meadow Street would be resurfaced from the Clinton Street intersection to a point just north of the Hancock Street intersection. A minimum of three travel lanes (twelve feet each) would be provided throughout with a maximum of four travel lanes (twelve feet each) through the congested areas. A parking lane would be provided between Clinton Street and Green Street on the west side of Meadow Street. Other parking areas would be provided at selected areas north of Buffalo Street along the west side of Meadow Street, depending upon the alternative. Green Street would be resurfaced between Fulton Street and Meadow Street. This section of Green Street would provide two one-way travel lanes for Route 79. No parking lanes would be provided. All of the above described widenings will be able to be made within the existing roadway right-of-way. This will generally require use of the green area located between the existing curb and sidewalk. Fulton Street would be extended on new location from its intersection with Court Street north to its connection back into Meadow Street at a point north of the Hancock Street intersection. Additional takings would be required at the following locations: (A) The West Clinton Street intersection. with Meadow Street would result in displacement of the residen- tial dwelling situated on the northeast corner. (B) State Street would be relocated to the north in the area between the fire station property located on State Street, just west of Fulton Street, and Seneca Street. This would involve minor takings of the adjoining lands and cause the displacement of the Donut Shop located next to the Greyhound Bus Station. (C) The reconstruction of Fulton Street between State Street and Seneca Street would require a minor taking of lands located on the east side of Fulton Street. (D) Fulton Street extension would require the taking of four buildings and about 1.4 acres of right-of-way. Fulton Street between Meadow Street and Green Street would be shifted to the easterly right-of-way line in the area along the Agway properties. 4. ALTERNATIVE A Alternative A represents a limited scale improvement that would provide relief primarily for the traffic conges- tion at the Octopus area and together with the Fulton Street/ Meadow Street one-way pair improve the traffic flows along the existing intersections of the city streets located within the project area. The location of Alternative A is shown on Figure 12 with the typical sections, profiles and detailed plan views in- cluded in Appendix D. This alternative would provide for at -grade railroad crossings with the Conrail track located along Fulton Street. It would not provide for any improvement to Route 96 north of its intersection with Route 89 (Park Road). However, con- struction of Alternative A would not preclude construction of a relocated Route 96 along the West Hill to the vicinity of Route 96 near the Tompkins Community Hospital at a later date. Some modification of Alternative A would be necessary at that time. ' Under this alternative, Route 96 traffic would be di- rected to Buffalo Street from both northbound Meadow Street and southbound Fulton Street. Buffalo Street would be extended as a two-way street across the Flood Control Channel just north of the existing State Street bridge to connect into Cliff Street at a point located just north of its inter- section with Route 89 (Park Road). The required intersection geometry of the Route 96 and Route 89 intersection would result in displacement of nine residences situated at the foot of Cliff Street. As mentioned earlier, there is no improvement proposed for Route 96 north of Park Road. All previous studies that considered widening of the existing Route 96 to sufficient width to meet the minimum design criteria resulted in numer- ous business and_residential displacements. It is concluded that any Route 96 improvements which meet the design objec- tives would best serve the local environment if built on new location, east of the existing road and below the properties fronting Cliff Street and Trumansburg Road. The traffic volumes and Level of Service for Alternative A for the design year 2010 are shown on Figure 13. Year 1990 volumes are included in Appendix C. As cited earlier, the PM peak hour has been determined to be the control for traffic analysis purposes. Alternative A would relieve traffic congestion through elimination of the Octopus intersection. A second bridge crossing the Flood Control Channel via Buffalo Street extended to Cliff Street would improve the accessibility to and from the West Hill area including the Tompkins Community Hospital. The safety and traffic capacity of Route 96 would be. improved from its crossing of Six Mile Creek, north to its proposed intersection with Park Road (Route 89). All rail- road -street crossings would be at grade and no improvements would be included for Route 96 north of the Park Road (Route 89) intersection. Alternative A meets all of the established design 0/ - criteria except that the Level of Service for threeap% -y) c))° proaches- to stop signs result in Level of - Service E for the.. 2010 PM design. A detailed discussion about these inter- \ sections is included under Section III.D Substandard C,��) Features. C°k Park MOUNT STREET Gaging Station 4,040 GRADE Marina W/L LOW AVE. LEGEND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY Golf Course SHORT ST. FIGURE 12 ALTERNATIVE A ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 400 800 feet Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER III -12 CLIFF STREET EXIST X96 690 1060 TRUMANS BURG RD C) EXIST. RT. 96 ®i525 555 740 810—y ce 30 g95_y 185 \l J O a 1 (nN zo o �r N N O� I1 2 5 O U STOP// B INDLEY T EET 40 00 Y 1 0 N0 0 90 70 0 CAYUGA INLET L 80 1410 ®,- 220 of —oroN trf.<// a M7 tiO 1070 -- )® ` 1480 100 --- 40 10 RT. 13, 34 8 96 // ;c\ Z Ow W Z J - ~ U � r 0 .TOP Z ail-LI "1j W W Lt >F W U) J U ao 1380 ®� 120 150 0m 0 N — 1- W W cc I– U w z w '0, o FULTON a) STREET ® 1360 ®�60 1090 LO ci N M N ^ O 00W to 90-f 1180 --El) 1460-- 60- f 0) r 1 - Traffic volumes indicated were developed by New York State Department of Transportation. 0 mm 0 J Li 0 MEADOW 1300 7— 50 Oo c. 1 160 0 690 ®i to 0M STREET W W cr1— H- 1- o O a 1520 BQ ®i0r. m a 0 12 10 1580 30 �r•-• 12 STOP 0 to ‘, 1 1490 90 ® 1400 — 1I r_ 130—\ Q J N J 0 U U0 U 1200 a 34 SEE FIGURE 13 FOR OPTIONAL RT. 89 ALIGNMENT LEGEND 800—.- PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Q APPROACH LEVEL OF SERVICE ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOP = STOP SIGN CONTROL YIELD = YIELD SIGN CONTROL FIGURE 13 PI.N. 3047.04 ITHACA-TRUMANSBURG ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS TOMPKINS COUNTY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVE A PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PM 2010 PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY ROBERT E. SMITH — CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ROCHESTER, NEW YORK NO SCALE DATE.MAY,1985 III -13 a. Optional Alternative A Configuration An optional Route 89 alignment in conjunction with Alternative A is also proposed as shown on Figure 14. Under this option all other elements of Alternative A remain the same except for a slightly sharper (12 degree) curve for relocated Route 96 at the crossing of the Flood Control Channel (Buffalo Street extended to Cliff Street). This configuration was adopted as an option to Alternative A based on input received from the local community during the summer of 1985. A frontage road would be provided along existing Park Road in order to provide access to the properties located at the bottom of Cliff Street. This frontage road would connect into the new Route 96 near the existing Park Road intersec- tion with Cliff Street and would be terminated in a cul-de- sac near the new Route 89 crossing of the Flood Control Channel. See Figure 14. Taughannock Boulevard would be con- nected into the new Route 89 alignment at a point approxi- mately 650 ft. north of Buffalo Street. Traffic volumes and Level of Service for the Alternative A -Optional Route 89 Alignment are shown on Figure 15. This Optional Alternative A Alignment would also relieve traffic congestion through elimination of the Octopus inter- section. Two additional bridges would be provided that cross over the Flood Control Channel. One bridge would carry the Route 96 traffic via Buffalo Street extended to Cliff Street and the other bridge would carry Route 89 traffic via Taughannock Boulevard connection to Park Road. This would result in improved accessibility to and from the West Hill area in- cluding the Tompkins Community Hospital. This option to Alternative A would also provide improved safety and traffic capacity for Route 96, from its crossing of Six Mile Creek, north to its proposed connection to Cliff Street, just north of the existing Octopus intersection. Also, all railroad -street crossings would be at grade and no improvements would be included for Route 96 north on Cliff Street and Trumansburg Road. This option to Alternative A also meets most of the established design criteria in Section A of Table 1. One of the intents of this option to Alterna- tive A was to provide a design for the Route 96 extension from Buffalo Street to Cliff Street that would not displace Gaping Station LEGEND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY 0 400 800 feet III—I5 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS R I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert' E Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER CLIFF STREET EXIST. RT. 96 NEG 690 1060 r Ci PARK R040 000 CONTROL Traffic volumes indicated were derelaped a New Yore Stale Deportment of Transoofiction 190 EXIST RT 89 PARK R040 CH4NNEL --____,, TAUGHANNOCK BLVD. OLD CAYUGA INLET LEGEND 800-' PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Q APPROACH LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OTHER TRAFFIC VOLUMES ARE THE SAME AS SHOWN FOR ALTERNATIVE A PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PM 2010 FIGURE 15 P. I. N. 3047.04 ITHACA — TRUMANSBURG TOMPKINS COUNTY ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVE A OPTIONAL RT. 89 ALIGNMENT PEAKHOUR TRAFFIC _ PM _ 2010 PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY ROBERT E SMITH — CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ROCHESTER. NEW YORK NO SCALE DATE DEC.,1915 III -16 the residences situated at the foot of Cliff Street. The curvature of Buffalo Street extended across the Flood Control Channel was increased from the design criteria maximum of 10 degrees to 12 degrees in order to avoid these residences. This would provide for a design speed of 37 mph. The existing posted speed limit is 30 mph. As with Alternative A, no improvements are included for Route 96 north of the existing Route 89 intersection under this option. Levels of Service E would occur at the approaches to stop signs on Esty Street and Brindley Street. A detailed discussion about these conditions is included under Section III -D - Substandard Features. b. Other Options Considered and Discarded Numerous other suggestions to modify Alternative A were received at the informational public meetings held in the Ithaca area from April through November, 1985. There is some local support for a suggestion to modify". Alternative A by including a single lane bridge that would cross over the railroad on West Clinton Street. The purpose of this suggestion is to. provide a grade separated railroad crossing for emergency vehicles only. Access to the bridge would be controlled by a gate. The New York State Department of Transportation cannot advance this suggestion because of its substandard engineering features, its failure to meet the project objectives and because the bridge would be located outside of the project area (See Figure 1). 1 Of the remaining suggestions, four were determined to have enough merit for further investigation. These four suggestions were: 1. Shift Route 96 (Cliff -Street) west toward Hector Street (Route 79) in an attempt to save the nine residences at the lower end of Cliff Street. 2. Relocate Route 89 (Park Road) across the Island to connect into Fulton Street extended at the Esty Street intersection. 3. Extend Esty Street to Cliff Street via a new road- way. This Esty Street extension would cross the Old Cayuga Inlet, the Island and Flood Control Channel and intersect with Cliff Street about 900 feet north Qy Pork Water 0� A -r 0 } K ►1e Gaging Station 4 TM/RD 14.0 Sr. Iii FLEGEND ALTERNATIVE A IIIIHI OPTION NO. _ WI OPTION NO. 2 T ncy F/Rsr 5 FIGURE 16 GENERAL ALIGNMENTS OF SUGGESTIONS TO MODIFY ALTERNATIVE A - OPTIONS NO. I8 2 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. 1. N. 304704 TOMPKINS ' COUNTY • Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER III -18 11 y Qy c !t. Park /c. Park ,yo ry K 1 I 4 G. Gaging Station 4 '9).0 sr. LEGEND 5 FFT TH/RO SFr A ncy ALTERNATIVE A ]IIHII OPTION NO. 3 /// OPTION NO. 4 FIGURE 17 GENERAL ALIGNMENTS OF SUGGESTIONS TO MODIFY ALTERNATIVE A OPTIONS NO. 3 a 4 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert . E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER IlI-19 of the existing Park Road intersection with Route 96. Route 89 (Park Road) would intersect this Esty Street extension, at which point southbound Route 89 traffic would follow the Esty Street extension to the proposed Route 96 one-way pair of Fulton Street and Meadow Street. 4. This suggestion is similar to that described under (3) except that the Esty Street extension would be connected into Route 89 (Park Road) with a separate connection provided to Cliff Street. The general alignments of these suggestions to modify Alternative A are shown on Figures 16 and 17. Option (1) was discarded because of the extensive re- taining wall that would be required along Hector Street (Route 79), and the fact that it would provide a substandard lane drop at the northern connection to Cliff Street, and still require the taking of three to four residences located between Hector Street and Cliff Street. Option Nos. 2, 3 & 4 were discarded because they would involve additional park land, would result in the need to re- locate approximately 600 lin. ft. of railroad, and would cost an additional 2.0 to 2.2 million dollars more than the orig- inal Alternative A. A more detailed description of each of these options is included in Appendix H. II1-20 �I a� wea. t 5.- ALTERNATIVE B (2JA.01A ad - Alternative B consists of a two-lane highway plus a ""L'-'1� truck climbing lane. This alternative would begin at the. Buffalo Street/Meadow Street intersection in the City of Ithaca and extend westerly on Buffalo Street across The Old Cayuga Inlet and then on new location over the Flood Control Channel on an alignment which would skirt Cass Park and trav- erse the West Hill to a connection back into existing Route 96 at a point just south of Duboise Road in the Town of Ithaca. Provision for either retaining walls or fill slopes is included through the area that skirts Cass Park. Alterna- tive B includes three optional alignments near the Tompkins Community Hospital and the. Paleontological Research Institu- ution. Optional Alignments No. 1 and No. 2 are alignments that were developed from 1976-1984 under the four -lane divided roadway design that was originally referred to as the Town of Ithaca scheme (Option No. 1) and R-11 scheme (Option No. 2). Optional Alignment No. 3 is the result of sugges- tions received at the informational public meetings held in the Ithaca area between April, 1985, and November, 1985, to study an alignment that would be as far away from the Tompkins Community Hospital as possible without increasing the 6.3 percent grade developed under Optional Alignments No. 1 and 2. The location of Alternative B is shown on Figure 18, with the typical sections, profiles and detailed plan views included in Appendix E. Alternative B would also include the construction of the Fulton Street and Meadow Street one-way pair. Route 96 traf- fic will be directed via Buffalo Street from both Fulton Street and Meadow Street. The proposed roadway section would be a two-lane roadway plus a truck climbing lane for northbound Route 96 traffic. The third lane is a feature that will be continuous from Taughannock Boulevard north to the vicinity of the Tompkins Community Hospital. The truck climbing lane isn't required south of a point located approximately fifteen hundred feet north of the proposed relocated Route 89 intersection. How- ever, three lanes are required across the new bridge over the Flood Control Channel, and three lanes are required at the new Route 96 and relocated Route 89 intersection to accommo- date future traffic demands. Therefore, it was decided to maintain the additional northbound lane throughout this area, thereby eliminating the need to transition the additional lane in and out over a relatively short distance (.34+ mile). r Water A/Cy'qA OPTIONAL ALIGN. NO. 3 OPTIONAL ALIGN. NO. 2 lrrrus AVE. STREET AI UN' STREET Gaging Station OPTIONAL ALIGN. NO. I TH/Ro LEGEND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY Golf Course SHORT ST. 400 feet FIGURE 18 ALTERNATIVE B ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 800 Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER Construction of this alternative would provide traffic relief at the. Octopus intersection. The configuration of the Octopus would not change under this alternative. However, the existing Route 89 (Frontage Road) intersection would not require a traffic signal.. A new traffic signal would be con- structed for the State Street/Hector Street and Cliff Street/ Floral Avenue intersection. Route 89 would be relocated and intersect with the new Route 96 near Linderman Creek as shown on Figure 18. A con- nection to existing Park Road would then be provided from relocated Route 89 opposite the skating rink. The remaining portion of existing Park Road south of this point would become a 1oe'a`1 city streetto the southern end of Cass Park where it wound then b ezextended over the new Route 9"6 "tto intersect with Cliff Street, about 900 feet north of—the existing Route 89 intersection with Cliff Street. A frontage road similar to the one described under Alternative A, Op- tional Route 89 Alignment, would be provided at the foot of Cliff Street to provide access to the properties affected by the new Route 96. This frontage road is also shown on Figure 18. The alignment of Alternative B is at -grade with the railroad crossing near Fulton Street, as is the case with Alternative A. The PM peak hour traffic volumes and Level of Service for Alternative B for the design year of 2010 are shown on Figure 19. The year 1990 traffic volumes are included in Appendix C. As mentioned earlier, the PM peak hour has been determined to be the control for traffic analysis purposes. Three optional alignments are shown on Figure 18 through the area of the Paleontological Research Institution (PRI) and the Tompkins Community Hospital (TCH). This area con- sists of several buildings that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the PRI and the hospital, all in close proximity to one another. These buildings are shown later in this DEIS on Figure 42, Cultural Resource Inventory. Several meetings between the PRI Board Members and NYSDOT Officials and between the Hospital Board Members and NYSDOT Officials were held from 1977 thru 1985. Input was gathered at these meetings and the three optional alignments resulted. These optional alignments provide a series of variations in geometric configurations that would potentially satisfy the concerns of the hospital and/or the PRI. Optional Alignment No. 1 is an alignment that was sup- ported by the PRI and the Tompkins County Board Members in I1I-23 1977. The Tompkins County Hospital has since been trans- ferred to• The Tompkins Community Hospital., a privately owned organization. Also, the hospital has since expanded and a - large parking lot has been constructed in the area of Option- al Alignment No. 1. Optional Alignment No. 2 would miss the hospital parking lot but displace the auxiliary building of the PRI and the apartment buildings located near the hospital. Optional Alignment No. 3 avoids most of the hospital property but would displace the PRI auxiliary building and the main building. Alternative B would relieve the traffic congestion at the Octopus intersection by removing the Route 96 and Route 89 traffic_ from the existing intersection. The proposed additional bridge crossing the Flood Control Channel for the Route 96 and Route 89 traffic would improve the accessibility to and from the West Hill area including the Tompkins Community Hospital while improving the safety and traffic capacity of Route 96 from Meadow Street to the vicinity of Duboise Road. All railroad -street crossings would be at grade. Alternative B meets most of the established design criteria,shown on Table 1. Some notable exceptions are: 1. A 14 degree curve is required to cross the Flood Control Channel near the State Street bridge cross- ing. This results in a design speed of approxi- mately 37 mph as compared to the present posted speed limit of 30 mph within the city limits. A 10 degree curve would result in an undesirable skew crossing of the Flood Control Channel and would cause impacts to the Station Restaurant, a structure which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 2. The maximum percent of grade provided along the West Hill from Cass Park to the hospital area is 6.3%. It is physically impossible to meet the design criteria of 4 percent due to the steepness of the existing terrain. A more detailed discussion about these conditions together with other less notable exceptions is included under Section III.D Substandard Features. I1I-24 q 4 S Rr /.a . FT R NDLEY TREET 9 CLIFF STREET RT. 260 10 STOP c, 2 L COD CONT RpL STOP ��•-- o o �1 K>m0 ,ON oS // M r I10 410 200 m N C! 15 20 65 20 _— 50 40 5� 0 4Q i FULTON ® 345 1365 .".\i con N r) H LJ LJ Lr H LJ Lx1 Lr H o TAUGH4NN0CK --C STREET 4 11 I1 0 #(-55 �() \.. BLVD. CHANNEL 0 Aq OLD CAYUGA INLET 1305 45 1585 4L 2o l 0 0 M T 00 U LJ Z LJ 03 RT. 13, 34 8 96 10e0 490 1395 3 75—� � 35 -1 r11f5 v 1 Z O LJ H Z Lr JH U 0 0 Z H QU J03 W X LJ U J U 2STOP 0 J LL 1 CO CO MEADOW 760 90 '® 1195 1585 -- 175 W LJ K H N 00 STREET 1405 10 0rn } H STOP 0 N 0 1 1500 35 1415 9>5 1335 �60 rTOP 1�� CB>- n F a n 1190 0 0 m0 H Traffic volumes indicated ,,ere developed by New York State Department of Transportation. (RT 760 60 —E131 105 0 HO °' OH ~� N U LL1Z0-1 ZXo! - UW 96 RELOC. 160 + #— 30 -J r - Z — O Y 2 0 o� Z 0 U 405 LEGEND 800 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC O APPROACH LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOP = STOP SIGN CONTROL YIELD = YIELD SIGN CONTROL FIGURE 19 P.I.N. 3047.04 ITHACA— TRUMANSBURG ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS TOMPKINS COUNTY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVE B PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PM _ 2010 PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY ROBERT E. SMITH — CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ROCHESTER, NEW YORK NO SCALE DATEMAY, 1985 III— 25 a. MODIFICATIONS CONSIDERED AND DISCARDED There is some local support for a suggestion to modify Alternative B by including a single lane bridge that would cross over the railroad on West Clinton Street. This sugges- tion is the same as the suggestion described under Alterna- tive A. The purpose of this suggestion is to provide a grade separated railroad crossing for emergency vehicles only. Access to the bridge would be controlled by a gate. The New York State Department of Transportation can not advance this suggestion because of its substandard engineering features, its failure to meet the project objectives and because the bridge would be located outside of the project area (See Figure 1). A suggestion to modify Alternative B by making a shorter connection to existing Route 96 was made at one. of the infor- mational public meetings held in the Ithaca area from April through November, 1985. This suggestion was similar to a suggestion that was made for a "Short Route" as suggested by a local group in 1981. The Short Route then suggested follow- ing the proposed alignment along Cass Park and then curved sharply up the West Hill to intersect with existing Route 96 (Cliff Street) near the Brookfield Road intersection. This resulted in 12% grades throughout this area and, therefore, was considered unacceptable. This earlier suggestion is shown on Figure 20. Next, a study was made to connect into existing Route 96 somewhere between Brookfield Road and the Tompkins Community. Hospital. Important topographic controls such as the Candle- wyck Park Apartments, LakesideNursing Home and the Seventh Day Adventist Church were considered and an alignment chosen that would avoid conflicts with these controls. This second optional alignment was located between the Lakeside Nursing Home and the former Odd Fellows Rebekah's Home as shown on Figure 21. This alignment resulted in grades in excess of 9% for approximately 1500 lin. ft. Therefore the suggestion to modify Alternative B by adopting a "Short Route" was discarded due to the long excessive grades that would be involved. A more detailed description of the "Short Route" is included under Alternatives Considered and Discarded since November, 1984, in Appendix H. III -26 H N i 9 90 • --"•••••\ ro • 200 100 0 200 f.al OTT FIGURE 20 ° OPTION NO.1 SHORT ROUTE FOR ALTERNATIVES B 8 C (1981) ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTIM. CIVIL ENGIN CCN \f OPTION NO. 2 SNORT (MUTE FOR ALTERNATIVES b B C (1965) ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 6. ALTERNATIVE C Alternative C consists of a four -lane divided highway that generally follows the alignment of Alternative B. How- ever, from a point near the southerly end of Cass Park, the four -lane divided section would split into one-way direction- al pairs connecting new Route 96 into Meadow Street. The southbound one-way roadway would connect into Buffalo Street and the northbound one-way roadway would exit from Meadow Street near the Esty Street intersection. Alternative C also includes provisions for either retaining walls or fill slopes through the area that skirts Cass Park. This alternative includes the option of providing a grade -separated or an at - grade crossing of the new one-way northbound Route 96 with the existing Conrail Railroad track paralleling Fulton Street. Alternative C also includes three optional align- ments near the Tompkins Community Hospital and the Paleon- tological Research Institution. These optional alignments are the same as those discussed under Alternative B. Optional Alignments No. 1 and No. 2 are alignments that were developed from 1976-1984 under the four -lane divided roadway design that was originally referred to as the Town of Ithaca scheme (Option No. 1) and R-11 scheme (Option No. 2). Op- tional Alignment No. 3 is the result of suggestions received at the informational public meetings held in the Ithaca area between April, 1985, and November, 1985, to study an align- ment that would be as far away from the Tompkins Community Hospital as possible without increasing the 6.3 percent grade developed under Optional Alignment Nos. 1 and 2. The location of Alternative C is shown on Figure 22 with the typical sections, profiles and detailed plan views in- cluded in Appendix F. Alternative C would also incorporate the construction of the Fulton Street and Meadow Street one-way pair. The Route 96 northbound traffic would be directed via a new viaduct crossing Fulton Street, the railroad, the Old Cayuga Inlet, the Island and the Flood Control Channel. An optional low- level northbound crossing would provide for at -grade inter- sections with all these referenced crossings. The location of the optional low-level northbound crossing is shown on Figure 23. Both the viaduct crossing and the low-level crossing would be grade -separated over the existing bike path located along Route 89. Route 96 southbound traffic would enter Fulton Street (southbound) and Meadow Street (northbound) via Buffalo Street. Buffalo Street would be a one-way street, east to Meadow Street, after which it becomes a two-way street. This alignment is at -grade with the railroad crossing near Fulton Street. III -29 OPTIONAL ALIGN. NO. 3i OPTIONAL ALIGN. NO. 2 STREET Gaging Station OPTIONAL ALIGN. NO. I F/FTy _ SPADE Marina LEGEND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY Golf Course Light SHORT ST. 400 feet FIGURE 22 ALTERNATIVE C ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 800 Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER I ' 4. Park 4 }. is: I e Gaging Station THIRD Gj 4:* L EGEND PROPOS ED IMPROVEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY 0 400 fee t ni T ncy FIGURE 23 ALTERNATIVE C (OPTIONAL LOW—LEVEL NORTHBOUND) ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS R I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 800 Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL. ENGINEER M-31 The PM peak hour traffic volumes and Level of Service for Alternative C and its low-level option are shown on Fig- ures 24 and 25, respectively, for design year 2010. As men- tioned earlier, the PM peak hour has been determined to be the control for traffic analysis purposes. The proposed roadway section of Alternative C would be a four -lane divided facility with a sixteen foot median on new location from the south end of Cass Park to the: vicinity of the Tompkins Community Hospital. The northbound and south- bound connections from the south end of Cass Park into the city would be independent roadways, with the southbound road- way connecting to Buffalo Street and the northbound roadway connecting to Meadow Street near the Esty Street intersec- tion. Alternative C would result in a better overall Level of Service than either Alternative A or B and would result in the most improved safety for Route 96 from the crossing of Six Mile Creek north to the vicinity of Duboise Road. The Octopus intersection would be relieved through elimination of the Routes 96 and 89 traffic. Although the overall configuration of the Octopus is not changed, the Park Road connection would become a local access road with very little traffic and the existing traffic signal would be removed. This would. effectively alter the overall traffic operations aspect of the Octopus by allowing for a normal crossroad intersection design for the State Street/Hector Street and Cliff Street/Floral Avenue approaches. A new traffic signal would be provided for this intersection. Alternative C,with the Route 96 northbound viaduct crossing over the railroad, the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel would provide the most improved access to the West Hill area including the Tompkins Community Hospital. The Route 96 southbound connection from the West Hill would improve the access but would remain at grade with the railroad crossing. The optional Route 96 northbound low- level option would improve the access to the West Hill by providing new bridges crossing the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel. The railroad would be at grade with thislow-level option. Route 89 would be relocated to intersect with the new Route 96 near Linderman Creek as shown on Figure 22. A con- nection to existing Park Road would then be provided from the relocated Route 89 opposite the skating rink. The remaining portion of existing Park Road south of this point would be- come a local city street to the southern end of Cass Park, III -32 0 3q 260 Goo 45 CLIFF STREET 160 NEG. 85 160 10 NEG NEG. • FRONTAGE 8040 RT 96 RELOC. STOP BINDLEY I( STREET J 125 15 CHANNEL TAUGHANNOCK OLD CAYUGA INLET 110 1410 1,-- 200 1 FULTON 400 1365 STREET ®y- 310 55 1170 NEG. (m N //__(:'RT 13, 34 & 96 1080 90 75� 35 //.•• 00� B M N 0 ow aL v N J Hw ww JH W ,n1-- '\ Crz cc U z w B 1395 115 00 00 N N H w w cc H U) U w z w rn 1310 155 70 �, 1620 0 J f L -D MEADOW O LO COa CUL-DE SAC O N M N \CD1 LOSO FO STREET 90 2275- 175 2545 2690 25 35 1585-- 1415— 85 200 )0443 it ROAD 9so 200 STOP m Traffic volumes indicated were developed by New York State Departme,f of Transportation. RT 89 RELOC RT 96 0 1—(0 °) off - z _o) zxo o w N RELOC. 760 60 160 r- t -105 30 405 LEGEND 800-4,-- PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC QD APPROACH LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOP = STOP SIGN CONTROL YIELD = YIELD SIGN CONTROL FIGURE 24 PI.N.3047.04 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS ITHACA- TRUMANSBURG TOMPKINS COUNTY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVE C PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PM 2010 PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY ROBERT E. SMITH - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ROCHESTER, NEW YORK NO SCALE DATE MAY, 1985 LII -33 4' k f !/ B INDLEY STREET �fpe co STOP�\ I5—f YI LD f4° STEP � 41% CLIFF STREET FRONTAGE R040 RT 96 260--""‘„,..-10 �Q[STOP 85 RT 96 RELOC. FL 000 �_. CONTROL C) 110 1410 }x200 RT 13,34 8 96 Ao 1080 75-7) ZH O W W Z J H U ID M 0 M � 00 NN W W H cn U W Z W U 30 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD. L-10 170----e —10 O tO� C) L FULTON j" STREET 400 - 1-1310 365 55 1 0,0 com N � W W cc O J L_ ?LLD MEADOW 1490--- 35i 1395 115 ✓ STOP 1280 0) Traffic volumes indicated were developed by New York State Department of Transportation. 140 1510— f r n0 CO 00 N STREET H W W 0' H Q H U 1075 —1170 /-115 r2� 0 N CUL-DE SAC 2115 --�` 175—i 7 0 2385 2530 35-1 CHANNEL OLID CAYUGA INLET O J W cc 1010, 585 -- STOP LP 1415-----85 8 5Q ao J J_ Q U Q U 1335 160 • STOP 92 0 0 Ns ROAD RT l3 /365` 34 RT 89 RELoc RT O z °' O H B WF Z X OW 96 RELOC. o ti � 1L105 / — 30 760 60 1601 J r- fn a 0 Y = a OH H Z 2 2 0 U 0 E r 405 LEGEND 800—o- PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC APPROACH LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOP SIGN CONTROL YIELD SIGN CONTROL ED STOP YIELD = FIGURE 25 PI.N. 3047.04 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS ITHACA- TRUMANSBURG TOMPKINS COUNTY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVE C (LOW LEVEL NORTHBOUND RT. 96) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PM 2010 PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY ROBERT E. SMITH - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ROCHESTER, NEW YORK NO SCALE DATEMAY,1985 III -34 where it would be extended over the new Route 96 to intersect with Cliff Street about 900 feet north of the existing Route 89 intersection with Cliff Street. A frontage road similar to the one described under Alternative A, Optional Route 89 Alignment and also under Alternative B would be provided at the foot of Cliff Street to provide access to the properties affected by the new Route 96. Three optional alignments are presented through the area of the PRI and TCH grounds similar to that proposed under the Alternative B alignments. These optional alignments are the result of meetings with the PRI and TCH Officials as discus- sed under Alternative B. Alternative C meets most of the established design criteria shown on Table 1. Some notable exceptions are: 1. A 14 degree curve is required to cross the Flood Control Channel for the southbound directional roadway near the State Street bridge crossing. This results in a. design speed of approximately 37 mph as compared to the present posted speed limit of 30 mph within the city limits. A 10 degree curve would result in an undesirable skew crossing of the Flood Control Channel and would cause impacts to the Station Restaurant, a structure which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 2. The maximum percent of grade provided along the West Hill from Cass Park to the hospital area is 6.3%. As noted under Alternative B; it is physically im- possible to meet the design criteria of 4 percent due to the steepness of the existing terrain. A more detailed discussion about these conditions together with other less notable exceptions is included under Section III.D - Substandard Features. a. MODIFICATIONS CONSIDERED AND DISCARDED Five suggestions to modify Alternative C were investi- gated as the result of input from the various informational public meetings held in the Ithaca area from April through November, 1985, together with one suggestion received following the public meeting of November 19, 1985, for a total of six suggestions. III -35 These six suggestions were; 1. Relocate the northbound Route 96 exit proposed on Meadow Street in order to avoid any conflicts with the commercial building located near Esty Street. Route 96 would be grade -separated over the railroad. 2. Relocate the northbound Route 96 exit off Meadow Street from the Esty Street intersection to. the Cascadilla Street intersection. Route 96 would be grade -separated over the railroad and a separate access ramp wouldbe provided off. Fulton Street extended to the new viaduct over the railroad. 3. This suggestion is similar to suggestion'(2) above except the separate access ramp over the railroad is eliminated. The access would be via a short length of a channelized one-way ramp along Meadow Street connecting into the suggested Esty Street exit. 4. The proposed Route 96 northbound exit would be moved to the Cascadilla Street intersection with Meadow Street. Route 96 is proposed to be grade -separated over the railroad with a directional one-way ramp proposed along Meadow Street to Cascadilla Street. Park Road would be relocated across the Flood Control Channel and to connect into Taughannock Boulevard. 5. This suggestion was received following the public meeting of November 19, 1985, and was locally referred to as Alternative D. This suggestion would provide for a four -lane overpass that would inter- sect with Fulton Street Extended and with Meadow Street at the Cascadilla Street intersections. Both the northbound and southbound Route 96 traffic would be connected into Cascadilla Street via a grade separated bridge over the railroad, Old Cayuga Inlet, the Island, the Flood Control Channel and Park Road. This new alignmentwould then connect back into the original Alternative C alignment near the south end of Cass Park. A separate exit ramp would be provided to Fulton Street extended for the southbound traffic. 6. The "Short Route" suggestion shown previously on Figures 20 and 21, and described under Alternative B, would also apply to Alternative C. The general alignments of suggestions (1) thru (5) above are shown on Figures 26, 27, 28, and 29. III -36 Gaping Station \Res! sr. 1/4; I—LEGEND ALTERNATIVE C 1111111 OPTION NO. 1 0,// OPTION NO. 2 FIGURE 26 GENERAL ALIGNMENTS OF SUGGESTIONS TO MODIFY ALTERNATIVE C OPTIONS NO.1 812 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER III -37 BO Qy '9. Park 4} 4 'Titus AV .� ,rus ;1e Gaging Station THIRD LEGEND i, R esi • T ncy N ALTERNATIVE C r/l/; OPTION NO. 3 S F/RST iNzz. 1E-38 FIGURE 2 7 GENERAL ALIGNMENTS OF SUGGESTIONS TO MODIFY ALTERNATIVE C OPTION NO. 3 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P LN. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ' Qy Park Water R/e 0. Park 0:4'0 t vre 4y sl� . is: 1 e )�—�� .e. IT�r� < AV —�\ Gaging Station 4 9•T � . Resi• • ncy THIRD F/RST v, LEGEND ALTERNATIVE C jll OPTION NO. 4 FIGURE 28 GENERAL ALIGNMENTS OF SUGGESTIONS TO MODIFY ALTERNATIVE C OPTION NO. 4 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER III -39 Gaping Station Q � `. 4./\ /‘N\Gy •q� c ti 0 400 800 \'s fee t PROPOS ED IMPROVEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY w Resi S N FIGURE 29 0 GENERAL ALIGNMENTS OF -9 SUGGESTIONS TO MODIFY ALTERNATIVE C kis OPTION NO. 5 ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER III -40 r it Option (1) was discarded because this suggestion would still have an impact to the plumbing supply building, would eliminate tractor -trailer traffic on Esty Street, would re- quire a substandard cul-de-sac and street width on Esty Street and would cause a longer section of two-way traffic on Meadow Street. Options (2), (3), (4) and (5) were discarded because they would cause additional impacts to the adjacent properties, would result in steep grades, and would cost an additional 4.5 to 10.5 million dollars more than the original Alternative C with the grade -separated railroad crossing. As noted earlier under Alternative B, Option 6 was dis- carded because it would result in long excessively steep grades. A more detailed description of each of these options is included in Appendix H. III.C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES There are five bridges situated within the project area. These bridges are listed below in Table 2 and are shown in Appendix D, E and F. Structure No. & Location 1- Meadow Street over Six Mile Creek 2- State Street over Flood Control Channel 3- State Street over Old Cayuga Inlet 4- Seneca Street over - Old Cayuga Inlet TABLE 2 EXISTING BRIDGES Width 48'+ curb to curb 58'+ fascia to fascia (Sidewalk E & W) 48'+ curb to curb 58'+ fascia to fascia (- Sidewalk N & S) Total Length/ Total Spans 110'+/ 2 spans 211'+/ 3 spans 33'+ curb to.curb 104'+/ 1 span 46.5'T fascia to fascia - (Sidewalk N & S) 20'+ curb to curb 30'+ fascia to fascia (Sidewalk N.) 5- Buffalo Street over 33'+ curb to curb Old Cayuga Inlet 46.5'+ fascia to fascia (Sidewalk N & S) 100'+/ 1 span 104'+/ 1 span Bridge No. 1 and Bridge No. 2 will not be affected by any of the alternatives presented herein. These bridges are in good condition and any of the alternatives would match the existing bridge width and travel lanes. Bridge No. 3 will be replaced by a three -lane, two -span bridge under all the build alternatives. Sidewalks would be provided on both sides. This existing bridge is a two-lane steel through girder type with posted weight limits of twenty tons for single unit vehicles and thirty tons for tractor - trailer combinations. Bridge No. 4 is a two-lane steel pony truss bridge posted for a four ton weight limit. This bridge would be replaced under all the build alternatives by a two span, two- lane bridge with a sidewalk provided on the north side. III -42 t Bridge No. 5 is an existing two-lane steel through gird- er bridge posted for weight limits of twenty tons for single units and thirty tons for tractor -trailer combinations. This bridge would be replaced by a four -lane two -span bridge with sidewalk on the north side under Alternatives A and B or by a three -lane, two -span bridge with sidewalks on both sides under Alternative C. Bridge Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are located within a regu- lated floodway. The proposed new bridge crossings for Bridge Nos. 3, 4 and 5 included in each alternative would, in all probability, not result in any apparent adverse impact on. the hydraulics of the Old Cayuga Inlet. However, the specific bridge types and configurations will be evaluated and de- tailed in the final design phase of the project. The existing street grades approaching the replacement bridges will be maintained. Any special bridge designs which may reasonably result from the requirements of the hydraulic analysis would not significantly increase the total project cost. A summary of the proposed replacement bridges and also each new structure is presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5 for Alternatives A, B and C, respectively. The proposed bridges are shown on plan view in Appendix D, E and F. The proposed bridge for the Park Road Connection to Cliff Street under Alternatives B and C includes shoulder widths that match the existing Park Road shoulder widths and includes a sidewalk. This would be a road leading to a park where pedestrian, traffic and bicycle traffic coming from the Cliff Street area must use the bridge to access the park and the bike path along the park. Cornell University uses the Flood Control Channel as a rowing course for competitive crew races. The Cornell University Athletic Department was contacted concerning their requirements for the rowing course. Copies of their response is included in Appendix J. Every effort will be made to ac- commodate the requirements of the University's rowing activ- ities when pier placement locations are determined, however at this early design stage, we cannot assure that structural design considerations will be absolutely compatible with Cornell University's desires. It is anticipated that special considerations will be required during final design for the development of the sub- structure supports for all the bridges situated within the Old Cayuga Inlet area. This area is within a deep glacial fi valley containing deep deposits of compressible soft clay and f silt. Further evaluation will be necessary to determine whether long bridge spans on high-capacity deep foundations, or shorter spans with a relatively lower foundation loading will be preferable. III -43 1. BRIDGE LOCATION State Street over Old Cayuga Inlet 2. Seneca Street over Old Cayuga Inlet 3. Buffalo Street over Old Cayuga Inlet 4. Relocated Route 96 over Flood Control Channel & Relocated Bike Path 4. Relocated Route 96 over Flood Control Channel & Relocated Bike Path 5. Relocated Route 89 over Flood Control Channel & Relocated Bike Path TABLE 3 PROPOSED BRIDGES - ALTERNATIVE A Q APPROXIMATE BRIDGE WIDTH (Parapet to Parapet) BRIDGE TYPICAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROADWAY LANE (TWO-WAY DHV) WIDTHS Q. SIDEWALK G LENGTH/SPANS 2010 (PM) 2020(PM) 45 Ft. 12'-11'-12' 5' Lt. & Rt. 107'/2 860 1,015 32 Ft. 12'-12' 5' Rt. 107'/2 *550 *600 54 Ft. 12'-11'-11'-12' 5' Rt. 107'/2 2,300 2,650 43 Ft. 12'-11'-12' 5' Rt. 210'/3 2,270 2,625 OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGNMENT 43 Ft. 12'-11'-12' 5' Rt. 31 Ft. 11'-12' 210'/3 1,750 2,015 5' Rt. 370'/4 560 650 Q For Estimating Purposes Only - Proposed Highway Approach Lanes Carried Across Bridges. Q As Viewed Looking West - Proposed Sidewalk Approaches Carried Across Bridges. • Spans Over Old Cayuga Inlet May be Single Span If Final Design Clears The 100 -Year Water Surface Requirements. Spans Over The Flood Control Channel Will Consider The Requirements Of The Cornell Rowing Course. *One -Way DHV. Roadway Approach Sections Carried Across Bridges As Shown On The Plan Views In Appendix D. TABLE 4 PROPOSED BRIDGES - ALTERNATIVE B Q APPROXIMATE BRIDGE TYPICAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES BRIDGE WIDTH ROADWAY LANE (TWO-WAY DHV) BRIDGE LOCATION ( Parapet to Parapet) WIDTHS Q SIDEWALK C LENGTH/SPANS 2010 (PM) 2020(PM) 1. State Street over 45 Ft. 12'-11'-12' 5' Lt. & Rt. 107'/2 Old Cayuga Inlet 2. Seneca Street over 32 Ft. 12'-12' 5' Rt. 107'/2 Old Cayuga Inlet 3. Buffalo Street over 54 Ft. 12'-11'-11'-12' 5' Rt. 107'/2 Old Cayuga Inlet 4. Relocated Route 96 over 43 Ft. 12'-11'-12' 5' Rt. 325'/4 Flood Control Channel & ' Relocated Bike Path (71 5. Park Road Connection 45 Ft. 12'-12' 5' Rt. 150'/1 to Cliff Street 6. Relocated Route 96 over 50 Ft. 12'-12'-12' - 125'/1 Williams Brook G For Estimating Purposes Only - Proposed Highway Approach Lanes Carried Across Bridges Q As Viewed Looking West - Proposed Sidewalk Approaches Carried Across Bridges G Spans Over Old Cayuga Inlet May Be Single Span If Final Design Clears The 100 -Year Water Surface Requirements. Spans Over The Flood Control Channel Will Consider The Requirements Of The Cornell Rowing Course. *One -Way DHV Roadway Approach Sections Carried. Across Bridges As Shown On The Plan Views In Appendix E 1,005 1,145 *730 *810 2,150 2,650 2,120 2,625 145 165 1,580 1,975 BRIDGE LOCATION 1. State Street over Old Cayuga Inlet 2. Seneca Street over Old Cayuga Inlet 3. Buffalo Street over 45 Ft. Old Cayuga Inlet 4. Southbound Relocated Route 96 32 Ft. over Flood Control Channel & Relocated Bike Path TABLE 5 PROPOSED BRIDGE - ALTERNATIVE C Q APPROXIMATE BRIDGE WIDTH (Parapet to Parapet) 45 • Ft. 32 Ft. BRIDGE TYPICAL ROADWAY LANE WIDTHS . 12'-11'-12 12'-12' 12'-11'-12' 12'-12' 5. Northbound Relocated Route 96 30 Ft. 12'-12° High -Level over Fulton Street, the Railroad, Cayuga Inlet, the Flood Control Channel & Relo- cated Bike Path Park Road Connection to 45 Ft. Cliff Street 7. Relocated Route 96 over 84 Ft. Williams Brook 8. Northbound Relocated Route 96 43 Ft. Optional Low -Level over Cayuga Inlet 9. Northbound Relocated Route 96 32 Ft. ' 12'-12' Optional Low -Level over the Flood Control Channel & Relo- cated Bike Path 12'-12' 24'-24' 12'-11'-12' Q For Estimating Purposes Only - Proposed Highway Approach Lanes Carried Across Bridges. Q As Viewed Looking West - Proposed Sidewalk Approaches Carried Across Bridges. * One -Way DHV TRAFFIC VOLUMES (TWO-WAY DHV) 4-10 SIDEWALK LENGTH/SPANS 2010(PM) 2020(PM) 5' Lt. ,& .Rt. 107'/2 5' Rt. 5' Lt. & Rt. 5' Rt. 5' *Rt. 5' Rt. 5' Rt. 1,040 1,185 107'/2 *785 107'/2 *790 325'/4 *770 1,100'/11 *1,350 10.5'/1 145 125'/1 1,580 150'/2 *1,190 275'/4 *1,350 * 875 * 940 * 920 * 1,705 165. 1,975 * 1,505 * 1,705 • Spans Over Old Cayuga Inlet May Be Single Span If Final Design Clears The 100 -Year Water Surface Requirements. Spans Over The Flood Control Channel Will Consider The Requirements Of The Cornell Rowing Course. Roadway Approach Sections Carried Across Bridges As Shown On The Plan Views In Appendix F. L i Also, design of the retaining walls that are proposed under Alternatives B and C along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel, separating the proposed Route 96 roadway from the relocated Cayuga Inlet Trail Bikeway may need to consider the use of special supports. The maximum height of wall proposed is about fourteen feet. The structures crossing the Flood Control Channel will have no adverse effect on the regulated 100 -year flood plain. Williams Brook is a deep natural gorge eroded into the bedrock with cascading waterfalls. The relocated Route 96 bridges crossing this brook would be simplespanbridges, planned to span the entire natural gorge. The substructure foundation for this particular bridge will most likely be built on pilings. All of the proposed bridges will provide the required horizontal and vertical clearances. The exact geometrics of the proposed bridges have not been determined and will be refined later in the EIS process. 