Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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