2. HYDRAULICS FOR BRIDGES AND LARGE CULVERTS The Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel are includedwithin a regulated floodway established by the Fed- eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under a Flood. Insurance Study for the City of Ithaca. All of the existing bridges within .the project area clear the 100 -year flood water surface elevation. The proposed bridges listed on. Tables 3, 4, & 5 for Alternatives A, B, & C that cross the Old Cayuga Inlet and/or the Flood Control Channel will also clear the 100 -year flood water surface elevation and are estimated to cause less than 0.1+ foot increase in that elevation. In accordance with the provisionsofExecutive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, as implemented in FHPM 6-7-3- 2, Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains and 6NYCRR502, Flood Plain Management Criteria for State Projects, this action hasconsidered and evaluated the practicability of alternatives to any significant. encroach- ments, orany support of incompatible flood plain develop- ment. As a result of the evaluation, it is concluded that (1) a significant encroachment does not exist, (2) there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles, (3) there is no significant risk and (4) there are no significant impacts on natural and beneficial flood plain values. The waterway opening for all proposed structures will be evaluated considering Risk Analysis, as described in FHWA —11 FHPM 6-7-3-2. The Overtopping Flood will be identified if it occurs at a recurrence interval of less than 100 years. It . III -47 is intended that the structures provide a minimum freeboard of 2' for the 50 year storm, with somewhat lesser freeboard for the 100 year storm. Final determination will be made during Final Design, The proposed bridges over the Flood Control Channel will consider the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. All work in/or adjacent to the waterways in this project will be coordinated with the requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and with the requirements of the United States Department of the Interior. Alternatives B and C will cross both Linderman Creek and Williams Brook along the West Hill between Route 89 and Route 96. Alternatives B and C are on similar horizontal and ver- tical alignments at their crossings with Linderman Creek and Williams Brook. The only difference between the two alter-, natives is in their width of roadway typical section. Both of these crossings are over moderately deep gorges on very steep slopes. Final design of the waterway opening for Linderman Creek will consider the use of an improved drop -taper inlet in order to provide the optimum structure size. This crossing will most likely require considerations during final design for retarding the outlet velocity. The use of an energy dis- sipator such as the United States Bureau of Reclamation impact -energy dissipator (Type VI basin) or the St. Anthony Falls stilling basin may be required to control the outlet velocity for this structure. The NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) gives additional information about the use and types of energy dissipators on Page 8-40 of the HDM. Work in Linderman Creek and the other smaller un -named streams along the West Hill will be limited to periods of low flow. Linderman Creek drains nearly perpendicular to the West Hill on a super -critical slope and connects into the valley floor near the north end of Cass Park. There is an abrupt change in the slope of Linderman Creek at this point as the creek continues to drain east along the northern end of Cass Park under existing Route 89 and. into Old Cayuga Inlet. This section is on a subcritical slope. Relocated Route 89 will cross over the subcritical slope portion of Linderman Creek just north of its intersection with new Route 96 under Alter- natives B and C. The area between new Route 96 and relocated Route 89 is very flat and subject to ponding from the hydrau- lic jump and entrance losses which would occur at the new III -48 drainage structure crossing under new Route 96. The ponding. which would occur to the south of the crossing will, be con- tained within the new roadways of new Route 96 and relocated Route 89. The ponding, which results to the north of this crossing, will need to be contained by constructing an earth barrier between the embankments of new Route 96 and relocated Route 89. Williams Brook would be crossed without significantly disturbing the natural stream. The crossing location will be similar for both Alternative B and Alternative C. A simple span bridge is planned for this crossing. Williams Brook is a natural cascading series of waterfalls etched into the underlying bedrock. The proposed crossingswillnot alter. the existing conditions of the streambed and therefore will not require special considerations during final design. 3. DRAINAGE All the drainage areas within the project area consist of numerous watersheds consisting mostly of small areas that drain the West Hill via moderately deep gorges as evidenced on the West Hill itself. Many of the drainage areas are collected or crossed over by existing Route 96 (Cliff Street or Trumansburg Road) just uphill of theproposedrelocation for Alternatives B and C. The drainage areas continue from the structures under existing Route 96 and go directly down- hill to the abandoned railroad tracks near the bottom of the West Hill. The drainage areas are then collected into indi- vidual structures under the abandoned railroad. The final design for Alternative B or C will need to consider main- taining each of the individual crossings so as not to affect the existing storm drain system under the abandoned railroad. Special designs will also be developed to minimize erosion both during and after construction. The urban portions of the build alternatives will main- tain the existing drainage patterns and provide new separate appurtenances as required. 4. DEGREE OF MAINTENANCE AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY a. Existing Responsibilities The City of Ithaca is responsible for maintaining all of the streets and roads situated within the city limits,with the exception of state arterial III -49 highways. Route 13 (Meadow Street) and Route 79 (Green Street and Seneca Street, east of Meadow Street) are state arterial highways and as such is maintained by the NYSDOT. There are no other arterial highways located within the project area. NYSDOT is responsible for maintaining the portion of Route 96 situated outside the city limits. b. Responsibilities Created Under the Build Alternatives Any improvements to Route 96 under the build alter- natives would be designated as an arterial highway and as such, would become the responsibility of the NYSDOT for areas situated within the city limits and situated outside the city limits. Also, Fulton Street would be designated as an arterial highway for Route 13, southbound traffic, under all of the build alternatives. Therefore, Fulton Street maintenance responsibility would be by the NYSDOT. Cliff Street (existing Route 96) would become a local city street under Alternatives B and C, and Trumansburg Road (existing Route 96) would become a town road from the city line north to its planned intersection at Tompkins Community Hospital. Also, Park Road (existing Route 89) will become a local city street from its planned connection to Cliff Street to the relocated Route 89 under Alternatives B and C. Table 6 lists the net increase or decrease in lane miles and net increase or decrease in square feet of structure for each of the responsible agencies under each of the build alternatives. No unusual maintenance requirements are expected for the alternatives under consideration. Only the traveled lanes required for the design year (2010) are included in the estimate below. III -50 r-, TABLE 6 - ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY Alter- native A A -Optional Rt. 89 Align City of Ithaca Net increase or decrease in Lane Miles - 1.1 Net increase or decrease in Sq., Ft. Struct. -2,230 - 0.6 B C -High -Level C -Low -Level - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5 +7,390 +1,550 +1,550 +1,550 NYSDOT Net increase or decrease in Lane Miles +2.9 Net increase or decrease in Sq. Ft. Struct. +12,9'06 +2.8 +12,906 +23,286 +56,020 +39,170 Town of._ Ithaca Net increase or decrease in Lane Miles +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 5. MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC. INCLUDING DETOURS - ALTERNATIVES A B AND C a. GENERAL Construction of any of the build alternatives will cause interruptions to the traveling public. The replacement of the State Street, Seneca Street and Buffalo Street bridges over Old Cayuga Inlet will require re-routing of traffic. The need to provide adequate travelways.for traffic in the west end of Ithaca may necessitate allowing only one bridge to be removed at any given time. The bridge replacement schedule will also be coordinated with upgrading of the railroad grade crossings and the improvements to Fulton Street. Traffic will be maintained on other local streets and roads during construction of this project. b. ALTERNATIVE A The new bridge crossing the Flood Control Channel will be constructed prior to the construction of the approaches. Traffic will be maintained through the. existing Octopus intersection until the new bridge is complete. Traffic will be diverted to the new bridge upon its completion and the Buffalo Street connection to State Street will be discon- tinued. Two lanes of traffic will be maintained on existing Cliff Street and Park Road during the construction of the approaches. c. ALTERNATIVES B AND C Traffic will be maintained via existing Cliff Street and the Octopus intersection while constructing the new Route 96 along the West Hill. The new Route 89 bridge over new Route 96 near the south end of Cass Park will be constructed prior to the construc- tion of the new Route 96 south of this site and adjacent to the west bank of the Flood Control Channel. It will be nec- essary to construct a temporary roadway to maintain traffic on Route 89 (Park Road) while constructing this bridge. The Route 89 traffic will be diverted onto the new Route 89 bridge over new Route 96 upon its completion. It may be necessary to construct a temporary traffic signal at the new Route 89 intersection with Cliff Street to properly direct traffic until the Route 89 traffic is redirected onto the planned new Route 96 roadway. 6. TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS a. TRAFFIC FLOW The existing traffic flow is along two-way streets for the intersections of Route 96 with Route 89 and for Route 96 with Routes 13, 34 and 79. Route 79 traffic within the Central Business District of Ithaca is presently carried on one-way streets, with Green Street being eastbound from Meadow Street, east, and Seneca Street being westbound from Meadow Street, east. See Figure 1. Seneca Street is one- way, westbound, between Meadow Street and State Street with the exception of a short section between Fulton Street and Taughannock Boulevard on the east side of the Old Cayuga Inlet. This section of Seneca Street is used for two-way traffic by the Bus Station traffic. Approach Levels of Service were calculated for the existing traffic flows at the signalized intersections, for stop sign controls and for yield sign controls. The methodology utilized for these calculations is in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board Special Report 209 entitled Highway Capacity Manual, (HCM) dated 1985. The resulting approach Levels of Service are shown on Figure 6. III -52 There are twelve approaches currently operating at or below capacity during the PM peak hour. Eight of these approaches are located in or near the Octopus intersection with the remaining four approaches located on various side. streets intersecting with Meadow Street. The Null Alternative would result in thirty-two approaches operating,at or below capacity during the PM ,peak hour in the year 2010. Nineteen of these approaches are located along Meadow Street and its intersecting side streets with nine approaches located in or near the Octopus inter- section and the remaining approaches located along Fulton Street and State Street. The approach Levels of Service are shown on Figure 8. Existing Meadow Street is a four -lane roadway without parking. Numerous business establishments and residences have driveways and parking lots that front on Meadow Street. This, combined with the numerous intersecting side streets creates the need for motorists to make left turns from _both directions. As discussed previously in this DEIS', early studies resulted in the'need.to provide a one-way traffic pattern for the Routes -13, 79 and 34 intersection with Route 96. This is necessary in order to minimize the property damages that, would result if an adequate intersection of two-way Meadow Street (Rt. 13, 34), intersecting a two-way (Rt. 96) street were developed. The earlier. studies resulted in the need to widen Meadow Street and Buffalo Street. The earlier studies also considered a one-way pair -for new Route 96 intersecting Meadow Street.- Provision of one-way pairs for new Route 96 intersecting a two-way Meadow Street would also require the widening of Meadow Street. The result of the traffic flow studies was to split the existing Routes 13 and 34 traffic along a one-way street sys- tem. Meadow Street would become one-way northbound from its crossing over Six Mile Creek to a point just north of its in- tersection with Hancock Street. Fulton Street would be ex- tended from its intersection. with Court Street north to its proposed connection with Meadow Street just north of Hancock Street. Fulton Street would then become one-way southbound from the above reference connection to Meadow Street to the Fulton Street intersection with, Meadow Street and Clinton Street. Green Street would become a one-way street eastbound between Fulton Street and Meadow Street. Thissection would be designated for Route 79. Seneca Street would be designated for Route 79 westbound from Meadow Street to State Street. II1-53 Esty Street would be extended westwardly to intersect with the new extension of Fulton Street under Alternatives A and B. Access will be from Meadow Street and Fulton Street. Esty Street would also be extended westwardly under Alternative C but would be dead -ended at the east end near Meadow Street. Access will be from Fulton Street only. A cul-de-sac is planned on Titus Avenue, a local street, near its intersection with Clinton Street and Meadow Street. Terminating Titus Avenue at this location would have minor effect to the local traffic patterns. The traffic volume is negligible through this section of Titus Avenue. Plain Street would become the nearest access point to Clinton Street and is situated one block east of the existing Titus Avenue intersection. Access to all the adjacent properties would be maintained. Removal of this local street from this intersection area is required'in order to insure proper operation of the proposed signalized intersection of Fulton Street, Meadow Street and Clinton Street, together with improving safety at this location. The present location of the Titus Avenue intersection with Clinton Street is situated within the immediate area of the Fulton/ Meadow and Clinton Streets intersection. A three-phase traffic signal is pro- posed at this intersection which would operate near capacity for the design year. Attempts to allow for an additional phase at this traffic signal resulted in forced flows for the design year. A request to conduct a traffic survey on Park Road for the off-peak periods was made at several of the local public meetings held in early 1985. The traffic on Park Road was reported to be delayed at the Park Road intersection with existing Route 96 (Cliff Street) whenever one or more of the special events that occur along the west shore of Cayuga Lake conclude. These special events were reported to be assoc- iated with the activities at the ball fields, swimming pool, skating rink and Hangar Theatre in Cass Park and are some- times influenced by other special events held further north along Cayuga Lake. The Department investigated these reported delays oc- curring in the off-peak periods at the Park Road and Cliff Street intersection by placing mechanical counters on each lane of Park Road near the south end of Cass Park, and made several visits to this site to witness the extent of delays that occurred. The investigation was made during June and July, 1986. The site visits were made at pre -determined times that would coincide with the maximum schedule of events for the area. The schedules were provided to the Department by the City of Ithaca. The results of the Department's investigation indicate that the delays experienced during the III -54 n j off-peak period are typical of the kind of delays that are normally associated withthemass exodus of special events statewide. The existing traffic. signal is a pre-timedunit that is often operated manually by a.city policeman. If:this signal was replaced by a traffic activated signal capable of adjusting the phase intervals within the cyclelengthbased on the approach demands, much of the existing delay would be eliminated. The maximum number of .vehicles approaching the intersection from Park Road was 400 vehicles per hour with a. maximum delay of five minutes observed during the investiga- tion periods. This magnitude of delay is not considered severe enough to alter the premise that the PM peak hour is the controlling design period for the evaluation of alterna- tives under this project. Existing Route 89 (Park Road) would be continued under, Alternative A. However, an Optional Route 89 -Alignment is included under Alternative A and is shown on Figure 14.'..This optional alignment includes the connection of Park Road into Taughannock Boulevard by bridging the Flood Control. Channel near the south end of Cass Park. A frontage road with a cul- de-sac would be provided for those properties located south of the new bridge crossing of the Flood Control Channel. Alternatives B and C require the relocation of Route. 89 to a new intersection with the new Route 96 opposite the skating rink in Cass Park. A connection to existing Park Road would be constructed from the relocated Route 89 near the skating rink. Also; a new bridge would be constructed over the relocated Route 96 near the south end of Cass Park connecting Park Road with Cliff Street. This will provide access from the West Hill area to Cass Park and it also affords a second point of ingress/egress for Cass Park. The remaining portion of existing Route 89 (Park Road), between the above described locations, will become a local street serving Cass Park under Alternatives B and C. See Figures 18 and 22. Alternatives B and C include a new frontage road with a cul-de-sac to provide access to those properties fronting Cliff Street near the Octopus. These properties have no means of vehicular access from Cliff Street and their existing driveways originate from existing Route 89 (Park Road). b. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) The design year 2010 -PM peak hour traffic volumes for each.. build alternative are shown on Figure Nos. 13, 15, 19, 24 & 25. The design year Level of Service (LOS) is also III -55 �oeSH lk wu�c indicated for each approach of each intersection. Alterna- tives A, B and C would provide a minimum approach Level of Service .E in design year 2010. 'A detail discussion is included under Section III.D - Substandard Features, that describes the approach Levels of Service less than Level D. The LOS analysis is in accordance with procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board Special Report 209 entitled Highway Capacity Manual, (HCM) dated 1985. Nominal consider- ation was made for pedestrian interference. There are no bus stops signed within the project area with the exception of one located on State Street east of Taughannock Boulevard. Therefore, no further consideration is given to buses. Also, no consideration was allowed for possible interruption caused by railroad traffic. c. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS The accident records for existing Route 96, within the project site, indicate that the accident rate is slightly higher than the statewide average for the type of highway under which the existing roadway is classified. Appendix G shows the delineation of accident locations and types for the period of Oct., 1981, through Sept., 1984. No fatalities were reported during that period. There were 170 vehicle -vehicle type accidents, 44 vehicle -other type accidents, and 3 vehicle -pedestrian type accidents recorded during that 3 -year period. The accident rate for Route 96, as derived from the above accident data, was 5.62 accidents per million vehicle miles from Meadow Street north to the city/town line, and 6.31 accidents per million vehicle miles from the city/town line north to Duboise Road. The statewide average accident rate over this same period was 5.51 accidents per million vehicle miles for a two-lane undivided urban roadway with free access (City portion), and 5.80 accidents per million vehicle miles for a two-lane undivided suburban roadway with free access (Town portion). It is considered that the accident rate per million vehicle miles can be expected to remain unchanged for Alter- native A. Alternative B represents a two-lane undivided roadway with a truck climbing lane. The new facility would be under controlled access from its crossing of the Flood Control Channel north to its new intersection with the hospital road. The statewide average accident rate for this type of facility III -56 �f over the same 3 -year time span (Oct., 1981 -Sept., 1984). was 5.51 accidents per million vehicle miles for urban conditions and 4.39 accidents per million vehicle miles for suburban conditions. Therefore, it is considered that construction of Alternative B would reduce the current accident rate. from 5.62 accidents per million vehicle miles to approximately the statewide average of 5.51 accidents per million vehicle miles within the urban section and from 6.31 accidents per million vehicle miles to 4.39 accidents per million vehicle miles for the suburban section. Alternative C represents a four -lane divided controlled access highway from its crossing of the Flood Control Channel north to its new intersection with the hospital road. The -- statewide average accident rate for this type of facility over the same 3 -year time frame was 3.93 accidents per mil- lion vehicle miles for urban conditions and 2.03 accidents per million vehicle miles for suburban conditions. Therefore, it is considered that construction of Alternative C would reduce the current accident rate from 5.62 accidents per million vehicle milestoapproximately the statewide average of 3.93 accidents per million vehicle miles within the urban section and from 6.31 accidents per million vehicle miles to 2.03 accidents per million vehicle miles for the suburban section. Runaway trucks are a -concern to local officials because of the long downhill descent along the built-up portion of w• , -�� -* 0,, the West Hill. The existing Route 96 empties into the Oc- topus area c-topus_area and thus poses the potential for serious acci- dents. - Review of available records indicate that there has been two reported incidences of runaway trucks on existing Route 96 along the West Hill since 1974. One occurred in February of 1974 when a logging truck lost its brakes. The driver was killed and a police officer directing traffic at the Octopus was injured. The other runaway occurred in April of 1985 when a lumber truck lost its brakes coming down Cliff Street and ran into the Flood Control Channel when it tipped over as it rounded the curve going into State Street at the Octopus. The truck driver was taken to the hospital where he was treated and released. Each of the alternatives were reviewed for the purpose of siting possible locations for truck escape lanes. This review resulted in no practical location for truck escape lane along Cliff Street (Route 96) for the Null Alternative or for Alternative A. A truck escape lane could be sited south of the Williams Brook bridge under AlternativesB and C. A combination general arrester bed -with gravity ramp. could be constructed utilizing the existing terrain in this area. The estimated construction cost for such an emergency escape facility is $60,000.00. I1I-57 However, Alternatives B and C would result in improved roadway section width, relatively flat grades from about the Williams Brook crossing south along Cass Park and would pro- vide for controlled access (ie; no driveway connections) through this area. Alternatives B and C would result in a roadway similar to Route 13 along the east side of Cayuga Lake just north of Ithaca. This section of Route 13 has not experienced problems with runaway trucks and it is the Department's opinion that should Alternative B or C be selected, the concern about *runaway trucks would be minimal. Although the potential for a serious accident resulting from runaway trucks is high for the Null Alternative and Alternative A, the potential would not be high for Alter- natives B and C. An important consideration for runaway trucks is the utilization of -a brake -check along with trucker awareness of the potential dangers before the start of the descent. -, Although the summit of West Hill is outside the limits of this project, one consideration that could be given for all the alternatives including the Null is to provide an area at the summit where all heavy vehicles must stop and checktheir brakes before descending. d. RAILROAD ISSUES r' The Conrail railroad track situated between Fulton Street and the Old Cayuga Inlet is at grade with all of the streets that it intersects within the project area. Specifi- cally, these streets are State Street (Routes 96, 89 and 79), Seneca Street and Buffalo Street. These intersections are closely situated to one another and are the only streets connecting to the West Hill area via State Street bridge over the Flood Control Channel. See Figure 1. The Tompkins Community Hospital is located north of the Octopus, off Route 96 on the West Hill. This hospital is the primary health and emergency care facility serving all of the local communities. In the event that all of the above mentioned streets are blocked by a passing train, the only alternate route to the West Hill area is south on Meadow Street (Routes 96, 13 and 34) to Floral Avenue (Route 13A) north to State Street. This would be approximately 4.3 miles "out of direction" for the northbound Route 96 traffic. Also, additional delays occur following passage of a train. These delays are similar to those which occur at a traffic signal during periods of abnormally high traffic demands. . The average delay caused by a train passing through the above described area is difficult to determine because of the II1-58 limited information that is available. However, the actual passage of trains were timed by NYSDOT on several different occasions that resulted in six (6) to seven (7) minutes of time for each train to pass an intersection. A report pre- pared by PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, Ithaca, New York, dated May, 1987 contains a Table 1 under SECTION 9: THE RAILROAD OPERATION that lists the blockage at crossings from 10/3/85 through 5/27/86. The information on delays was provided by the Ithaca Fire Department. A copy of Table 1 is shown below. BLOCKAGE AT CROSSINGS 10/3/85 THROUGH 5/27/86 Time Number Percent in of of Mins. Trains Trains 1-4 39 36% 5-8 59 54% • 9-10 8 7% 11-15 3 3% Total 109 100% Source: Conrail Train Movements - Ithaca, NY Ithaca Fire Department, 12 June 1986 (Does not include 20 trains for which no data were recorded.) Efforts to obtain additional information relative to delays from the City of Ithaca, the Tompkins County Fire and Disaster Coordinator and the various ambulance services resulted in no available information. This railroad track is a Class I track with a speed limit of ten miles per hour. The average length of a typical train through this area consists of about 105 cars or slightly more than a mile in length. Assuming that the typical train is traveling the speed limit, it would take about 6.3 minutes for the train to pass a given point. This results in all the street/railroad crossings in the West End being blockedatthe same time by the typical train for about six minutes. Currently, the rail traffic is freight cars destined to the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation and the Cargill Company. These companies are located several miles I1I-59 north of the project area along the east side of Cayuga Lake. Both of these industries expect to remain in their present locations and see no reduction in the need for rail service in the future. Conrail is currently operating on this track three days each week with rail traffic inbound and outbound of the project area on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. ie, three trains per week that pass northbound through the pro- ject area and later pass southbound on the return trip through the project area for a total of six periods of interruptions each week. Review of the listing of accident locations and types from October, 1981, thru September, 1984, shown in Appendix G indicates that there were no vehicle -train accidents recorded within this period of time. Efforts to obtain information relative to vehicle -train accidents from the City of Ithaca, the Tompkins County Fire and Disaster Coordinator and the various ambulance services resulted in no available informa- tion. It is unlikely that vehicle -train accidents would occur due to the low speed of the passing trains and the warning lights provided at the street crossings. The City of Ithaca initiated a non-binding arrangement with Conrail to notify Tompkins County Emergency Control, by telephone, prior to a train departing from the Inlet Valley switching yard headed north or from Milliken Station headed south. Under the present working arrangements, the train could be signalled and stopped on orders from the Conrail control center in Hornell. This would be accomplished by a phone call to the Conrail office from Tompkins. County Emergency Control and then Conrail personnel would relay the message to the Conductor of the train via radio. Any instructions to the Conductor must come from a Conrail dis- patcher. The subject of the legal considerations for controlling the passage of Conrail rail traffic through Ithaca has been addressed through the Office of Legal Affairs, New York State Department of Transportation and a copy of their opinion is included in Appendix K. Alternatives A, B and C combined with the optional low- level alignment for northbound Route 96, would include designs that have "at -grade" railroad crossings. Alternative C combined with the optional high-level alignment for north- bound Route 96, would provide for a grade -separated railroad crossing for the northbound (out-of-town) Route 96 traffic. All other street crossings under this alternative would be "at -grade" with the railroad. III -60 ri An ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE OCTOPUS/ROUTE 96 ALTERNATIVE PLANS prepared for the governments of the City and Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County by PLANNING/ ENVIRON- MENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS,Ithaca, New York, dated May, 1987, contains an informative section entitled THE RAILROAD OPERATION. Much of the information given above was derived from that source. For additional information about the railroad issues, see Section 9 of the above referenced document in Appendix K. This entire document may be reviewed at the City, Town and County offices. 7. UTILITIES The following known utilities are situated within the general project area. TABLE.7 UTILITY OWNER Electric & Gas New York State Electric & Gas Corp. Telephone New York Telephone Company Water, Sanitary & City of Ithaca Storm Sewers Water, Sanitary & Town of Ithaca Storm Sewers Railroad Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) Petroleum - Mobil Pipeline Company Television Cable Cerrache Cable TV The major public utility locations are shown on Figure 30. '\ Some of the existing utilities will require more than minor or simple relocations depending upon the alternative selected. The existing 115KV high-tension electrical lines skirting Cass Park would require modifications. under Alterna- tives B and C where relocated Route 89 is planned to inter - ,sect with new Route 96, near Linderman Creek. Alternatives B and C include provisions for either retaining walls or fill slopes along Cass Park through this area. The optional design with fill slopes is included because there may be costly construction associated with the foundations for the retaining walls. See Appendix E and F for the plan views and typical sections through this area. The retaining walls would consist of a single wall along the new Route 96 and two walls along the new Route 89 from its intersection with new Route 96 north to Linderman Creek. The single wall would average about eighteen feet high along the new Route 96 and the two walls along new Route 89 would average about twenty feet and twelve feet high. The retaining walls would serve to minimize the amount of 115 KV electrical lines that would be relocated under Alternative B or C. Alternatives B and C would require relocation of the high-tension electrical line near the Tompkins Community Hospital. The existing sanitary sewer line (24" inverted siphon) crossing the Flood Control Channel just north of State Street would be, relocated under Alternative B or C. Approximately 1260 L.F. of the Conrail railroad track along the east bank of the Old Cayuga Inlet from Court Street to Cascadilla Street would require relocation under Alter- native C, Optional Low -Level Alignment. However, only minor inconveniences to the users are anticipated at this time. A more complete assessment as to the extent and nature of the utility relocations will be made during the final design of this project, after an alternative has been selected. Preli- minary estimates of the possible major utility involvements are listed on Table 8. TABLE 8 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF AFFECTED UTILITIES ALTERNATIVE A 300 L.F. Sanitary Sewer Lines - 8" Diam. thru 20" Diam. 600 L.F. Water Lines - 6" Diam thru 12" Diam:- 50 L.F. Natural Gas Lines - 6" Diam. 690 L.F. Aerial Electric Lines a ALTERNATIVE A - OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGN. 350 L.F. Sanitary Sewer Lines - 8" Diam. thru 24" Diam. 600 L.F. Water Lines - 6" Diam. thru 8" Diam. 50 L.F. Natural Gas Lines - 6" Diam. 1,100 L.F. Aerial Electric Lines III -62 TABLE 8 (Continued) ALTERNATIVE B WITH OPTION NO. 1 1,500 L.F. Sanitary Sewer Lines - 6" Diam. thru 20" Diam. 2,900 L.F. Water Lines_- 6" Diam. thru 12" Diam. 1,100 L.F. Natural Gas Lines - 4" Diam. thru 8" Diam. 1,800 L.F. Aerial Electric Lines * 900 L.F. 115 KV Electric Lines - with Retaining Walls 300 L.F. Underground Electric Lines ALTERNATIVE B WITH OPTION NO. 2 1,500 L.F. Sanitary Sewer Lines - 6" Diam. thru 20" Diam,. 2,900 L.F. Water Lines - 6" Diam. thru 12" Diam. 1,800 L.F. Natural Gas Lines - 6" Diam. thru 8" Diam. 2,350 L.F. Aerial Electric Lines * 900 L.F. 115 KV Electric Lines - with Retaining Walls 300 L.F. Underground Electric Lines ALTERNATIVE B WITH OPTION NO. 3 1,600 L.F. Sanitary Sewer Lines - 6" Diam. thru 20" Diam. 2,900 L.F. Water Lines - 6" Diam. thru 12" Diam. 2,300 L.F. Natural Gas Lines - 6" Diam. thru 8" Diam. 2,700 L.F. Aerial Electric Lines *1,200 L.F. 115 KV Electric Lines with Retaining Walls 300 L.F. Underground Electric Lines ALTERNATIVE C WITH OPTION NO. .1 2,000 L.F. Sanitary Sewer Lines - 6" Diam. thru 20" Diam. 3,100 L.F. Water Lines - 6" Diam. thru 12" Diam. 1,800 L.F. Natural Gas Lines - 4" Diam. thru 8" Diam. 2,800 L.F. Aerial Electric Lines * 900 L.F. 115 KV Electric Lines - with Retaining Walls 300 L.F. Underground Electric Lines ALTERNATIVE C WITH OPTION NO. 2 2,000 L.F. Sanitary Sewer Lines - 6" Diam. thru 20" Diam. 2,900 L.F. Water Lines - 6" Diam. thru 12" Diam. 2,200 L.F. Natural Gas Lines - 4" Diam. thru 8" Diam. 2,700 L.F. Aerial Electric Lines *1,200 L.F. 115 KV Electric Lines - with Retaining Walls 300 L.F. Underground Electric Lines III -63 TABLE 8 (Continued) ALTERNATIVE C WITH OPTION NO. 3 2,100 L.F. Sanitary Sewer Lines - 6" Diam. thru 20" Diam. 3,000 L.F. Water Lines - 6" Diam. thru 12" Diam. 2,800 L.F. Natural Gas Lines - 4" Diam. thru 8" Diam. 3,100 L.F. Aerial Electric Lines *1,200 L.F. 115 KV Electric Lines - with Retaining Walls 300 L.F. Underground Electric Lines ALTERNATIVE C - OPTIONAL LOW-LEVEL NORTHBOUND Add 1,260 L.F. of Relocated Conrail Railroad to the Options Listed Above. * Add. 500 L.F. of 115 KV Electric Lines with fill slope option along Cass Park. 8. SAILS a. GENERAL PROJECT AREA Geologically the project is located in the Appalachian Plateaus province with close -to -surface bedrock consisting of flat -lying, interbedded shale, siltstone and fine grained sandstone of the Genesee group of Devonian -age rocks. The topography of the Cayuga Lake drainage basin and the Cayuga Lake Inlet, in particular, reflect the glaciation and natural erosion of a plateau. Glaciation has enlarged the valleys, rounded the flat topped valleys and superimposed unconsolidated deposits in the Cayuga Lake drainage basin. Cayuga Lake and its inlet are located in a deep glacial valley containing deep deposits of soft clay and silt. The hillside west of the lake is mantled with relatively shallow lacustrine and outwash deposits, generally sand and gravel with some silt, clay and cobbles all over the bedrock. b. SOILS CONSIDERATIONS The deep soft clay and silt in the inlet valley will require detailed investigation and engineering analysis to determine acceptable design criteria for embankment and III -64 LEGEND UT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE G GAS W WATER MPL MOBIL PIPE LINE (ABAND.) UE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC SaS SANITARY SEWER MOUNT srREEr Gaging Station /44:0115 KV GRADE TH/RD F/RST FIGURE 30 MAJOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 14'/L LOW AVE Golf Course Light sHORr ST ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I. N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 400 800 Robert E Smith feet CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER U1.-65 structures. Anticipated settlement and stability consider- ations will likely preclude routine design and construction practices. However shallow cuts and fills in the higher hillside area are not expected to cause any major design or construction problems. The following data represents the estimated grading quantities for each alternative. TABLE 9 ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES ALTERNATIVE A A/Optional Route 89 B/Option No. 1 B/Option No. 2 B/Option No. 3 C/High-Level/Option No. 1 C/High-Level/Option No. 2 C/High-Level/Option No. 3 C/Low-Level/Option No. 1 C/Low-Level/Option No. 2 C/Low-Level/Option No. 3 Align. TOTAL EXCAVATION Cu.Yds. 20,000 20,000 175,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 225,000 250,000 225,000 225,000 250,000 TOTAL EMBANKMENT Cu.Yds. 10,000 15,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 520,000 520,000 495,000 520,000 520,000 495,000 If fill slopes are used in lieu of the retaining walls along Cass Park, add 45,000 cu. yds. embankment to Alterna- tive C under allof its options and 35,000 cu. yds. to Alter- native B under all of its options. Construction of either Alternative B or C will require borrow material to be hauled into the project site. It is anticipated that borrow material can be obtained from off- site privately owned sources. 9. LANDSCAPING Landscaping for all of the build alternatives will not only be functional and practical but will attempt to consider visual sensitivity by providing aesthetically acceptable components. The urban section, or southern portion of the project, under all alternatives will be dominated by bridge structures which preclude the use of extensive landscaping. However, disturbed areas within the right-of-way will be planted with grass, bushes and trees compatible to the surrounding area. III -66 The expressway portion of Alternatives B and C, adjacent to Cass Park, contains- relatively flat grades and is at the base of the West Hill area. Landscaping in this'area will recognize the adjacent park areas and attempt to be an extension thereto, while providing a buffer separating the two entities. The rural expressway portion of Alternatives B and C, from Cass Park to the northern terminus, is located on the treed West Hill and contains the maximum grades on the pro- ject. Construction of the roadway in this area will require the removal of vegetation and trees that now protect the steep hillside from excessive erosion. Therefore the land- scaping required in this latter area must maintain the integ- rity of the hillside and enhance the view of the roadway from lower -lying areas, such as Cass Park, the City of Ithaca, boaters on Cayuga Lake as well as vantage points from across the lake on the East Hill. 10. PROVISIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS a. GENERAL The proposed new Route 96 will not prevent the flow of pedestrians or bicyclists from reaching destinations in the west end of Ithaca on either side of Old Cayuga Inlet or the Flood Control Channel. Access to the west side of Old Cayuga Inlet and Inlet Island is now accomplished by using any one of the three (3) bridges crossing at State Street, Seneca Street or Buffalo Street. Replacement bridges for these three locations will accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Continuing westward, the one (1) bridge now crossing the Flood Control Channel, at State Street, has sidewalks on both sides for the use of pedestrian traffic. Bicyclists also use this bridge to cross the channel. The following discussions about bikeways, bike routes and/or bike paths classifies them in accordance with the New York State Department of Transportation Design Manual, Chapter 18, Facilities for Pedestrians and Bicyclists together with the existing classifications given by the City of Ithaca and the New York State Office of Parks. The existing Cayuga Inlet Trail located parallel and adjacent to the west bank of the Flood Control Channel will 1 III -67 n require some adjustment under each of the alternatives. The trail and bikeway can be maintained during construction of any of the alternatives presented herein. Figure 31 shows this existing two-way, bike and pedestrian path along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel leading into Cass Park. This path is part of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (Finger Lakes Region) system. (NYSOPRHP) This trail is referred to as the "Cayuga Inlet Trail". The NYSOPRHP together with the City of Ithaca has plans to extend this trail from the State Street bridge crossing of the Flood Control Channel south to Butter- milk Falls State Park. Also, NYSOPRHP held preliminary discussions in 1983 with the New York State Electric and Gas Corp. in reference to State acquisition of the former rail- road right-of-way from Allan H. Treman State Marine Park to Taughannock Falls State Park. Figure 31 also shows a bikeway from Stewart Park to the Cayuga Inlet Trail. This bikeway is part of a system planned by the City of Ithaca. b. BIKEWAYS A discussion of the impact of each alternative is listed below with its possible affect to the city's planned bikeway. The existing and proposed highway sections would not provide for separate bicycle lanes but could utilize right lane widths of fourteen feet where possible. This determination will need to be made under the final design stage of this project. ALTERNATIVES A & B Minor effect. See Figures 32 & 34. Provisions for one- way bike route on the north side of Buffalo Street extended to Cliff Street (new Route 96) are included. A connection is provided to the Cayuga Inlet Trail from the north side of the new bridge. •Southbound bike traffic could be routed under the existing State Street underpass and back onto the south side of the State Street bridge and routed back onto the planned bike route toward Stewart Park. ALTERNATIVE A - OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGN. Minor effect. See Figure 33. The bike route could be relocated to the proposed Route 89 alignment. The new bike route would be connected onto the Cayuga Inlet Trail on the west bank of the Flood Control Channel. ALTERNATIVE C (High -Level) Minor effect. See Figure 35. The bikeway could be rerouted to State Street via Seneca Street for the south- bound movement from Stewart Park and rerouted from State III -68 CITY OF ITHACA Dept. of Planning and Development Scale: as shown Date: Aug 6,19 r6 Drawn by: S Cohen U U ■ :Ti��ty� �wy,� �`_y'����t`a7il�i(� •�'t�Y �f+�-.+,(=� tis tiF:•..Q� p.'��c11111!l1CrAi e BoOritte Ougt.t mora BUFFALO OTRCCT eereg al AurRw RKrTI SOU a. ouLWAY (LAM1 & CRau1L3 eonh apes or airxr X fIOIJ WU [LASS LII DIKl:R171.IE 'ELtIOU 111131 lass JJf sort lit K OLP rta dM -EOR 13,Y COMM. =YICE PcMp NULL /Ho .I. arks /iw., s. LEGEND, 11111111UL POSSIBLE BIKE ROUTE ALTERNATE A CITY OF ITHACA Dept. of Planning and Development Scale: as shown Date: Aug 6,1916 Drawn by: S. Cohen BUFFALO 3TRCCT w ctU ourcRwRKrr1so1csr. cut VAT !LASS s rateRams aokages a gra= am PORT HARBOR out trAy tom II DIKLROII T +Da 1 VACS - fli Z PRICK MIAs sr�prtocp ov Irmo a"12, suafa 1TJ � •1 'S% t' Y ,V1%''0S ?� Vpri 1 1HIRD puff tXTW6I0u X VAT 406 It MIME! Dorw Srtcf tcr�rs�zrr T r'NDD erit ( 9LLfIoU'fTAI LAAS6III 1511 T2UR ,q OLP Der AMR. sett "(p"• 1' LEGEND: IIIIIIIIM EEND:IIIIIIIIIII POSSIBLE BIKE ROUTE •••••I• ALTERNATIVE A OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGNMENT =/;11/11 111/31 L1ASh $ 15IIRtRCLIE BYCOURAtl-=VW rA41, sus '/m"• I' • CITY OF ITHACA Dept. of Planning and Development ITHACA BIKEWAYS PHASE I . CAYUGA INLET SECTION Schematic Route Plan Scale: as shown Date: Aug 0.1976 Drawn by: S. Cohen LEGEND= POSSIBLE BIKE ROUTE ALTERNATIVE B CITY OF ITHACA Dept of Planning and Development Scale: as shown Dale: Aug 0. 197G Drawn by: S. Colon nonnoon 15'. -7 " VX!:attiltrAt 0 ° — BUFFALO irRccr U71cUSurcitHARKal JC .21: tug*' 1.1.A.46 X &ISM= NflIdie-i of as= • mix mu HARBOR CUL IN a.A66 m DUCCOIXt4 1501HWAYS -71=41 IARKIJ4Csb ificizt-ecanze A=.A CROMRP HARD "WM AMA. xerla •% 14 6 .01'••,14 gr V- Ni,ff 4,1 •• 0,01•• 11:1.5•1. ' 1)1Ct • 'THIRD VA'( BICTEIBIDU OU e VAT [LAO DIKEXWIES rani Sees or vrtsrr IOC )1)!It.i$ r. t XLITCU riktrotilt ."LaIDU 111141 /JAMS AMOUR ,q p ftgr •1112.01t. BY calm gNiti re:#47 gat& ischz P LEGEND' 11111111111 POSSIBLE BIKE ROUTE ALTERNATIVE C CITY OF ITHACA Dept of Planning and Development Ili ITHACA BIKEWAYS PHASE I =Ulf 4065 OXIWAt5 Utvg WPTharpThilt waxy wax. 0TAN.0..„..- weverstinivii Liz Apr mpe • wan,. WAY Pani= evnek. zoweara ernaem as* 4 veva' ow* abArr or coma CAYUGA INLET SECTION Schematic Route .Plan Scale: as shown Date: Aug 0.1976 Drawn by: S. Cohen • BUFFALO TRC tt ctu surC4wpKaiJ1111C ouGVAY U.A66I ImLRA4Tt% rant ages or a¢cr OLDC PORT HARBOR out WY a.M66r111 DID rain coxa HARD .HAS_ cents. sums 'THIRD ,51xcLt LXTLUSIOII cue VAT £.A4 t. SiMult.4 pen 4J cr i er r�a:�vsfNa it r u+e W Iti' ��+ftr,�. q0C: r ;Jtsf0,11 .;`(f4,i,i+,�1,tie. 0.01' t1ti �1,rt.I. 14? I 'URDU riou TIRJ GIAJ61Jl SIKtuillE AT WORT dAnibR MIL! rpm• • 1' 11111111111 POSSIBLE BIKE ROUTE LEGEND' ALTERNATIVE C OPTIONAL LOW LEVEL NORTHBOUND 18'1 8'1 cu T Iii aJ36 m Vier -bin BY atm- terym rat, se. As Via"• 1' Wass einates ro0 low NARD ptJ.ns•1it WOOED riz�ttvJ+ BRID4ttJ s ',reply vats ainAg' Devi -w orcoeT TAU Ott 40Ur•I • CITY OF ITHACA DcpL of Planning and Development ITHACA BIKEWAYS PHASE I CAYUGA INLET SECTION Schematic Route Plan Scale: as shown Date: Aug 0.197G Drawn by: S..Cohen 0 z -a e F 1. N 33NI9N3 21 0 C --4 m S.N3W3A08dWI 96 Street back onto Buffalo Street for northbound traffic from Cass Park. ALTERNATIVE C (Low -Level) Minor effect. See Figure 36. Traffic traveling south from Stewart Park could enter a bike route along the new Route 96 roadway crossing the Island and reconnecting into the existing Cayuga Inlet Trail along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel. Traffic crossing the Flood Control Channel from the west bank would use the existing State Street bridge and follow the planned route. c. SIDEWALKS A brief description of the planned sidewalk patterns for each alternative is included below. The planned sidewalk locations follow the current design policies of the Depart- ment. ALTERNATIVE A 1. Sidewalks would be replaced at locations disturbed by the proposed work except where noted otherwise below. 2. A five foot wide sidewalk would be provided on the north side of Buffalo Street to Cliff Street in order to maintain accessibility to Cliff Street. The existing sidewalk on the south side of Buffalo Street would be extended to connect to the sidewalk on the north side of State Street. The sidewalk on the south side of Buffalo Street between Fulton Street and Taughannock Boulevard would be eliminated to provide room for four lanes of traffic in this area. ALTERNATIVE A - OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGN. 1. Sidewalks would be replaced at locations disturbed by the proposed work except where noted otherwise below. 2. A five foot wide sidewalk would be provided on the north side of Buffalo Street to Cliff Street in order to maintain accessibility to Cliff Street. The existing sidewalk on the south side of Buffalo Street would be extended to connect to the sidewalk III -75 on the north side of State Street. The sidewalk on the South side of Buffalo Street, between Fulton Street and Taughannock Boulevard, would be elimi- nated to provide room for four lanes in this area. 3. A sidewalk is proposed on the north side of reloc- ated Route 89 in order to allow accessibility from the island area to Cass Park. This location would be a safer and more direct connection for those persons traveling by foot from Stewart Park to Cass Park and other recreational areas along the west bank. ALTERNATIVE B 1.. Sidewalks would be replaced at locations disturbed by the proposed work except where noted otherwise below. 2. The Buffalo Street extension across the Flood Control Channel would provide a sidewalk on the north side. This would provide a direct connection between Buffalo Street, Cass Park and the existing bike path. Also, this would avoid the need to cross new Route 96 (Buffalo Street) for those persons approaching from the north. Those approaching from the south could use the existing State Street crossing of the Flood Control Channel. The sidewalk on the south side of Buffalo Street between Fulton Street and Taughannock Boulevard would be eliminated to provide room for four lanes. 3. A sidewalk is proposed on the north side of the pro- posed connection between Cliff Street and Park Road. This appears to be the best design due to the elim- ination of some 2,000 feet of "out -of -direction" required by using the existing sidewalk patterns. ALTERNATIVE C 1. Sidewalks would be replaced at locations disturbed by the proposed work. 2. The Buffalo Street extension across the Flood Control Channel provides a sidewalk on the north side. This would provide a direct connection III -76 between Buffalo Street, Cass Park and the existing bike path. Also, this would avoid the need to cross new Route 96 (Buffalo Street) for those persons approaching from the north. Those approaching from the south could use the existing State Street crossing of the Flood Control Channel. The sidewalk on the south side of Buffalo Street between Fulton Street and Taughannock Boulevard would be eliminated to provide room for four lanes of traffic. 3. A sidewalk is proposed on the north side of the pro- posed connection between Cliff Street and Park Road. This appears to be the best design due to the elimi- nation of some 2,000 feet of "out -of -direction" re- quired by using the existing sidewalk patterns. 4. A sidewalk is also proposed along the north side of the Optional Low -Level Northbound Route 96 Alignment between Meadow Street and Cass Park. This would allow a direct connection from Meadow/Cascadilla Streets to Cass Parkandthe existing bike path. Also, this would avoid the need to cross new Route 96 for those persons approaching from the north. Those approaching from the south could use the existing State Street crossing 'of the Flood Control Channel. The sidewalk proposed along the Buffalo Street extension would be included with the optional low-level alternative. FULTON STREET EXTENSION 1. Sidewalks would be provided along the east side of Fulton Street extension between Court Street and Cascadilla Street. This would provide pedestrian access along a future city street. No sidewalk would be provided along Fulton Street north of Cascadilla Street. WEST CLINTON STREET 1. The North Titus Avenue intersection with West Clinton Street would be eliminated and a cul-de-sac constructed. (The exact location has_ not been III -77 r-; n determined.) The existing sidewalk along the south side of Clinton Street would then be extended through this existing intersection area. 11. PARKING CONSIDERATIONS The existing number of on -street parking spaces that are available within the City of Ithaca along Meadow and Fulton Streets including the intersecting side streets from Six Mile Creek, north to Hancock Street and from the Old Cayuga Inlet east to Corn Street and/or Washington Street were inventoried in the summer of 1987 and estimated at a possible 322 spaces. This same area consists of approximately 216 residential buildings with 115 off-street driveways and 73 garages. The 1980 block census of population and housing indicates that the total population within this area is 689, consisting of 262 households and 168 families. This census data includes those individuals fronting Corn Street and Washington Street which is outside of the affected area. The inventory included actual field counts of the numbers of vehicles that were utilizing the on -street parking during the typical weekday and for the typical weeknight. An average of about 115 vehicles were counted during the morning and mid- afternoon periods and an average of about 80 vehicles were counted in the evening hours. Alternatives A and B would provide for an estimated 208 on -street parking spaces and Alternative C would provide for an estimated 192 on -street parking spaces. This estimate is based on the PM peak -hour traffic need in the year 2010. Although this is about 114 to 130 parking spaces less than the possible on -street parking spaces counted under the existing conditions, it is 77 to 93 spaces more than the number of on -street parking spaces occupied during the 1987 survey for a typical weekday and about 112 to 128 spaces more than the number of on -street parking spaces occupied during the 1987 survey for a typical weeknight. Based on the above inventory, togetherwith the fact that over half of the existing residences have either private drives or garages or both, it appears that adequate on -street parking provisions should be provided by all of the build alternatives. However, there are some localized areas that could result in the complete loss of the on -street parking that currently exists. An example of this is Buffalo Street, between Corn Street and Fulton Street under Alternatives At and B. In orderto minimize the impacts that could be caused as a result of such parking restrictions, a study was con- ducted to determine which side streets could be, widened II1-78 between the existing curb and sidewalk in order to provide additional on -street parking. This study resulted in a possible additional 142 on -street parking spaces for Alterna- tives A and B and in a possible additional 117 on -street parking spaces for Alternative C. Table 10 lists the location of displaced parking spaces, typical utilization of the existing parking spaces for both weekday and weeknight and the amount of parking spaces that could be replaced on - street by further widening of those streets. The results of the listing shown on Table 10 indicates that no parking would be available along Fulton Street under any of the build alternatives, that no parking would be available along Buffalo Street under Alternatives A and B and that the existing parking spaces would be displaced along the north side of Buffalo Street between Washington Street and Fulton Street under Alternative C. No parking would be available along Green Street between Meadow Street and Fulton Street. Table 10 also indicates that no possible additional* parking spaces could be provided on -street for Fulton Street. This is due to the proximity of the railroad tracks on the west side and the existing buildings on the east side of the proposed three -lane Fulton Street. State Street also would not afford any room to construct possible additional parking spaces. However, Alternatives A, B and C already include provisions for on -street parking on the north side of State Street from Corn Street to Fulton Street. This number of on -street parking spaces that would be available along the north side of State Street appears sufficient to satisfy the present utilization of the existing parking spaces, although they would all be situated for the westbound traffic flow. Other areas included in Table 10 of displaced parking spaces could be minimized through the construction of addi- tional on -street parking spaces at locations shown on the above listing. Court Street and Clinton Street could also be considered for areas of possible additional on -street parking spaces. Ten additional on -street parking spaces could be provided along the north side of Clinton Street between Corn Street and Meadow Street. Approximately nine additional on - street parking spaces could be provided along the south side of Court Street between Meadow Street and Fulton Street and approximately ten additional on -street parking spaces could be provided .along the south side between Washington Street and Meadow Street. The additional on -street parking sites would require that the existing streets be widened sufficiently to provide room for a parking lane. This would cause displacement of the existing trees and shrubbery within these areas between III -79 "TABLE 10 EXISTING PARKING DATA AND POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES REPLACED ON -STREET THROUGH FURTHER WIDENING OF THE PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS SHOWN IN APPENDIX D, E AND F LOCATION TOTAL EXISTING PARKING SPACES EXISTING PARKING SPACES DISPLACED UTILIZATION OF THE EXISTING PARKING SPACES POSSIBLE ADD'L PARKING SPACES REPL'D ON -STREET ALT. A & B ALT. C ALT. A & B ALT. C N/E S/W N/E S/W N/E S/W N. E. S. W. N/E S/W N/E S/W FULTON STREET Day Night Day Night (a) Green St. to State St. 5 0 5 0 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 (b).State St. to Seneca: St. 10 0 10 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (c) Seneca St. to Buffalo St. 7 0 7 0 7 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 (d) Buffalo St. to Court St. 12 0 12 0 -12 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 GREEN STREET 5 12 5 12 5 12 2 0 11 1 9 0 9 0 (a) Meadow St. to Fulton St. STATE STREET 16 12 2 10 2 10 8 9 4 4 0 0 0 0 (a) Corn St. to Meadow St. (b) Meadow St. to Fulton St. 9 8 0 8 0 8 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 SENECA STREET 12 14 12 14 12 14 8 4 9 0 0 14 0 14 (a) Corn St. to Meadow St. (b) Meadow St. to Fulton St. 15 0 15 0 15 0 7 4 0 0 15 10 15 10 BUFFALO STREET 10 14 10 14 10 0 4 6 3 2 8 14 8 0 (a) Corn St. to Meadow St. (b) Meadow St. to Fulton St. 12 11 12 11 12 0 1 1 1 7 12 11 12 0 CASCADILLA STREET . (a) Washington St. to Meadow St. 0 12 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 11 0 11 0 (b) Meadow St. to R.R. Tracks 15 15 7 8 7 8 0 1 0 0 5 4 5 4 III -80 the existing curb and sidewalk. However, shrubbery and trees could be planted on private lawn areas with the owner's per- mission, in replacement for losing present curbside grass area(s) and tree lines. The following lists the estimated width of street widening and associated cost to construct the areas of possible additional on -street parking spaces. Alternative A,B & C A,B & C A,B & C A,B'& C A,B & C A & B A,B & C Location North side of Green St. between Meadow St. and Fulton St. South Side of Seneca St. between Corn St. and Meadow St. South Side of Seneca St. between Meadow St. and Fulton St. North Side of Seneca St. between Meadow St. and Fulton St. Width of Widening 1.5 Ft. 3.5 Ft. 4.5 Ft. 4.5 Ft. North Side of Buffalo 8.0 Ft. St. from Corn St. to Fulton St. South side of Buffalo 8.0 Ft. St. from Corn St. to Fulton St. *South Side of Casca- dilla St. from Wash- ington St. to RR Tracks 9.5 Ft.. * South Side widening would provide for parking along north side Estimated Construction Costs $ 14,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 46,000.00 $ 46,000.00 $ 54,000.00 The actual selection of which sites of possible additional on -street parking (if any) that would be con- structed would need to have the concurrence of the City of Ithaca. This determination would be made during the final stage of this project. An alternate consideration for minimizing impacts caused by localized losses of on -street parking is to provide nearby areas of off-street parking. A study for providing such possible locations resulted in as many as four possible sites within the local areas. These sites consist of vacant buildings and lots and could provide as many as eighty-seven off-street parking spaces. This study was made in the summer of 1987 and reflects the conditions at that time. The avail- ability of these sites would need to be reviewed during the final design stage since it is possible that the area(s) could be developed between the 1987 period and the final design stage. The following list indicates the possible sites, nos. of off-street parking spaces and estimated cost of each site. 1. Seneca Street, South side near Meadow 'Street (Vacant Lots - 0.19 Acre+) a. Estimated Parking Spaces - 12 b. Estimated Cost - $ 46,000.00 2. Court Street, North side between Washington Street and Meadow Street (Vacant Lot - 0.12 Acre+) a. Estimated Parking Spaces - 10 b. Estimated Cost - $ 30,000.00 3. Esty Street, South side near Meadow Street (Vacant Lot and Buildings - 0.35 Acre+) a. Estimated Parking Spaces - 28 b. Estimated Cost -.$ 155,000.00 4. Esty Street, North side west of Meadow Street (Vacant Lots - 0.70 Acre+) a. Estimated Parking Spaces - 37 b. Estimated Cost - $ 175,000.00 Should off-street parking be selected, it would require an agreement with the City of Ithaca and the exact locations would need to be selected during final design. 12. SIGNING AND SIGNAL CONSIDERATIONS All alternatives can be signed to conform to the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). All of the build alternatives involve signing Meadow and Fulton Streets as one-way streets between Six Mile Creek and Hancock Street. III -82 There would be new and/or modified traffic signals installed along. Meadow Street and Fulton Street at specific intersections, depending upon the alternative selected. The signalized intersections are shown on Figure Nos. 13, 15, 19, 24 and 25. Traffic signals are planned on Taughannock Boulevard at the State Street, Seneca Street and Buffalo Street intersections for all the alternatives. An additional traffic signal is planned on Taughannock Boulevard at the new Route 96 northbound crossing for the Alternative C Low -Level Option. Alternative A would have a traffic signal at the Route 89 (Park Road) intersection. Alternatives B and C would have traffic signals at the new Route 96 intersections with relocated Route 89 and with the proposed connection to the Tompkins Community Hospital. All other intersections would be controlled with stop signs placed on the inter- secting side roads. 13. NAVIGATION Cornell University uses the Flood Control Channel as a rowing course for competitive "crew" races. The proposed bridges carrying both northbound and southbound Route 96 over the channel under each alternative would consider the needs of the rowing course. It is expected the in -channel piers, if required, will be located similarly to those now sup- porting the State Street bridge. The Old Cayuga Inlet is classified as a portion of the New York State Canal System south to Buffalo Street. If Alternative C, Optional Low -Level northbound, is the selected alternative, it will be necessary to deregulate the Old Cayuga Inlet from the northbound Route 96 crossing, south to Buffalo Street. An early inquiry as to the possibility of obtaining the necessary legislation to deregulate this por- tion of the barge canal resulted in confirmation that the canal could be deregulated if required. 14. RIGHT-OF-WAY The necessary amount of right-of-way acquisition varies with each alternative and is summarized in Table 11. Alternative C requires the largest land area requirement followed by Alternative B, with Alternative A requiring the least amount of land area. 1II-83 r , TABLE 11 APPROXIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS IN ACRES Alt. A Alt.B Alt.B Alt.B Alt.0 Alt.0 Alt.0 Optional Option Option Option Option Option Option Property Alt. A Rte. 89 No.1 No.2 No.3 No.1 No.2 No.3 Owner Align. City of 0.3 0.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.2 Ithaca 4-F Lands 0.1 1.0 *0.4- *0.4 *0.4 **0.8 **0.8 **0.8 (Cass Park wt4& waif with Retaining 1 s t '"'(s,('91.474 Walls) Cornell 0 0 14.0 14.1 13.5 18.2 18.5 17.9 University PRI 0 0 0.2 0.2 3.3 0.1 0.6 3.7 Tompkins 0 0 5.3 3.9 2.9 6.3 4.5 3.1 Community Hospital Private 2.6 2.5 40.1 41.0 40.2 49.8 50.0 50.2 Lands TOTAL R/W 3.0 3.8 65.4 65.0 65.7 80.4 79.6 80.9 REQUIRED * 1.1 Acres with fill slopes ** 1.7 Acres with fill slopes III -84 Alternative A will not require any right-of-way fence. Alternative B and C will require right-of-way fence from the Flood Control Channel north to the Tompkins Community Hospital. Of particular interest is, the fact that much of the residue property situated on the downhill side along the West Hill between the proposed intersection with relocated Route 89 and the lands of the Tompkins Community Hospital would be effectively severedbythe construction of either Alternative B or C. Both of these alternatives would be con- trolled access highways in this area and therefore do not afford access to the severed properties. This section of property residue is on a very steep side hill that is heavily wooded. The estimated land area that would be severed is94 acres for Alternative B and 80 acres for Alternative C. 15. LIGHTING All of the build alternatives would replace any street lights that are disturbed by the proposed construction. Fulton Street extended would include provisions for street lights. Alternatives B and C would include provisions for street lights from FultonStreetnorth to the intersection with re- located Route 89. 16. ASSOCIATED COSTS The construction cost estimate for each alternative was made based on 1986 unit costs recorded for projects of a similar nature within the local NYSDOT Region 3 area. Right- of-way costs were estimated for each individual parcel based on current market values. A total project cost summary for each alternative is shown in Table 12. III -85 TABLE 12 ESTIMATED COST PER ALTERNATIVE ($ MILLIONS) ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST RIGHT-OF-WAY COST TOTAL COST EARTHWORK PAVEMENT DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL A 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.3 3.4 3.8 1.5 10.7 A - Optional Rte. 89 Align. 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.3 3.4 5.8 1.1 12.6 B - Optional No. 1 3.8 4.0 0.9 0.3 8.2 7.7 3.0 27.9 B - Optional No. 2 3.8 4. 1 0.9 0.3 8.2 7.7 3.6 28.6 B - Optional No. 3 3.9 4.0 0.9 0.3 8.2 7.7 3.6 28.6 C - High-Level/Optional 6.0 5.1 1.0 0.3 9.8 13.6 4.0 39.8 No. 1 C - High-Level/Optional No. 2 6.0 5.1 1.0 0.3 9.8' 13.6 4.6 40.4 C - High-Level/Optional 5.9 5.0 1.0 0.3 9.9 13.6 4.6 40.3 No. 3 C - Low-Level/Optional No. 1 6.5 5.1 1.0 0.3 10.2 10.6 4.0 37.7 C - Low-Level/Optional No. 2 6.5 5.1 1.0 0.3 10.2 10.6 4.6 38.3 C - Low-Level/Optional 'No. 3 6.5 5.1 1.0 0.3 10:2 10.6 4.6 38.3 Note: Construction Costs include 20 percent contingencies. Derivation of Structure Costs Shown in Appendix N. 17. BENEFIT/COST RATIO Benefit/Cost Analyses were performed comparing each alternative to the Null (Do Nothing) Alternative. The benefit/cost evaluation determines the savings in road user expenses such as vehicle operation costs, time costs and accident costs afforded by each alternative over the 20 year life expectancy of the project. The Benefit/Cost Ratios are shown below on Table 13.. Since a Benefit/Cost Ratio of more than 1.0 indicates that an alternative is viable, i.e. gives more benefits than it costs, it is apparent that all of the alternatives considered provide benefits over the Null Alter- native. TABLE 13 o I ai4 use Je BENEFIT/COST PER ALTERNATIVE'°'La eCr`""" (Compared to the Null Alternative) Alternative A A (Optional Rte. 89) B/Option No. 1, 2 or 3 C-High-Level/Option 1, 2, or 3 C-Low-Level/Option 1, 2, or 3 Benefit/CostOL,4/), Ratio c� 2.8 2.2 4.1 2.8 2.9 The benefit/cost procedures for the vehicle operation and time cost savings were determined by a microcomputer pro- gram entitled "A Quick Benefit -Cost Procedure for Evaluating Proposed Highway Projects" developed by John H. Lemmerman of NYSDOT. The accident cost savings were determined separately and added to the other savings to determine the overall Bene- fit/Cost Ratio. The expected project life of 20 years was considered to be from 1990 to the year 2010. The inflation rate used for project and benefit costs was 6.5% and the dis- count rate for benefits was 8.0% The Benefit/Cost Ratios shown in Table 13 were developed considering for each alternative all of the road improvements on the east side of the Flood Control Channel to and in- cluding Meadow Street and the improvements to Route 96, Route 89 and Park Road on the west side. It is noted that the. improvement of the one-way pair system (Meadow and Fulton Streets) under all of the alternatives provides substantial benefits over the Null Alternative. The Benefit/Cost analysis will not be considered further in evaluation of alternatives; its use is simply to assure economic viability from a user -cost perspective. III -87 III.D. SUBSTANDARD FEATURES Certain design features under each of the build alterna- tives do not meet the project design criteria as shown under Table 1. The following information describes these substandard features together with a brief description of what would be required in order to meet the project design criteria, including estimated costs where applicable. 1. ALTERNATIVE A a. Level of Service Project design criteria from Table 1, Section A is Level of Service D ,) -to ey'e-- 4 Q ecl.,914.10-,-> Three approaches to intersectionswithstop sign control resulted in Level of Service E. Two approaches are located along the westbound lane of Esty Street at its approach to Meadow Street and at its approach to Fulton Street. The other approach is located on Brindley Street at its approach to State Street. It would be possible to provide Level of Service D by utilizing a traffic signal at each of these locations. The cost for each intersection to be signalized would be about $ 60,000. However, the approach traffic on Esty Street and Brindley Street is minor (70 DHV and 140 DHV), and a traffic signal would only cause additional delays to the major road- ways ( 161.0 DHV and 440 DHV). 2. ALTERNATIVE A WITH OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGNMENT a. Level of Service This option under Alternative A would result in the same substandard features noted above under III.D.1.a. b. Design Speed and Maximum Curve Project design criteria from Table 1, Section A is 40 mph and maximum curve is 10 degrees. 2.b.1 NEW ROUTE 96 One of the intents of this option wasto provide a design for the Route 96 extension from Buffalo Street to Cliff Street that would avoid the residences situated at the III -88 a CCe S d bottom of Cliff Street. The back tangent is established by holding the center of existing Buffalo Street near the Station Restaurant, a building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the ahead tangent is the centerline of existing Cliff Street just north of its inter- section with Park Road. These tangents were intersected and a curve established that would spare the residences mentioned above. The resulting curve was a twelve (12) degree curve. A ten (10) degree curve could be provided with little additional construction cost, but would displace three residences near the bottom of Cliff Street. Also, the 12 degree curve combined with a superelevation rate of 0.04 ft./ ft. would provide for about 37 mph design speed. The posted speed limit for Route 96 within the City of Ithaca is 30 mph. 2.b.2 RELOCATED ROUTE 89 Relocated Route 89 horizontal alignment contains two 14 degree curves. These 14 degree curves are sited in opposite directions and are situated so as to allow for about a 45+ degree skew crossing of the Flood Control Channel. A 10 degree curve could be provided, but would result in about a 56+ degree skew. crossing of the Flood Control Channel and would result in increased bridge length. Construction costs for the 10 degree curves would be about $200,000 more than the proposed 14 degree curves. The 14 degree curves combined with a superelevation rate of .04 ft./ ft. would result in about 35 mph design speed. The speed limit for Route 89 within the City of Ithaca is 30 mph. 3. ALTERNATIVE B a. Level of Service Three approaches to intersections with stop sign control resulted in Level of Service E. Two approaches are located along the westbound lane of Esty Street at its approach to Meadow Street and at its approach to Fulton Street. The other approach is located on Brindley Street at its approach to State Street. It would be possible to provide Level of Service D by utilizing a traffic signal at each of these locations. The cost for each intersection to be signalized would be about $ 60,000. However, the approach traffic on Esty Street and Brindley Street is minor (70 DHV and 140 DHV), and a traffic signal would only cause additional delays to the major road- ways (1610 DHV and 440 DHV). III -89 3.b. Design. Speed, Maximum Curve and Minimum .a - Stopping Sight Distance -7 Project design criteria from Table 1 is: Design Speed (mph) Maximum Curve Min. Stopping Sight Distance Section A 40 10 Deg. 275 Feet Section B 50 6.75 Deg. 400 Feet Section C 60 4.25 Deg. 525 Feet 3.b.1 NEW ROUTE 96 FROM BUFFALO STREET TO THE NORTH END OF CASS PARK (SECTIONS A AND B) The new Route 96 crossing of the Flood Control Channel is on a 14 degree horizontal curve. This alignment resulted from the need to provide a connection to Buffalo Street from a new Route 96 that could be constructed along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel. Considerations were included in the design for providing space between the new Route 96 and the Flood Control Channel for construction of a relocated bike path. Also, consideration was included for constructing a new access road on the west side of the new Route 96 that would provide access to the existing residences situated along Cliff Street. In order to avoid Cass Park, new Route 96 alignment would be shifted toward the west from a point approximately 500 feet north of the existing Route 89 intersection with existing Route 96. If a 10 degree curve were provided, it would result in reverse curves, without any tangent distance provided between curves, and would result in severe impact to the existing Station Restaurant, a building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The 14 degree curve combined with a maximum super - elevation rate of .04 ft./ft. would result in a design speed of about 35 mph. The crossing of the Flood Control Channel would represent the divide between the urban portion of new Route 96 and the rural section of new Route 96. The area between the Flood Control Channel crossing and the signalized intersection of relocated Route 89 with new Route 96 near the north end of Cass Park would provide a gradually varied tran- sition between the urban and rural sections. The existing speed limit for Route 96 within the City of Ithaca is 30 mph. It is anticipated that this portion of the new Route 96 would also be posted with a 30 mph speed limit. III -90 3.b.2 RELOCATED ROUTE 89 (UNDER SECTION A CRITERIA) The proposed intersection of relocated Route 89 with new Route 96 has a centerline radius of two hundred feet. This intersection would be signalized and would result in right angle turns to and from new Route 96. The intersection turning radii for the Route 89 traffic would result in turning movements of about 15 mph. Design for a 10 degree curve approaching this inter- section would result in severe impact to Cass Park. It is estimated that such an approach would require about 4.3 additional acres of Cass Park land in the vicinity of the ball fields near Linderman Creek. The existing speed limit for Route 89 within the City of Ithaca is 30 mph. It is anticipated that relocated Route 89 would also be posted for 30 mph speed limit. 3.b.3 CONNECTION TO EXISTING ROUTE 96 NEAR TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (SECTION C) This intersection would be signalized and would result in approximate right angle turns to and from new Route 96. The connection to existing Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) would become a town road with an anticipated posted speed limit of 40 mph. The design for Alternative B includes a 9 degree curve connecting Trumansburg Road to the proposed signalized intersection with new Route 96. A 9 degree curve combined with a superelevation rate of, .06 ft./ft. would provide for about 44 mph design speed. Design for 60 mph design speed for this connection would result in greater impact to the property of the Paleon- tological Research Institution (PRI), a property that has been identified as being eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Also, the 60 mph design would result in less desirable skew angles at the intersection with the new Route 96 and would cause about 200 to 400 feet more construction length. The stopping sight distance was established so as to provide for the anticipated posted speed limit of 40 mph. If design were included for 60 mph design, the proposed connec- tion would result in additional impact(asa result of the lower grade and greater excavations) to the PRI property, particularly under Option Nos. 1 and 2. r' 3.c Maximum Grades (Section C) Project design criteria from Table 1 is 4%. New Route 96 consists of a 6.3 percent grade along the West Hill area from a point north of its crossing over Williams Brook to the vicinity of its intersection with the hospital drive under Option Nos. 2 and 3. Option No. 1 consists of the 6.3 percent grade from a similar beginning point to a point about 1,000 feet south of its intersection with the hospital drive where it begins a 5:0 percent grade ahead to the vicinity of the existing Hayts School Roadwhere it connects into the existing Route 96 grade (2.0 percent). Because of the steepness. of the existing West Hill, it is not possible to provide a 4.0 percent grade through this area. 4. ALTERNATIVE C a. Level of Service Three approaches to intersections with stop sign control resulted in Level of Service E. Two approaches are located along the westbound lane of Esty Street at its approach to Meadow Street and at its approach to Fulton Street. The other approach is located on Brindley Street at its approach to State Street. It would be possible to provide Level of Service D by utilizing a traffic signal at each of these locations. The cost for each intersection to be signalized would be about $ 60,000. However, the approach traffic on Esty Street and Brindley Street is minor (70 DHV and 140 DHV),"and a traffic signal would only cause additional delays to the major road- ways (1610 DHV and 440 DHV). b. Design Speed, Maximum. Curve and Minimum Stopping Sight Distance Project design criteria from Table 1 is: Design Speed (mph) Maximum Curve Min. Stopping Sight Distance Section A 40 10 Deg. 275 Feet III -92 Section B 50 6.75 Deg. 400 Feet Section C 60 4.25 Deg. 525 Feet 4.b.1 SOUTHBOUND ROUTE 96 FROM BUFFALO STREET TO NORTH END OF CASS PARK (SECTIONS A AND B) The southbound crossing of new Route 96 over the Flood Control Channel is on a 14 degree horizontal curve. The new southbound Route 96 crossing of the Flood Control Channel is on a 14 degree horizontal curve. This alignment resulted from the need to provide a connection to Buffalo Street from a new Route 96 that could be constructed along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel. Considera- tions were included in the design for providing space between the new Route 96 and the Flood Control Channel for construc- tion of a relocated bike path. Also, consideration was included for constructing a new access road on the west side of the new Route 96 that would provide access to the existing residences situated along Cliff Street. In order to avoid Cass Park, new Route 96 alignment would be shifted toward the west from a point approximately 500 feet north of the existing Route 89 intersection with existing Route 96. If a 10 degree curve were provided, it would result in reverse curves, without any tangent distance provided between curves, and would result in severe impact to the existing Station Restaurant, a building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The 14 degree curve combined with a maximum super - elevation rate of .04 ft./ft. would result in a design speed of about 35 mph. The crossing of the Flood Control Channel would represent the divide between the urban portion of new Route 96 and the rural section of new Route 96. The area between the Flood Control Channel crossing and the signalized intersection of relocated Route 89 with new Route 96 near the north end of Cass Park would provide a gradually varied tran- sition between the urban and rural sections. The existing speed limit for Route 96 within the City of Ithaca is 30 mph. It is anticipated that this portion of the new Route 96 would also be posted with a 30 mph speed limit. 4.b.2.J RELOCATED ROUTE 89 (UNDER SECTION A CRITERIA) The proposed intersection of relocated Route 89 with new Route 96 has a centerline radius of two hundred feet. This intersection would be signalized and would result in right angle turns to and from new Route 96. The intersection turning radii for the Route 89 traffic would result in turning movements of. about 15 mph. Design for a 10 degree curve approaching this inter- section would result in severe impact to Cass Park. 'It is I1I-93 rl estimated that such an approach would require about 4.3 additional acres of Cass Park land in the vicinity of the ball fields near Linderman Creek. The existing speed limit for Route 89 within the City of Ithaca is 30 mph. .It is anticipated that relocated Route 89 would also be posted for 30 mph speed limit. 4.b.3. CONNECTION TO EXISTING ROUTE 96 NEAR THE TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (SECTION C) This intersection would be signalized and would result in approximate right angle turns to and from new Route 96. The connection to existing Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) would become a town road with an anticipated posted speed limit of 40 mph. The design for Alternative B includes a 9 degree curve connecting Trumansburg Road to the proposed signalized intersection with new Route 96. A 9 degree curve combined with a superelevation rate of .06 ft./ft. would provide for about 44 mph design speed. Design for 60 mph design speed for this connection would result in greater impact to the property of the Paleon- tological Research Institution (PRI), a property that has been identified as beingeligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Also, the 60 mph design would result in less desirable skew angles at the intersection with the new Route 96 and would cause about 200 to 400 feet more construction length. The stopping sight distance was established so as to provide for the anticipated posted speed limit of 40 mph. If design were included for 60 mph design, the proposed connec- tion would result in additional impact (as a result of the lower grade and greater excavations) to the PRI property, particularly under Option Nos. 1 and 2. 4.c. Maximum Grades (Section C) New Route 96 consists of a 6.3 percent grade along the West Hill area from a point north of its crossing over Williams BxQok to the vicinity of its intersection with the _hospital drive under Option Nos. 2 and 3. Option No. 1 consists of the 6 3 percent grade from a similar beginning point to a point about 1,000 feet south of its intersection with the hospital drive where it begins a 5.0 percent grade ahead to the vicinity of the existing Hayts Schoor Road where it connects into the existing Route 96 grade (2.0 percent). Because of the steepness of the existing West Hill, it is not possible to provide a 4.0 percent grade through this area. III -94 CHAPTER IV Social, Economic and. Environmental Impact of Alternatives IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVES A. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1. REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY GROWTH From 1970 to 1980 the population of Tompkins County in- creased by over 13% to a total population of 87,085. The increase is consistent with the population projection for this period as contained in the 1976 FEIS. Since it is anti - __i cipated that this past population trend will continue, the future area increases in population projected in the 1976 FEIS are still considered valid for this project. The 1980 population within the City of Ithaca amounted to. 28,732 LJ representing a ten year increase of 9.5 percent. For the Town of Ithaca, its 1980 population of 16,022 was nearly 2.6 percent higher than 1970. Within the region, growth largely relates to Cornell University which is both the major employer and major population center. Assuming that the.project -area generally encompasses two communities, the West End and its periphery area within the City of Ithaca and the Tompkins Community Hospital area at the proposed connection with the existing Trumansburg Road, growth should be separately evaluated for. each. a. THE WEST END Based. upon 1980 census data, the.West End portion of the project area as illustrated on Figure No. 37 contained a pop- ulation of 219 persons. Additionally, a periphery population. across the Octopus on the West Hill side of the Flood Control Channel amounted to 197 residents. Insofar as no measurable new housing construction or recent conversion units were ap- parent from: field observations, the existing West End popula- tion is estimated at 225 residents and the adjacent portion of West Hill is esti ated at 215 residents. Te characteris- t ci s o 'ffie West End population using the. 1980 census show a median age of 36.3 years, an average household density of 2.5 persons, and 60% of the homes headed by married couples with their children. The composition of the population combined with current land use investigations indicates that the West End is a relativel sable, identifiable community, occupying Pre -World War frame, single=family detached d ellings with an occasional mix of apartment conversions and duplexes. Al- though the adjoining West Hill area evidences a slightly younger median age, its composition is largely similar. Along with the West End resident population is a well defined business community composed of retail and service functions, light industrial with attendant outside storage uses, and marine related activities oriented to the inlet and Cayuga Lake. Additionally, Cass Park, a multi-purpose regional recreation facility, also defines the West End Community. b. TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AREA Unlike the diversity of the West End area, the predom- inant characteristic of this community is the health care function of the hospital and attendant activities around the hospital complex. No sizeable population enclave exists within the area, so growth in this "community" is largely measured in terms of the hospital itself. The hospital has experienced a steady expansion during the last ten years and is at present constructing a major addition to its south wing. The hospital serves as a regional facility and the response time from the concentrated populations center of Ithaca is an important public safety and welfare considera- tion. With the permanency and expansion of the hospital in this location, it is reasonable to anticipate a certain amount of growth to occur in the form of services targeted to employees and hospital.. v-i-s,Ltors . For example a drugstore/ pharmacy,ofi5wer shop, additional medical offices, and"con- venience restaurant could realistically occupy a small scale, strip shopping complex. This development in all likelihood could take place without the construction of any of the alternatives. IV -2 tiq CF .1e 4 T ncy 5 1 + LEGEND ............... AREA OF WEST END NEIGHBORHOOD FIGURE 37 WEST END NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER LQ— 3 c. LAND USE The land area within the City of Ithaca that is located inside the project area is used for numerous purposes. The area along Meadow Street is mostly commercial with some residential usage. Fulton Street is also mostly commercial with a small concentration of residences located to the north between Seneca Street and Court"S'free`t-. Presently the area appears to -15e in the process of change from residential to commercial -industrial. A portion of the current zoning map for the City of Ithaca is shown on Figure 38. The land area within the project area that lies in the Town of Ithaca is mostly residential with some multi -family units and professional buildings spotted throughout. The development that has occurred is sited along the existing Route 96 roadway. The area of development to the east of Route 96 appears to be limited to those areas that are gently sloping. The remaining area east of Route 96 downhill to Route 89 is a part of the steep sloping sides that form the Cayuga Lake drainage basin. This land area is predominately forested. A portion of the current zoning map for the Town of Ithaca is shown on Figure 39. 2. CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION a. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION The soil types prevalent within the project area, with the exception of the southern terminus in the City of Ithaca which is an urban area, exhibit severe erodibility character- istics, due to the steepness of the existing slopes. Numer- ous gullies are located along. the West Hill through the area of the steep sloping side hill. b. GENERAL ECOLOGY OF THE AREA Two main ecological areas are included in this project. The first area includes the area of Cayuga Inlet in the City of Ithaca. This area includes an urban area of moderate density land use under private and public ownership. The two most prominent sections within this area are the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel. The second ecological area begins at the western side of the Flood Control Channel and traverses steep to very steep, privately owned woodlands, to the project's northern terminus at the Tompkins Community Hospital complex. This area is characterized by steep wooded slopes and short intermittent streams that empty into Cayuga Lake. These woodlands consist IV -4 of mixed mature deciduous and coniferous trees with dense shrubby undergrowth and much secondary growth. A portion of the official wetland map for Tompkins County covering the project area was obtained from The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,Region 7.. A review of this map indicates that there are no regu- lated or specially designated wetlands within the project area. The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, was contacted regarding their identifica- tion of wetlands in the, vicinity of the project area. Their findings were that the only wetlands that are found in the area are those identified as Riverine Open Water. The portions of Cayuga Inlet in the .project. area would fall in -13') this category, as well as any of the streams along the West roe Q,cac.i)142.— Hill which flow for the greater portion of the year. Copiesof the correspondence from the Federal and State. advisory agencies, including the portion of the official wetland map for Tompkins County referenced above, may be found in Appendix J of this Report. c. PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Cass Park is located within the project area. This park is owned and operated by the City of Ithaca. The park con- sists of several baseball and softball fields with lighting, an archery range, a children's playground, tot lot, skating rink, swimming pool, a children's wading pool, tennis courts, sports fields and bathhouses. A more detailed discussion of Cass Park is presentedin the "4(f) Evaluation" included as Chapter VI of this DR/DEIS. The specific location of Cass Park is shown on Figure 40. There is an existing bike and pedestrian trail along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel leading into Cass Park. This trail is part of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (Finger Lake Region) system. This trail is referred to as the Cayuga Inlet Trail. The bike and pedestrian trail is shown on Fig- ure 40. Cornell University uses the Flood Control Channel for competitive "crew" races. The rowing course is shown on Figure 41. Other recreational activities such as sailing, power boating and fishing occur along the Flood Control Channel within the project area. Some marina access exists along the east bank of the Flood Control Channel with the majority of the marina access sited along the Old Cayuga Inlet. IV -5 d. FISH AND WILDLIFE Research of the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation, Region 7 files resulted in the fact that there are no records of either significant habitats or endan- t` , b gered species being located or recorded within the project ,„?area. However, Cayuga Lake is listed as a significant water- fowl wintering habitat. Cayuga Lake supports a cold water fishery of lake trout, rainbow trout, landlocked salmon, northern pike and a warm water fishery comprised of pan fish, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, and several species of sunfish. The lake is generally regarded as a good fishery resource. To varying degrees., these species can be found in the tributaries to the Lake. The rainbow trout population of Cayuga Lake depends entirely upon the quality of Cayuga Inlet as a spawning nursery area. Fishing in the project area is an important recreational activity. A variety of wildlife species reside in the woodland habitat and waterfowl exist in the stream and lake areas associated with this project. Wildlife include pheasant and cottontail rabbits in the smaller wooded enclaves and fields, and deer, grouse and turkey inhabiting the larger woodland areas. The Lake and its marshes provide habitats for the mallard, black, and wood ducks. Furthermore, in addition to supporting fisheries, the Cayuga Lake and Cayuga Inlet pro- vide a wintering area for redhead and canvasback ducks. e: HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES No significant archeological sites were identified with- in the project area. The cultural resources evaluation and review process for this project began in 1978. The following outline lists the evaluations and reviews prepared for this project. The results of the evaluations are shown on Figure 42. Eight of the structures indicated on Figure 42 are eligible and three are potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Regis- ter of Historic Places. The alternatives would not adversely impact any potentially eligible sites. Structure No. 173, The Station Restaurant, is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. IV -6 r FOR LEGEND DESCRIPTIONS SEE TABLE 14 Fila =1 Rib M1:11 11-2a 11-2b R -3a OOO R -3b R -U Cal Bia B -2a V&A 113 =I 134 22:29 Bib =I 13-213 N2EI B-5 CSU DUti FH -1 J P.1 FW -1 E=I 14 tarM- E" • • FIGURE 38 PORT ION OF CITY OF ITHACA ZONING MAP ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I. N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER DI — IY- 8 USE DIST. PERMITTED PRIMARY USES. B-1 1. My use permitted in R-3 District. 2. Funeral hare or mortuary. 3. Rosiness or professional office. 4. Rant or monetary Lnstltuticn. S. Office of gover.mmt. See 130.59. Design Review 1 n G B-2 1. Any use .-rmitt..l in 0-1 District. 2. Retail store or snrvice' commercial facility. 3. Restaurant. Cast food establlslmmt, tavern. •5. Club, loons or private social water. 5. Confectionary, miilinery, dressmaking and ti other as saleine involving light hand fabrication as well as sales. 6. neater, Iselin; alley, auditorium or similar place of public assanbly. 7. Hotel, motel. See 130.59, Design Reeled . R1 , ly dwell l4tg containing: 1. One -family a. An individual dwell or family (see define- nitlon, §30.3) plus not more than one unrelsred occupant(see Den. Note 7) or P b. I[ dwelling is owner -:crop Led, an 1nd�- vidual or family plus not more than two unrelated occupants. 2. Two-family dwelling as follows: a. If owner -occupied, each unit may be occupied by an individual or family plus not more than one unrelated occupant, except that if one unit is occupied by a single individual. the other may be ' occupied by no more than three • persons if unrelated; b. If not owner -occupied, one unit may be no larger than 50% of tho floor area of the other, and each unit may be occupied by no more then two persons LE unrelated. 3. Church and related buildings. 4. Public park or playground. 5. Library, public or parochial school,firs station. PERMITTED UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 6. Group care residence (see definition, §70.3 and special conditions, 70.26). B1 SPECIAL PERMIT OF BOARD OF APPEALS (See 130.26): 7. Cemetery and related buildings. B. Public utility structure except office. 9. Private school and related buildings. ---- . B-3 1. Any use permitted in D-2 District. B-4 • 1. My use permitted 1n D-3 District. 2. Gasoline station. 3. Garage for storage of motor vehicles. 4. Motor vehicle sales and service. S. Printing, besting, welding, air con - ditioning, plumbing or similar shop. 6. Transfer station for recyclable materials. B-5 1. Any use permitted in D-4 District. 1-1 • ' ------------ 1. Any use permitted in D-5 District, except that dwelling units are prohibited. 2. Any use not permitted in any other dis- trict including industrial, warehousing. wholesaling. storage of bulk goods. lumberyards. and agriculture except that no animals may be kept within 50 ft. of any property line. 3. All uses must conform to special perform - once standards governing escablls ent of industrial uses (See 330.41). R-2 1. One -family dwelling containing an indL- vidual or family plus not more than two unrelated occupants. 2. Two-family dwelling, each unit of which may bo occupied by an individual or family plus not more than two unrelated occupants per unit. . 3. Uses 3-5 under R-1. PERMITTED UNOER SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 4. Group care residence (See R-1) BY SPECIAL PERMIT OF BOARD OF APPEALS: 5. Uses 7-9 under R-1. 6. Nursery school or child day care center. 7. Neighborhood commercial facility (See §30.3).... FW -1 1.•Public and private recreation subject to • further provisions of 330.44. FH 1 R-3 1. One- or two-family dwelling. 2. Uses 3-5 under R-1. 3. Multiple dwelling (See 330.3). 4. Rooming or boarding house. tourist home. 5. Cooperative household (See 330.3). 6. Fraternity, sorority•or group house. 7. Dormitory. B. Townhouse or garden apartment housing. 9. Private school, nursery school. child day care center. 10. Nursing, convalescent or rest home. 11. Medical or dental office. PERMITTED UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 12. Group care residence (See R-1). 8Y SPECIAL PERI1IT OF BOARD OF APPEALS: 13. UNses 7 and 8 coder cia. 1t5. Hospital anaccommoriom. facility. 15. Ilospltal or amen torlwm. • • hill 1. 1. Any use permitted in 15-2 district except establishment's where food or drink is intended to be served to or consumed by. persona in automobiles. 2. Recreational or cultural facility such as park, playground, art museum. fishing pier or yacht club. • I. Isatel. s. Sale, rental. installation, repair or store. a of marine -related recreation e.lu iltnmt such as Mats, marine en -lines, sails, cabin aptipmrnt. 5. Light manufacture of marine recreation - related prrducts involving substantial had fabrication such as sails, that hulls, twin fittings. 6. Wholesale business, printing.warehouse storage facility. P-1 1. Public recreation. 2. Public and semi-public institution whose purpose is education except that, within 200 feet of a residential district, any use other than classrooms or living accommodations which conform to the regu- rations of the adjacent residential district is permitted only by special per- mit of the Board of Appeals (See 130.26). MH -1 1. Mobile home parks (See Chapter 27. Article Il of Municipal Code). 2. Mobile home display and sales, except that no display shall cake place within the confines of mobile home parks. Rij5. 1. One- or two-family dwelling. 2. Uses 3-5 under R-1. 3. Multiple dwelling. 4. Rooming or boarding house. Cooperative household. 6. Fraternity, sorority or group house. 7. Dormitory. D. Townhouse or garden apartment housing. PERMITTED UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 9. Group care residence (See R-1), BY SPECIAL PERMIT OF BOARD OF APPEALS% 10. Uses 7-9 under R-1. 11. Nursery school, child day Cara tenor. TABLE 14 LEGEND DESCRIPTION S FOR CITY OF ITHACA ZONING MAP - ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I. N. 3047.04 ' TO M PK I N S COUNTY C -SU 1. Any u u ;aumittera In 0-3. 2. Professional offices of architect, engineer, lawyer. ` planning,'o'i'" adf,me consultants: occupations txued on provision of written, verbal or graphic materials to clients. (see 5 30.60). see also 5 30.51. Dssien Revise. Robert E. Smith - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER - IY- 8 ca wo% INDIAN CAE EX RO -6 LEGEND: MMMMMM NMI•MMMMMMN. •MMMMMMin HINYTS Rd PROJECT AREA FOR LEGEND DESCRIPTIONS SEE TABLE 15 R 30 Residence R 15 Residence R 9 Residence• Multi—Family Agriculture w • M•• •.•• CA YUGA LAKE i . 1 i..1..i.. _i_. . I. ;} t -rt -t -_t-• r: -1- :T.1: •- 1+-4 .. }-a- - -I -.�.; .• - _i ,_171.r_.,_._l_}_ �- —4- h . Tr 1I-11::1-1-:; II- -. 1-r- . I.--1-..4:1:1 I � '' -r::{-411-1:1:31.4."1- , I. 1 - • • -- - MscK►.I NJSVRG ._.-'--- 1-1-1-' r r- 1 - - cc Z 4 r 1 FIGURE 39 PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER 19TIQl III RESUW$A DLSQIICi0 R9 SECfMON 4. Use Regulation. In 8 0110. a Districts 29 m 8.11d1Dq shall he erected ar extended and no laud or bnilda; or part thereof shall be used for other than any cf he 61117•teq purposes. 1. • Con Fondly Da .1.11 .5'. 2. I Tw Doily Duelling. 3. Garden, cssery, or farm except a hag fan chem the neeclpol food is garbage. 4. Any vomlcipol or public utility purpose neressarT far the mafntemoce 0f utility semis+. 5. d roadside stand or other structure for the display sed sale of fan or nursery products incidental to formate and as a seasonal cammience to the career or omen at the land. 6. Signa, as regulated by the Tam of Ithaca 510 far. 7. In Residence Districts R9, no 806141n4 or sten-tare shall be erected, altered or erteoded ten emceed thirty (30) feet in heart. In addition, the allowing mss regulations weed be permitted with special approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 8. <huurk ar other pea .0 of warship, cmveat and parish berme. 9. Publicly owed park or 91074raond including axe, beildarge end isprovec nos. 10. Pare station or other plain baildla4 neemsery to the protection of 00 the servicing of a nelgbburbcod. 1.1. Golf coarse, comet a driving range, ar a dtiatore golf 12. Roming horses, tourist houses. 13. Naming or camaiesceat home, or medical clinics. 14. Cc.tary ad the buildings ad or.cter0 achient thereto. 15. Clubhouse or lodge, prodded that m building sl used shall he within 100 feet of any street or within 150 feet of the lot line of an djoinio9q amer. Ion eddltiae, the following me regulative• woad d permitted with special approel.of the Board of Zoning appeals. 16. Pub11cltbrery, public maw, public, parochial aro private schools, misery school, fraternity ar sorority horses, and any Sastitutlae of higher learning lm•ldimg dnnitary 0c®.datim0. 17. Hospital, provided that m building sea used shill be within 100 feet of my street .r within 150 feet at the lot lite of any adjoining SIC7I0N 5. Acresser7 0xs. 1. The office of a resident doctor, dentist, a salon, engineer, teacher, lawyer, artist, architect ar amber at atter recognised protesene, 00 quasi -profession where sed office a a part of the reed.. 8.1101.9. 2. A cast®ry hale =mention, such as dressmaking, hair dress- ing, lamederin9, home coking; carpentry, electrical, and placate work 00 similar manual or mechanical trade; operated solely by a resident of the dwelling. 3. Off-street garage or parking space for the am:a>pmts, .sere ed employees. 4. A temporary building for amerce ar Joinery, where such building Ls noes r7 or JodieMar to the developmat of a residential area. Such b.1140.0 007 set be ®timed for may than one year except rp.p special approval of the Board .f Appeals. 5. Accessary h0tldfnp subject to provisions of Sedan 6. 6. Tse Acclaimq .f dastle animals or fowl in accessory buildings. 7. Sigma, as regulated by the Town of Ithaca 1140 law. SECTION 6. Amasser, Saildlrmm. Accessary beldanp other than garages 007 not maw a07 Open Space otter than a roar yard and my oc..py ant mare than 40 puma of am required rear yard mating the emend 801140.4 offset lines. SECTION 7. Yard Regulations. Front Yard - not less than average depth of the front Yard of 801/dings 0 lots a diatoly djeaect. R� Ta - not less than 30 feet in depth. Side 1st - each not less than 10 feet in width with special exceptions. Special yard regmis":eats for specific uses as s.t.hli.bed by Section 4 ars tegmird. SECTION 8. Building Coverage. No buildings ar balding 00 a let, l.clud1no accessary buildings, shall be erected, altered, 00 extended to cower core than 25 percent of the lot area. Projections desecrated In Section 66 ars set to be ached in omy0tine the 708.005104.. S!CIION 9. Sia et fat. 1. Ran on p.bllr weer 00 seem is available, the minima width shall he 100 feet ed the minima depth 150 feet. 2. %en public water 00 sewer is so 1 , minims width shall 8e 80 feet ad the maths depth .t 131 feet provided that the lot area .8a11 ha not len than 12,000 scare feat. 3. foes bah public water and sewers are mailable, the maims width shall be 60 feet and the minima depth of 120 feet provided that the lot area shall not be less than 9,000 soars feet. SECM1/ 10. Special Properties. In the arse of p0Llicl7 owned properties, properties of ..lversltioo, colleges, cemeteries, or other private amtit0tlon., located In RooIdante Districts 29, which apprise at least 6 acres in area and are traversed by aterlor meds or driveway., tha front ad side yard roquiremot. of Section 7 shall apply amiy alar; the exterior public street fromages and there .hall be no rem yard regeir..0ta. ARTICLE I7 70100909 DISTRICTS SE4MON 4. One Regnlatioes In 8.0..1.0.0 Districts 89 m Wildfire Mall be erected ar extended ad no lad 00 building or put thereof shall be used for otter than any .t the (0110 10 purposes. 1. Coe Family Dwellings. 2. A No Family Dwelling. 1. Public library, public Ousem, public, p000obIal ad privmte schools, .croup Mo., and any loadtW.a of higher l00rnlu; including donator, ac®detioos .pm special approval of the Board of Appeals. The appllctian far such approval .hall he refereed te the Planning Board and no final anti. shall he taken until the Plaonle Board has admitted its report of has failed to seed a report within 30 days. 4. dry municipal or plsli0 utility ;mem Oecessery to the ml0tem000 of Ot1lity serwices except the mbstat1ors and similar st--Octcroo shall be a:hject to the sae setback requirements as app17 to re.ide000s a the district is waled the substations or sailer structures are crostracted. 5. Signs, as re4niated by the Toon of Ithaca Sim fat. 6. In Residence Districts 815, on 801141t; 00 raceme shell ha erected, altered or extended to exceed thirty (30) feet in height. In addition, the admire 000 regnations weld be permitted with special approval of the Board of Appeals in accordance with Section 77, Weber 7. de applimtlm shell then be refected to the Pluming Board and no building permit shall be ismed unless the proposed structure is in accardacae with a site plan approved pocsasot to the provisions of Article II. 800. 7-10 Sao as Noe. 8-11 in Article, Section 4. SEM. 12. accessary Uses. 1. Office of a resident doctor, dentist, maiden, engineer, teacher, lawyer, artist, architect or her of other recognised profession when caned office is part of the resida0oa belldi05. 2. Off-street garage 0r parking space for the occop.cts, Ossa and employees. 3. A te:yorery building far =race or industry where snob 801140ng is xece.=r7 or incidental to the devel meat of a residential area. SOCK 8u11d1.9 my Ont be cotlnmi t00 mow than ran year except cp. special emceed of the Board of 1ppeala. 4. Accessary building subject to prmrlsioes of Section 13. 5. 1 customary hale nem patron. such as dre•mkag, hair deessaog, lamderag, ham cocking; carpentry, electrical, and plumbing work or similar 000001 or 0080010) trade; operated solely by a resl'umt of the dwelling. 6. The keeping of hmoheld p.t. and featly gardens. 7. eine keeping of one base if 2 oars of load are provided and am add(timal horse for each additional acre, Gro set acre than a total of three horses. 8. Signs, as regulated by the Tow 0f Ithaca Sign Law. =10N 13, Accessory 8010di0g, Aarsemy Grlldirea Otter than garages m7 Ont 00071 ani Open spa® other than a rear yard sed my Occ@7 tet more than 40 pert of any regnh.d rear yard er.t109 the required building offset 11... SECTION 14. Yard Regulati.0. trot, - set less than the average depth of the fret yard. of boa mines on lots lmdlately adjmt. 4. -not lav than 30 feet in depth. Eggt yards - each oat less than 15 feet in width wits special extepti ns. Special yard requirements tar specific uses as establish. by Seal.. 11 are receded. 5LCIION 15. Badding Coverage. No building 00 buildings 00 a lot, 1ncldlng accessory beldltm, shall be erected, altered, 00 .:tended t0 cover mace than 21 percent of the lot area. Projections degraded in Section 66 ars set a be Included in 0ap.01.g the 1ECTI0 16. Sia of fat. 1. Minima width of Int. shall be 100 feet and the nature depth 150 (eat. SWIM 17. Spatial Properties. In the case of publicly cited properties, properties .t universities, colleges, cemeteries, cr other private 1nstltat cos, lambed I. Residence District R15, which copra. at least 6 acres in area and ars traversed by interior roeda 00 &Jemmy', the front and side lard r.4.ite0211to .f Seetlm 14 shall mp1y 00x7 atom the arterior public street homages sed there shall be m rear lard regnttemot.. ARTICLE 9 =DCS DISTRICTS 0. SECTION 18. Use Regulations. In Residence Districts R30 m b0lldi0q shall he erected 00 exteded and no lad ar building or pert thereof shall be used tar otter than any of the following 1. Oo. Family Welli050. 2. 1 Teo Family CArtling. 1. 5a Article IV, Section 4, 80. 3 4. Garden, nursery, or faze, except a hog fetor where the principal food is garbage. 5. See 8001010 Ig, Section 4, H6. 4 6. 1 roadside steed 00 other straet.re for tbe display and sale of Lam 00 =sexy 7008.00 lneid.tal to (a0d.4 and as a awonal movea1.m to the owner 00 woes of the lard. 7. Signs, as regulated ley the hes of Ithaca Sign lar. a. In 8.8dence Districts 930, on building or stvetae shell be erected, mitered or ett.nded to exceed thirty (30) feet in height. 5e Peeweeph fallevlog Attica I7, Section 4, 80. 6 Nos. 9-12 Sae as Nee. 8-11 in article III, section 4. 7n edlitice, the (011.9 4 use regolat00 0 weld be permitted with spacial approval of the Ward of Appeals. 13. Remit., paraded that no 801141ng so used shall he within 100 feet from any street 00 within 150 feet of the lat. 11.. of ivy edjololw cater. 14. baron; 00 maral.srmt boo, or medical clinic,. 15. Caetaty and the beldam and structures lad.. thereto. 16. Card+.= or lags, provided trot no 80114109 m asci shall be within 100 feet of ac7 street or within 150 feet of the lot 11m of an adjothing ceder. 1107ION 19. Accssar7 Dm. 1. Office at a resident doctor, dentist, med., engineer, teacher, lawyer, artist, architect or motor of other c ?mrd Rofevlm and quest-professim. 2. l 0r0am7 Imo o osupet00., such as dressmaking, heir dressing, 101o, 8® c.otaa9, carpentry, sle0td.l, and ;imam sat or Battler mural or mechanical trade; operated mealy by a resident of the dselliog. 3. Off-street garage ar parting space for the ocmpe.ts, .sen ad aaployees. 4. 5a Actuals 17, seetim 12, No. 5 5. 1 T building object to 700:isim0 of Section 31. 6. The 8•71eg of domestic Mals or fowl 1n access... beldam. 7. Sims, as reeuleted by the Tse of Ithaca 5140 far. SECTION 20. lwssar7 Buildings. Accessary ba11d1 . other than garages aim set 000097 ml wee space other than s rear geed and nay o00opy set oars than 30 percent of any required rear yard mettee the r.gcOred 8x014! g offset lines. SECT= 21. Yard 9egalatlaoa. root Yu - set less than the average depth of the frtet 7acda of baildinga at lots We dlate17 0d1eceet. 8 744 - set less than 50 feet a depth. Side Yudy - each not less than 40 feet in width rlth special exceptions. Special Tend regaIr®ots for specific uses as established by Section 18 are required. S7CIEON M. Building Coverege. 8o hraldfng 00 braidings on a tat, imadi.e any buildings, shall be erected, altered, 00 attended to corm more than 10 pe.romt at the lot area. Projections. &meted 1n Section 66 are not to be Led.. in outing tn. SLCIION Zed. 51.. of fat. 1. Minima lot area: 30.000 square feet. 2. 81i1m width of lata shall be 150 feet and the .Anima depth 200 feet. SWUM 24. special 7.09.0tfes. In the case of publicly woad properties, properties of 0lversitles, colleges, cemeteries, 00 other private lootltutl000, located in Residence District 830, whim etmia at last 6 aces de aces ad ars traversed by lntrrinr rods or demeans, the hoot and aide yard reguire:eats of Section 21 shall apply only eke; the arterior pieta street (toteges ad then shall G m rear Yard requl.o ate. IRIICLE 9I MX& REsmi7Q DISTaICTF SECII0 25. romtim. With the approval of the Taw Board, a Multiple Rasideoae District my nd established in ear Residence or 14riniturel District of the 14x.. SECTION 26. Oa Regulations. a Meltip1. vodde,.,e District, no building shall be erected or crowded and no lad ar building one part thereof shall be used for other than soy of the foll.irg p.rposea: One family, ton family ad mltiple folly delliow, grouped so as to provide living quartan for a Mame of 3 families. 56QI08 27. Accessory Uses. 1. Automobile parking and mama, subject t0 the (artier reguiremnte of this section. 2. Structures or use of open laced for recreation, intend. f.r resident. of the Multiple Residence Districts. 3. 9x8 uses as may be necessary far h®-makinq activities, such as drying yards or structures in whi.8 laundry facilltias are e intalnd but any such um most be limited to re.lde..t..0 the ;4ltiple 8eside.w Districts. SECTION 23. tram, Yard, Coverage and Height pequ1.0o.vt• shall te as allege 1. Area: a miolmm tract of ate ace is required tar the dnalopaeat of a Multiple Residence District. Said tract most contain .t least 2,500 .90000 feet 0f mass lot area for each Malin; enit to be ccestrocted. 2. Yards ad Coate: Rot 4u - not less than 50 feet. Side Yard - net less than the bmight of the Dearest stroctece. pads, - set lea them twice the height 0f the merest Cants - Shall be completely open co m side, with a width not less than the height of the tallest opposite structure and a depth oat more than 1-1/2 the width. 3. Spaces between 8011dieme0 The dl.te.ca between any ton structures shall hem less than the average height mi both. 4. Building avenge: 8o buildlc9, Including ac :more beild1tF, shall be erected or altered to rover more than 30 pec®t of the lot area. 5. Wight: all structures shall conform in height with other atrecturrc In the vid.ity. SECIIr78 29. Special Requirements shall be as noted radar the Ordinances far the following: 1. Parking. 2. Macaw and Sidewalks. 3. Recreatial. 4. Sa,e01m of waste and refuse. 5. S1gm. SECEIM 30. Site Plan Approvals. No Wilding permit shall he issued for a Wilding vltha a gnitipa Residence District melees the proposed arrector. 1a in accordance vit8 a site plan approved comment to the provisions of Irticle II. DTI= II AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS SECT= 51. ¢v Revelations. In Agricultural Districts bol l.40..4, ad lad may be used only far any lawful farm puree., for a riding .o.tey 00 for any use permitted in a Residence District R30. Certain uses and activities are oat permitted as described under the ordinance far Igdcmites Districts. 17.TION 511. Radio 10.esi..4.. Towers. 10 addition tra the cm prodded in Section 51, Radio 7e0..i..1e. Tares my be ®.hosted and maintain. in Agrimdtarel Districts sohject to the provisions of the ordlm,o mvaring this sects.. TABLE 15 LEGEND DESCRIPTIONS FOR TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER 5-10 1 Park •0 4,p6.4 -4z (%4ii• STREET T ncy LEGEND PARK LANDS CAYUGA INLET BIKE TRAIL 0 400 800 feet 44, FIGURE 40 CASS PARK AND CAYUGA INLET TRAIL ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS PLN. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robin E. Sm/lh CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER STRUCTURE NO. DESCRIPTION Water A/cyAR 25 # 535-539 W. State St. (Building Since Removed) 120 # 62I West Buffalo St. 136 143 164 A 172 173 A B # 815 West Seneca St. # 612 West State St. Greyhound Bus Station Valley House Restaurant Station Restaurant Odd Fellows Rebekah's Home STATUS Eligible Eligible Potentially Eligible Eligible Potentially Eligible Potentially Eligible Listed Eligible STRUCTURE J �a. STRUCTURE NO. 164A STRUCTURE T- NO. 143 C H I STRUCTURE I STRUCTURE NO. 173 J Hoyt Corner Hayt Corner Hayt Corner STRUCTURE 04A-0,0 co STRUCTURE A ROA S U a- STRUCTURE NO. I 6 STRUCTURE ti NO.120 MOUNT STREET STRUCTURE B (Gaging Station STRUCTURE C (P R.I.) 4,04, TH/RD Golf Course SHORT ST. a 400 800 feet DZ -I3 • • Il FIGURE 42 CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER Structure C was part of the Odd Fellows Rebekah's House and currently is the main building of the Paleontological Research Institution (PRI). The auxiliary building is included as part of Structure C. PRI has,one of the ten most significant collections of fossils in North America. That collection contains many type specimens,i.e. specimens around which all standards of knowledge are built for that species. As both individual specimens and the collections as a whole, these materials constitute priceless and irreplace- able resources. Any damage to any of the type specimens could have immense impact upon paleonotological research. OUTLINE OF EVALUATIONS AND REVIEWS February 2 1978 Cultural resource survey report prepared on the archeological investigation of the project area west of the Flood Control Channel. No significant archeological sites were identified.. (Submitted to FHWA for concurrence March 2, 1978.) March 2 1978 FHWA concurs that the 36 CFR Part 800 (Section 106) and FHPW 7-7-4 has been satisfied for the project west of the Flood Control Channel. January 26, 1981 Cultural resource survey report prepared for project area east of the Flood Control Channel. (Submitted to the State Historic Preserva- tion Officer (SHPO) for review March 6, 1981.) April 20, 1981 SHPO comments on resources of concern in the eastern section of the proposed project. January 31, 1985 SHPO comment about the January 8, 1985 report on resources in the western section of the proposed project. April 14, 1985 SHPO comment on, the effect of two pro- ject schemes on National Register listed and eligible properties. March 11, 1986 SHPO comments on each of the projects alternative's impact on National Register listed and eligible properties. January 5 1988 SHPO comments regarding the potential effect on significant resources. June 20, 1988 FHWA concurs with SHPO opinions regarding the potential effects of the various project alterna- tives upon significant cultural resources. The above correspondence is included in Appendix I. IV -14 f. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS There are no prime agricultural lands located within the project area. g. REGULATED FLOODWAYS AND NAVIGABLE WATERS 1) REGULATED FLOODWAYS. Regulated Waterways are identified within this re- port as those waterways which are regulated by the rules and regulations as established by a Flood Insurance Study. The Cayuga Lake, the Old Cayuga Inlet, the Flood Control Channel and other tributaries to Cayuga Lake have been included in a Flood Insurance Study prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development for the City of Ithaca.. This study identifies the 100 -year flood plain through a portion of the project area. See Figure 43. 2) NAVIGABLE WATERS. Navigation on Cayuga Lake is governed by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Old Cayuga Inlet includes a section of the New York State Barge Canal System and connecting waterways. The Barge Canal includes a portion of the Old Cayuga Inlet (east channel) south to the Buffalo Street crossing. Several marinas, ship stores and boat yards are located along the Old Cayuga Inlet within this area. h. PERMITS Any of the build alternatives would require a COE Section 401 and Section 404 permit. 3. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. RELIGIOUS, HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. There are two known religious facilities within the pro- ject area. The First Assembly o God Church is located at 520 West Seneca Street and the Seventh Day Adventist Church is located at 1219 Trumansburg Road. The Tompkins Community Hospital is located within the project area and is sited near the Hayts School Road inter- section with Trumansburg Road (Route 96). A group of pro- fessional buildings are located next to the hospital which provides various health care services. No other health care facilities are known to exist within the project area. IV -15 n n V1 100 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARY FIGURE 43 NATURAL FEATURES MAP ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I. N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER There are no known educational facilities situated within the project area. b. PUBLIC UTILITIES The City and Town of Ithaca have a public water system, sanitary sewage collection, natural gas,- electrical service, telephone service and T.V. cable throughout the project area. The major public utility locations are shown on Figure 30. c. FIRE PROTECTION AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES A fire station is located on the north side of State Street between Meadow Street and Fulton Street in the City of Ithaca. The City of Ithaca provides fire protection through- out the project area. Police protection is provided by the City of Ithaca for areas within the city limits and by. the Tompkins County Sheriff for the project area situated within the Town of Ithaca. Five fire department ambulances and one commercial ambulance serve Tompkins Community Hospital. Tompkins Com- munity Hospital has no ambulance of its own. All six ambulance services are New York State Health Department Certified to Level 3, Advanced Life Support Level. The fire department ambulances are operated by the neighboring villages located on both sides of Cayuga Lake and range from about 7..5 miles.to 12. miles outside of the project area. However, they would all need to travel through the project area in order to arrive at the Tompkins Community Hospital. The following lists the owners of the ambulances referenced above: Bangs Ambulance (Commercial) Lansing Fire Dept. Ambulance. (Volunteer) Slaterville Fire Dept. Ambulance (Volunteer) Dryden Fire Dept. Ambulance (Volunteer) Groton Fire Dept. Ambulance (Volunteer) Trumansburg Fire Dept. Ambulance. (Volunteer) 4. COMMUNITY COHESION a. RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND STABILITY The West End community is a well defined sub -area within the City of Ithaca that in the past generally met the housing needs of this industrial section. See Figure 37. The resi- dential base combined with the diverse business community yields a strong identity. The identity is further strength- ened by the marine ambience of the West End particularly in terms of taverns, restaurants, and services for the boating public. The City of Ithaca has had several conceptual plans prepared that considered redevelopment of the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Island within the project area. The Island area includes that portion of the Island that is situated <,-, north of Buffalo Street and bounded on the west by the Flood Control Channel and on the east by the Old Cayuga Inlet. However, as mentioned later under the section 4(f) evaluation of this report, two parcels of 4(f)/6(f) land located on the Island within the project area are currently in the process t_. of being removed from park land usage by the City of Ithaca. Figures No. 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 show the Island area together with the Old Cayuga Inlet and the 4(f)/6(f) lands mentioned above for each of the build alternatives. Briefly summarized, the conceptual plans included the following objectives for redevelopment of the local Cayuga Inlet and Island area. 1. Redevelopment of the West End with a strong identity, enhancement of the entrance to the city proper, and the preservation of public access to the waterfront. 2. Continued growth of economic development with a pro- ject focus on tourism trade. 3. Encourage marine and marine related activities with a mixed-use development of high density residential, commercial and public open -space, and recreational amenities. 4. Enhancement and protection of both the natural and built environments through rehabilitation, preser- vation, and new construction that is appropriately scaled and designed. 5. Improved pedestrian and automotive movement and net- works with a well defined westerly entrance to the city. The remaining portion of the community located within the project area and sited along Cliff Street and Trumansburg Road between the Octopus and the Tompkins Community Hospital is a well established residential neighborhood with very IV -18 f little growth in the past ten years. There is one area of multi -family usage along Trumansburg Road, several locations where professional buildings are sited and one nursing home. The City of Ithaca and its suburban areas are character- ized by stable populations or populations with little growth. As noted earlier, the median age is 36.3 years with an average household density of 2.5 persons, and. 60% of the houses headed by marriedcouples with their children. The majority of the dwellings consist of Pre -World War II frame, single-family detached, dwellings with an occasional mix of apartment conversions and duplexes. There are no apparent concentrations of ethnic popula- tions within the project area. 5. AIR, NOISE AND WATER a. .AIR QUALITY In accordance with Section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is required to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforce- ment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However this project is in an area where the State Implemen- tation Plan does not contain any transportation control mea- sures. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project. There are no known areas of ex- cessive air pollution within the project area. The project area is located within the Southern Tier Air Quality Control Region and is in attainment with respect to all criteria pollutants (sulfer dioxide, carbon monoxide, - ozone, lead, nitrogen dioxide and particulates). There are no Department of Environmental Conservation monitoring stations in Ithaca or Tompkins County. The nearest moni- toring stations are in Chemung County. b. NOISE Existing noise levels (1985) were measured at 21 loca- tions throughout the project area. The locations of the measurement sites are shown on Figure 44. The existing land use for each site is shown on Table 16. Also, the existing (1985) measured noise level and the noise abatement criteria for each site is shown on Table 16. Site Numbers 1 through 7 are located within the commercial/residential zone situated near Meadow Street, east of the Old Cayuga Inlet. The majority of the activities is. related to the commercial businesses within this area. IV -19 Site Number 8 is located on the Island area along Taughannock Boulevard near the Ithaca Boating Center. The majority of the activities at this site appear to be related to the boating center and the local restaurants. Site Numbers 10 and 11 are located in Cass Park at the Archery Range and near the Hangar Theatre. The activities at these sites include recreational sports such as archery, walking, jogging, and other open field activities. Site Number 9 is in a residential area off Park Road, near the bottom of Cliff Street. There is little activity at this site, except for occasional usage by the occupants. Sites Numbers 12, 13 and 14 are also located in residen- tial areas along Cliff Street and Williams Glen Road. These residential areas exhibit little activity except for occa- sional usage by the occupants. Sites Numbers 15 and 16 are located at the rear and at the front of the Candlewyck Park Apartments, located along Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca. The activities at these sites are mostly associated with the tenants entering and leaving the apartment sites. Sites Numbers 17 and 18 are located at the rear and at the front of the Lakeside Nursing Home. The activities at these sites are mostly associated with visitors entering and leaving the nursing home. Site Number 19 is located near the PRI. The only activity at this site is the arrival and departure of the employees of the institution and an occasional visitor to the institution. Site Number 20 is located at the outdoor garden of the Tompkins Community Hospital. This site is visited by patients and visitors of the hospital nearly every day, weather permitting. Site Number 21 is located along Trumansburg road near the north side of the Tompkins County Professional Buildings. The majority of the activity at this site is the arrival and departure of the patients and employees of the various professional offices. The existing noise levels exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria only at Site Number 2. IV -20 n TABLE 16 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (1985 ) SITE NO. 3 DESCRIPTION EXISTING LAND USE FNMA ACTIVITY CATEGORY NOISE. ABATEMENT CRITERIA YEAR 1985 MEASURED. 1. Meadow St. @ Clinton West Shopping Center Commercial C 72 67 2. Meadow St. between Court St. & Buffalo St. Residential B 67 72 3. Meadow St. opposite Ithaca Heating & Air Conditioning Co. Industrial C 72 66 4. Cascadilla St. @ Ithaca Electric Supply Co. Commercial C 72 58 5. Buffalo St. between South Meadow & North Fulton St. Residential B 67 64 6. State St. next to Fire Station Commercial C 72 68 7. Buffalo St. @ Station Restaurant Commercial C 72 57 8. Taughannock Blvd. @ Ithaca Boating Center Recreational B 67 54 9. Park Road @ Carport of Private Home Residential B 67 58 10. Cass Park @ Archery Range Recreational B 67 52 11. Cass Park near Hangar Theatre Recreational B 67 56 12. Cliff St. @ House #604 Residential B 67 65 13. Cliff St. @ Sidewalk for House #920 Residential B 67 66 14. Williams Glen Road @ House #119 Residential B 67 49 15. Route 96 @ Rear of Candlewyck Park Apts. Apartments 8 67 51 16. Route 96 @ Front of Candlewyck Park Apts. Apartments B 67 58 17. Front of Lakeside Nursing Home Nursing Home B 67 58 18. Rear of Lakeside Nursing Home Nursing Home B 67 47 19. Flagpole @ Paleontological Research Institution P.R.I. B 67 53 20. Outdoor Garden of Tompkins Community Hospital Hospital B 67 52 21. Route 96 @ Front of Professional Buildings Professional Buildings B 67 54 Note: All values given in Leg dBA IV -21 c. WATER 1. HYDROLOGY The topography of the Cayuga Lake drainage basin and the Cayuga Inlet in particular reflect the glaciation and natural erosion of a plateau. Glaciation has enlarged the valleys, rounded the flat topped valleys, and also super- imposed unconsolidated deposits on the landscape in the Cayuga Lake drainage basin. Some of the prominent topo- graphical features of the Cayuga Lake basin include the Cayuga Inlet, Robert H. Treman State Park area, Buttermilk Falls State Park area and Coy Glen. Robert H. Treman State Park, Buttermilk Falls State Park and Coy Glen areas consist mainly of outwash, moranic till and thin till soils with some exposed bedrock. The soils in the Cayuga Inlet area and also the soils underlying the City of Ithaca are alluvium and poorly drained alluvium. On the northwest slope of the Cayuga Inlet the soils consist of lacustrine and outwash deposits to an elevation of approximately 970 feet. Above this elevation are moranic tills and isolated pockets of poorly drained glacial till. The southwest slope of the inlet consists of thin till and bedrock with lacustrine deposits. The slopes of the Old Cayuga Inlet trough are steep, ranging from 12% on the northwest corner near Coy Glen to 35% on the southeast and near Lick Brook. The poorly drained alluvial deposits on the Cayuga Inlet valley floor and the steep slopes of the valley walls have combinedto create an area where runoff rates from precipitation and potential flooding are high. 2. WATER QUALITY Investigations into the water quality of the Cayuga Inlet and Six Mile Creek were made by the United States Geological Survey in 1966 and 1971. A study of the possible use of the Cayuga Inlet as an emergency water supply source for the City of Ithaca was completed by the Tompkins County Health Department in 1970. This Tompkins County study sub- sequently showed the Inlet unsuitable for an emergency water source. The New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation (NYSDEC) has listed the Cayuga Inlet, from the golf course on the lake to 0.7 miles upstream, as class "D" waters. From 0.7 miles upstreamto Newfield the Cayuga Inlet is classified as "CT" waters. Class "D" waters are described as waters suitable for secondary contact recreation but due to water conditions are not conducive to game fishery. Class "CT" waters are described as suitable for all purposes except as a source of water supply for drinking or food processing, RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Water Park -73 WAST,. KNOLL C44fpaE4 < STREET TYPE OF SITE TYPE OF RECEPTOR ❑I COMMERCIAL NOISE aRESIDENTIAL NOISE NOISE INDUSTRIAL 40 COMMERCIAL 50 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL HISTORICAL RECREATIONAL RESIDENTIAL 10 RECREATIONAL II RECREATIONAL NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE TYPE OF SITE 12 RESIDENTIAL 13 RESIDENTIAL 14 RESIDENTIAL 15 APARTMENTS 16 APARTMENTS 17 NURSING HOME I$ NURSING HOME 19 P. R. I. HOSPITAL TYPE OF TYPE OF SITE TYPE OF RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE CAYUGA LAKE WATER QUALITY MOUNt STREET Gaging Station F/FTN DESCRIPTION OF AIR RECEPTORS WEST FACE OF I STY. BLOCK BLDG. (FRATERNAL. CLUB) AT 623429 W. SENECA STREET. NORTHEAST CORNER OF 2 STY. BRICK COMMERCIAL BLDG. AT 701-705 W. STATE STREET. WEST FACE OF 2 STY. FRAME RESIDENTIAL BLDG. AT 305 N. FULTON STREET. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 2 STY. STUCCO RESIDENTIAL BLDG. AT 632 W. BUFFALO STREET. WEST FACE OF 2 STY. STUCCO COMMERCIAL BLDG. AT 209 N. MEADOW STREET. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 2 STY. FRAME AND BRICK COMMER- CIAL BLDG. AT 602 W. BUFFALO STREET. WEST FACE OF 2 STY. FRAME RESIDENTIAL BLDG. AT 307 N. MEADOW STREET. NORTHEAST CORNER OF 2 STY. FRAME COMMERCIAL BLDG. AT 701 W. COURT STREET. TN/RD ECOND F/RST Marina Golf Course °Light SHORT ST. 0 400 800 feet FIGURE 44 LOCATION OF NOISE, AIR 8 WATER QUALITY RECEPTORS ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER 1Y-23 or for primary contact recreation. These waters provide habitat for trout. From the USGS and the Tompkins County Study, data can be used for comparison with possible future levels of water quality variables. The New York State Department of Environmental Conserva- tion has also classified Williams Brook as "D" waters and the section of Cayuga Lake paralleling the proposed Route 96 as "A" waters. As cited above, Class "D" waters are suitable for secondary contact recreation, but not suitable for game fishery. Class "A" waters are suitable, if treated, for use as drinking water or food processing. 6. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY The project is located on the floor and western slopes of the inlet valley at the southern end of Cayuga Lake. This inlet valley is characterized by a broad segment of developed land bisected by two major creeks and circumscribed by the urban area and wooded slopes on three sides. The landform is the result of recent glaciation and consists of north -south ridges with broad tops or plateaus, smooth, gentle upper slopes and steeper lower slopes. Numerous gorges and water- falls have been eroded into these slopes by local runoff. All of these features are present in the project area, which when .viewed from prominent points, give definite form and visual limits to the bowl shaped valley valued for it's scenic and recreational resources. The land use pattern consists primarily of single family residential development onthe wooded slopes, commercial and industrial development on the valley .floor, and recreational uses adjacent to the lake. To provide a framework for analyzing the; visual environment, two major landscape. units can be distinguished within the project area. 1. Cayuga Lake Landscape Unit 2. West Hill Plateau Unit These landscape units are shown on Figures 45-49. Due to the complexity of the project and sensitivity of specific viewers, three additional landscape units were divided out of the two described major units'. for ;micro- analysis, they are: 1. Community Hospital Landscape Unit 2. Cass Park Landscape Unit 3. Inlet Valley Landscape Unit IV -24 Views within the two major landscape units are often vistas or long middleground to background views of the hill- side or lake. Both the hillside and lake are area attrac- tions and important local landmarks. Views within the three micro -analysis units are of the foreground, primarily, with some views out into the middle or.background that will include the lake and surrounding hillsides. Foreground views in the Hospital Unit are of the campus like grounds of both the hospital and Paleontological Research Institution. At Cass Park, views are across park land and into the wooded hillsides. Inlet Valley views include a mixture of urban commercial areas, a marina/waterway, backyards (from housing along Route 96) and views of urban street scenes and the Octopus roadway intersection. Viewer groups include: commuters, students, tourists, visitors, residents, shoppers and recreation users. . WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS The project area does not include any rivers listed on the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Also, there are no rivers with the potential for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System located within the project area. 8. HAZARDOUS WASTE Based on a limited review of available documentation the project will involve construction in close proximity to two sites once used for activities that are of concern as possible sites of hazardous waste. The first site has been listed on the Department of Environmental Conservation's (ENCON) Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites and is located at the end of West Court Street at the Cayuga Inlet. The exact past use of this site has not yet been determined by ENCON. The second site is located between Esty and Cascadilla Streets and west of Meadow Street. This site is now a storage yard for a plumbing firm but was once used by the Mobil Oil Corporation as a distribution facility. Though project alternatives will not involve any significant excavation or other disturbances at those locations, further investigation and coordination of work with ENCON, and the NYS Department of Health in regard to these and any other potential hazardous waste sites in the project area will be conducted prior to selecting an alternative for final design. IV -25 n CAYUGA LAKE LANDSCAPE UNIT - - The Cayuga Lake Upit is characterized by scenic views of a bowl -shaped linearvalley with wooded'hills and the visually dominant lake. .At the head of the lake is the inlet valley circumscribed by the Ithaca Urban Area, and natural wooded slopes beyond. Qo f0- w � M i� 0- 0 —1 m a0 0) SiN3143A0adWl N WEST HILL PLATEAU LANDSCAPE UNIT OVERVIEW The West Hill Plateau Unit is a flat linear grassland plateau running north -south, dominated by views of open farmland and rural strip development. Drivers have fleeting glimpses of the lake valley to the east. w � . <_ mNm-11 Inc Z_ -1 r C =m-� r-�om comm >Zx rn m-4 cZ 0 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL LANDSCAPE UNIT (MICRO -ANALYSIS) The Community Hospital Landscape Unit is part of the West Hill Plateau Unit and consists of well -kept, hospital campus grounds and culturally significant buildings. This building depicts the northern -most area of the project corridor. S.N3 N (D INLET VALLEY LANDSCAPE UNIT (MICRO -ANALYSIS) The (Cayuga) inlet valley is part of the Cayuga Lake Unit and consists of marine -related recreational and commercial uses along a narrow peninsula west of the urban flats. The intersection commonly referred to as the Octopus subtends the southern tip of this unit. <z in runt -cz— zr.-+0 rrooC m„im-cam <<om z�� rm03 mZX Z.4 -�z 0 r�� w 0 CASS PARK LANDSCAPE UNIT (MICRO -ANALYSIS) The Cass Park Landscape Unit is an open, flat, recreational area with natural visual boundaries of West Hill and Cayuga Inlet. Recreational users will have direct views of relocated Route 89 and Route 96. The ice rink structure provides a strong orientation landmark. E o << c inm-n -I -I c z — - • Nm-4Xi VI 0 -0< o :4o �-I1m—A z m AZ}XG� -4 -4 - 3 N m.4 z- -1 z 0 SiN3 keikCIA w VA -LI Q9 A VP") ) IV.B. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1. REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY GROWTH a. THE WEST END In terms of regional and community growth, the impact of the three alternatives upon the West End relate essentially to improved accessibility, with varying degree. ALTERNATIVE A - It is envisioned that the planned pro- ject will shorten the travel time through the Octopus and improve the traffic conditions that now exist from multiple intersections, poorly aligned roadways and the single crossing of the Flood Control Channel. However, the at -grade railroad crossings will remain and continue to impact through movement of vehicles, particularly emergency apparatus. With the improved maneuverability, it can be expected that con- ditions could be established for increased business develop- ment along Buffalo Street, insofar as the Route 96 regional traffic will be carried by this corridor. However, because of the relatively localized nature of these improvements, regionalaccessibility will not be dramatically altered, and therefore community growth should not significantly increase simply as a result of construction of Alternative A. An additional option included with Alternative A is the connection of Park Road with the Island by way of a bridge extended from Taughannock Boulevard. This construction would primarily improve direct access to the park complex from the city proper and of itself should not be an impetus to growth. ALTERNATIVE B - Because of the significantly improved regional accessibility resulting from this alternative, con- ditions will be established for growth in the West End. Although several features must come together to result in a climate of growth, the improvements at the Octopus combined with the new relocated roadway will surely be a contributing factor in terms of increased safety and shortened travel time into and out of the West End area. However, the at -grade crossing of the Conrail tracks with the city streets will remain with Alternative B and continue to impact through movement of vehicles, particularly emergency apparatus. IV -31 r- e I ALTERNATIVE C - The high-level option which provides for a bridge spanning both the Old Cayuga Inlet and Flood Control Channel will divert northbound traffic over the West End and its periphery area. These improvements are anticipated to c-`1.4 bypass the community and therefore lessen the conditions for growth in favor of a more expedient regional linkage. Although increased traffic will likely emerge at the new intersection of Meadow Street with the new northbound road- way, growth in this built-up vicinity will be more in terms, of replacement or reuse of existing facilities in an effort to cater to the concentration of regional motorists. The low-level option of Alternative C provides bridges carrying the new northbound roadway over both the inlet and Flood Control Channel with at -grade intersections established at Fulton Street, the Conrail tracks and Taughannock Boulevard. This option should serve more as a deterrent to growth rather than an inducement because of the increased number of intersections and at -grade crossing of Conrail. The anticipated congestion and physical improvements I could intrude upon opportunities for residential and L! commercial growth in this waterfront, marine oriented area. 1 b. TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AREA ALTERNATIVE A - It is not anticipated that this alter- native would establish any substantial growth conditions to the Tompkins Community Hospital area, because of the local- ized nature of the limited improvements at the Octopus. Furthermore, the option within Alternative A to connect Taughannock Boulevard to Park Road has no direct impact on the growth in the Hospital area. ALTERNATIVE B This alternative would improve access between the city and. the hospital. Such improved accessi- bility will contribute favorably to growth and development. A limit to the improved access will be the at -grade railroad crossing which particularly delays the response time for emergency vehicles when a train is crossing the intersection. However, aside from the at -grade railroad crossing, condi- tions would be markedly enhanced to provide a linkage between the two nodes and result in a better climate of growth. ALTERNATIVE C - As in the case of Alternative B, Alter- native C with its increased accessibility between the city and the hospital would contribute to growth in the hospital community. The difference between Alternatives B and C in terms of conditions for growth, relate to the high-level IV -32 northbound roadway option which avoids the delays inherent in the at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks. The low-level option with two separate bridges would have less of a growth impact than the high-level option with its viaduct. OPTIONAL ALIGNMENTS NEAR PRI AND TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL - The optional alignments presented in Alternatives B and C would have some affect to either the Tompkins Commu- nity Hospital or the Paleontological Research Institution (PRI). The PRI houses a world famous collection of Paleon- tologic Scientific Specimens that are considered invaluable to the scientific community. The Tompkins Community Hospital is the major health center serving the regional area for Tompkins County. Option No. 1 presents an alignment that cuts through the existing hospital parking lot and will displace approximately forty visitor parking spaces and require reconstruction of the interior parking access systems. This represents about seven percent of the current hospital parking spaces (612 spaces). This option will have little or no affect to the PRI. Option No. 2 presents an alignment that misses the hospital parking lot but would displace the auxiliary lab- oratory of the PRI which houses many of the scientific specimens. The building is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. See Appendix I. This alignment also displaces the hospital apartments. This option has little or no affect to the existing hospital parking lot. However; the construction of this option will limit any future lateral parking expansions. Option No. 3 presents an alignment that would avoid most of the hospital grounds and would permit some area for future expansion of the hospital parking area. However, this alignment would require the displacement of the main building of the PRI. This building is also eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Meetings with representatives of the Tompkins Community Hospital Board in the summer of 1985 have resulted in the establishment of their desire for an alignment that would avoid its parking facilities and be placed as far away from the hospital facilities as possible. The hospital is currently expanding its facilities and they have expressed concern for the need of additional parking. Various meetings from 1977 through 1985 with the PRI directors have established their desire for an alignment which would avoid any of their buildings and be far enough IV -33 away to insure the integrity of their facilities. They do not wish their facility to be near a major highway because of the increased possibility of vandalism. They also expressed concerns about the possible effect highway generated vibra- tions could have on their buildings since the main buildings are said to be founded directly on the underlying bedrock. The NYSDOT investigated the possible effects that con- struction of the highway and highway generated vibrations could have to the PRI. buildings and stored specimens. This investigation considered the conditions presented under Alternatives B and C. The conclusions that resulted from this investigation stated that (1) traffic generated vibra- tions should not pose a problem (2) the effects of blasting (if any) during construction of the new facility will not cause any damage to the building, however, they could rattle specimens stored on shelves. A pre -blast survey should be made under final design to identify existing conditions and possibly point out particularly sensitive displays that could be temporarily removed or supported. Plantings and fence would provide screening along the proposed right-of-way through the PRI property in order to minimize the possibility of vandalism. The PRIhas advised the New York State Department of Transportation that it is possible for them to relocate their facilities if required. They also advised NYSDOT that it is their intent that the facilities would remain in the Ithaca area if a relocation is required. Of particular importance is the fact that PRI has advised NYSDOT that if a move is required it would take considerable lead time for moving the scientific specimens (Approx. two years). The actual number of scientific speci- mens is unknown, but recent estimates indicate that there are between 1,100,000 to 1,800,000 scientific specimens housed in the PRI buildings. The move would need to be made by qual- ified people familiar with the handling and recordation of r Paleontologic Specimens. All of the relocation expenses incurred by PRI would need to be reimbursed to the PRI by it NYSDOT. This would be part of the right-of-way settlement paid by NYSDOT to PRI that would result from the negotiations between the two. Partial relocation of the specimens would occur under. Alternatives B and C when combined with optional Alignment No. 2. Option No. 2 displaces the auxiliary labo- ratory. There.is sufficient residue area on the present lands of PRI to construct a new laboratory. Total relocation Li of the facility and specimens would occur- under Alternatives B and C when combined with Optional Alignment No. 3. IV -34 c. ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE WEST END AND TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL The major distinctions between Alternative B and C as each traverses the hillside from the West End to the hospital is the number of travel lanes and necessary rights-of-way widths. In terms of growth within this by-pass alignment area, there appears to be little measurable difference. Providing both alternatives remain as controlled access high- ways, the by-pass routes will not induce development. On the contrary, in some instances the roadway will sever some par- cels and consequently limit access and development of the intervening land. d. LAND USE ALTERNATIVE A This alternative willnot be a deterrent to the planned land use within the project area. It is expected that all of the displacements caused by this alternative will be reloc- ated nearby. A slight increase in business development is expected along Buffalo Street from the Station Restaurant to Meadow Street since the Route 96 traffic will be via Buffalo Street through this area. ALTERNATIVE A, OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGNMENT This alternative is similar to Alternative A above except that Route 89 is relocated across the Flood Control Channel from Taughannock Boulevard to Park Road. ALTERNATIVE B Alternative B will not affect the planned land use except for the affects of the displacements caused byits construction. It is expected that all of the displacements will be relocated nearby. Because this alternative will improve Route 96 via a new roadway along the West Hill, the resulting conditions will encourage growth both in the West End neighborhood of the City of Ithaca and at the Tompkins Community Hospital (TCH) area. IV -35 The area between the West End and the TCH is expected - , to show no growth since this section will be a controlled access roadway constructed along the steeply sloping side- °4 ri-61 (,) hill. Some parcels are severed on the downhill side of the proposed roadway and result in no developable land use. This area is estimated at approximately 92 to 97 acres, depending upon which option is selected near the Tompkins Community Hospital. Alternative B will require the acquisition of approximately 44 acres of woodland along the West Hill area. ALTERNATIVE C The planned land use within the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca will not be adversely affected except for the displacements caused by the construction of Alternative C. It is expected that all of the displacements will be reloc- ated nearby. Also, it is expected that this new four -lane roadway will encourage growth around the Tompkins Community Hospital area. However, the growth in the West End will be lessened due to the circuitous traffic patterns crossing the island area. The proposed one-way, high-level crossing for northbound Route 96 traffic will discourage development near the overpass while the optional one-way, low-level crossing for northbound Route 96 traffic will be more of a deterrent to growth and intrude upon opportunities for commercial growth within the waterfront marine oriented areas. The area between the West End and the TCH is expected to show no growth. This section of the project site is situated along the steeply sloping side hill and the proposed Reloc- ated Route 96 will be a controlled access roadway. Some parcels will be severed with no access being provided for the down -hill residues. This area is estimated at approximately 88 to 91 acres, depending upon which option is selected near the Tompkins Community Hospital. Also, it is estimated that approximately 53 acres of woodland will need to be acquired along the West Hill area. 2. CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION a. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION: The soil types prevalent within the project area, with the exception of the southern terminus near Ithaca, which is an urban area, exhibit, severe erodibility characteristics, IV -36 due to the steepness of the existing slopes. Soil erosion and sedimentation can be expected from construction activi- ties associated with Alternatives B and C between the West End and the hospital. Each alternative requires the con- struction of extensive roadway embankments and excavation. Surface water runoff will be controlled during construction utilizing NYSDOT standard methods. Large scale stripping operations will be controlled. A number of control asures can be implemented for the selected alternative to(igate the adverse impacts of soil erosion. Among these arm fhe— ollowing: (1) Early seeding and mulching of all exposed areas. (2) Use of temporary ditch lining and check dams at critical locations. (3) Early slope protection placement. (4) Implementation of temporary erosion controls in accordance with Section 209 - Temporary Soil Erosion and Water Pollution Control of the "Standard Specifications". (5) Extensive use of staked hay bales, silt fencing, berms, and small sediment traps to clarify runoff, particularly near the Old Cayuga Inlet, the Flood Control Channel and the intermittent streams. (6) Design of culvert elevations to conform with the existing stream bed elevation at the point of installation. (7) Design of culverts which minimize disruption to the stream channel. (8) Development of special notes to be incorporated in the construction contract documents which define the conduct of construction operations in the vicinity of any intermittent streams and particularly near the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel. b. ECOLOGY OF THE AREA The Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel present the most ecologically sensitive features. Siltation of the inlet during construction of any one of the build alternatives and additional contamination caused by de-icing IV -37 salts required by the proposed alternatives are of primary concern. However, as discussed later under IV.B.2.d (Fish and Wildlife) and IV.B.6.c (Water) the estimated affects of the described concerns do not appear to be of such a magni- tude as to cause harm to any species of aquatic life or con- tamination to water supplies. The second ecological area begins at the western side of the Flood Control Channel and traverses steep to very steep, privately ownedwoodlands, to the project's terminus at the Tompkins Community, Hospital complex. As cited previously, this area is characterized by steep woodedslopes and short intermittent streams that empty into Cayuga Lake. These woodlands consist of mixed mature deciduous and coniferous - trees with dense shrubby undergrowth and much secondary growth. The primary concern in this area is the possible contamination by siltation of these streams and delta areas of Cayuga Lake when constructing either Alternative B or C. With proper sedimentation and erosion control measures during construction -as described under IV.B.2.a (Soil Erosion and Sedimentation), it iected that the siltation will be contained within the construction areasAlternatives B and C. A long range impact would occur to the local pheas- ants, cottontail rabbits, white-tailed deer, grouse and turkey under Alternatives B and C due to the loss of habitat. 6094 However, noother long range impact to the ecology of the project area is expected as a result of the selection of any of the build alternatives. In as much as this project repre- sents a major construction activity, some short range ecological disruption will occur, but it is not expected to have any long range effects. c. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES Each of the three build alternatives affect to differing degrees the existing park and recreational facilities. How- ever, in all cases, access to Cass Park has been improved as a by-product of the overall transportation objectives. A detailed discussion of the impact to park lands is presented in the "4(f) Evaluation" (Chapter VI). -The following is a brief description of the potential impact upon park and recreational facilities by each alternative. The park lands are shown on Figure No. 50. The Cornell rowing course shown on Figure 41 should not be affected by the construction. of Alternatives A, B or C. All the proposed bridges crossing the Flood Control Channel will consider pier placements that meet the requirement for maintaining the lane alignment of the rowing course and the requirements for vertical and horizontal clearances. IV -38 Other recreational activities such as sailing, power boating and fishing occur along the Flood Control Channel within the project area. Some marina access exists along the east bank of the Flood Control Channel with the majority of the marina access sited along the Old Cayuga Inlet. ALTERNATIVE A - The extension of Buffalo Street across the Flood Control Channel and onto its connection with Park Road will involve the use of 4(f) lands as shown on Figure No. 55. The alignment intrudes upon one parcel encompassing approximately 0.1 acre of open, undeveloped park land. Furthermore, Alternative A would require the relocation of portions of. the Cayuga Inlet Trail. The option contained within Alternative A to extend Taughannock Boulevard over the channel to connect with Park Road is shown on Figure 56. This option will also affect designated open space land and further intrude upon the shoreline and the Flood Control Channel. This optional. alignment intrudes upon two separate parcels encompassing approximately 1.0 acre of open, undeveloped park land. ALTERNATIVE B - The relocated Route 96 will take 0.1 acre of undeveloped, open park land on the Island and up to 1.1 acres of undeveloped, open park land on the west side of the Flood Control Channel as shown on Figure 57. Access to Cass Park is provided by way of a new connection to Cliff Street about 500 feet north of the existing Park Road/Cliff Street intersection. The connection will not impact upon active recreational facilities within Cass Park. However, this alternative would also require relocation of portions of the Cayuga Inlet Trail. ALTERNATIVE C - The high-level option contained within this alternative will involve 0.2 acre of undeveloped, open park land on the Island and up to 1.5 acres of undeveloped, open park land on the west side of the Flood Control Channel. Alternative C and its effect to park lands is shown on Figure 58. Also, more channel shoreline will be impacted in a manner that may conflict with marine recreational activities. The low-level option across the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel shown on Figure 59 will involve a similar loss of park land and will also intrude upon the inlet and channel shorelines. These low-level bridges will restrict some boating access up the Flood Control Channel and Old Cayuga Inlet which may deter marine oriented development in this area. The connection to Cass Park from Cliff Street and the intersection of Reloc. Route 89 with new Route 96 north of the ball field complex do not materially differ from that included under Alternative B. This alternative would also require relocation of portions of the Cayuga Inlet Trail. d. FISH AND WILDLIFE As mentioned previously, the Old Cayuga Inlet and Flood Control Channel present the most ecologically sensitive features within the project area. The Old Cayuga Inlet and. the Flood Control Channel arean important part of the spawning nursery area that is used'by several important species of fish. Construction of Alternatives A, B or C would require new bridges with piers located within the Old Cayuga Inlet and Flood Control Channel. Pier construction within these areas would be.limited.to those times of the year when fish are not spawning. In addition, cofferdam constructionwould-be limited to the use of sheet piling. �-�wS 901s Also, it a be desirable to preclude the undertaking of any in -stream work during high flow periods. Alternatives B and C require displacement of woodland habitat along the West Hill that will cause disruption to the ecosystems that support local pheasants, cottontail rabbits, .),,-o white-tailed deer, grouse and turkey. In particular, the white-tailed deer will beseverely impacted by construction of either Alternative B or,C as the result of severing:a portion of their existing range. Right-of-way fence and deer crossing signs will be necessary to minimize the potential for vehicle -deer collisions., Alternatives A, B and C will maintain the integrity. of the quality of life systems within the near -by Cayuga Lake and its marshes. This will be accomplished through strict control of the soil erosion and sedimentation control measures outlined under Section IV.B.2.a, together with -'the. above described controls. e. HISTORIC AND NATURAL LANDMARKS There will be no impacts to Structure No's. 120, 136, 143, 164A, 172, 173, A, B, H, I & J as the result of con- structionof either Alternative A, B or C. See Figure 42. IV -40 Alternatives B and C with Option No. 1 will have no effect on Structure C (PRI). Option Nos. 2.and 3 would have potential impacts to Structure C (PRI). See Appendix I for related correspondence. f. REGULATED FLOODWAYS AND NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS 1) Regulated Floodways The proposed bridge crossings included in each alterna- tive would in•all probability not result in any apparent adverse impact on the hydraulics of the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel. However, the specific bridge types and configurations will be evaluated and detailed in the final design phase of this project. It is estimated that Alternatives A, B and C would cause a minor increase in the 100 -year water surface elevation within the Old Cayuga Inlet and Flood Control. Channel areas. The increase is estimated to be 0.1 ft.+. Lake. 2) Navigable Waters None of the alternatives affect navigations on Cayuga Alternatives A and B will not affect navigation on the Old Cayuga Inlet, a section of the New York State Barge Canal System. Alternative C with the high-level northbound cross- ing of the Old Cayuga Inlet also will not affect this section of the barge canal system. However; Alternative C with the optional low-level northbound crossing of the inlet will have a major impact on the canal. This low-level crossing would result in approximately five foot,of clearance between the bottom of beam of the new bridge and the regulated maximum navigation water elevation of 384.0 feet. It would be necessary to deregulate the barge canal system from this pro- posed crossing south to the barge canal's present limit at Buffalo Street. The area of the Old Cayuga Inlet between the low-level northbound crossing and the limit of the barge canal system at the Buffalo Street crossing includes several business establishments such as marinas, ship stores and boat yards. These businesses depend on the barge canal for marine access IV -41 j to their business. Deregulation of the barge canal system through this area would result iri severe impact to these businesses. Loss of this same area of the Old Cayuga Inlet described above., would: result in minor impacts to pleasure boating. This area represents..a narrow (100'+) section of the Inlet that is primarily used for-mooringof pleasure boats. Most of the pleasure boat activities take place on the lake area. g.- NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY 1) Natural Resources The natural resources that are expected to be required for the construction of the build alternatives include sand, gravel, and crushed stone for the highway base courses, pave- ments, structures, and drainage systems; bitumen and cement for pavements and highway drainage structures, steel for con- crete reinforcing, highway structures, guide railing, sign supports, and miscellaneous uses; lumber for concrete form- work; and topsoil for covering on .newly excavated and filled slopes. 2) Construction Energy Energy uses include the fuels and lubricants that will be required when constructing any one of the build alterna- tives. Alternative C. would require the most energy for con- struction with Alternative A requiring the least..- However; any of the build alternatives are generally greater than the energy requirements that are expected to be required for maintaining the Null Alternative through the estimated twenty year design period (2010) for this project. 3) Post Construction Operational Energy Post -construction operational energy requirements of Alternatives A, B and C should be less' than the Null Alter- native. Itis expected that the savings in operational energy requirements for Alternatives A, B and C would more than offset construction energyrequirements and thus, in the long term, result in a net savings in energy usage. Alter- native C should result in the greatest savings in energy with Alternative B slightly less than Alternative C and Alterna- tive A representing the least net savings in energy, all based on long term (20 years) post -operational energy con- siderations. IV -42 3. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Alternative A would be essentially equal to the Null Alternative in terms of providing accessibility to public facilities and other community services, except for a minor "out -of -direction" pattern that is included in this alter- native for persons traveling through the Octopusareatoward Cass Park and Route 89 along the west bank of Cayuga Lake. It is planned that this movement will be accomplished by following State Street to Taughannock Boulevard and thence onto the new Route 96. The above route description would be reversed for those persons traveling from Route 89 toward the Octopus intersection area. Alternatives A, B and C will not prohibit access to public facilities or services through inclusion of the Fulton Street/Meadow Street One -Way Pair. However, it may nec- essary for certain traffic patterns to loop some local blocks in order to access the desired community services. Alternative B represents an improved roadway from the City of Ithaca to the vicinity of the Tompkins Community Hospital. It is anticipated that this alternative would reduce the overall travel time from Meadow Street to the hospital emergency room. This alternative also would provide a connection between Park Road and Cliff Street that would allow more direct access to Cass Park from the West Hill area. Alternative C is similar to the above described improve- ments listed under Alternative B. This alternate would provide a separate northbound exit to Route 96 near the Meadow Street and Esty Street intersection to join the new southbound Route 96 roadway near the south end of Cass Park on the west bank of the Flood Control Channel. The high- level option is the only alternative that satisfies the concern to eliminate the possible interference of railroad traffic with emergency vehicles destined for the West Hill and the Tompkins Community Hospital. This option offers the greatest reduction in travel time from Meadow Street to the Tompkins Community Hospital. The low-level option would offer slightly improved travel times over Alternative B but less than the high-level option in Alternative C. Certain of the existing utilities would require more than minor or simple relocations under each of the build alternatives. However, only minor inconveniences to users are expected at this time. y LI Alternatives A, B and C would all improve the flow of traffic within the project area and would provide for improved circulation for fire protection and other emergency services. Alternatives A, B and -C with the low-level option for northbound Route 96 would be at -grade with the Conrail Railroad. Alternative C'with the high-level option for northbound Route 96 will be grade -separated over the Conrail Railroad. 4.- COMMUNITY COHESION Given the previously described community character as it may be depicted in terms of population characteristics and land use features; the focus herein is to assess the impact of each of the alternatives upon the cohesive nature of the communities: More specifically, the projects' effect upon community cohesion is measured by the impact to the character and stability of residential and neighborhood composition and upon the attendant tax base and property values. a.. RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND STABILITY The expected impact of the three build alternatives are as follows: ALTERNATIVE A - By improving safety within the Octopus intersection, positive conditions in the way of better circulation within the community with less disruption due to traffic and congestion and periodic accidents would result. No discernable separation of the neighborhood is anticipated and the scope of improvements is not of a magnitude to measurably affect West End property values. Travel patterns would not really change within the West End as the proposed improvements are aimed at moving Route 96 traffic through the area more efficiently. Accessibility to community and public uses after completion of the improvements would not be materially altered and public safety within the immediate area would be improved. One impact that exists with Alternative A as well as the other alternates is the improvement of Fulton Street. Along with the removal of three business operations, increased traffic would be experienced which could disrupt the residen- tial uses fronting on Fulton, particularly between Court Street and Buffalo Street. Additionally, Alternative A IV -44 C0° would result in the removal of 9 single-family detached a�' dwelling units fronting on Cliff Street across the Flood Control Channel on the west side of the city. Since this alternative terminates approximately 500 feet north along Cliff Street, no construction impact would be evidenced at the hospital community or along the land area in between. The option included under Alternative A to connect Taughannock Boulevard to Park Road with a connecting bridge across the Flood Control Channel could negatively impact the West End community's cohesion. The new alignment of the roadway requires the acquisition of additional property and would intrude upon the adjoining properties. Additionally, traffic would be channeled through the heart of the Island simply for the convenience of the park users. By virtue of achieving the objective of a more direct link from the City proper to the regional recreation facility, conditions are fostered which limit the development and redevelopment of the Island, and consequently this community's cohesion is physi- cally separated. ALTERNATIVE B - The alignment of Alternative B through the West End generally follows the alignment of Alternative A. However, the magnitude of improvements resulting from the proposed roadway along the West Hill is anticipated to affect the West End. The effect is not only the direct improvements to the Octopus but also the improved public safety and travel time to and from the Tompkins Community Hospital area. This linkage can be envisioned to promote a higher level of acces- sibility, and ensuingly, interaction to the West End in- cluding particularly the Island. Furthermore, regional access to Cass Park will be significantly improved. Essen- tially more of the community including the Cliff Street residences remains intact, thereby preserving opportunities for. growth. The properties along Cliff Street and Trumans- burg Road would tend to increase in value due to the related enhancements that would result by relocating regional traffic to the new Route 96 facility. The impact of Alternative B upon the Tompkins Community Hospital area largely relates to improved accessibility, travel patterns, and public safety. No real disruption or neighborhood separation is anticipated (other than dividing a portion of the hospital's grounds), and it can be expected that some property values may increase in this largely undev- eloped area. IV -45 J t__I ALTERNATIVE C - For the West End community, the magni- tude of Alternative C with the high-level option will have the most impact. The impact to community_cohesion in terms of character and stability would be caused by two conditions. The first condition relates to the northbound, controlled access roadway beginning at Meadow Street. This roadway would essentially divert traffic over and through the West - End community and cause more isolation and less of an oppor- tunity to interrelate the regional network with neighborhood cohesion. The second condition relates simply to the magni- tude of the high-level bridge spanning the area from Fulton Street to Park Road. The dominance of such a structure in the landscape or, cityscape of the West End Community could hinder the development or redevelopment of the Island and adjoining areas. See IV.B.7 Visual Quality. The consequence could be a lessening of property values and a disruption to the existing community. The option to employ at -grade crossings of the Old Cayuga Inlet and Flood Control Channel softens the visual impact. However, with the intersections of Fulton Street and Taughannock Boulevard, additional regional traffic will be channeled through the neighborhood street system causing further intrusion into the community. The effect of Alternative C upon the Tompkins Community Hospital Area isnot measurably different than that for Alternative B, except that the northbound travel timefrom the city would be faster, primarily because of the provision of an overpass of the railroad under the high-level option. Theproperty values along Cliff Street and Trumansburg Road would tend to increase in value due to the related enhancements that would result by relocating regional traffic to the new Route 96 facility. b. IMPACT UPON CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF CAYUGA INLET AND ISLAND As mentioned earlier, the City of Ithaca has had several conceptual plans that considered redevelopment of the Cayuga Inlet and the Island within the project area. Because these plans are conceptual, they could be modified to meet any of the build alternative locations without affecting the con- ceptual planobjectivesas described under Section IV.A.4.a. IV -46 c. "TAX BASE AND PROPERTY VALUES The effect upon the tax base and tax revenues for each of the three major build alternatives can be determined both relatively and quantitatively in terms of actual dollars. Table 17 itemizes the nature of improved and unimproved real estate that would need to be acquired for each respective alternative. In reviewing the anticipated acquisitions for the purpose of assessing the impact upon the community's tax. basis, a first step is to eliminate those properties that are tax exempt. The holdings of the Tompkins Community Hospital and the adjoining lands of Cornell University and the Paleontological Research Institution (PRI) are tax exempt. Placing a market value on the remaining properties and assuming that assessed value and market value are equal, the following impact upon the tax base for the City of Ithaca has been 'estimated. Estimated Estimated Range Range of Annual Alternative Property Value Loss in Real Estate Tax A. $1,500.,000 - $2,000,000 $18,750 - $25,000 A. Optional $1,100,000 $1,600,000 $13,750 - $20,000 Rte. 89 Alignment B. (Qpts.1-3) $1,700,000 - $2,200,000 $21,250 - $27,500 C. High-level (Opts. 1-3) $2,000,000 - $2,500,000 $25,000 - $31,250 Low -Level (Opts. 1-3) $1,800,000 - $2,300,000 $22,500 - $28,750 Note: The above tabulations are for comparative purposes only and are not based upon actual appraisals. The estimated range of annual losses to the city's real estate tax revenues reflects a figure of less 'than 1% for each of the alternatives which is considered a relatively insignificant short term loss. IV -47 P TABLE 17 ANTICIPATED PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS PER ALTERNATIVE Alternative App. No. of" Single Fam. Units' Displaced App. No. of Comm. Buildings Displaced Approximate No. of .Other Buildings Acres of Undeveloped Land A•10 6 -- 1± A with Optional Route 89 Alignment 1 6 -- 2+ B/Option No. 1 2 6 -- 54± B/Option No. 2 g 2 6 Aux. Bldg. at PRI 8 Apt. Bldg. near Tompkins Community Hospital 54± B/Option No. 3 2 -7 6 PRI Main Building & Garage for Apt. Building 54± C - High -Level and Option No. 1 28 1. 8 Portion of Marina 66± - C - High -Level and2 Option No. 2 S I • $, Portion of Marina, Aux. Bldg. at PRI & Apt. Bldg. near Tompkins Community Hospital 66+ C - High -Level and Option No. 3 2 /D 8 Portion of Marina, PRI Main Bldg. 8 Garage for Apartment Building 66± C --Low-Level and Option No. 1 27 l' 7 Portion of Marina 66± , C - Low -Level and Option No. 2. 2 5 7 Portion of Marina, Aux. Bldg. at PRI 8 'Apt. Bldg. Near Tompkins Community Hospital 66+ C - Low -Level and Option No.. 3 2 lO 7 Portion of Marina, PRI Main Bldg. & Garage for Apartment Building 66± In terms of property values, generally the degree of safety, accessibility and circulation improvements afforded by each alternative would have a positive impact. However, it is well acknowledged that many factors in addition to pedestrian and vehicular conditions affect property values. For the West End community, each --of the three build alterna- tives would reline the present congestion resulting in a ben_ttopjzoperty owners. Business properties may increase in value as the roadway network provides increased accessibility. Residential properties may also increase in value, not only for the same reason of accessibility, but also for the increased safety that would be provided by a better defined through roadway network, which would reduce volumes on some neighborhood streets. For the Tompkins Community Hospital area, the regional access features of Alternatives B and C, regardlessof which connection option is selected, would improve property values within the intersection area. With improved access to and from the city, pEsTie_Ety values on the periphery of the inter- section may also increase in`the long term, especially for residential development. However, the periphery property values in the near future should not significantly change, because of the absence of major generators to growth in this area. 5. DISPLACEMENT OF PEOPLE. AND BUSINESS One unavoidable adverse impact with the selection of any of the three build alternatives will be the displacement of families and businesses. Table 18 lists the estimated number of displaced families and businesses caused by each of the build alternatives. The dwellings housing the ten families affected by Alter- native A are mostly older single-family frame units. These buildings appear to be in fair condition, on good-sized lots. Other than being sited so close to existing Route 96, the general location is good. The Real Estate market in Ithaca appears to be fairly active and replacement housing within the city should be available. Replacement of some of these units via new construction is possible; however, vacant land within the city with similar location characteristics is very scarce, with most available land located on the outer fringe of the city. Alternative A with the Optional Route 89 Alignment would displace one family. Alternatives B and C combined with any IV -49 of their options would displace two families. As mentioned earlier, the housing market in Ithaca is fairly active and it is anticipated that one or two replacement units of similar type, condition and site will be available if needed. All of the business enterprises affected under the build alternatives should be able to relocate nearby. However, vacant land within the city is scarce and these businesses would most likely relocate outside of the city. Alternatives B and C. with their Optional Alignment No. 2 near the Tompkins Community Hospital require the displacement of the apartment building situated on the TCH grounds. There is sufficient substitute rental apartments nearby to handle this displacement. Alternatives;B and C with their Optional Alignments No. 2 and No. 3 will require the relocation of the Paleontological Research Institution (PRI). The PRI has one of the ten most significant collections of fossils in North America. Only. qualified people familiar with the handling and recordation of Paleontologic Specimens would be permitted to relocate the estimated 1,100,000 to 1,800,000 scientific specimens that are housed in the existing PRI buildings. It would take approximately two years to complete a relocation. The department has been in contact with the board of directors of the PRI at various meetings from 1977 through 1985 and the PRI has advised the department thatif the selected alternative would require their facilities to be relocated that they intend to relocate within the Ithaca area. 6. AIR, NOISE AND WATER Separate technical reports have been prepared covering Air Quality, Noise, and Water Quality for this project. These individual reports contain detailed evaluations of the conditions relative to each of these environmental consider- ations and the impacts that are expected under each of the alternatives. A copy of each report is available for review at the following location: IV -50 TABLE 18 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF DISPLACED FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES Alternative Approximate No. of Families Displaced Approximate No. of Businesses Displaced Approximate No. of Institutional Bldgs. Displaced A 10 6 0 A with Optional Route 89 Alignment 1 6 0 B/Option No. 1. 2 6 • 0 B/Option No. 2 8 6 1 B/Option No. 3 2 7 2 C - High -Level and Option No. 1. 2 q 0 C - High -Level and Option.No. 2. 8 9 1 C -..High-Level _and Option . •No . 3_ 2 10 2 C - Low -Level and Option No. 1 2 9 0 C - Low -Level and Option No. 2• 8 9 1 C - Low -Level and Option No. 3 2 10 2 Iv -51 New York State Department of Transportation Region No. 3, 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Please refer to the following identification: Route 96 Improvements City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca Tompkins County PIN 3047.04 The following sections summarize the descriptions, methodologies and impacts identified within the above referenced reports. a. AIR QUALITY GENERAL This project includes three build alternatives, ofwhich each alternative will involve construction of the Fulton Street/ Meadow Street one-way pair. This one-way pair results in numerous signalized intersections with the inter- secting city street system. The remaining sections of the build alternatives would offer mostly uninterrupted traffic flows with selected new signalized intersections at Relocated Route 89 and the newhospital road under Alternatives B and C. The completion of the project will result in generally improved traffic flow in the project area compared to the "no -build" condition. At many locations, the Level of Service will be improved. This results: in less congestion, increased average speeds, reduced queue lengths, and reduced delays. All these factors cause lower emissions and, there- fore, there should be less emissions from vehicles traveling through the project area compared to the "no -build" condi- tion.. The overall air quality in the project area should improve as a result of the project compared to the "no -build" alternative. However, cognizant of a change in traffic patterns and an increase in traffic volumes at some locations due to the build alternatives; a detailed, quantitative, microscale air quality analysis was undertaken to determine if the comple- tion of the project could result in a significant air quality impact. This analysis was performed under the guidelines for IV -52 air quality analysis procedures contained in NYSDOT Project Environmental Guideline Transmittal #42. These procedures have been accepted for use on highway projects by the Federal Highway Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva- tion. "Worst case" locations were chosen for analysis of air quality within the area of the signalized intersections along Fulton Street and Meadow Street for each of the build alter- natives. This area represents the highest volumes of traffic with the least offset distance to the receptor location chosen. The intersections selected for air quality analysis were Buffalo Street and Fulton Street for Alternative A and the Alternative A Optional Route 89 Alignment, and the Meadow Street and Court Street intersection, Meadow Street and Buffalo Street intersection, and State Street and Fulton Street intersection for Alternative C. The sites chosen for Alternatives A and C are also valid for Alternative B; there- fore no additional analysis sites were chosen as "worst case" for this alternative. This project is in an area where the State Implementa- tion Plan does not contain any transportation control measures. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project. Methodology is not available to predict lead concentra- tions along highways with reasonable accuracy. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-reviewed monitoring studies have shown that lead concentrations along high volume high- ways do not violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead for the year 1982. By 1990 there is predicted to be a further significant reduction (from 1982 levels) in lead emissions from motor vehicles. FHWA has advised that microscale lead analyses for highway projects is not needed or warranted. The air quality should not be impacted during construc- tion of this project. Most of the engine exhaust would be generated from diesel driven vehicles. These vehicles would operate within the construction area during working hours only and would be limited in number, probably less than one hundred vehicles for any one day. Provisions will be included in the contract documents for control of dust. Air Pollution Abatement will be in accordance with the NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Section 107-12, which prohibits, burning of any materials on or off the project area. IV -53 1 _J on Ir The specific receptor locations are shown on Figure 44. For purposes of analysis this project was estimated to be opened to traffic by the year 1990. Receptor Number 2,2 for Alternative C (High -Level Option) at the Fulton Street and State Street intersection is situated at 623-629 W. Seneca Street (Fraternal Club) and Receptor Number 22A is situated at 701-705 W. State Street. Fulton Street is fronted on both sides by commercial type buildings. Receptor Number 23 for Alternative A at the Fulton Street and Buffalo Street intersection is situated at 305 N. Fulton Street and Receptor Number 23A is situated 632 W. Buffalo Street. The area immediately east ofthis inter- section is fronted with residential development while the area immediately west is fronted with commercial type development. Receptor Number 24 for Alternative C (High -Level Option) at the Meadow Street and Buffalo. Street intersection is situated at 209 N. Meadow. Street and Receptor Number 24A is situated at 602 W. Buffalo Street. The area along Meadow Street on the east side and the west side consists of a mixture of residential and commercialtype buildings. Receptor Number 25 for Alternative C (High -Level Option) at the Meadow Street and Court Street intersection is situated at '3.07 N. Meadow Street and Receptor Number 25A is situated at 701 W. Court Street. Meadow Street is fronted on both sides by a mixture of residential and commercial type buildings. METHODOLOGY a. LEVEL I ANALYSIS A Microscale Analysis for a Level 1 Procedure in accordance with EPA's Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Guideline Verification Procedures was used for this project. The procedures follow the guidelines of NYSDOT Project Environ- mental Guidelines, Transmittal #42 (PEG #42), dated 2/21/86 and revision No. 1 dated 4/8/86. The results of the calculations for carbon monoxide (CO) are shown on Table 19. The one hour predicted concentration needed to potentially exceed the eight-hour standard has been determined to be 14.0 ppm for intersection sites. Therefore, if the predicted one-hour concentration is less than or equal to 14.0 ppm, compliance with the eight-hour standard is assured as well. IV -54 TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY RESULTS (LEVEL I ANALYSIS) RECEPTOR PREDICTED CO LEVEL I POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE CONCENTRATIONS CUTOFF IMPACT 22(C) 23(A) 24(C) 25(C) 16.6 20.8 21.6 25.3 14 14 14 14 Yes Yes Yes Yes The one-hour concentrations exceed the cutoff value for the Level I Procedure and a Level II Analysis was performed. b. LEVEL II ANALYSIS The Level II Analysis is based on the Intersection Midblock Model (IMM). The procedures -follow the guidelines of NYSDOT PEG #42. The IMM model assumes an isolated inter- section with no signal progression and estimates default values for queue lengths and delays. Alternatives A, B and C would include the Fulton Street/Meadow Street one-way pair with numerous signalized intersections that are closely located. The design for the one-way pair includes signal progressions. Therefore, the Level II Analysis is a conser- vative analysis because the effect of the signal progression is to reduce queue length and delays. The results of the Level II Analysis are shown on Table 20. All of the predicted concentrations of carbon monoxide are below the NAAQS for the one-hour concentrations and all except one site is below the NAAQS for the eight-hour concentration. Recep- tor Number 25 under the Alternative C (High -Level Option) resulted in 10.1 ppm for the eight hour concentration as compared to the NAAQS of 9.0 ppm and therefore, required a Level III analysis. TABLE 2 0 SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY RESULTS (LEVEL II AND LEVEL III ANALYSIS) LEVEL II LEVEL III INTERSECTION LOCATION ANALYSIS YEAR RECEPTOR NUMBER CRITICAL WIND DIRECTION LEVEL II PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (PPM) OF CARBON MONOXIDE CRITICAL WIND DIRECTION LEVEL III **1 HOUR ***8 HOUR **1 HOUR ***8 HOUR ALTERNATIVE A 2010 23 225° 17.0 8.6 -- -- FULTON & BUFFALO 23A 140° 13.7 7.0 -- -- *ALTERNATIVE C 2010 24 320° 17.7 9.0 -- -- MEADOW & BUFFALO 24A 165° 15.6 7.9 -- -- *ALTERNATIVE C 2010 25 340° 19.8 10.1 14.4 7.3 345° MEADOW & COURT 25A 160° 16.3 8.3 -- -- -- *ALTERNATIVE C 2010 22 225° 16.4 8.4 -- -- FULTON & STATE 22A 20° 13.4 6.8 -- -- *High-Level 'Option **National Ambient Air Quality Standard is 35.0 PPM ***National Ambient Air Quality Standard is 9.0 PPM c. LEVEL III ANALYSIS (Receptor No. 25) The Level III Analysis was performed by refining the input parameters of the Level II data. This is accomplished by more accurately estimating the queue lengths and delays that would occur under signal progression. These adjustments were made by first determining the delays associated with progression and without progression through use of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual personal computer software (McTrans Center). The percent change in the delay between progression and non -progression for Meadow Street (one-way northbound) was then applied to the IMM estimated queue length and delays for that particular link. The adjusted queue lengths and delays were then used in the Level III Analysis for Receptor No. 25. This resulted in the predicted CO concentration of 7.3 ppm which is below the NAAQS of 9.0 ppm. ANALYSIS RESULTS All of the receptor sites exceed the cutoff value of 14.0 ppm under the Level I Analysis (Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Verification Procedure), and therefore required a Level II analysis. Under the Level II Analysis, all of the receptor sites are below the NAAQS of 35.0 ppm for the predicted one-hour con- centration, and all of the receptor sites, except for Recep- tor Number 25, are below the NAAQS of 9.0 ppm for the pre- dicted eight-hour concentration. For the Level III Analysis the input data for Receptor Number 25 was refined to account for traffic signal progres- sion as previously described under the Methodology. This resulted in a predicted eight-hour concentration below the NAAQS of 9.0 ppm. Therefore, all the receptors will be below the air quality standards with the completion of the project and there will be no air quality impact due to the construction of this project. IV -57 b. NOISE METHODOLOGY The methodology used to determine the existing noise levels, to predict the future noise levels within the project area, and to assess the impact upon the projects' noise environment is listed below. 1) Existing and projected land uses were determined for the project area. FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria corresponding to each land use was assigned. 2) Noise measurements were taken at various sites (receptors) along the existing highway system to ascertain present noise levels. 3)= The measured noise levels were compared to pre- dicted noise levels, formulated by the FHWA High- way Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA RD -77- 108 (Stamina II). 4) Future noise levels at each noise receptor were calculated for the no -build alternative and for each of the build alternatives. 5) A comparison was made between the existing noise levels, future predicted noise levels and the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria to determine the magnitude of noise impact caused by each alterna- tive. 6) Noise abatement measures were examined and eval- uated. A total of 21 sites were identified as being potentially sensitive noise receptors. These receptor locations are shown on Figure 44. Table 21 lists the summary of noise levels for all 21 Sites. The 2010 PMvalues shown on Table 21 are for the predicted design year noise levels. The existing noise levels were measured at each site in 1985. ANALYSIS RESULTS The results of the findings together with other perti- nent data are shown on Table 21 as noted above. All values are given in decibels (Leg dBA). Noise impacts can be expected when the predicted design year noise levels approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (See Table 21) or when the predicted design year noise levels are substantially higher than the existing noise levels. More specifically, an increase of 0 dBA to 5 dBA over the existing noise level has no impact; over 5 dBA to 10 dBA - minor impact; over 10 dBA to 15 dBA moderate impact; and over 15 dBA results in major impact. The following lists the magnitude of impacts that are expected under each alternative. NULL ALTERNATIVE Four sites would be impacted under this alternative as follows: Site Number 2 is located in a residential section of Meadow Street, between Court. Street and Buffalo Street. There is also some commercial development through this area. Little distance separates the traffic noise source and the front of the buildings through this area. The existing noise level exceeds the Noise Abatement Criteria by 5 dBA as shown on Table 21 and the predicted design year noise level is about the same as the existing noise level. Site Number 12 is located in a suburban residential area along Cliff Street, near house number 604. The predicted design year noise level would exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria by 2 dBA. Site Number 13 is located in the suburban residential area along Cliff Street, near house number 920. The predicted design year noise level would exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria by 1 dBA. Site Number 21 would have a minor noise impact. This site is located near the northern limit of the Tompkins County Professional Buildings. The predicted design year noise level would be 6 dBA above the existing noise level and would be 7 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria shown on Table 21. IV -59 4 �1. TABLE 21 .—. SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVELS SITE NO. 8 DESCRIPTION EXISTING LAND USE FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA(Leq EXISTING NOISE LEVEL NULL ALTERNATIVE (2010 P.M.) ALTERNATIVE A (2010 P.M.) ALTERNATIVE B (2010.P.M.)(2010 ALTERNATIVE C P.M.) . IMPACT EXPECTED RT.89 OPT. OPT. 1 OPT. 2 OPT. 3 HIGH LEVEL LOW LEVEL OPT. 1 OPT. 2 OPT. 3 1. Meadow St. @ Clinton St. West Sho in Center Pp 9 Commercial C 72 67 70 70 70 70 70 NO 2. Meadow St. between Court St. 8 Buffalo St. Residential B 67 72 71 68 68 69 69 YES 3. Meadow St. opposite Ithaca Heat 8 Air Conditioning Co. Industrial C 72 66 68 68 68 68 68 NO 4. Cascadilla St. @ Ithaca Electric Supply Co. Commercial C 72 58 57 62 61 63 62 NO 5. Buffalo St. between South Meadow 8 North Fulton St. Residential 8 67 64 66 68 68 64 64 YES 6. State St. next to Fire Station Commercial C 72 68 66 66 66 66 66 NO 7. Buffalo St. @ Station Restaurant Commercial C 72 57 56 59 58 59 57 57 NO 8. Taughannock Blvd. @ Ithaca Boating Center Recreational B ,67 54 56 55 55 58 62 59 YES 9. Park Road @ Carport of Private Home Residential 8 67 58 61 61 60 62, 60 60 NO 10. Cass Park @ Archery Range Recreational B 67 52 48 58 59 YES 11. Cass Park near Hangar Theatre Recreational B 67 56 57 58 57 NO Note: (7) All.values given in L eq dBA • Impact Expected applies to the Build Alternatives only ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P I N 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY ROBERT E. SMITH CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER TABLE 21 - SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVELS (Continued ) SITE NO. 8 DESCRIPTION EXISTING LAND USE FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA(Leq EXISTING NOISE LEVEL NULL ALTERNATIVE (2010 P.M.) ALTERNATIVE A (2010 -P.M.) ALTERNATIVE B (2010 P.M.)(2010 ALTERNATIVE C P.M.) . IMPACT EXPECTED RT.89 OPT. OPT. 1 OPT. 2 OPT. 3 HIGH LEVEL LOW LEVEL OPT. 1 OPT. 2 OPT. 3 12. Cliff St. @ House #604 Residential B 67 65 69 62 62 NO 13. Cliff St. @ Drive to House #920 Residential B 67 66 68 59 59 NO 14. Williams Glen Rd. @ House #119 Residential B 67 49 51 51 52 r NO 15. Route 96 @ Rear of Candlewyck Park Apts. Apartments B 67 51 56 52 52 NO 16. Route 96 @ Front of Candlewyck Park Apts. Apartments B 67 58 63 57 57 NO 17. Front of Lakeside Nursing Home Nursing Home B 67 58 63 58 58 58 58 58 58 NO 18. Rear of Lakeside Nursing Home Nursing Home B 67 • 47 46 48 48 48 48 48 48 NO 19. Flagpole @ Paleontologi- cal Research Institution P.R.I. B 67 53 54 58 60 58 60 YES 20. Outdoor Garden of Tompkins Comm. Hospital Hospital B 67 52 54 63 62 61 64 62 61 YES 21. Route 96 @ Front of Professional Buildings Professional Buildings B 67 54 60 64 64 64 64 64 64 YES Note: (i) All values given in Leg dBA (2) Impact Expected applies to the Build Alternatives only ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P N 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY ROBERT E. SMITH CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ALTERNATIVE A This alternative and its option would be impacted at two sites as noted below: Site Number 2 is located as noted under the Null Alternative. above. The predicted design year noise level would be 1 dBA above the Noise Abatement Criteria as shown on Table 21. This section of Meadow Street would .become a one-way street and would result in the, predicted design year noise level being 4 dBA below the existing noise level (two-way street). Site Number 5 is located in a residential area along Buffalo Street between Fulton Street and Meadow Street with some commercial development. This is a moderately congested area that has little distance separating the traffic noise source and the front of the buildings. The predicted design year noise level would exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria by 1 dBA and would be 4 dBA above the existing noise level as shown on Table 21. Alternative A represents a limited scale improvement that would provide relief primarily for the traffic congestion at the Octopus area and together with the Fulton Street/Meadow Street one-way pair improve the traffic flow along the existing intersections of the city streets located within the project area. No improvements will be made under Alternative A near Receptor Sites Number 12, 13 and 21. However, the predicted noise levels under the Null Alternative would be representative of the noise level that would occur through these sites under Alternative A in the design year. ALTERNATIVE B As many as six sites could be impacted by this alternative, as noted below: Site Number 2 is located in a residential area along Meadow Street and would result in the same impact as noted under Alternative A. The predicted design year noise level would be 1 dBA above the Noise Abatement Criteria and would be 4 dBA below the existing noise level. Also, Site Number 5 is located in a residential area along Buffalo Street and would result in the same impact as noted under Alternative A. The predicted design year noise level would exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria by 1 dBA and would be 4 dBA above the existing noise level as shown on Table 21. Site Number 10 is located at the archery range in Cass Park. This site would have a minor noise impact. The proposed alignment of new Route 96 would traverse the West Hill approximately 200 feet west of the receptor location. The predicted design year noise level would be 6 dBA above the existing noise level by the design year and would be 9 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria. This site represents the increase in noise levels that could be expected along Cass Park. Minor impact is expected at Site Number 19 under the Optional Alignment No. 2. This site is located near the Paleontological Research Institution (PRI) and is predicted to be 7 dBA above the existing noise level by the design year and 7 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria shown on Table 21. Minor impact is expected at Site Number 20 under the Optional Alignment Nos. 2 and 3, with moderate impact expected under the Optional Alignment No.'1. This site is located at the outdoor garden of the Tompkins Community Hospital and would experience impacts ranging from 9 dBA to 10 dBA increase above the existing noise level under the Optional Alignments Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. The predicted noise level under the Optional Alignment No. 1 would be 11 dBA above the existing noise level by the design year 2010. However, the predicted design year noise levels under the optional alignments range from 4 dBA to 6 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria shown on Table 21. Site Number 21 would result in minor impact under Optional Alignment Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This site is located near the northern limit of the Tompkins County Professional Buildings and would experience a noise level increase of 10 dBA above the existing noise level by the design year 2010. The predicted design year noise levels would be 3 dBA below the Noise Abatement Level shown on Table 21. ALTERNATIVE C As many as six sites could be impacted by this alter- native as noted below: Site Number 2 is located in a residential area along Meadow Street and would result in a similar impact as described under Alternatives A and B for both high- level and low-level options. The predicted design year noise levelwould be 2 dBA above the Noise Abatement Criteria and would be 3 dBA below the existing noise level. Site Number 8 would result in a minor impact under thehigh-level option. This site is located along Taughannock Boulevard at the Ithaca Boating Center. The predicted design year noise level would be 8 dBA above the existing noise level and would be 5 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria shown on Table 21. Site Number 10 would result in a minor impact. This ^6''* site is located at the archery range in n Cass Park and would be located about 200 feet west of the proposed alignment as previously described under Alternative B. The predicted design year noise level would be 7 dBA above the existing noise level and would be 8.dBA .below the Noise Abatement Criteria shown on Table 21. The 1 dBA increase in the predicted noise level over Alternative B is caused by the wider road- way proposed under Alternative C together with a_ slight decrease in the distance separating the noise source and the receptor location. As previously noted under Alternative B, this site representsthe increase in noise levels that could be expected along � Cass Park. w OPJ The predicted design_year-noise level would be the same as noted under Alternative B, Optional Alignment No. 2, for Site Number 19. Minor impact is expected. This site is located near the Paleontological Research Institution (PRI) and is predicted to be 7 dBA. above .the existing noise levelby the design year 2010. However, the predicted noise level would be 7 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria shown on Table 21. Minor impact is expected at Site Number 20 under the Optional Alignment Nos. 2 and 3, with moderate impact expected under the Optional Alignment No. 1. This site is located at theoutdoorgarden of the. Tompkins Community Hospital and would result in impacts kao similar to those described under Alternative B. Impacts would range from 9 dBA to 10 dBA increase above the existing noise level under the Optional Alignments Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. The predicted design year noise level under the Optional Alignment No. 1 would be 12 dBA above the existing noise level by the design year 2010. However, the predicted design year noise levels under the optional align- ments range from 3 dBA to 6 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria shown on Table 21. Site Number 21 would result in minor impact under Optional Alignment Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This site is located near the northern limit of the Tompkins County Professional Buildings and would result in the same impacts described under Alternative B. The predicted design year noise level would be 10 dBA above the existing noise level under Optional Align- ment Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The predicted design year noise level would be 3 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria shown on Table 21. , NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES '' Noise abatement measures for the Null Alternative 19" were not considered, regardless of the extent of the impact involved. Likewise, mitigation measures along the densely developed area of Meadow Street, Fulton Street and the intersecting side streets were not considered since noise barriers would be both impractical and inefficient because of the numerous openings required to provide access to the many properties in this area. This area includes Site Number 1 through Number 7 inclusive and has a maximum of 5 dBA increase above the existing noise level at Site Number 4, and a maximum of 2 dBA increase above the Noise Abatement Criteria at Site Number 2. Noise abatement measures were investigated at Site Number 8, along Taughannock Boulevard, at Site Number 10, along Cass Park and at Site Numbers 19, 20 and 21 through the area of the PRI, Tompkins Community Hospital and the Professional Buildings. All of these sites resulted in minimal attenuation achieved and are economically impractical. The maximum atten- uation achieved at Site Number 8 is 5 dBA for the Alternative C Low -Level at an approximate cost of $127,000. At Site Number 10 a 6 dBA attenuation could be achieved for Alternatives B and C at an approximate cost of $214,500. Similarly, at Site Numbers 19, 20 and 21 under the Alternatives B and C Alignments, minimalattenuationcould be achieved at excessive costs. The proposed alignments through ,.this area generally utilize shallow cut and fill sections to minimize the acquisition for the required right-of-way. Consequently, any noise barriers pro- posed through this area would be located relatively close to the noise source. Site Numbers 8, 10, 19, 20 and 21 result in predicted design year noise levels that are substantially higher than the E -f existing noise levels as shown on Table 21. However, all of these sites are below the Noise Abatement Criteria. 1� Li • SUMMARY As noted above, two sites would be impacted under Alter- native A, up to six sites could be impacted under Alterna- tives B or C. The effects caused by these impacts follow: Site Numbers 2 and 5 are located within the residen- tial and commercial area, west of the Old Cayuga Inlet. This area is urbanized with major traffic patterns throughout. The magnitude of impacts through these sites is minor to moderate. The predicted design year noise levels under all of the build alternatives should not cause anymore, annoyances than what is present under the existing conditions. Site Number 8 is located along Taughannock Boulevard near the Ithaca Boating Center. This site is a recreational area with predominately daytime activities associated with boating. There are no residences near this site. Minor impact would occur under Alternative C with the high-level option. No annoyances resulting from the predicted design year noise level are expected. Site Number 10 is located at the archery range in Cass Park. This site is a recreational area with no residences near the site. Minor impacts would occur under Alternatives B and C and predicted design year 7 i noise levels shouid_not cause any annoyances to the users of Cass Park. Site Numbers 19, 20 and 21. are located at the northern end of the project, near the Paleontological Research Institution (PRI), at the outdoor garden of the Tompkins Community Hospital and along Trumansburg Road near the north side of the Tompkins County Professional Buildings, respectively. Minor impacts would occur under Alternatives B and C combined with Optional Alignment No. 2 at Site Number 19 and under Alternatives B and C, combined with any of the Optional Alignments at Site Number 21. Both of these sites have indoor type activities and should not experience any annoyance because of the 7 dBA to 10 dBA increase in the predicted design year noise levels. The predicted design year noise levels would be 7 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria at Site Number 19 and 3 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria at Site Number 21. Minor impacts would occur under Alternatives B and C, combined with their Optional Alignment Nos. 2 and 3 at Site Number 20. Moderate impacts would occur under their Optional Alignment No. 1. Site Number 20 is located at the outdoor garden of the Tompkins Community Hospital. The garden is visited by recuperating patients and visitors. The predicted design year noise levels would range from 9 dBA to 11 dBA above the existing noise levels and would range from 6 dBA to 3 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria. This site is used whenever weather permits, typically during daylight hours about five months out of the year. The visitations would be of a brief, infrequent nature and no annoyances are anticipated under any of the build alternatives. c. WATER No significant impacts on the water quality within the project area are expected as a result of construction of either Alternative A, B or C. Preliminary investigations have disclosed that there are no existing significant potable water sources that could be impacted by any of the proposed alternatives. As mentioned earlier, the project area is served by municipally supplied and treated water from reservoirs located along Six Mile Creek, outside the city limits. The major short-term concern during the construction phase is entry of suspended sediment into the nearby water- courses. The pollution control measures discussed in Section IV.B.2.a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation of this report will lessen any potential erosion and sedimentation impacts. l The project will have no long term effect on the water quality of the local bodies of water. The existing watershed drainage patterns will not be altered by this project. The overall existing water table is expected to remain essen- tially unchanged. To quantify the effects of de-icing chemicals, the prediction methodology developed by L. Toler was used. Considering the change in levels of these pollutants will indicate the relative impact on long-term water quality. The method provides a procedure for determining the chloride concentration in runoff water based on de-icing salt appli- cation rate, lane miles of highway within the watershed(s), inches of runoff, and drainage area. The resulting concen- tration is then compared to the current Federal and State Health Standard of 250 parts per million (ppm) for chloride in surface and sub -surface potable water supplies. The project area is situated at the inlet of Cayuga Lake. Specifically, the site consists of an urbanized section east of the Flood Control Channel which consists of numerous individual drainage systems outletting into Cayuga Inlet. The rural section west of the Flood Control Channel consists of numerous gullies and ditches that drain the West Hill. Therefore, -aworst case analysis was selected by assuming a single receptor located within Cayuga Lake and determining the chloride concentrations based on construction of Alternative C. See Figure 44. The existing state highway system within the immediate drainage basin (3.6 sq. mi.) is estimated at 14.4 lane -miles. A quantity of 10 tons per _lane mile per year was assumed and a 35" runoff per year for Tompkins County was used. The chloride concentrations were estimated at 23.6 ppm for the existing• conditions and 38.8 ppm for the conditions that would be present under Alterna- tive C. This is farless than the 250 ppm Federal and State Health Standard. Also, the runoff from an improved Route 96 as proposed in Alternatives B and C could tend to be more dense due to dissolved material from the roadway than the lake water near the surface and, therefore, could move along the bottom of the lake tending to increase the degree of stratification in Cayuga Lake and inhibiting turnover or the natural mixing of the lake. However, the above mentioned affect and possible detrimental water quality affects upon Cayuga Lake should be negligible due to the large volume of water in the lake available to dilute the runoff from approximately 2.5 miles of new Route 96 and by the rigid application of pollution abatement specifications. 1 IV -68 The actual measures to disperse runoff would be limited due to the steepness of the existing hillside. These measures would be determined during the final design stage and would be implemented to the extent possible. 7. VISUAL QUALITY A separate Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) has been prepared covering the Visual Quality for this project. This report contains detailed evaluations of the existing condi- tions and the impacts that are expected under each of the alternatives. A copy of this report is available at the following location: New York State Department of Transportation Region No. 3 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Please refer to the following identification: Route 96 Improvements City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca Tompkins County PIN 3047.04 The following summarizes the description, methodology. and impacts identified by the above referenced report. The methodology used to assess impacts was based on Visual Resource Management (VRM) systems employed by several major Federal agencies and procedures developed by Hornbeck (1976) and Jones & Jones (1978) for views "from" and "of" the road respectively. A comprehensive scoping to identify, visual issues relative to the project was conducted. The existing visual environment in which the project lies was established, inventoried, and the visual resources assessed. See Figures No. 45-49. Viewer groups were identified and their behavior characterized. Key views were identified for use in simulations. The project design alternatives were then analyzed and the visual impact or resource change for views of the road, were assessed using prepared simulations of the key views. 1,1 The visual impact, views from the road, were analyzed by evaluating how well each alternative meets the objectives outlined by Hornbeck. The visual impact severity was then rated for each alternative using a procedure developed. by Smardon (1982). Conclusions were drawn based on a summary of the resource changes and the associated viewer response. • The objective is to assess the visual impacts of the proposed alternatives on the existing visual resources. Both views "from" and "of" the road have been addressed. The three design alternatives are all set within the. inlet valley and lower West Hill area adjacent to Cass Park. Alternatives B and C are common north of the inlet along the West Hill ridge to the West Hill plateau. Alternatives B and C have a common roadway alignment along Cass Park with each alternative offering a retaining wall or a 1 on 2 fill slope along Cass Park. Theprojectviewshed is divided into two major landscape units and several major viewer groups are identified. Negative visual effects are anticipated in all three alternatives for the views "of" the road. Conversely, in the views "from" the road, some alternatives will offer superior views of the lake and surrounding hillsides pro- viding significant orientation and scenic experiences for the highway user. About one third of the project falls within the urban- ized section of the inlet valley where a large number of key views are concentrated.. Because of the flat topography, there are no superior viewer positions within this -unit. A range of negative visual impacts will be evident for all alternatives within this micro-analysislandscape unit, with the possible exception of Alternative A. Alternative A has the least amount of physical change due to its small I scale and exposure to moderately sensitive viewers. The Route 89 relocation option to Alternative A will have a more significant negative visual impact than Alter- native A, as a result of project scale increase and exposure to additional viewers known to have a higher sensitivity. Alternative B will have a greater adverse visual impact than Alternative A due to the excessive earth fill and/or retaining wall construction along the Cayuga Lake Inlet and Cass Park. Adverse impact would occur to the users of Cass Park under Alternative B and C with retaining walls construc- ted along Cass Park. The 1 on 2 earth fill slope will have a greater adverse impact than the retaining walls because the additional vegetation removal, filling and grading will increase IV -70 the visual prominence of the roadway. In addition, Alterna- tive C will require the relocation of the overhead utility poles and lines out into the valley floor and Alternative B may also require this relocation. These utility poles will be much more visible and contribute to the adverse impact due to the associated vegetation limitations and clearing re- quired for these utility lines. Alternative C will have the greatest adverse visual impact of the three alternatives. Design Alternatives B and C are common north of the inlet valley where the proposed roadway climbs the wooded lower slopes of West Hill. It is anticipated that this highway cut will be viewed by all major viewer groups during the day and/or night. The visual effects of Alternatives B and C would negatively impact the existing visual resource as a result of the removal of road- side vegetation, increased traffic, and introduction of high- way structures and appurtenances. In addition, roadside cuts exposing rock strata will contrast with existing vegetation during summer months. Alternative C will have the greatest adverse visual impact, relative to these direct visual effects, primarily as the result of its increased right-of- way. Alternatives B and .0 continue north to the West Hill plateau where Option Nos. 1 through 3 bisect the hospital campus. Greater negative visual effects are anticipated in Option Nos. 1 and 2. These options have viewers who are highly sensitive and experience a long view duration. In views "from" the road drivers will experience a minimal visual change to the campus and will be afforded panoramic views of the lake. Option No. 3 will have the weakest visual impact of the three options as the result of existing vegeta- tion being maintained. 8. PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS As mentioned earlier in this Report, considerations for pedestrians and bicyclists are being included under each of the build alternatives. The project area includes an urban- ized section within the West End Neighborhood and a portion of Cass Park located within the City of Ithaca. Pedestrians and bicyclists represent an important mode of transportation throughout this area, mostly for recreational purposes. Any of the work proposed under the build alternatives would be in accordance with the criterion given in Chapter 18 of the NYSDOT Design Manual, including maintenance and protection of pedestrian and bicyclist traffic during construction. 1) Pedestrians: Pedestrian considerations are consistent with the NYSDOT policy for sidewalk accessibility. Each of the build alternatives includes provisions for new sidewalks that would IV -71 connect the main body of the City of Ithaca with Cass Park and the Cayuga Inlet Trail. Some temporary inconvenience is expected during construction of any of the build alterna- tives. However; temporary facilities would be provided that detour the pedestrian traffic around any construction activities. 2). Bicyclists: The existing Cayuga Bike Trail along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel will be maintained under each of the build alternatives. Minor relocations are caused under each of the build alternatives. The relocations are planned to go under the new bridges crossing the Flood Control Channel. A retaining wall (Maximum 14 Feet High) would separate new Route 96 from the relocated bike path under Alternatives B and C. This wall would run from the new Route 96 crossing of the Flood Control Channel opposite Buffalo Street, along the west bank in a northerly direction .to a point near the proposed connection of Park Road to. Cliff Street. Similarly, a retaining wall (Maximum 12 Feet High) would separate new Route 89 from the relocated bike path under Alternative A, Optional Route 89 Alignment. This wall would be located north and east of the new Route 89 crossing of the Flood Control Channel, along the west bank, and con- tinues approximately 250 feet from the end of the new bridge. The planned bikeway by the City of Ithaca that is pro- posed to connect Stewart Park on the east side of Cayuga Inlet to Cass Park and Cayuga Inlet Trail on the west side of Cayuga Inlet will require minor adjustments for each of the build' alternatives. However, these adjustments are not expected to have any adverse impact to the currently planned bikeway. Minor inconveniences would occur during construction of any of the build alternatives. However, temporary facilities would be provided in order to maintain bicyclist traffic during construction of any one of the build alternatives. 9. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 1) Maintaining Traffic During Construction:. The replacement of the State Street Bridge., the Seneca Street Bridge,and the Buffalo Street Bridge over the Cayuga Inlet would be a common construction feature under each of the build alternatives. As a result, the selection of any of IV -72 the build alternatives will cause additional delays. As mentioned earlier, only one bridge would be replaced at any one time in order to maintain traffic via the other two bridges. Alternatives B and C would cause a minor detour for Route 89 traffic when constructing the new bridge connecting Park Road and Cliff Street. These delays are not expected to cause any exceptionally adverse impacts and are estimated to be a tolerable inconvenience lasting for about two years. 2) Safety: Selection of any of the build alternatives should not present any safety impacts. The normal requirements of NYSDOT would include the "Safety and Health Requirements" as described in Section 107-05 of the Standard Specifications. 3) Noise: Construction noise, unlike traffic noise, lasts only for the duration of the construction contract and is generally limited to daylight hours when most human activity takes place. Construction activities are usually not steady, time varying and short term in nature. Depending on the construc- tion operation involved this unwanted noise could last for seconds when construction equipment passes a receptor or for months during the construction of a bridge. Construction noise is also directly related to the type of operation, location and function of the equipment, in addition to the equipment usage cycle. For the build alternatives, this project would include the construction operations associated with clearing and grubbing, excavation and embankment construction, subbase preparation, paving, installation of guiderail and the activ- ities required for the construction of numerous bridges and large drainage structures. The increase in noise levels resulting from construction operations would have minor impact throughout the entire pro- ject limits. In the West End urban area where building construction, utility adjustments and repairs in addition to normal stop -and -go heavy traffic patterns are generally the rule rather than exception, the increased noise levels would appear to be less noticeable. Within such urbanized areas, construction noise levels of 80 dBA are generally considered to be tolerable. It should be noted that much of the required construction for the urbanized portion of the "Build Alternatives" is primarily resurfacing, a relatively short term operation, with noise levels ranging from 84 dBA to LJ ci f_ ) 89 dBA at the receptor locations. However, Receptor Site Number 4 (Alternate C High -Level) and Site Numbers 7, 8 and 9 for all "Build Alternatives", located in the "out -skirts" of this urbanized community, could experience relatively long term noise levels ranging from 84 dBA to 90 dBA during the construction of the substructures for the proposed bridges over the Old Cayuga Inlet and Flood Control Channel. Along the West Hill area, in the vicinity of the Candlewyck Park Apartment complex, the Lakeside Nursing Home, the PRI buildings and the Tompkins Community Hospital, all relatively serene rural areas, the construction noise should become quite apparent. However, the proposed construction along the West Hill would typically be in excavated areas toward the hillside and are significantly lower in elevation than the development along Cliff Street and Trumansburg Road. The area that would separate the proposed construction site from the development along Cliff Street and Trumansburg Road is typically a dense wooded area. These conditions should providesome shielding from the construction noise with the resulting construction noise levels well below the 80 dBA tolerable construction noise level. Special mention must be made concerning Receptor Sites 14 and 21. If the proposed structure over Williams Brook for Alternatives B. and C requires pile construction, noise levels of 84 dBA could be expected for Site Number 14. Similarly, the proximity of Site Number 21 to the Route 96 alignment for Alternatives B and C could result in relatively short term noise levels of 80 dBA and 81 dBA respectively during grading and paving operations. Various mitigation measures can be incorporated into the contract documents to lessen construction noise in the pro- ject area as follows: A. Control of noise at the source can be accomplished by the following actions: o Use of less noisy'equipment in good working order. o Restrictions on the hours of operation, work locations, and the number of simultaneous operations allowed within a specific area. o Locating stationary equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors such as the hospital. o Routing off site hauling away from densely popu- lated areas and other noise sensitive sites. IV -74 B. Tolerance of noise at. the receptor is possible through a public relations and community awareness program featuring the following elements: o Scheduled news releases, paid ads, and/or speci- fic brochures to make the public aware of up- coming construction activities, and the antici- pated severity and duration of the attendant noise. o Coordination of construction activities with local officials. An example of how mitigation measures could be added into the contract documents would be to require the Contrac- tor to provide shielding for those sites involving pile driving operations. In addition, pile driving operations and other work could be restricted to certain days of the week with restrictions on the hours of operation and the number of simultaneous operations allowed within a specific area. Also, the contract documents could require the Contractor to provide advertisements and news releases that would notify the public of the scheduled construction activities and the anticipated severity and duration of the construction noise. C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY For all of the build alternatives the highway alignment and design will be unable to completely avoid or mitigate adverse visual impacts. The visual effects of bridge crossings common to all three build alternatives in the inlet valley can be improved by careful design of the structures to complement the character of the marina and the park. It is anticipated that negative visual impacts will be created by earth fills adjacent to the water courses especially for the low-level option of Alternative C. Continuous foreground and midground views within the inlet valley and Cass Park land- scape units will be interrupted with the introduction of structures and earthen embankments. The visual compatibility of these alignments can be made to complement the character of the park by introducing roadside plantings around these embankments and/or retaining walls. The visual effects of the corridor common to Alternatives B and C along the West Hill ridge can be further improved by the reduction of con- trast with the hillside resource with the use of darker earth tones, roadside plantings and conscious lighting design. IV -75 t f Lj l J { Also, clear cutting through the forested area(s) would be limited to thatportion covered by the roadway grading and selective tree removals, and 'tree trimming would be provided. between the roadway graded area and the right-of-way in order to eliminate any straight line clearing of the forested West Hill. As in the case of the bridge crossings, the visual effects of these highway cuts cannot be completely avoided or mitigated through highway design or alignment. Alternative B will have a less adverse visual impact than Alternative C as a result of its smaller right-of-way. The potential enhancement of the views"from" the road is possible through selective clearing on the downhill slope in the northern sections of this corridor and at glen crossings under Alter- natives B and C. Mitigation and/or enhancement of the three options common to Alternatives B and C can be accomplished with conscious roadside planting and signage control at the proposed intersections with the existing Route 96. 2. NOISE Construction related noise (temporary) and increased traffic related noise levels (long term) are unavoidable impacts that would result from construction of any of the build alternatives. Several residences along the west side of Meadow Street and north of Buffalo Street are currently experiencing noise levels that exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria for residential land use. See Site Number 2 on Table 21.. It is estimated that all of the build alternatives would decrease the existing noise level, but would still be 1 dBAor2 dBA above the Noise Abatement Criteria. This area is urbanized with numerous intersecting side streets and driveways which results in no practical method for shielding these buildings. Other areas that have been identified as incurring minor impactor moderate impacts are all below the Noise Abatement Criteria for the identified land use category. See Table 21. The increased traffic noise levels associated with this project could result in an annoyance to the affected resi- dents and may detract from the nature of the affected areas. This would be more evident in areas with low -levels of existing noise. However, these consequences are more acceptable than the visual and,. economic effects associated with the construction of noise barriers. All of the build alternatives would result in moderate to major short term construction noise impacts. However, the effects of these impacts can be minimized by various IV -76 mitigation measures such as limiting construction activities to less noise sensitive hours and requiring mufflerized construction equipment. No long term consequences will result from construction noise impacts of this project. 3. VEGETATION Removal of about 43 acres to 54 acres of forested area along the West Hill would result in a significant reduction of natural habitat under Alternatives B and C. Mitigation measures for preferred wildlife plantings would be accom- plished by natural revegetation of the forest edges created by clearing for the highway. 4. FISH AND WILDLIFE All of the build alternatives will affect fish and wildlife populations within the project area by disrupting habitat areas during construction, eliminating habitat by permanent right-of-way requirements and increasing the potential for road kills. However, no known threatened or endangered fish and wildlife species will be affected. The consequences of this impact will be reduced by mitigation measures -such as preferred wildlife plantings. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Alternative A, including the Optional Route 89 Alignment would have no consequence to any of the sites identified as eligible, potentially eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. See Figure 42. Alternatives B & C present different consequences de- pending upon the option selected near the Tompkins Community Hospital. Option Nos. 2 and 3 under either Alternative B or C will require the displacement of the PRI ( Structure C) and thus be an adverse effect. The main building will not be demolished under Option No. 2, but the auxiliary building will be. The auxiliary building houses many of that insti- tution's scientific specimens. Option No. 1 results in the displacement of approximately forty-five parking spaces in the Tompkins Community Hospital parking lot. , La D. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES A comparison of each of the alternatives is included in Table 22, listing the effectiveness of each one in meeting the established project objectives. The Null Alternative (No -Build) is included for comparison purposes only. Alternative C would provide the best overall Level of Service, followed by Alternative B and then Alternative A, and Alternative A, Optional Route 89 Alignment. The most improved travel time would be under Alternative C with the high-level northbound option over Conrail Railroad and the Inlet Island with Alternative A and Alternative A with the Optional Route 89 Alignment resulting in the least improved travel time. All of the build alternatives would relieve the con- fusion and traffic congestion at the Octopus intersection. Alternative A and Alternative A with the Optional Route 89 Alignment would provide slightly more relief than either. Alternative B or C together with any of their options. Alternative C High -Level with Option Nos. 1, 2 or 3 would best improve the accessibility to and from the West Hill area including the Tompkins Community Hospital followed by Alternative C Low -Level with Option Nos. 1, 2 or 3, followed by Alternative B with Option Nos. 1, 2 or 3, followed by Alternative A and Alternative A with the Optional Route 89 Alignment. Alternatives B and C combined with any of their options would best improve the safety for Route 96 from Meadow Street to the vicinity of Duboise Road. Alternative C combined with any of its options provides the best traffic capacity for Route 96 from Meadow Street to the vicinity of Duboise Road followed by Alternative B combined with any of its options. Alternative A and Alternative A with the Optional Route 89 Alignment would result in little or no improved traffic capacity through this area. IV -78 TA3LE 22- CONIPARISOR OF ALTERNATIVES FEATURE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (2010) ACCESS TO AND FROM WEST HILL AND TO TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL COST AIR $ MILLION QUALITY IMPACTS NOISE IMPACTS LAND USE IMPACTS RANGE OF REAL ESTATE TAX LOSS FOR CITY OF ITHACA PER YEAR PLANT AND WILDLIFE HYDROLOGY, REGULATED WATERWAYS, WATER QUALITY& AQUATIC ECOLOGY IMPACTS WETLAND IMPACTS CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS VISUAL IMPACTS ALTERNATIVE NULL (Do Nothing) 7.92 Accidents per MVM - Ms= 5.51 Accidents per MVM - City a 5.80 Accidents per MVM - Town LOS F at 5 intersections. No improvements. O Traveltime estimated at 10.9 minutes. Three sites exceed the noise abatement criteria by 1 dBA to 5 dBA. One site exceeds the exist - Ing noise level by 6 dBA, but is below the noise abatement criteria. None A 2.80 Accidents per MVM - One-rWay Pai 5.51 Accidents per MVM - City 6 5.80 Accidents per MVM - Town Octopus eliminated: Min. LOS 0 provided except for 3 individual intersection approaches. No improvements to Rte. 96 north of Rte. 89 intersection. Improved access by separating Rte. 96 and Rte. 89 traffic from Octopus via new bridge crossing Flood Control Channel. Conrail Railroad remains at grade with Rte. 96.0 Travel time estimated at 10.9 minutes. None Two sites exceed the noise abate- ment criteria by 1 dBA. Slight increase in business develop. along Buffalo St. west of Meadow St. No impact to planned Cayuga In- let 0 Island Re- develop.Pro)ect Displaces: 10 residences, b commer.bldgs., li acre undevel- oped land $18,750- $25,000 Negligible A OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGNMENT 2.80 Accidents per MVM - OnePair-Way 5.51 Accidents per MVM - City & 5.80 Accidents per MVM - Town Octopus eliminated: Min. LOS D provided except for 3 individual intersection approaches. No improvements to Rte. 96 north of Rte. 89 intersection. Improved access by separating Rte. 96 and Rte. 89 traffic from Octopus via 2 new bridges crossing Flood Control Channel. Conrail RR remains at grade with Rte. 96. O Travel time estimated at 10.9 minutes. 12.6 None Two sites exceed the noise abate- ment criteria by 1 dBA. Slight increase in business develop. along Buffalo St. west of Meadow St. Significant impact to planned Cayuga Inlet and Island Redevelopment Project Displecest 1 residence. 6 cosumer.bldgs.. 2t etre. un- developed land $13,750- $20.000 Significant B WITH OPTION NO. 1 WITH OPTION NO. 2 B WITH OPTION NO. 3 2.80 Accidents per MVM - OnePair-Way 5.51 Accidents per MVM - City & 4.39 Accidents per MVM Town: Improves Octopue operation thru separation of Rte. 96 6 Rte. 89 traffic. Min. LOS D provided except for 3 individual intersec- tion approaches. Improvements to Rte. 96 to south of Duboise Rd. 2.80 Accidents per MVM - OPair ne-Way 5.51 Accidents per MVM - City & 4.39 Accidents per MVM - Town: Improves Octopus operation thru (separation of Rte. 96 6 Rte. 89 traffic. Min. LOS D provided except for 3 individual intersec- tion approaches. Improvements to Rte. 96 to south of Duboise Rd. 2.80 Accidents per MVM - One -Way Pair 5.51 Accidents per MVM - City 6 4.39 Accidents per MVM - Town: Improves Octopus operation thru separation of Rte. 96 6 Rte. 89 traffic. Min. LOS D provided except for 3 individual intersec- tion approacheie Improvements to Rte. 96 to south of Duboise Rd. Improved access by separating Rte. 96 and Rte. 89 traffic from Octopus via new bridge crossing Flood Control Channel. Conrail YR remains at grade with Rte.. 96. 9 Travel time estimated at 4.6 minutes. Improved access by separating Rte. 96 and Rte. 89 traffic from Octopus via new bridge Ing Flood Control Channel. Conrail RR remains at grade with Rte. 96. 9 Travel time estimated at 4.6 minutes. 27.9 Nose 28.6 Improved access by separating Rte. 96 and Rte. 89 traffic from Octopus via new bridge crossing Flood Control Channel. Conrail RR remains at grade with Rte. 96. 0 Travel time estimated at 4.6 minutes. C HIGH-LEVEL WITH OPTION NO. 1 HIGH-LEVEL WITH. OPTION NO. 2 2.80 Accidents per MVM - One -Way Pair 5.51 Accidents per MVM City & 2.03 Accidents per MVM - Town Improves Octopus operation thru separation of Rte. 96 & Rte. 89 traffic. Min. LOS D provided except for 3 individual intersec- tion approaches. Improvements to Rte.. 96 to south of Duboise Rd. C HIGH-LEVEL WITH OPTION NO. 3 2.80 Accidents per MVM - One- irWay Pa 5.51 Accidents per MVM - City & 2.03 Accidents per MVM - Town Improves Octopus operation thru separation of Rte. 96 & Rte. 89 traffic. Min. LOS D provided except for 3 individual Internet tion approaches. Improvements to Rte. 96 to south of Duboise Rd. 2.80 Accidents per MVM - O -Way Pair 5.51 Accidents per MVM - City & 2.03 Accidents per MVM - Town Improves Octopus operation thru separation of Rte. 96 & Rte. 89 traffic. Min. LOS D provided except for 3 individual intersec- tion approaches. Improvements to Rte. 96 to south of Duboise Rd. Two sites exceed the noise abate- ment criteria by 1 dBA. Three sites exceed the existing noise levels by 6 dBA to 11 dBA, but are all below the miss abate- ment criteria. Two sites exceed the noise abate- ment criteria by 1 dBA. Four sites exceed the existing noise levels by 6 dBA to 10 dBA, but are all below the noise abatement criteria. Two sites exceed the noise abate- ment criteria by 1 dBA. Three sites exceed the existing noise levels by 6 dBA to 10 dBA, but are all below the noise abatement criteria. Growth encouraged in West End & at Tompkins Community Hospital area. Restricts growth along West Hill. Severs 92 acre of undev. woodland w1ao access provided. Minor impact to planned Cayuga Inlet & Inland Redevel. reject. Growth encouraged in West End a at Tompkins Community Hospital area. Restricts growth along W. Hill. Severs 95 acres of undev. woodland w/no access provided. Minor impact to planned Cayuga Inlet & Inland Redeye!. PPro)ect. 'Growth encouraged in West End a at Tompkins Community Hospital area. Restricts growth along W. Kill. Severs 97 acres of uedty. woodland wIno access provided. Minor impact to planned Cayuga Wet a Wand Redevl. Molest. Displaces: 2 residences. 6 cotamer.bldgs.. 54± acres developed land Displaces: 2 residences. 6 mouser .b1 des., P R 1 , apart- ments at T C 11 a 54` acres of land $21,250- $27,500 44 acres of vegetation removed 021,250- $27,500 44 acres of vegetation removed Requires demolition of the auxiliary structure of the PRI and impacts the site of the main structure of the PRI (Structure C). Dieplacesn 2 residences. 6 commer.bldgs.. pR1 0 54± &Gres of undeveloped land. 821,250- $27,500 44 acres Noee of vegetation removed 'EIS leets vets. Requires demolition of all the PRI. (Structure C) Adverse Impacts to the Island area and along the West Hill. Adverse impact to Cass Park users with retaining walls along Cass Park and greater adverse im- pact with fill slopes •long Cass Park.-"' Adverse impacts to the Island area and along the West Hill. Adverse impact to Cass Park users with retaining walls along Cass Park ant greater adverse im- pact with fill slopes'. alms Cass Park. Improved access by separating Rte. 96 & Rte. 89 traffic from the Octopus via 2 new bridges crossing the flood control chan- nel. Northbound Rte. 96 grade separated ever Conrail R.R. Southbound Rte. 96 remains at grade with .. Conrail R.R. 0 Travel time estimated at 4.4 minutes. Improved access by separating Rte. 96 & Rte. 89 traffic from the Octopus via 2 new bridges crossing the flood control chan- nel. Northbound Rte. 96 grade separated over Conrail R.R. Southbound Rte. 96 remains at grade with Conrail R.R. 0 Travel time estimated at 4.4 minutes. Improved access by separating Rte. 96 & Rte. 89 traffic from the Octopus via 2 new bridges crossing the flood control chan- nel. Northbound Rte. 96 grade separated over Conrail R.R. Southbound Rte. 96 remains at grade with Conrail R.R. 0 Travel time estimated at 4.4 minutes. 39.8 40.4 Noon None One sits exceeds the noise abatement cri- teria by 2 dBA. Four sites exceed the existing noise levels by 7 dBA to 10 dBA, but are all below the noise abatement criteria. 8ammmas's growth in Tompkins Com. Hosp. area. Restricts growth in W. End a along Wast 66111. Seven 88 acres of undev. woo$land w/no access. Mlmr Impact to Planned aa --a islet a Redevelopment Project. Adverse impacts to the Island area and along the West Hill. Adverse impact to Cass Park users with retaining walls along Cass Park and greater adverse im- pact with f111 slopes along Cass Park. One site exceeds the noise abatement cri- teria by 2 dBA. Five sites exceed the. existing noise levels by 7 dBA to 10 dBA, but are all below the noise abatement criteria. One site exceeds the noise abatement cri teria by 2 dBA. Four sites exceed the existing noise levels by 7 dBA to 10 dBA, but are all below the mise abatement criteria. Displaces. 2 residences. 7 commer.bldgs.. 1 office bldg. 2 storage sheds. 66± acres of un aeveloped land. 525,000- $31,250 53 acres of vegetation removed. Encourages growth In Tompkins Com. Hosp. area. Restricts growth in W. End a along W. Kill. Severs 90 acres of undev. ,woodland wino access. Minor Impact to Floured Cayuga Inlet & Rahevelopment Project. Encourages growth in Tompkins Com. Hosp. area. Restricts growth in W. End a along W. Hill. Severs 91 acres of undev., woodland wino access. -Ming$ impact to Planned Cayuga Inlet & Redevelopment Project. Displaces: 2 residences. 7 commer.bidgs.. 1 office bldg.. 2 storage shed.. pia, apartments atTCH 6662 acres of en - developed land. Displaces: 2 residences, 7 roamer.bldgs., 1 office bldg. 2 storage sheds, p I & 66± acres of undeveloped land 025,000- 53 acres of vegetation removed. Requires demolition of the auxiliary structure of the PRI and impacts the site of the mala structure of the PRI (Structure C). 831,250 53 acres of vegetation removed. Rossi ole Impact to site of Struc- ture No. 164A (Greyhound Bus Station) and to the site of Structure No. 173 (Station Restaurant). Requires demoli- tion of all the PRI. (Struc- ture C) Adverse impacts to the Island area and along the West Hill. Adverse impact to Cass Park users with retaining walls along Cass Park and ' rester adverse im- pact with fill slopes aims Case Park. Adverse impacts to the Island area and along the West Hill. Adverse impact to Cass Park users with retaining walls along Cass Park and g reater adverse im- pact with fill slopes along Case Park. Adverse Impacts to the Island area and along the West Hill. Adverse impact to Cass Park users with retaining walls u•p along Cass Park and greater adverse ion - pact with fill slopes' along Cass Park. 9 Meadow Street te. Heepital Driveway Vla Route 96 Improvements. C LOW-LEVEL NORTINOUND (Magnitude of 'afferent* compared to Alt. C. Kigh- 6eve0 2.80 Accidents per MVM - One -Way Pair 5.51 Accidents per MVM - City & 2.03 Accidents per MVM - Town Improves Octopus operation thru separation of Rte. 96 & Rte. 89 traffic. Min. LOS D provided except for 3 individual intersec- tion approaches. Improvements to Rte. 96 to south of Duboise Rd. Improved access by separating Rte. 96 & Rte.. 89 traffic from the Octopus via 2 new bridges crossing the flood control chan- nel. Conrail R.R. at grade with Rte. 96. O Travel time estimated at 4.7 minutes. -2.1 None Same impacts as noted for Alternate C - High Level and its Options, except that Site 8 , located on the island, would not be impacted. Encourages growth in Tompkins Com. Hosp. area. Restricts growth in W. End & along W. Hill. Severs 88-91 acre of undeveloped woodland wino access. Significant impact to Planned Cayuga Inlet a Island Redev. reelect. Requires .one lets Conner- c(al building. 5-2,500 None Deregulation of Barge Canal None Same as Option No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 Alternative C. High. Level Northbound Shown Above Same as noted for Alternative C. I3t-79 CHAPTER V Project Coordination V. PROJECT COORDINATION A. SUMMARY OF MEETINGS HELD WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, GROUPS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS FROM OCTOBER, 1976, TO OCTOBER, 1984. Five different meetings were held from October, 1976, to March, 1977. These were Committee Meetings attended by local officials and other local interest groups. Urban and rural alternatives that were based on a four -lane divided roadway that would represent the intent of Alternatives 2A as recom- mended in the 1976 FEIS were presented and reviewed. It was during this period of time that the City Scheme and County Scheme was presented for consideration by the local officials. NYSDOT was notified by the local officials in June, 1977, that there would be no local support for any of the rural alternatives that were developed north of the hospital (See Figure 9). The City of Ithaca requested that the DOT develop lesser impact type alternatives at a meeting held in September, 1977. These alternatives would include a new two-lane road- way facility, a second bridge scheme, at -grade crossing of the railroad and one-way traffic traffic patterns on Meadow Street and Fulton Street. These lesser impact type alternatives were discussed by DOT, the Ithaca Committee and others at a meeting in December, 1977. The Seneca Street/Green. Street alternative was introduced and reviewed at this meeting. Several other meetings were held through 1978 for the purpose of informing the Ithaca Design Committee of the project status and in order to receive comments from the committee. A Feasibility Report was prepared that included the City Plan, the County Plan and the Comprehensive Low Impact (CLI) Plan in early 1979. The CLI Plan included numerous suggestions such as providing modifications to the existing Octopus intersection, constructing a new bridge crossing over the Flood Control Channel from Buffalo Street to Cliff Street that would be grade separated over existing Park Road with ramps connecting from Buffalo Street/Cliff Street to Park Road, providing widening of Cliff Street to regulation width, providing a third lane on existing Cliff Street for alternate lane usage and other suggestions for improving access to the hospital/emergency medical care center and for providing public transportation alternatives. The Feasibility Report concluded that the City Plan and the County Plan could be considered as alternatives for the improvement of Route 96, but that the CLI Plan cannot be considered as an alternative for various reasons. The city officials reviewed this report in March of 1979 and found the report acceptable. Also, the city requested that DOT include the following urban alternatives for the Route 96 Improvements. 1. City Plan 2. County Plan 3. Green -Seneca 3 Plan 4. U-7 Mod. 2 Plan 5. U-7 Mod. 3 Plan Subsequent to the city's request to include the five alternatives noted above estimated construction costs were prepared for each. It was during this period of time that economic constraints limited the amount of construction that NYSDOT could budget for this project and such alternatives as stage construction and construction of a "Short Route" were pursued. Approximately 24 meetings were held from 1979 thru October, 1984, for the purpose of advising local officials and interested groups of the project development and for the purpose of gathering input from these groups. Three of the plans were determined to be not acceptable for stage construction during this period and were eliminated from further consideration. These plans included the City Plan, the Green -Seneca Plan and the U-7 Mod. 2 Plan. The suggestion for a Short Route was submitted in April, 1981, and reviewed at the meetings of October, 1981, May, 1982 and September, 1982. The Short Route plan was deter- mined to be inadequate for further consideration. The County Plan was eliminated from further considera- tion per the city's request at the meetings held in 1983 and 1984. The meetings held from 1979 thru October, 1984, resulted in the U-7, Mod. 3 Plan being adopted for stage construction of the Urban portion and a combination of the R-2 and R-3 plan being adopted for the Rural portion. The first stage would have included construction of all of the Urban portion, except for the northbound portion from Meadow Street to the vicinity of Cass Park. The southbound portion of new Route 96 from Cass Park to the Island area would have to be widened an additional lane width in order to accommodate two-way traffic during the stage one period. Three lanes would be constructed through the Rural Section under Stage One. V-2 n B. SUMMARY OF MEETINGS HELD WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, GROUPS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS FROM OCTOBER, 1984, TO DATE OCTOBER 17, 1984, NYSDOT REGIONAL OFFICE, SYRACUSE, NY The status of the project was reviewed with Local, City, Town and County officials. These officials were in- formed that the Department was intent on completing the preliminary design studies and progressing this project to a Public Hearing. There was sentiment on the part of some of these officials to include some lower scale alternatives, such as a second bridge alternative over the Flood Control Channel. Also, an Optional Low - Level Northbound Alignment for the four -lane project alternative was favored for inclusion in the project. Subsequent to the above meeting, the project was re- evaluated. Project objectives and design criteria were modified to allow lower scale alternatives to the original four -lane divided facility. The result of this re-evaluation was the development of Alternatives A and B representing the lower scale alternatives and Alternative C representing the intent of the location Alternative 2A (Modified) as origi- nally recommended in the 1976 FEIS. APRIL 16, 1985, CENTRAL FIRE STATION, ITHACA, NY Informational briefing to local officials on the revised project objectives and design criteria for the Route 96 project. The three project alternatives to be advanced were presented. They were: Alternative A, a low scale facility providing a second bridge connection to Cliff Street north or the Octopus; Alternative B, a two-lane plus truck climbing lane facility on new location; and Alternative C, a four -lane divided facility on new loca- tion. Department representatives also informed the local officials that similar open -house type presenta- tions would be held for special groups upon request. APRIL 29, 1985, PIPE FITTERS & PLUMBERS UNION HALL, ITHACA, NY Informational meeting in the afternoon with the Ithaca Chamber of Commerce. A request was made to conduct a study of the effects of relocating the northbound align- ment of Alternative C to avoid taking the I.D. Booth, Inc., plumbing supply building. APRIL 29, 1985, BOYNTON MIDDLE SCHOOL, ITHACA, NY Evening Public Informational Meeting with Ithaca area officials and the general public. The project history and design alternatives were presented by the Department together with a discussion of the tasks that remain to be completed. A handout brochure was given to all in which the three project alternatives were shown with a description of each. The general public and local special interest groups were invited to request individ- ual group meetings with the Department to discuss their concerns and/or recommendations. JUNE 11, 1985, TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, TOWN OF ITHACA, NY. Informational meeting in the early afternoon with the Hospital Board concerning the alternatives being con- sidered in the vicinity of the hospital. Two options in the alignment of Alternatives B and C near the hospital parking lots were presented and discussed. Members of the Board expressed their concerns relative to having direct access to their emergency room, possible noise impacts and the impact of project alternatives on the existing hospital parking lots. JUNE 11, 1985, TOWN HALL, TRUMANSBURG, NY Evening informational meeting with officials and interested residences of the Town of Ulysses. Following a. presentation of the project alternatives., members of the Town Board expressed their concern about the possi- bility of runaway trucks on the descent of West Hill and also their concern over the existing DuBoise Road inter- section with Route 96. JUNE 12, 1985, NYSDOT RESIDENCY BUILDING, ITHACA, NY Project review meeting with Regional representatives of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Input relative to envi- ronmental issues was requested by the Department from these advisory agencies. V-4. JUNE 12, 1985, GREATER ITHACA ACTIVITIES CENTER, ITHACA, NY Evening informational meeting with Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services and the League of Women Voters. Fol- lowing the presentation of alternatives, Department rep- resentatives responded to questions and concerns from these two groups regarding traffic circulation, parking, funding for the project, procedures for right-of-way appraisals and acquisition, and truck traffic. The pro- posed displacement of nine homes located at the bottom of Cliff Street north of the Octopus under Alternative A was a particular concern. A suggestion was proposed to modify Alternative A by relocating Park Road across the Flood Control Channel to Taughannock Boulevard near the tip of the island, where it would either proceed southerly along Taughannock Boulevard to Buffalo Street, or continue easterly across the Old Cayuga Inlet (canal) to. intersect Meadow Street in the vicinity of Esty'Street. JUNE 18, 1985, TOMPKINS COUNTY COURTHOUSE, ITHACA, NY Informational meeting with Tompkins County officials to discuss the range of project alternatives and their potential impacts. Among the items discussed was the redesign of a portion of State Street in response to input from city officials. The county. officials exhi- biteda scale model of the urban portion of Alternative C at this meeting incorporating the high-level option for the northbound roadway over Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel. JUNE 19, 1985, PIPE FITTERS & PLUMBERS UNION HALL, ITHACA, NY Informational meeting with a local group known as Citi- zens Concerned About Ninety -Six (Route 96). This group made a series of suggestions regarding modifications to Alternative A. They included revisions to both Route 96 at the bottom of Cliff Street north of the Octopus and to the Route 89 (Park Road) connection to Route 96 and/or the proposed Fulton Street/Meadow Street one-way pair. Members of this group also asked that an earlier concept known as the "short route" be re-evaluated by the Department. JUNE 20, 1985, COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NY Informational meeting with the Ithaca City Council. The Council asked the Department to again study the feasi- bility of widening Cliff Street (Route 96) on existing V-5 location along the West Hill. A major item of discus- sion was the delay to traffic resulting from Conrail train movements passing through the West End. The Council requested the Department to investigate.the legal framework within which the Department could operate in regard to regulation of train movements with- in the city. JUNE 26, 1985, WEST HILL SCHOOL, ITHACA, NY Informational meeting with the West Hill Civic Associ- ation. Following the presentation of project alterna- tives, a suggestion was made to modify Alternative A. This suggestion involved the relocation of Route 89 from its present intersection with Route 96 to an alignment providing new bridge crossings of the Flood Control Channel and Old Cayuga Inlet. This alignment would intersect Taughannock Boulevard and Fulton Street at grade, and also included a new connection to_Cliff Street. AUGUST 20, 1985, TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, TOWN OF ITHACA, NY Early morning meeting held at the request of the Hos- pital Board of Directors, Members of the Board expressed their desire to have the Department study an additional optional alignment under both Alternatives B and C, to be located farther south than either of the two optional alignments presented at the June 11, 1985 meeting with the Board. Such an option would permit the possibility of a future expansion of the adjacent hospital parking facilities. AUGUST 20, 1985, PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTUTION (PRI), TOWN OF ITHACA, NY Late morning meeting with PRI officials. These offi- cials stressed that many of the scientific specimens housed in their main building and within the auxiliary building were "one -of -a -kind" and highly susceptible to vibrations in their opinion. They indicated that they would cooperate in the development of an additional option for Alternatives B and C. However, they also indicated that selection of any alternative and option requiring the PRI to relocate would be very expensive and require a considerable amount of time to make the move. AUGUST 20, 1985, WOMEN'S COMMUNITY CENTER, ITHACA, NY An afternoon "workshop" with representatives of the V-6 r n F local group known as Citizens Concerned About Ninety -Six (CCAN), held to address their earlier concerns regarding possible modifications of project alternatives and other related issues. The following major concepts/issues were discussed: o Two-way traffic instead of the proposed one-way traffic pattern on Fulton and Meadow Streets would result in an unacceptable Level of -Service for design year traffic. A relocation of Route 89 from the southern end of Cass Park to Fulton Street would result in a signi- ficant increase in construction cost,,the need to acquire additional public park land and other prop- erty, plus some localized deterioration in traffic flow along Fulton Street. o The Department presented the results of further investigation of a "short route" alignment for Route 96 tying into existing Route 96 as soon as possi- ble. No alignment could be developed to meet pro- ject design criteria. o The traffic projections for the project were dis- cussed and related to actual traffic growth as.indi- cated by historical counts taken along Route 96. This evaluation indicated that design year traffic volumes are reasonable. NOVEMBER 19, 1985, TOMPKINS COUNTY COURTHOUSE, ITHACA, NY Mid-afternoon informational meeting with City, Town and County officials regarding the status of the Route 96 project and the Department, response to the series of. comments and suggested modifications of project alterna- tives received at the series of previously held local group meetings. Other issues discussed included: the possibility of recommending a design modification at the time of selection of an. alternative (such as a combina- tion of Alternatives B and C); the likely incidence of runaway trucks per alternative; and traffic capacity needs to accommodate traffic for special events held at Cass Park. NOVEMBER 19, 1985, ITHACA HIGH SCHOOL, ITHACA, NY Evening Public Informational Meeting with Ithaca area officials and the general public. Approximately 150-170 persons were in attendance. The program included a pre- sentation of Alternatives A, B, and C, followed by a detailed discussion and response to each of the comments V-7 and suggested modifications to these alternatives as received by the Department during the series of local meetings held during the summer of 1985. A total of 22 individual responses were presented, covering project traffic projections, design features common to all alternatives, suggested modifications to Alternatives A, B, and C both in the City and Town of Ithaca portions of the project, benefit/cost analyses, accident history, Conrail train movements, and other minor design aspects. At the conclusion of the presentation, it was announced that Alternative A (Optional Route 89 Alignment), and also a third optional alignment on the West Hill for both Alternatives B and C would be added to the project. DECEMBER 19, 1986, NYSDOT REGIONAL OFFICE, SYRACUSE, NY Meeting with City and County officials to present the Department's findings of an evaluation made for a sug- gested "overpass type" alternative (locally referred to as Alternative D) which was submitted to the Department during April, 1986, by the City of Ithaca. It was pointed out that this alternative would result in severe impacts to local businesses, provided an unacceptable Level of Service, and included too many substandard features for the estimated cost. Since it offered no significant improvement over Alternative C, it would not be included as a viable project alternative. SEPTEMBER 22, 1987, NYSOPRHP FINGER LAKES REGION OFFICE, TRUMANSBURG, NY Meeting with City of Ithaca officials and staff of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preserva- tion to determine whether acceptable replacement land is available to replace the public park land (6f) that would be acquired by the project. City officials it described the location of all available land. It was subsequently agreed by NYSOPRHP staff that it appears that adequate and acceptable lands are available for replacement purposes. V-8 VI. SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION A. INTRODUCTION This project may require the acquisition of land in Cass Park, "owned by the City of Ithaca and used as park land and for recreational activities. Certain alternatives for this project may affect properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of National., State, or Local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or Local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of a National, State, or Local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land,. and (2) such project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use. The required determination is known as a 4(f) Evaluation. Also, Section 460 L -8(f) of Title 16, United States Code, states that property acquired or developed with funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (6f lands) may not be converted to other than outdoor recreational uses without the substi- tution of property and the approval of the Secretary of .the. Interior. Project impacts on 4(f) land had been considered during earlier development of this project by the inclusion of a 4(f) determination in the Final Environmental Impact State- ment (FEIS) for Route 13 and 96, Ithaca, New York, approved June 3, 1976. In that document, corridor locations were _ evaluated, and as a part of the evaluation an agreement was reached between the New York State Department of Transporta- tion and the City of Ithaca to compensate the City of Ithaca. for any park land acquired for construction of the new high- way. The corridor locations are shown on Figure 2. Alter- ative 2A, which is now approximated by the Alternative C High -Level option, was included under the original agreement. This agreement was concurred with by the Department of the Interior, Bureau•of Outdoor Recreation, as satisfying the funding criteria associated with the original purchase of park land. The agreement provided that the Department of Transportation would purchase necessary park land from the City of Ithaca at fair market value and the city would then use that money to purchase replacement park land. A new agreement will be prepared to provide for the acquisition and replacement of any 6(f) land required by the specific alternative selected under this project. VI -1 r � B. DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) RESOURCES 1. PARK LANDS Figure 50 shows Cass Park, a 94+ acre park located partially within the project area, and Allan H. Treman State Marine Park sited adjacent to Cass Park on the north. Cass Park is owned by the City of Ithaca and consists of three parcels of land as shown on Figure 50. The largest parcel is situated on the west side of the Flood Control Channel. Its present development is shown on Figure 51 and includes: several ball fields with lighting, a children's playground and tot -lot, toilet facilities, picnic shelter, archery range, a bike/walking trail and parking lots. Other facilities located within the boundaries of Cass Park, but to the north of Parcel 1, include: a covered skating rink, an olympic-size swimming pool, tennis courts, boat launching sites, a children's wading pool, a bathhouse, sports fields and parking lots. Access to Parcel 1 and the remainder of Cass Park is provided by Route 89. The other two parcels are situated on the Island between the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel, north of Buffalo Street and west of Taughannock Boulevard. These two parcels are presently underdeveloped. Access to both parcels is via Buffalo Street and/or Taughannock Boulevard. A Little League ball field located along the west side of Cass Park, just north of the archery range, is partially situated outside the boundary of Cass Park (See Figure 51). The ball field consists of a 1.9 acre parcel owned by the City of Ithaca. This parcel is considered additional 4(f) land based on its current usage. ') The Cayuga Inlet Trail is an existing bike/walking trail located along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel that is part of the New York State Office of Parks, Finger Lakes Region. This trail would be maintained under any of the build alternatives and is shown on Figures 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59. Separate discussions are included under each alternative in Section C, PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACT ON 4(f) RESOURCES later in this chapter. 1 -Th CAYUGA LAKE 1.,Iet LEGEND =CASS PARK,. ALLAN H. TREMAN �-- __STATE MARINE PARK ADDITIONAL 4(f) LAND 0 400 GOO feet FIGURE 50 PARK LANDS ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER I- 3 LAN H TREMA TATE MARINE PARK \ \ \ Marina \ HANGAR THEATRE \\ Golf. Course ROAD \I WADING' POOL TENNIS COURTS cP BOAT LAUNCHING SITES 'SKATING RINK BATHHOUSE 'SWIMMING POOL '3. . [ARCHERY RANGE CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND/ TOT LOT p HOPPER PI. y (SUNRISE RO 17. cc LEGEND CASS PARK ADDITIONAL 4(f) LAND tutu Emma BIKE / WALK ING••" TRAIL n 0 0 400 800 f e.e t. FIGURE 51 CASS PARK EXISTING DEVELOPEMENT ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3 047.0 4 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER 3EL-4 Adjacent to Cass Park to the north is Allan H. Treman State Marine Park as shown on Figure'50. Although this park abuts Cass Park, the only anticipated impact to the park under any of the build alternativeswould be the improvement of accessibility. - 2. PARK LANDS SUBJECT TO SECTION 6(f) PROCESS In 1964,.the City of Ithaca purchased 48 acres of land from the Lehigh Valley Railroad with 0.5 million dollars contributed by the US Department of Interior through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, and matching funds con- tributed by the State of New York, the Appalachian Regional Commission and the City of Ithaca. The municipality's intent in purchasing this land was to provide supplemental acreage for the Cayuga. Lake and Cass Park Development and to provide space for the construction of an arterial highway which would provide improved access to,the park. An agreement made by the city with the US Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, for -federal funding assistance, explicitly states that assistance was given to the city for the purchase of the railroad land provided the municipality develop the entire area for public outdoor recreation use. The agreement states: "The municipality shall not at any time sell, convey or convert...to other than a public outdoor recreation use, without -the express authority of an act of the legislature and theconsent of the Secretary of the Interior." A portion of this'purchased land was used for the con- struction of the Flood Control Channel, thereby trisecting the remaining property into the three parcels identified on Figure 52. Parcel 1, which encompasses approximately 33 acres adjacent to the Flood Control Channel was filled, graded, provided with drainage facilities and developed into a major portion of Cass Park in the summer of 1973. Parcels 2 and 3 encompass approximately 4.3 and 0.5 acres of land respectively. Both parcels are currently in the process of being removed from park land usage by the City of Ithaca. The city has obtained authorization to alienate the subject lands obtained through an Act of the New York State Legislature which was passed in March, 1985.The. New York State office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preserva- tion (NYSOPRHP) is now in the process of completing its review of the alienation. Copies of correspondence from the City of Ithaca that documents its action of alienation is included under Appendix M. All of the build alternatives would require acquisition of small amounts of 4(f) lands in the City of Ithaca, the majority of which are subject to the section 6(f) process. VI -5 LEGEND RS6 6(f) LANDS ADDITIONAL 4(f) LAND ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS R I.N. 3 047.0 4 TOMPKINS COUNTY 3/E-6 Robert E. Sm ill; CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER r-� After extensive research with various agencies, copies of the original application for 4(f) lands seems to be unavailable . Cass Park was one of the first parks processed under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program. The City of Ithaca has indicated that upon selection of an alternative for Route 9.6 and approval by FHWA, the city will be willing to enter into negotiations with the Depart- ment for designation and acquisition of necessary replacement land for 6(f) landtakenby the project. The City of Ithaca and the NYSDOT will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to provide for replacement land for the 6(f) land specif- ically acquired for Route 96 once a determination is made on a recommended alternative. Also, on September 22, 1987, the NYSDOT met with repre- sentatives of the NYSOPRHP Finger Lakes Region and the City of Ithaca concerning the alienation of City of Ithaca Park Land as part of the Route 96 realignment and proposed sub- stitute property. The NYSOPRHP indicated that the potential replacement land for 6(f) land needed for this project appears to satisfy the intent of the conversion requirements as established by the National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. However, subsequent to the meeting of September 22, 1987,,more detailed soils information became, available that indicated that there may be costly foundation construction costsassociated with the retaining walls that are proposed along Cass Park. Therefore, an alternate design with 1 on 2 fill slopes is provided through the area of the retaining walls along Cass Park. The NYSOPRHP and the city has been advised of the alternate designandadditional meetings will be held to secure their input. A copy of the correspondence from the City of Ithaca covering the September 22, 1987 meeting is included under Appendix M. Final approval of the conversion would be subject to the appraisal process including State Legislative Approval and the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. This is a time-consuming approval process and need not be completed prior to submission of a Section 4(f) determination to the Secretary of Transportation. 3. HISTORIC SITES A Cultural Resource Survey Report was prepared in February, 1978, supplemented in January, 1981, and again in December, 1984, to identify properties listed or eligible for VI -7 the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 USC 470(f) (Section 106 process). The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has determined that eight sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and that three sites are potentially eligible for inclusion. Also, SHPO has determined that one site is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. No significant archeological sites were identified within the project area. Section IV.A.2.e, Historic and Archeological sites, includes the results of the cultural resources evaluation and review process including the SHPO determination of -eligi- bility. Figure 42 shows the Historic site locations and their descriptions. Appendix I contains the correspondence for the Cultural Resource Inventory which includes the results of the cultural resources survey(s). Figure No. 53 shows the location of Historic Structures within the city and Figure No. 54 shows the location of Historic Structures within the town. The following paragraphs describe the Historic Proper- ties identified within the project area. The structure numbers refer to the listings included in the cultural re- sources survey report and their locations are illustrated on Figures 53 and 54. The status of eligible site, potentially eligible site or listed site is as determined by SHPO. Structure No. 25 (Eligible Site) was a three-story commercial building located at 535 - 539 West State Street that was built in the 1860's. Its notable features included original clapboard, six -over -six windows and 19th century storefronts. However; this building was recently removed and is no longer located within the project area. Structure No. 120 (Eligible Site) is located at 621 West Buffalo Street. This structure is one of the West End's few examples of middle class Victorian architecture built in the late 1870's or early 1880's. Its notable features include a "T" plan with projecting wing toward the street and a wrap- around front porch with balustrade. This type of Victorian architecture has been the exception rather than the rule, in the historically vernacular residential and commercial con- struction of the area. Structure No. 143 (Eligible Site) is located at 612 West State Street. This structure is probably the West End's best example of middle class Victorian architecture. This struc- ture has typical Queen Anne features including 3 -sided gable- capped bays, on side and front. Front and rear porches are VI -8 2 4- STRUCTURE • NO 16.E _STRUCTURE + N0. 120 rGaging Statlan TN/RD F/RST T Tncy \ 1■ h �r nri2-43400 800 feet FIGURE 53 LOCATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES WITHIN CITY sem. AFF r y _ ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 31C-9 Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER STRUCTURE STRUCTURE I STRUCTURE H �o• 'Ao STRUCTURE A r Re R 0A0 STRUCTURE 8 STRUCTURE C (R R.I.) CAY.U6A LAKE FIGURE 54 LOCATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES WITHIN TOWN. ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS R.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 0 400 800 feet 3E—I0 Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER intact with turned posts and simple fan brackets. Thisform and class of building is the exception rather than the rule in the historically vernacular residential and commercial construction of the West End. Structure No. 164A (Listed Site) is the Greyhound Bus. Station located near the intersection of State Street and Fulton Street in the heart of the West End's commercial area. This building, now a bus terminal, replaced a wooden struc- ture that served the local Delaware and Lackawanna passenger depot during much of the 19th century. The notable features include the original arched windows and brick work. Structure No. 136 (Potentially Eligible Site) is a residence located at 615 West Seneca Street and is sited among semi -preserved 19th century residences that contrast with modern commercial construction. This residence is an unusually ornamented late 19th century residence in the historically vernacular construction in the West End. Its cornices are decorated with modillion details and it posesses a highly ornate entrance canopy with heavy scroll brackets. Structure No. 172 (Potentially Eligible Site) is known as the Valley House located at 801 West Buffalo Street. This structure was constructed about 1873 to 1882 and was origi- nally known as the "Lehigh Valley House". This railroad hotel was built at a time when the Lehigh Valley Railroad was assuming control of most of Ithaca's rails. It was located very close to the old Lehigh Valley passenger depot. Notable features of this building include restored clapboard and shutters, paired cornice brackets and details. The structure is irregularly shaped (unsquare) and conforms with the shape of its lot. Structure No. 173 (Listed Site) is the Station Restau- rant located at 806 West Buffalo Street. This structure was built in 1898 by the Lehigh Valley Railroad. The 1976 National Register describes this former Lehigh Valley depot as an "electric passenger station.. renovated for restaurant. Built to serve trains, including the New York - Toronto Maple Leaf and various seasonal specials, that operated in the city from 1828 to 1961." Some of the notable features include several late 19th or early 20th century railroad passenger cars that are set on tracks and are connected to the main building, a rear baggage wing, waiting platform and a free standing clock. Structures A, B and C (Eligible Sites) are situated along the east side of Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca, just south of the Tompkins Community Hospital. They, VI -11 along with the auxiliary building associated with Structure C are historically linked together as part of the Odd Fellows Rebekah's Home complex. The Odd Fellows Rebekah's Home Complex, c. 1930, is architecturally significant as an English Tudor style institutional complex with its stucco, stone and half timber wall surfacing, steeply pitched roof, varied eaveline heights and tall narrow windows with multi - pane glazing. Sited to take advantage of Cayuga Lake and surrounded by an open expanse of lawn, the complex still retains a strong integrity even with Structure B's later additions. It is historically significant for its association with the conclusion of the Progressive era (1880- 1930) of institutional child care in New York. The Odd Fellows Rebekah's Home Complex reflects the early 20th century change from large congregate institutions to smaller, cottage plan, family -like homes for children. The complex was built as an orphanage with a residence. (Structure A), administrative/classroom facility (Structure B), and dorm- itory (Structure C). Cornell University later purchased the property and turned the orphanage into the Paleontological Research Institution (PRI) and the other buildings became storage and classroom/research/office space. The auxiliary building to Structure C was originally a garage but now houses the specimen collections for the Paleontological Research Institution. Structures H, I and J (Eligible Sites) are located along Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca opposite the Tompkins Community Hospital near the Hayts School Road intersection with Trumansburg Road. They are collectively known as Hayts Corners, are architecturally and historically significant as a cluster of early to mid -nineteenth century structures exemplary of period architecture and are associated with Deacon Charles Hayt. Mr. Hayt was a prominent early settler, land owner, religious leader and abolitionist. Architecturally, these structures are relatively unaltered examples of Federal/Greek Revival style building. The residence is a transition period structure with transom and sidelights flanking the entrance, pedimented gable ends with oval windows, and corner pilas- ters. Hayt donated the lot on which the chapel was built and, after leaving Ithaca's First Presbyterian Church due to a dispute on the slavery issue, he conducted services there. It is a Gothic Revival chapel with pinnacles and drip moulds over the windows. Lastly, the school house is an intact survivor of a Greek Revival school house with cornice returns, a pediment -shaped lintel over the entrance, and a semi -circular gable louver. C. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACT ON 4(f) RESOURCES 1. IMPACT ON PARK LANDS As previously noted, a 4(f) evaluation and determination had been included in the FEIS approved in 1976 for Route 13 and 96. That document identified the location alternatives for Route 96. Its approval established the corridor within which specific design alternatives were to be, developed and evaluated. This document evaluates the impact of alter- native alignments for Route 96 located within the "approved" corridor. The Alternative Corridor Locations From the 1976 FEIS are shown on Figure No. 2. The 1976 FEIS concluded that there was only one feasible "corridor location" for the reconstruction of Route 96 in the vicinity of Cass Park. All of the Route 96 corridors were sited within a narrow band that was located near the westerly side of Cass Park as shown on Figure No. 2. The 1976 FEIS also noted that development of a location alternative to the west is restricted by the extensive social, economic, envir- onmental and engineering impacts associated with the steep hillside and existing development of the area. These same impacts caused the reconstruction of Route 96 along the existing alignment to be unfeasible. Development of location alternatives to the east are restricted by Cayuga Lake and Old Cayuga Inlet. Severe adverse impacts to Cass Park and existing development.in the area would be incurred as well as major traffic engineering problems being created by the con- nection to the existing street system. The present series of build alternatives includes Alter- natives B and C that would be on new location along the West Hill area that are similar to those studied under the 1976 FEIS and Alternative A that is more limited in magnitude. This alternative would connect into existing Route 96 (Cliff Street) just north of the existing Octopus. Recent studies to improve existing Route 96 by widening the roadway sufficiently to provide for a two-lane plus truck climbing lane from the Octopus intersection north to the vicinity of the Tompkins Community Hospital resulted in the displacement of approximately 33 residences and twocom- mercial buildings. The same constraints associated with the one feasible "corridor location" described in the 1976 FEIS and noted above still apply for the present build alterna- tives that would be on new location along the West Hill. The 1976 FEIS selected corridor was Alternate 2A- Modified with two options at the hospital; either north or south of that facility. However, the original 4(f) determination was based on the area at Cass Park, with no 4(f) involvement sited on the West Hill in the vicinity of the hospital. Three four -lane alternatives were developed north of the hospital prior to 1984. and are shown on Figure 9. These alternatives were discarded due to extensive social and engineering impacts. They resulted in greater impact to the Indian Creek Road and Duboise Road residential areas, as well as resulting in "out of direction" travel routes to the hospital. The alternatives preferred by the local interest groups are the alternatives that pass south of the hospital. As noted earlier in Chapter III..B of this Design Report/ DEIS, three "Build" Alternatives, designated as Alternatives A, B, and C, as well as the "No Build" or Null Alternative are presently being considered for the Route 96 project. The impact of each of the alternatives on park land with respect to right-of-way acquisition, accessibility, noise, air qual- ity, land use and visual quality is discussed in succeeding paragraphs. The location of each of the alternatives with respect to the required parklands is shown on Figures 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59. Table 23 lists the Comparison of Alternatives and Their Impacts to Park Lands and Historic -Sites. The following describes each alternative and the impacts to park lands that would occur under each of the alterna- tives: a. Null Alternative (Do Nothing) The Null Alternative would cause no impacts to the identified Park Lands or to the previously described historic sites. However, the Null Alternative would not satisfy the project needs and objectives. b. Alternative A This alternative isa low scale facility providing improvements only within the City of Ithaca and, as such, requires the least amount of park land area of any of the build alternatives. 0.1 acres would be required from Parcel 2 of Cass Park as shown on Figure 55. Parcel 2 is an undeveloped portion of Cass Park and therefore no existing or planned recreational activities would be affected. OCTOPUS INTERSECTION �` y Qom. / Alternative A 15R1 - • ROUTE 96 spa xr • w4r(F £L £v j , yF' ►-. ,macnye. e .�)—.lrwtsa4� ��_ T Cr -IV --ILA l. i — - i.) —_ ——'` FIGURE 55 wi �- REQUIRED PARK LANDS ALTERNATIVE A Wee 5 3, g LEGEND EXISTING 4(f)/6(f) LANDS AREA OF REQUIRED PARK LANDS 0 100 200 feet. ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS Rl.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert F. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER MC -15 Access to Parcels 2 and 3 would remain unchanged. Access to Parcel 1 would also remain unchanged except for a slight out -of -direction movement for those persons traveling to or from the Octopus intersection area. Alternative A would cause these persons to travel via State Street to Taughannock Boulevard and onto Buffalo Street (New Route 96). Air and Noise analysis and evaluation indicated that Alternate A would have no effect on the existing or planned park usage. The anticipated visual impact to park users resulting from this alternative would be minor. The existing Cayuga Inlet Trail would be grade separated and relocated under the new Route 96 crossing of the Flood Control Channel. c. Alternative A. Optional Route 89 Alignment This option is also a low scale facility providing improvements only within the City of Ithaca. This option would relocate Route 89 across the Flood Control Channel through Parcel 2 on the island. This option is estimated to require 0.9 acres from Parcel 2, as shown on Figure 56. No existing or planned recreational activities would be affected since this parcel is an undeveloped portion of Cass Park. In addition, 0.1 acres would be required from Parcel 1._ See Figure 56. This latter area is situated within the general location of the high tension aerial electric lines that are located within Cass Park. There are no existing or planned recreational activities within this area of Parcel 1. Access to Parcels 2 and 3 would remain unchanged. Access to Parcel would be via relocated Route 89 from Taughannock Boulevard at the Buffalo Street intersection. This would cause a slight out -of -direction movement for those persons situated south and west of the Octopus intersection, but would im-prove access for those persons located east of the Octopus. intersection. The analysis of air and noise impacts indicated that this optional alignment would have no affect on the existing or planned park usage. This alternative will present an adverse visual impact for park users due to the change in scale and spatial dominance of the new bridge as it crosses the inlet island. The existing Cayuga Inlet Trail would be grade separated and relocated under the new Route 96 crossing and the re- located Route 89 crossing of the Flood Control Channel. VI -16 n g. PUS INTERSECTION NTER ECTION plternoive A — -.. ROUTE 96 - CLIFF S 1-I1i 89 Align,cy44,�• • •�• A/t 0 Ti zI r N--...--t;,l4t 757^ A Y - PAW 1 EXIST. ROA__ _ - TAUONANNOCX BLYO. 16. r• • OL O CArU0 4 INLET 0 100 200 }est . LEGEND EXISTING 4(f1/6(f) LANDS AREA OF' REQUIRED PARK LANDS 0 • FIGURE 56 REQUIRED PARK LANDS ALTERNATIVE A (OPTIONAL. ROUTE 89 ALIGN.) ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3 047.0 4 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER SEE -17 d. Alternative B Alternative B is a new two-lane facility plus a truck climbing lane for northbound Route 96 that would skirt Cass Park as shown on Figure 57. Retaining walls with a maximum height of 40+ feet are proposed for inclusion with the construction of relocated Route 89 and new Route 96 along Cass Park, Parcel 1. This would help to minimize the amount of park land needed and would also serve to maintain the position of the existing high tension aerial electric lines located in and along Cass Park on the old Lehigh Valley Railroad bed. The site of the retaining walls is near the divide of the inlet valley and the West Hill. As noted under the soils considerations in Section III.C.8.b, the deep soft clay and silt in the inlet valley will require detailed investigation and engineering. analysis to determine acceptable design criteria for embank- ment and structures. This detailed investigation would occur during final design, should this alternative be selected. Therefore, an optional design has been included that would provide for fill slopes in lieu of the retaining walls along Cass Park. Minor land acquisition would be required from Parcel 2 (0.1 Acres). Parcel 2 is located north of Buffalo Street as shown on Figure 57. This land acquisition is not within any of the existing or planned activity areas of Cass Park. Parcel 1 is situated on the West Hill along Park Road as shown on Figure 57. Three different sites could be involved in Parcel 1; one site located near the lighted ball fields just south of Linderman Creek where relocated Route 89 would intersect with new Route 96, another site located near the south end of Cass Park where the new connection between Park Road and Cliff Street would be constructed and another possible site locatedalong the archery range. As mentioned above, the design considered the use of retaining wall for skirting Cass Park with an optional design given for fill slopes in place ofthe retaining walls. The area of required park land with retaining walls or with fill slopes is shown on Figure 57. The required park land area in Parcel 1 for the site near the south end of Cass Park is 0.1 acres. See Figure 57. This site is outside of the retaining wall area proposed along the west side of Cass Park. The required park land area is located near the existing high tension electrical lines and is outside of any existing or planned activity areas. VI -18 0-0 X3837 38 7x. X 38'i II 1177 PROPOSE BRIDGE NO. 3 EXISTING BRIDGE NO.3151' fee _... 36? OLO ..' , ,� 38. R4j4 C4 Yf:G4 N 1. 6' r y 383 4C%„ rav .. fAb e_ — _ 1 X ...7; 2r—^._ -*-s xa m - — xv^'ffiT Ayr-, ,.Ji _ t 3878 f ler :877 �_i • * AREA (in acres) OF REQUIRED PARK LAND LOCATION Along Archery Range Along Little League Field Along Relocated Route 89 WITH RETAINING WALLS 0 O 0.2 WITH FILL SLOPES 0.1 O 0.8 Areas along the archery range and relocated Route 89 are wilhin the boundary of Cass Park 6(f) and the area along the Lillie League field Is within the parcel owned by the Clly of Ithaca referred to as additional 4(f) land. 0 100 feet 200 LEGEND EXISTING 6(f) LANDS 7� ADDITIONAL 4(f) LAND .4 Kt►*14 0s0_:0: AREA OF REQUIRED 6(f) LANDS WITH RETAINING WALLS AREA OF REQUIRED 6(f) LANDS WITH FILL SLOPES ct- FIGURE 57 REQUIRED PARK LANDS ALTERNATIVE B ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I. N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER /1-19 The required park land area in Parcel 1 that is sited along the archery range and along relocated Route 89 is within the location where the retaining wall(s) are proposed with an optional design for fill slopes in place of the retaining wall(s). The site located along the archery range would not be affected by the proposed retaining wall. How- ever, the optional design with fill slopes would require 0.1 acre of park land along the west side of Cass Park. The required area is located through an existing wooded area and is on the west side of the existing high tension electrical lines, outside of the archery range. There is no existing or planned activities within the required park land area along the archery range. The optional design with fill slopes may result in additional impacts caused by the possible need to relocate the existing 115 KV aerial electric lines along the archery range and the Little League Ball Field. Such a relocation would most likely occur through these two sites. The site located along relocated Route 89 near the lighted ball fields would result in 0.2 acres of required park land with retaining walls and 0.8 acres of required park land with fill slopes. The design with retaining walls would result in required park land area that is situated outside of the ball field area along the steeper hillside that is covered with brush and small trees. There is no existing or planned activities within this area. The optional design with fill slopes would result in required park land area that is situated partially within the lawn area along the right field line of the northwestern ball field. See. Figures 51 and 57. The required area would be limited on the east to a point about forty feet or more outside of the existing right field line and would not affect the playing area. Access to Cass Park, Parcel 1 would be via Buffalo Street onto the new Route 96 north to relocated Route 89 and then follows the relocated Route 89 to a planned connection back into existing Park Road north of Linderman Creek near the skating rink. Another point of access to Cass Park, Parcel 1, would be provided from Cliff Street via a new bridge overpass connecting into Park Road. Existing Route 89 (Park Road) would be eliminated from this overpass location south to the Octopus intersection. Existing Route 89 (Park Road) north of the overpass location to its planned intersec- tion with the relocated Route 89 would become a local city street serving Cass Park. The results of the air quality analysis indicated that Alternative B would have no affect on the existing or planned park usage. VI -20 The results of the noise impact analysis indicated a minor impact on Cass Park, Parcel 1. The design noise level would. be 6 dBA above the existing noise level but would be 9 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria associated with the FHWA activity category for a recreational area. There would be no noise impact to Parcels 2 and 3. Alternative B wouldhave adverse visual impact to the recreation users in Cass Park caused by the change in scale and the spatial dominance of the proposed bridge structures, earthen embankments and/or retaining walls. The existing Cayuga Inlet Trail would be grade -separated and relocated under the new Route 96 crossing of the Flood Control Channel. The trail would be shifted toward the Flood Control Channel from a point just north of the existing State Street bridge to a point near the new bridge overpass at the south end of Cass Park, Parcel 1. A retaining wall (Maximum height of 14+ feet) would separate new Route 96 and the relocated Cayuga Inlet Trail for about 600 lin. ft. past the new Route 96 crossing. e. Alternative C (Optional High -Level) Alternative C is -a four -lane divided facility that would skirt Cass Park as shown on Figure 58. This four -lane faci- lity splits into two separate one-way roadways near the south end of Cass Park that enters/exits the city proper across the Flood Control Channel,-' the Island and the Old Cayuga Inlet. This alternative would be on a similar location along Cass Park, Parcel 1 as Alternative B. However, Alternative C represents a larger facility that would involve slightly more park land than Alternative B. - Alternative C includes the retaining walls along Cass Park with an optional design for fill slopes in lieu of the retaining walls as previously described under Alternative B. Right-of-way acquisition for four separate areas is required from Parcel 1 and two separate areas from Parcel 2. Two of the sites involved in Parcel 1 are similar to the areas previously described under Alternative B; that is, -0.1 acre near the south end of Cass Park where the new connection between Park Road and Cliff Street would be constructed and 0.3 acres with retaining walls or 0.8 acres with fill slopes along relocated Route 89 near the lighted ball fields. As previously noted, the required park land area near the south end of Cass Park is located near the existing high tension electrical lines and is outside of any existing or planned activity area. Also, the required park land area with retaining walls along relocated Route 89 near the lighted 460..,. PROPOSED.. BRIDGE NO. 3 l�YA N""E,4 Lr"V 381 4 EXISTING BRIDGE OS 5� 3 3 O Q OLD CA} `a II LII .30x70 7 i:$VY, II- 0 J Q LL m Ni. E 7' r * AREA gyU04 /N<ET in acres) OF REQUIRED PARK LAND LOC ATI0N Along Archery Range WITH RETAINING WALLS 0.2 WITH FILL SLOPES 0.5 Along Lillie League Field Along Relocated Route 89 0 0.3 0.1 0.8 Areas along the archery range and relocated Route 89 aro within the boundary of Cass Park G(0) and the area along the Little League field Is within the parcel owned by the City of Ithaca referred to as additional 'i(I) land. 0 100 200 feet moo � , ►e,0otti ati LEGEND EXISTING 6(f) LANDS ADDITIONAL 4(f) LAND AREA OF REQUIRED 6(f) LANDS WITH RETAINING WALLS AREA OF REQUIRED 6(f) LANDS WITH FILL SLOPES AREA OF REQUIRED ADDITIONAL 4(f) LAND WITH FILL SLOPES FIGURE 58 REQUIRED PARK LANDS ALTERNATIVE C (OPTIONAL HIGH LEVEL) ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P N.3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER =-22 ball fields would be situated outside of the ball field area along the steeper hillside that is covered with brush and small trees while the optional design with fill slopes would be situated in an area that is partially within the lawn area along the right field line of the northwestern ball field, outside of the playing area. Another site is located along the western boundary of Cass Park, near the archery range. 0.2 acres would be required with retaining walls or 0.5 acres with fill slopes. The required area(s) are located in a wooded and brush area of Cass Park, outside of the archery range or any planned activity area. The fourth site is located along the Little League Ball Field, within the parcel owned by the City of Ithaca and referred to as additional 4(f) land. 0.1 acre would be required under the optional design for fill slopes. The required area is located along the western property line and would result in a minimum distance of about 215 feet from home plate to the proposed right-of-way line. The optional design with fill slopes would result in additional impacts caused by the relocation of the existing 115 KV aerial electric lines along the archery range and the Little League Ball Field. Such a relocation would most likely occur through these two sites. 0.2 acres are also required from Parcel 2 as shown on Figure 58. As noted earlier, Parcel 2 is an undeveloped portion of Cass Park and no existing or planned recreational activities would be affected. Access to Cass Park, Parcel 1, would be significantly altered. Beginning at Meadow Street, park traffic would enter onto the new Route 96, proceed north to relocated Route 89, and then follow the relocated Route 89 to a planned connection back into existing Park Road north of Linderman Creek near the skating rink. Another point of access to Cass Park, Parcel 1, would be provided from Cliff Street via a new bridge overpass connecting into Park Road. Existing Route 89 (Park Road) would be eliminated from this overpass location south to the Octopus intersection. Existing Route 89 (Park Road) north of the overpass location to its planned intersec- tion with the relocated Route 89 would become a local city street serving Cass Park. The results of the air quality analysis indicated that Alternative C would have no affect on the existing or planned park usage. The results of the noise impact analysis indicated a minor impact on Cass Park, Parcel 1. The design noise level would be 7 dBA above the existing noise level but would be 8 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria associated with the VI -23 FHWA activity category for a recreational area. There would be minor noise impact to Parcel 2 but the level would be 5 dBA below the Noise Abatement Criteria allowed for a recreational area. Alternative C would cause slightly more visual impact than that described under Alternative B. This is caused by the addition of an elevated structure across the Flood Control Channel and because Alternative C is a larger and, therefore, more visible facility than Alternative B. Alter- native C would cause adverse visual impacts to the park users due to the change in scale, form and spatial dominance of the new bridge structures, retaining walls and earthen embank- ments. The existing Cayuga Inlet Trail would be impacted simi- larly to the impact described under Alternative B. The trail would be grade -separated and relocated under the new Route 96 crossings. The trail would be shifted toward the Flood Control Channel from a point just north of the existing State Street Bridge to a point near the new bridge overpass at the south end of Cass Park, Parcel 1. A retaining wall (maximum height of 14+ feet) would separate new Route 96 and the Cayuga Inlet Trail for about 600 lin. ft. past the new Route 96, southbound crossing. f. Alternative C (Optional Low -Level) This alternative would be the same as previously described under Alternative C with the exception that the new Route '96, northbound roadway shown on Figure 59 would be an "at grade" roadway with Fulton Street, the railroad and Taughannock Boulevard with two separate bridges crossing the Old Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel. There would be a slight increase in the park land area required from Parcel 2 (0.2 acres) due to the proposed graded northbound roadway for the new Route 96. Access to Cass Park, Parcel 1 could be gained via Fulton Street and Taughannock Boulevard in addition to those road- ways discussed under the Alternative C High -Level Alignment. There would be no change to the stated air quality, or visual impacts caused by this optional low-level alignment over that of Alternative C (High -Level). There would be no noise impact to Cass Park, Parcel 2. Also, the optional low-level northbound roadway would cause no additional impacts to the Cayuga Inlet Trail. "'359 5 X Gi 4 e.64 ,yQ/< r 5!v o43: • AREA (in acres) OF REQUIRED PARK LAND PROPOSED BRIDGE NO. 3 WATER :ry EXISTING BRIDGE NO. CA v U$A /AIL£ r rV strew ...._E01 R. LOCATION Along Archery Range Along Utile League Field WITH RETAINING WALLS 0.2 WITH FILL SLOPES 0.5 0 0.1 LA. LEGEND EXISTING 6(f) LANDS y59 Along Relocated Route 89 0.3 0.8 !-7.71A 4 ADDITIONAL 4(f) LAND Areas along the archery range and relocaled Roule 89 are within the boundary of Cass Park 6(f) and the area along the Lillie League field Is within the parcel owned by .the Cily o1 Ithaca referred to as additional i(f) land. fratkII AREA OF REQUIRED 6(f) LANDS WITH RETAINING WALLS AREA OF REQUIRED 6(f) LANDS WITH FILL SLOPES 0 100 200 feet AREA OF REQUIRED ADDITIONAL 4(f) LAND WITH FILL SLOPES —25 FIGURE 59 REQUIRED PARK LANDS ALTERNATIVE C (OPTIONAL LOW LEVEL) ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I. N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER g. Summary of Impacts on Park Lands Alternative A would result in the least impact to park lands and Alternative C would result in the most severe impact topark lands. All of the build alternatives would cause relocation of the existing Cayuga Inlet Trail with the least amount of relocation under Alternative A and with the largest amount of relocation occurring under Alternative C. The visual impacts would be minor under Alternative A and would be adverse under all of the other build alternatives. Table 23 lists the comparison of alternatives and their impact to park lands. C.2 IMPACT ON HISTORIC SITES The following lists each alternative and the impacts that would occur to the Historic Sites. All of the Historic Sites within the project that were included in the cultural resource evaluation and review process are shown on Figure 53 and Figure 54. a. NULL ALTERNATIVE There would be no impacts to Structure Nos. 120, 136, 143, A, B, H, I and J. b. ALTERNATIVE A There would be no impacts to Structure Nos. 120, 136, 143, A, B, H, I and J. c. ALTERNATIVE .A WITH THE OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGNMENT There would be no impacts to Structure Nos. 120, 136, 143, A, B, H, I and J. d. ALTERNATIVE B There would be no impacts to Structure Nos. 120, 136, 143, A, B, H, I and J under Alternative B combined with Optional Alignment No. 1. However, Alternative B with Option No. 2 would severely impact Structure C. This alternative,. combined with Optional Alignment No. 2, displaces the auxiliary building which is part of Structure C. Alternative B with its Optional Alignment No. 2 and its relationship to Structure C is shown on Figure 61. ....s s, „. \ ...,. s . •0. • • ' ' ..-----.77--"-- Yi'• ;1 (.1 %, ...•" c., •9 \ , , •• , \ \ • d -, c l............b_:=;;---,:_,•,.... .3i:=7.-,,_ . ---"'• °oat., :Aa ,. •••. , ,t• 96.: ------7------.. '• ,:_.---- c --‘4i... . • r -,...c•-- --- ' 77..........- ,:a.....„. .., .:1 ••••....r,., • \ ....• " ••• .-'..... /I \ - . 1 t, -----<- \ I • . • • , \ . . -s--------Th i) 1 Sug'sicii. 2 11117111-0. ..-71'. ‘11';:r\A';;;=-W-1-.....-is 1\ ..........--s. • s, . .-._.-.,..,:....:,__*4 \ ,.. ..70 ....._ • \\ i %. ..• VC:9 •-`---. • • • .. . ..........)..--"---.. -9 f I! i •C‹ .."-----.-.N \ \ '-•'\:....%-------- '.., • ."--":--- '1 3.-, .N. 0 . X N .".... i ..... -!---'24--'4'' liY1----.- ., ,:<.\ \s,. ------...AV •las. ',...' • \N N, '9'0 ..N \ '.., d. ...s. s •,, . ' ..\\•\ \ -', ''' - \ • \ \ " „ . V % .--,, -........ T--- - ; • , a !, - -, --_ - -. s .4.... ... i•:-.. ..• : • ....S,/,f5.... 0 , ••-• \ ? ‘,..f, .1...--- \ \ • _ , o .,', .• , \ •. .4.,..: .. .\ . . \ \ \ ' N ,/,,,-,5,--- /I -...... •s. ` • . \ \ • '.., •-.....„ ------... •:,..-",,,k,,,,4%.‹...._.• i . ••••.. . %- s• '. •-.... -----•...___ • ••••.S '','---,A„.k..-c \ 1 \ •if • ' " " ' 1 % ) i v :, • ,......, S.....e.., 0 ,/' s7"Y"/"1., i I Cc i , 1 , i , ,.1 STRUCTURE,.„ o, ' .1 I ; 1 i . • ... C \ N... • . , if , ; k , r ',S.. IN f'f'S _-HP.r..3.4 E .,\,,..\, • , , I? \ \ .:', s•A; (NE\ >:' 1 'i '"\%..1 \.7.•:-.. .1A-,ccf:' • •-• / , ',di • X 'r4 • -r-----. ,:,, \ i A i • , `..'• • •, . ;\ • , \, \ .. \ ••\,. .4b5s,' Ns'-'•••. . • . \ ,-•••••-----•-, N •MPT -1 „ Y --- -.1. ze- ... • \ ---'• _ r• -..i.-6--7-1 \\ .., tk. \\ •••,‘,. ..... ... ., . ,..... ,0,•-•,---_-•--- • 0 '..-,,y. \• - - ....- : nioogical ..-,:,;.:,_•-:,.:-:4:•-::-.:_. Poie°1, institut!„ • 2••• ,\- ,-.•,---iclzrzr„\ ..- .4% .„ ..„,„......:-....... ••:,----..„ \ %.• \.tp,,,, , \;••, .....:-.•,<::-...--:4;.', ; \\ q* ,6/,'"1/2 \ ..-, • • . • "-"-:\*\\ • • , li. \?.- . • 1.1;k• s."•'• A \s. • \-1./71'7 ,k;-• AL -'7 \ %.‘ . . 1 ; , 4 . • • , r , _ tA • ^,e,/ 1)111 . I % , • .•1 \ —%•"" • ••;- 4:7," Tompkins Community Hospital, Inc. 0 100 200 feet FIGURE 60 ALTERNATIVE B WITH OPTIONAL ALIGNMENT NO. I EFFECTS TO STRUCTURE C ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIV I L ENGINEER MI— 27 0 4,.. 1 ...., , ‘,. , ....-.-.........„_, .. /1 .. \ . . ''''."....'f t,.,.._ EY.ii•i,1?-: •-itt-,4134-2.,••=, , f s ir s,7,----.4—______ .'‘i -z-... ,:-_,,t•—__-:•-•.— -N. -1-.6.ci:C;-•_'":-_,.;:-:7 • -'"- -_ • ,• f — --:,.,::_r. '--E-x4>r—. _ Fizr- -;i..,-=:.r . . ..,. ... ‘•••. ;•••,.., . • >.:: N . s'' % :•,, '' ' 1 • • .4•1# .' ..35--.7.7*. • t ;•••'. ..• .y,,, „ .. 0•• ss, • \ ‘ .• .., •• 1.....• tr• • • ., • . . .4.4? i 1 - • nCYArbb.C.Q.4; 0 it / ••,0\ ss. .04 ..‘••.-; • \ • ct., • .4: ..-111;?..31 • s? ...1. ,-,4 ST R U CcTURE ''...... ) , . , : ‘ / k .' \ . • • f . . .. < • \ .. . t. . , ..) \.ts ,::,,,, , .,.... ...t,i.r.f 2 '.•• : ,. N......_.......z.......... .. g'• -••• .77:7. '''' '''---•1,-N.7-:••-"Ns, `,.r. \ -N,/ • . \ -----:•' n -\ . la. gic" ' • - i ..„) ,--,..-.: •,,,_ ,.. , . ,...._______ _ _ , 0 itu .N ' ' .1'.N"' -.;:. ''' N'••... P0196"1 Me s • . . s \ s."' .."..':\ ' • . s.\"7-2!'''4.‘., ., ROS‘e° ,, • . s rch ,, • • • .‘ ' \. • N„ s‘ ' ,' -.------1,,:.. \ • •, . \ \ . \ , ----:- \‘'` • , 1.,...:: , \ \ •.\•. • ---a ''---------"1 -, .,•,!.—__:., - , \ •,.. ----------.. --f".A.1,',;7,,,C1—' ....1- • , •..-N .. •-•....,... -----. ,. --t-'7' "":r.'--- f" i 1. •-,--<-, ‘r , Li* ,\ • \\•., • ,v, ( \ **, • e ,sr " ...-7,% 1 ' : ,_.,--3, —.%.'gi ...• , . • \ e.4-• . • 0\ 4 ... .... N'....›....."-,....,,/ ....... . 1/4.' ••;-. \ s ). • t ) N,„ .4....'coi :.••• .,,, . A__;., 4 -...,.... ,,..,. *r•- •,-.,,. 0. , _ ..:',A• , . ''..c.:.`,.•?! • , -,-A: : ,.x( • N ss,... -4.. ->r..... .....-.4,,,-.. ---,----,,. --.....,,,,,,..,-, 4.14, 4t• -•/S -•<•-•)•-k, s% • \ • %.• , # , \ e:. s'•-. • ". 70 \ \ kttli .6? / •• • •• • — . • 1 SI! 1 ! • Vv• •. ) , s's ss, ?:4I• \ 74", 'Pr „ st, • • ''••• -"•••. se 4pZ, '•••r! .96 f_s I........:::=.... . ,- .. 4 ' 1;:.1•777z, ''.. . \ .) f,.'..-// .KIIN'F.S,; " S' I i ':',;.• ' 'k*: • • W ,- ''•• ;....<-.---;; '.--;-;-0•it p 'L l'Ar..1.7.1:::•';90 -/..-. ,....." le' - .,' 0 100 f eet •-• Tompkins Community Hasp/fa I, Inc. , • .• FIGURE 61 ALTERNATIVE B WITH OPTIONAL ALIGNMENT NO. 2 EFFECTS TO STRUCTURE C ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I. N. 3047.04 TOM PKINS COUNTY 200 Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER MC— 28 • \ 3 \ • \,•; r if if 49' s6e6-176 • \ 7 0 I • , • • bosbovt • .?.` 4 • \ I • • \ % ‘` • • • • . :••• • • \ \ • • • \ • , STRUCTURE '-' 7 if•, - Fi0 p --'''''""•••••:....:.,...........\- , N `,.... -....._..„• • wia ., te:` ‘'N ‘s- "'•• ------- \ \ •-• HP'''.•348 E • \ ;s: s • , • 4 \ ,"v' ' • s.„.„'•\ ‘`: • • ••••"1."--•-• CT; _-• ••.•'? • .?jo.....,4,H.,............. • \ \• \ ' .•!//' • : . „ s `. ',' e. ''•-• i-..•-•-•—•`k \ \ s • . .• • • ' -7_1..-7...:-. •••,\ ---.:••;.+. •••.,-., --- ,x,.1,A . s....---- .. e.s. ...., : • -.... -.,?,.......... • , --...--/ ii,...: .,,:.. , ..,...:L__,-- - .. .., -,•A • ~i0./s ,,9,e;.,...._ - • . , . — ----.-•••1 I • ...', •---.:-p F.:: ... ! sr „ cr, • 7 • . •.... ' "--.--....... • ,i ••••,. ''.. \ ;V..% \ . ‘• .1 \ % .112:,. ..,.. ....:i5r..--.. qi ..... ,..\.. :.,.....,....., j,,, i ..., -•:_.. • __ .\•,...,.:i • • • - .. . . , ..,\•,..,,-.......,,,,--,...!;?-...,------,_.----L •-----. • -"--••••--"• . e .....---"---... ,`•!.; ';',.' I i • ..• \-- ,,..-41..k;,;‘, t. ''.-...-7:;.\ k \ I. L,----•:.--% ''.:1%.:..,,'7 ,..\,___.----.........._.. ,...- . i ; , • ...-:-.., ss,.....„\x: \ :,-..qi• ' • "... • - --..-.---r• >I .. ; \ ''..s,::-\ .'--1-,-- - . -,,;•.f.?'•‘"A. -----.:-' --..,...;.l' S 1 ' ..-....", '......--,.:' . s1;i•., •---.''. '-- -... : • " \ .....).: .• s •'. \ -..-• ''s :-.. ' -. sli::.. • .'s;e,s, ''. ••• --••,•,,- j \ \ • , 1 , • i u s. 6, .- ...:, ..). s -:t.......• i: '':-•,', .......„„_ ,A - -0—t't'S%ii• 0r.7:::.' 4 ••••ses• ,N. - •ti*.. ‚•‚ ,t/1:vf s•' ' -Pr...\ •:- ---1'.\\."--.. sr • .9‘,„ ye , • \ , . s•-•-•, • 'Os •0.; N•••••••.1. .;,? \ ,;9' • • •`, 1 • •e• 0 100 feet „•-- Tompkins Community Hospital, Inc. FIGURE 62 ALTERNATIVE B WITH OPTIONAL ALIGNMENT NO. 3 EFFECTS TO STRUCTURE C ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 200 Robert E. Sm ith CONSULTING CIVIL ENG I N EER 3E-29 )4F;1.34to ••• ; . • • • • ••". V• • ICOI • • • atlf°1°g te • ‘• • • \ ••••-• Pole h laStitU • ss •: s. ▪ \ • ' • .1. •-• • • \ • ..• , s‘ TX- • \ <., ▪ Ar • / ••• •••••••• • •-• ‘:o 0 • feet ...•• Tompkins Community Hosp/fol, Inc. FIGURE 63 ALTERNATIVE C WITH OPTIONAL ALIGNMENT NO. I EFFECTS TO STRUCTURE C ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 200 Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER MI- 30 ' ! ' XstSal F? ••- ---trcy. ' ---,,,•• \ •t! - . — 4,.._ ,---t-./.%, • -. % \ N \t„.___,.:7 4 -1:7—___1,%. '-'•..*:v..-e---. • -•-.---i i,. ‘. ----t'');----. ••••7-''''.—...- ''''' ' --4-7-7--747.--1-- :--271:-e...-- - - `-'414--leoact' \ I -:.„:-.--••24.7-t.:_t.„::::z„......_,......e....._•4,4;•-•$.,6,--->„- ,..:',,,A.: ‘,"-........, \ ? \ •,,?,„ 1 L -,d., . _ .0% , .. .... ••• ------. • ,.. 0 •-> .„, , , . , . c 4 , 1 ..„... , i:.• \ •-..,_ s , • ......„..-- ---____---% h \ \ 4 Sesto„iv.P I It ''-'. i ' -5, I I , ce' ... T.. , • • ' - , , • L.,.., . , ""----- -,AEZ.;. _ ....,. , , - -7--.---..,.... :Lt., ,o,ft,,,, . ---...\_( i .z -c-,-• -.}._ ,..N ;., ',...t.1 -..:1,..c. ,..!....:,..,z..._.....„•:---,„..--__Ci- N "`• s‘., , ' •t':'. '4/ -Th'.- \-:--"-"--"--..is...„77..... --•:.,, ' • N '..`, \ N ''''• ;s"kX18-- ' •, N .`, s • .4. s ';.,'' ''‘,. • :'• ,. OAP N, ) - -" 11 • • .i. --7--''''• "'',,....',..- - "-- ''' "r.zik -vr.4 4 4.•:,......_:, •---- • • • • ‘. -• • \ •-, -:;•<;•'`, • -. , • 'I..; • „ • •Pc ;-.74 • • , \ • 'CLIC • 's • \` ••••, • •‘ • ••• •••• • `• PR \ • •, ••• t• t/ .•-••""" •r% • \tr4V 1 • />‹ ry=2L, P:, \ \ / .-/r 1/4 `5 • -,,•,-7/1/4,1,-;127-.N. . • N s::• • Na (' i • ""'"•-• n • • \ • , \ '• •:' 7-.., *-4.‘ / • ! r . • • •••• •••• • ' ' '• ie • \* -1..*A. ?• STRUCTURE r; . - - „•,-. . _ .. \ • ,,,, \ --.: - ---- ..---•_\ • , ',.. •,-.1\Y - -----:.----, gice..-./ -... -, ----..-,:,..-.z--.•• -,:.....• • .---._____--- pale('ni. sMUT°, \ . ., • • ,..\ N•••:,...,..4..._, ' a/C,' • • ' • s ' \ ' '' . ' . . \ % s s:'..-:-.12.4s,,,..t,,7 8 S ° \ . ‘• • ‘. \ ‘,.....‘ \ ..\ • s • .:',....Z.zZ,..7.z,, \ : • \ ...'s %, . 77.":\ -.-;--•—•fitii. /II- , .--- --•--1. -1--- - .,•••, 1,• s „.--- 1•-•,.._..---••••,•1',. WI • .,a.:•-•:• --•., ...,„••• . i ! -- \ • \-- M‘t•-' i ..,i. ,,,,.,1 : :::,•.-:-----_____/_:„4,14,N.- • r . , . . ..___. -'\ • ----'•---17--- - • . L: , '••• 1 ... ...• c..•--''. '.— .../• i• e . ./r,••/i .. 1•A:,V..a...f,...;•• — . • •,, ---•, \ ,. --s s•::-- „-c,"; --•-i• ........, \ •,. .... ... , •,,...„--1-',:(:,...,••• \ .;' • : • --_ -•\ '• \ \ ..„ \\••••;•,..7;„: \ \ \ )( " ., •C• ',.c.•• I • ....2_---, .. \....,. .• . r \-4/ .2-4-.......:%,\--7--,--..... \ v.„ :- \ix"%. -,...cv,-,?"-----\„\ ',._:-.-. NA -21.% • ' ,...,... ..„? ‘, ..„;,..,_-----,•,„. \ _ --.„..•; yi,..:,e; ly ,-r 'J-\ :„..., - 1 3 - I 1 -b, •01.1: ' '''''1,,', -*--'-, \ \ '-} •• .:6' \2•. \`,„:„...... \ \ •.....::•-•..., V....•/' ..4n -0 '..„, • SI, ' iti! . S. • ••• ,o, .... IA,. i • ' / ere f ,,,, • )•0::, .Y. $ • /s: k / '''s --0 .:'2--:;•. •- .• w•„. -e .....• .1A, .A. -,- .,•\\\A;;:( ''-: ;:;‘, .... , • • `:•••••• 0 100 1 ee t Tompkins CommunIty Hosp/to4 Inc. •>-• FIGURE 64 ALTERNATIVE C WITH OPTIONAL ALIGNMENT NO. 2 EFFECTS TO STRUCTURE C ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P.I.N. 3047.04 TOMPKINS COUNTY 200 Robert E. Smith CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER SEC -31 • • \ • ••. '• \ • " \`'.* :;°. 4.1.4.--see„.„,4-' 4'417—'1 :1 \ • 53 t • ' • • N t.er •,,_ • • .F.t _• 51'" 9$ C'---44.:Yta0. • .es 's°•••''N, -s • . \ ' -, ss, •s• , ' . ' .• • s•r-,. .••-•-•.. .;•'• ` , 0 \\., • \ ••‘ ,, \ , , • l '1,, '-e. ••••-. :i " ` . s -to 7.-4, ., ' • „ "...„ , ,„ \ t t.0,., , ... , •, . ' - , ' . \ , ‘ \ . • • • . - . \ \ . •R 0 ) .... •-• • s."•\ • • •,..'\ STRUCTURE •••.: s'. . >e \ ; • 'az I 'VC' 41•:• • \ •• • • • N. k'NU -s • • s. •14p7 -S • .,. . ._. s ..i..-----•\.• ‘ \ r .., ---„,_..----,• .. ......:. . ,,,—.-•'',. • ..,.E.........4_, ...o.s.%, \-•-•• ' • '• '. . • ,,..,......_,:..--,7 X. ?I ; .._t-, . t s‘,. --0" i L.,'• '. ," • li : '..', -; ,, , - i.. -----' \ ' • • • \ \ at.'7.‘ • ' • '., \?-\ \..,.:7. j7,1 .'<.e:,.;- ._. .. • 'Al -7e... t „\K4is5.1.4i•::n-..-,--...7X-,Z.7 ...t1.?"..•.••.4•,.s:'s‘'\.,.4. .. 1\ „\. • • 5 • %,_„; • • I/4/ `--.7 • -••• • „1Z • • .1 • \ 0A, s 4.1 • "-` ' • • • • • • "'• • \ • • A'•• \i'fi‘ •e "••••• , • \ • • _411. „ t ' - • "-. , ; ,•• .•. t • •-••••••••__:- / • - . !, • , , • ••• • • • ii --'''s ------, \ .s. • ' • - i t • --- • i• ' )! 5.,:,ttl' %. , • e '-te--1 , . '';:•'‘.sys ,••41.. `-k, \ --, ".. 1, \NC. ‘-•":;• I's ,•••-...i i \ ,.." --..e. .0., e., , ,-• ,... , -,-• --,., ',„.---, 1‘7, 7-'• "---... • - • - I.A-k.'"'•` ° '•e„ 14`•-('-''' -••••. 7: • Tompkins Community Hospital, Inc. FIGURE 65 ALTERNATIVE C WITH OPTIONAL ALIGNMENT NO. 3 EFFECTS TO STRUCTURE C ROUTE 96 IMPROVEMENTS P. I.N. 3047.04 TOM PKINS COUNTY 0 100 200 Robert E. Smith feet CONSULTING CIV IL ENGINEER 1CC-32 Alternative B with Option No. 3 would also severely impact Structure C. This alternative would displace theold dormitory (PRI) of the previously described Odd Fellows Rebekah's Home Complex when combined with Optional Alignment No. 3.. Alternative B with Optional Alignment No. 3 and its relationship to Structure C is shown on Figure 62. Alternative B with Option No. 1 as noted above would have no effect on Structure C (PRI). Alternative B with its Optional Alignment No. 1 and its relationship to Structure C is shown on Figure 60. e. ALTERNATIVE C (OPTIONAL HIGH-LEVEL) There would be no impacts to Structure Nos. 120, 136, 143, A, B, H, I and J under Alternative C combined with Optional Alignment No. 1. However, Alternative C with Option No. 2 would severely impact Structure C. This alternative, combined with Optional'Alignment No. 2, displaces the auxiliary building which is part of Structure C. Alternative C with its Optional Alignment No. 2 and its relationship to Structure C is shown on Figure 64. Alternative C with Option No. 3 would also severely impact Structure C. This alternative would displace the old dormitory (PRI) of the previously described Odd Fellows Rebekah's Home Complex when combined with Optional Alignment No. 3. Alternative C with Optional Alignment No. 3 and its relationship to Structure C is shown on Figure 65. As mentioned above, Alternative C with Option No. 1 would have no effect on Structure C (PRI). Alternative C with its Optional Alignment No. 1 and its relationship to Structure C is shown on Figure 63. f. ALTERNATIVE C (OPTIONAL LOW-LEVEL) This alternative would not involve any additional historic sites than that previously described under Alterna- tive C (Optional High -Level) and the impacts would be the same as those described above. g. SUMMARY OF SECTION 106 IMPACTS Alternative A, Alternative A with the Optional Route 89 Alignment and Alternatives B and C combined with Optional Alignment No. 1 would result in no impacts to any of the Historic Sites. Alternatives B and C combined with Optional Alignment Nos. 2 and 3 would cause severe impact to Struc- ture C (PRI). Table 23 lists the comparison of alternatives and their impact to Historic Sites. VI -33 LJ The historic site of the PRI is considered by the SHPO, NYSDOT and FHWA as eligible for the National Register because it is a part of the Odd Fellows Rebekah's Home Complex. As previously discussed under Section VI.B.3., the Odd Fellow Rebekah's Home Complex, c.1930, is architecturally signifi- cant as an English tudor style institutional complex and its association with the conclusion of the Progressive era (1880- 1930) of institutional child care in New York. After examining the alternatives under consideration and also considering the Section 106 Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect in consultation with the SHPO, FHWA has deter- mined that Section 4(f) is applicable to further considera- tion of Alternative B, Option Nos. 2 and 3, and Alternative C, Option Nos. 2 and 3, but not to Option No. 1 of those alternatives. Option No. 1 of both Alternatives B and C does not use land from any significant historic site, since there will be no physical alteration of any kind to any part of the historic site nor any other effect or alteration of any features of the historic PRI's location, setting or use. D. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS 1. Avoidance Alternatives in the Vicinity of Cass Park The Null Alternative (No -Build) would not involve the taking of any 4(f) lands. However, as noted earlier in the Design Report, the Null Alternative would not meet the objec- tives for the project. The project objectives have been primarily identified as relieving the traffic congestion at the Octopus intersection and to improve the quality of traffic through it. Because of the topographic controls such as the location of the Octopus intersection, the location of Route 96 along the West Hill and the location of the existing 4(f) lands, all of the 1 alternatives considered, including those that were discarded L' for various reasons, would involve 4(f) lands. As previously noted under the 4(f) determination in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Route 13 and 96, Ithaca, New York approved June 3, 1976, "There is only one feasible corridor location for the reconstruction of Route 96 in the vicinity of Cass Park." Alternatives A, B and C are located within this corridor. Development of an alternative to the west is precluded by the extensive social, economic, environmental and engineering impacts associated with the steep hillside and existing development of the area. For these same ! reasons, the reconstruction of Route 96 along existing align- ment is unfeasible. Development of alternatives to the east is physically restricted by Cayuga Lake and Cayuga Inlet. Severe adverse impacts to Cass Park and existing development in the area would be incurred, as well as major. traffic engi- neering problems being created by the resulting connection to the existing street system within the city. As previously discussed under VI.C.1, the present series of build alternatives result in the same constraints de- scribed in the 1976 FEIS as noted above. 2. Avoidance Alternatives to Impacting Historic Sites The Null Alternative (No -Build) would not affect any of the previously identified historic structures. However, as mentioned earlier, the Null Alternative does not meet the objectives for this project. Attempts to design a new Route 96 that would connect into the existing Route 96 north of the hospital resulted in displacement of several residences along the Indian Creek Road and the Duboise Road area, significant increase in con- struction cost and resulted in an "out of direction" travel route to the hospital from the. City of Ithaca. These designs have little local support. The general alignments of these designs are shown on Figure 9 and as noted under III.B.1., a more detailed discussion of each is included in a separate report entitled Alternatives Considered and Discarded to November. 1984. Attempts were made to provide a new Route 96 that would terminate further south of the hospital and the PRI. This design concept was referred to as the Short Route and is included in Appendix H for Alternative Alignments Considered and Discarded Since November 1984. It is concluded that a "Short Route" version will not meet the project objectives due to the resultant long excessive grades (9 percent to 12 percent). E. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM 1. Park Lands As noted under VI.B.1, there is only one feasible corridor location for the reconstruction of Route 96 in the vicinity of Cass Park. The horizontal alignment that was established along Cass Park, Parcel 1, for Alternatives B and C, considered the need to locate the new Route 96 where the planned facility would cause the least impacts to Cass Park J and its recreational activities. In order to achieve this, an alignment was selected that would skirt Cass Park in or near the back yards of the properties fronting Cliff Street and that nearly parallels the abandoned Lehigh Valley rail- road bed. The abandoned railroad bed along the west side of Cass Park is occupied by an existing high tension electrical system. If the soil conditions are suitable, a retaining wall (Maximum height of 40+ feet) is planned in order to eliminate the need to relocate the electrical system and to minimize the amount of park lands required. Also, in order to locate the new facilities as far away from Cass Park as possible while not involving the existing buildings along Cliff Street, the clear lateral roadside distance was reduced from 30 feet to 14 feet. No specific measures are proposed to mitigate the noise impacts associated with Alternatives B and C. The proposed Route 96 improvements skirting Cass Park, Parcel 1 under both Alternatives B and C would be constructed on new roadway embankments with allowance for retaining walls up to 40+ feet high supporting the embankments on the downhill side adjacent to the existing high tension electrical lines. In addition, a concrete barrier would be constructed on top of the retaining walls. This barrier is required in order to help contain out -of -control vehicles to the Route 96 improve- ments. However, this barrier would act to reduce noise in the recreational area. No barriers would be constructed under the optional fill design along Cass Park. Additional noise barriers constructed along this area would obstruct the views of the motorists, and would be visually unattractive to the recreational area users. Also, the noise barriers would hinder snow removal operations and possibly contribute to icing problems. Land acquired from Cass Park will be replaced as described under VI.B.2. 2. Historic Sites As noted under VI.C.2, the only Historic Site that would be impacted is Structure C (PRI) under Alternatives B and C when combined with Optional Alignment Nos. 2 and 3. This structure is listed as an Eligible. Site and is described under VI.B.3 with the summary of Section 106 impacts listed under VI.C.2.g. Optional Alignment Nos. 1 and 2 under Alternatives B and C would reduce the amount of grading along the PRI property by constructing a curb at the outside edge of proposed shoulder, thereby eliminating the typical parallel ditch section. Storm Sewers would be provided through this area. VI -36 Alternatives B or C combined with Optional Alignment Nos. 2 or 3 would result in all of or part of Structure C removal. The PRI and its fossil collection would berelo- cated to another site. Photographing and documenting of that historic resource prior: to acquisition and removal would be performed should Option Nos. 2 or 3 be selected. F. COORDINATION WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES This draft 4(f) Evaluation is being circulated to the City of Ithaca and all environmental agencies having jurisdiction and/or interest in this project. They include the US Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI); the Dept. of the Army, New York District, Corps of Engineers (COE); the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC); and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) Finger Lakes Region. . The city. and all of these agencies were informed and their participation invited during the planning and preli- minary design phases of this project from 1976-88. Also, with respect to historic resources, close coordination between the NYSDOT, FHWA and SHPO was maintained from early 1978 thru 1988. An outline of the evaluations and reviews is included in the DR/DEIS, Section IV.A.2.e, with a copy of thecorrespondence included in Appendix'I. Close coordination with the city and these agencies will continue through design approval and subsequent implementa- tion of the recommended alternative. This cooperative effort should ensure the selection of an environmentally sound and acceptable alternative consistent with the project objectives and established design criteria. TABLE 23 - COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS TO PARK LANDS AND HISTORIC SITES VI -38 IMPACTS TO CAYUGA INLET TRAIL IMPACTS TO HISTORIC SITES COMMENTS FEATURE ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE OF REQUIRED PARK LANDS IN ACRES ACCESS TO PARI( LANDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (AIR AND NOISE) VISUAL IMPACTS None None NULL (Do Nothing) None No change None Nate A 0.1 Parcel 2 Minor change - Slight out -of- direction through Old Octopus Intersection area pone Minor Minor Relocation: Grade - -, separated under New Route 96 crossing of the Flood Control Channel None Required park lands outsido. of any existing or Minor Relocations: Grade - separated under New Route 96 and New Route 89 cross- ings of the Flood Control None planned activity areas A OPTIONAL ROUTE 89 ALIGNMENTChannel 0.1 Parcel 1 0_9 Parcel 2 1.0 Total Minor change - Slight out -of- direction through Old Octopus Intersection area None Adverse impact for park userst B WITH OPTION NO. 1 0.3 Parcel 1 w/Retaining Walls 1.0 Parcel 1 w/Fill Slopes 0.1 Parcel 2 0.4 Total w/Retaining Walls 1.1 Total w/Fill Slopes Via Cliff St. conn. to Park Rd. from Old Octopus area and West Hill and via Buffalo St. or New Route 96, Northbound from other city locations r ::Minor noise impact on Cass Park, Parcel 1 Adverse impact to Cass Park user= with retaining walls abng Cass Park and greater acve'se impact with fill sbpas along Cass Park Minor Relocation: Grade- separated under New Routs 96 None Required perk lands outside of any existing or planned areas with retaining walls. Minor acquisition of fill sl ldsin Parcel 1 with ope Minor Relocation: Grade - se rated under New Route 96 Pall Displaces Auxiliary Buildingactivity p y of Strueture C BRd. WITH OPTION NO. 2 0.3 Parcel 1 w/Retaining Walls 1.0 Parcel 1 w/Fill Slopes 0,1 Parcel 2 0.4 Total w/Retaining Walls 1.1 Total w/Fill Slopes Via Cliff St. conn, to Park from Old Octopus area and West Hill and via Buffalo St. or New Route 96, Northbound from other city locations Minor noise impact on Cass Park, Parcel 1 Minor Relocation: Grade - separated under New Route 96 Displaces the Main Building of Structure C and the Auxiliary Building B WITH OPTION NO. 3 0.3 Parcel 1 w/Retaining Walls 1.0 Parcel i wJFill Slopes 0.1 Parcel 2 0.4 Total w/Retaining Walls 1.1 Total w/Fill Slopes Via Cliff St. conn. to Park Rd. from Old Octopus area and West Hill and via Buffalo St. or New Routs 96, Northbound from other city locations Minor noise impact on Cass Park, Parcel 1 C HIGH -LEVEL WITH OPTION NO. 1 0.6 Parcel 1 w/Retaining Walls 1.5 Parcel 1 w/Fill Slopes 0.2 Parcel 2 0.8 Total w/Retaining Walls 1.7 Total w/Fill Slopes Via Cliff St. conn. to Park Rd. from Old Octopus area and West Hill and via Buffalo St. or New Route 96, Northbound from other city locations Minor noise iapect on Cass Park, Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 Adverse impact to Cass Park users with retaining walls etopg Cass Park and greater adverse impact with fill slopes along Cass Park Minor Relocation: Grade - separated under New Route 96, Northbound and Southbound None • Required outside of any existingaoraplanned activity areas with retaining wells. Minor acquisition of bell fields in Parcel 1 w with fill slopes. Possible ewith di - tional impacts along Archery Range and Little League Field with fill slopes due to reloca- tion of 115 kv electrical lines lines - Minor Relocation: Grade- separated under New Route 96. Northbound and Southbound Displaces Auxiliary Building of Structure C C HIGH-LEVEL 1fEl WITH OPTION NO. 2 0.6 Parcel 1 w/Retaining Walls 1,5 Parcel 1 w/Fill Slopes 0,2 Parcel 2 0.8 Total w/Retaining Walls 1.7 Total w/Fill Slopes Via Cliff St. conn. to Park Rd. from Old Octopus area and West Hill and via Buffalo St. or New Route 96, Northbound from other city locations Minor noise impact on Cass Park. Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 Minor Relocation: Grade- sepereted under New Route 96, Northbound and Southbound Displaces the Main Building of Structure C and the Auxiliary Building C HIGH-LEVEL WITH OPTION NO. 3 0.6 Parcel 1 w/Retaining Walls 1.5 Parcel 1 w/Fill Slopes 0.2 Parcel 2 0.8 Total w/Retaining Walls 1.7 Total w/Fill Slopes Via Cliff St. conn. to Park Rd. from Old Octopus area and West Hill and via Buffalo St. or New Route 96, Northbound from other city locations Minor noise impact on Cess Perk, Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 Same as Option No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 Alternative C, High - Level Northbound Shown Above Same as Option No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 Alternative C, High- Level Northbound Shown Above = Same as Option No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 Alternative C, High- Level Northbound Shown Above C LOW-LEVEL 1 tMegnitude of difference cam- pared to Alt. C High -Level) Same as Option No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 Alternative C, High- Level Northbound Shown Above Same as Option No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 Alternative C. High- Level Northbound Shown Above Same es Option No. 1, No. 2 or Wo. 3 Alternative C, High- Level Northbound Shown Above Except no noise impact on Cass Park, Parcel 3. orosanto es Option No. 1, No. 2 or Flo• 3 Alternative C, High- Levol Northbound Shown Above VI -38 VII. LIST OF PREPARERS This Design Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ 4(f) Evaluation was prepared by the staff of R.E. Smith, Consulting Civil Engineer, Rochester, New York under the direction and with the active involvement of the New York State Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. c STATE PERSONNEL AND CONSULTANTS State personnel and consultants who were primarily responsible for preparing the DR/DEIS/4(f) Evaluation of performing environmental studies and their qualifications including education background are listed below. Robert E. Smith, Consulting Civil Engineer (Consultants) Robert E. Smith - Principal -in -Charge, B.S. Civil Engineering, 1941 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Project Involvement: General Supervision. Carl L. Spataro - Project Engineer, B.S. Civil Engineering, 1952 - Louisiana State University. Project Involvement: Project Manager, Direct Design Studies and Preparation of DR/DEIS/4(f) Evaluation Document. William L. Johnson - Senior Project Designer, Harrisburg Area Community College. Project Involvement: Preliminary Design of Alternatives, Preparation of DR/DEIS/4(f) Evaluation Document. Lawrence J. Lahr - Project Planner, B.A. Sociology, 1971, M.S. Public Administration, 1975 - Shippensburg State College. Project Involvement: Social and Economic Impacts on Community, DEIS. Neill G. Erikson - Design Engineer, B.S. Civil Engineering, 1961 - New Jersey Institute of Technology. Project Involvement: Preliminary Engi- neering and Cost Studies, Design Report. LIST OF PREPARERS (Continued) Young Associates (Consultants) David C. Young - Principal -in -Charge, B.S. Landscape Architecture, 1970 - College of Environ- mental Science and Forestry, SUNY Syracuse. Public Involvement: Supervision of Visual Resource Assessment. ) Michael Haas - Associate, B.S. Landscape Architecture, 1981 - College of Environmental Science and Forestry, SUNY Syracuse. Project Involvement: Preparation of Visual Resource Assessment. New York State Department of Transportation Michael Hawrylciw, Jr. - Project Engineer, Design Bureau. Project Involvement: Technical and Administrative Management of Consultant. Myron Shirley - Project Supervisor, NYSDOT Region 3. Project Involvement: Technical Overview and Engineering Liaison. Tom Holbrook - Project Engineer, NYSDOT Region 3. Project Involvement: Technical Review and Local Agency Coordination. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The FHWA representatives primarily responsible for preparation of the DR/DEIS/4(f) Evaluation are listed below:. Gary L. Owens - Area Engineer, FHWA, HC -NY. Douglas P. Conlan - District Engineer, FHWA, HC -NY. CHAPTER MT List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement Are Sent VIII. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT The Federal, State and Local Agencies, and other Organizations and Individuals from which comments are being requested include the following: FEDERAL AGENCIES Department of Interior, Environmental Project Review Department of Transportation, Regional Representative of the Secretary Environmental Protection Agency Department of Housing and Urban Development Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Coast Guard Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Railroad Administration Corps of Engineers Urban Mass Transportation Administration Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service Federal Emergency Management Agency Appalachian Regional Commission NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, Div. of Historic Preservation Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, Director of Recreation Planning and Research Education Department, New York State Museum Agriculture & Markets State Police Department of Health Department of Commerce Department of State FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES Hon. Matthew McHugh, 28th Congressional District Hon. Alfonse D'Amato, Hart Senate Office Building Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan, Russel Senate Office Building NEW YORK STATE REPRESENTATIVES Hon. James L. Seward, 50th Senatorial District Hon. Sam MacNeil, 125th Assembly District REGIONAL OFFICES OF NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES Regional Director, NY State Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Finger Lakes Region Regional Permit Admin., NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation CITY OF ITHACA AGENCIES & REPRESENTATIVES City of Ithaca Director, City City of Ithaca City of Ithaca City of Ithaca City of Ithaca City of Ithaca City of Ithaca City of Ithaca Chief, City of Chief, City of City of Ithaca Superintendent Superintendent Mayor of Ithaca Planning Clerk Engineer Alderperson, Alderperson, Alderperson, Alderperson, Alderperson, Ithaca Police Ithaca Fire Dept. Transit of Schools, City of Ithaca School District of Public Works, City of Ithaca 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th & Development Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward TOMPKINS COUNTY AGENCIES & REPRESENTATIVES Chairman, Tompkins County Board of Representatives County Administrator, Tompkins County Commissioner, Tompkins County Public Works Commissioner, Tompkins County Planning Department Director, Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Coordinator, Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Agency Reporesentative, Tompkins County Soil & Water Conservation District Tompkins County Fire & Disaster Coordinator Tompkins County Clerk Tompkins County Sheriff Tompkins County Historian Tompkins County Public Health Director Tompkins County Agriculture Stabilization & Conservation Commission Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Tompkins County Library VIII -2 TOWN AGENCIES &REPRESENTATIVES Town of Ithaca Clerk Town of Ithaca Supervisor Town of Ithaca, Planning Board Chairman Town of Ithaca Engineer Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent Town of Ithaca Historian Town of Ithaca Chamber of Commerce Chairman, Ulysses Planning Board Town of Ulysses Environmental Management Council Town of Ulysses Supervisor Town of Ulysses Highway Superintendent Town of Ulysses Municipal Representative, Environmental Management Council Ulysses Town Clerk Ulysses Philomathic Library Town of Caroline Clerk Town of Danby Clerk Town of Groton Clerk 1 VILLAGE AGENCIES & REPRESENTATIVES Village of Trumansburg Mayor Village of Trumansburg Clerk Village of Trumansburg Police Chairman, Trumansburg Planning Board Chief, Trumansburg Fire Department Superintendent, Trumansburg Central Schools Village of Cayuga Heights Clerk Village of Lansing Clerk UTILITIES New York State Electric & Gas New York Telephone American Community Cablevision Conrail Railroad Mobil Pipeline Company INDIVIDUALS & GROUPS Director, Paleontological Research Institute Chairperson, Tompkins County League of Women Voters Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Concerned Citizens About Ninety -Six Historic Ithaca, Inc. DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County, Inc. VIII -3 INDIVIDUALS & GROUPS (Continued) Cornell Plantations Associated General Contractors of America Bangs Ambulance Service, Inc. Trumansburg Fire & Ambulance Administrator, Tompkins Community Hospital Coalition For Improved Roads in Tompkins County Citizens For Better Roads in Tompkins County West Hill Civic Association MEDIA Cornell Daily Sun Grapevine Press, Inc. Ithaca College Ithacan Ithaca Journal The Ithaca Times ODYSSEY Publications The Times Monitor UMOJA SA SA News Journal Herald Journal & The Post Standard VIII -4