Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPart 4 Lansing Transportation Issue Assessment - Final Design Connect 12 2016 a -re.. r - Transportation Issue Assessment and Best Practices Guide Town of Lansing, New York Cornell Design Connect Fall 2014 Prepared By Mike Catsos Hien Dinh Miriam Zaki Zhiyin Pan Adam Bronfin Eileen Munsch Geslin George Kieran Micka-Maloy Acknowledgements Councilperson Ruth Hopkins Town Planner Mike Long Town Clerk Debbie Crandall Town of Lansing Planning Board Lansing Town Council Lansing Comprehensive Plan Update Committee Special thanks to: Fernando de Aragon and Tom Mank of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council About Design Connect Design Connect is a collaborative, student-run, multidisciplinary planning and design orga- nization at Cornell University. Operating in cities and towns across Central New York, De- sign Connect applies community-based, democratic, and sustainable principles to a variety of planning and design problems in local communities. Table of Contents Project Background 5 Process Summary 6 Baseline Conditions 10 Traffic, Congestion, and Safety 13 Streetscapes 18 Regional Connections 24 Alternative Transportation 27 Land Use and Density 31 Recent Trends and Short-Term Outlook 34 Traffic, Congestion, and Safety 37 Alternative Transportation 40 Land Use and Density 42 Town Center 44 Recommendations and Long-Term Outlook 46 Recommendations Matrix 48 Project Background Councilperson Hopkins approached Design Connect with concerns about the rapid pace of development in Lansing and questions about the quality-of-life impacts that housing cur- rently in the development pipeline might have on the community. As part of an ongoing com- prehensive plan update process, the town commissioned a resident survey; the results of the survey indicate that residents share similar concerns about the town's wild and agricultural heritage, congestion, traffic, municipal spending, affordability, and sense of place. The ongoing comp plan update, together with the conversation surrounding 15 to 20 pro- posed suburban residential housing projects, offers a chance to bring community desires into alignment with Lansing's planning, zoning, and urban design strategies for the coming years. The town would like to accomplish a thorough review of best practices for guarding against the negative impacts of new development, with a specific focus on the transportation issues that cause concern for local residents. On the basis of conversations with Lansing's Town Board, Planning Board, and Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, along with feedback from lo- cal residents, the Design Connect Lansing team developed this guide using a best-practices framework to respond to many of the concerns that were raised by community members. Community History Lansing, New York was within the territory of the Native American Cayuga Tribe. The history of European settlement in the area dates back to the late 1700s when settlers arrived from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, and other areas of New York. In 1760, the area was divided into lots of land, the Central New York Military Tract, in order to reimburse Revolu- tionary War soldiers. A lack of Native Americans, due to General Sullivan's expedition in 1779, and the fertile land in Western New York, attracted early settlers to the area. In 1817 the act that created Tompkins County resulted in the formation of the Town of Lansing, setting it apart from the Town of Milton which it had previously been a part of. Historical farmers were served by grist mills, saw mills, clothing mills, blacksmith shops and tanneries operated by other settlers. Lansing is located on the eastern shore of Cayuga Lake and is 69.92 square miles, 9.2 of which are water. According to the 2010 census, Lansing had a population of 11,033. Nearly half of the community works in educational services in nearby Tompkins County Community College, Ithaca College and Cornell University. Lansing is a rural community; about one third of the town's land area is farmed on by forty operating farm businesses. 5 Process Summary Research To better understand Lansing's transportation issues and the context that surrounds them, the team consulted a variety of sources during an extensive research phase. Information on the Town's current zoning codes, regulations, and recent development activ- ity was gathered. The team also looked in depth into the community's comprehensive plan and documents prepared by the current Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, along with survey results prepared for the comp plan update summarizing resident sentiments about a variety of planning issues. Both the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department have prepared studies in the past that explore trans- portation issues in our study area. In addition, the team gathered information from Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit and local transportation advocacy groups. Two separate tours of the study area were conducted during peak morning and evening traf- fic hours to observe and document a range of transportation conditions. Lastly, to identify appropriate interventions that might be applied in the community, the group sought infor- mation from State and Federal government agency sources, national transportation advoca- cy groups and think tanks, and university research projects. Issues explored included traffic counts, accidents and traffic safety, bicycle and pedestrian issues, transit service and usage, regional commuting patterns, streetscape design, zoning, and land use. 6 Outreach The team's outreach process was developed in response to the broad variety of transporta- tion issues we hoped to address. While working with community leaders to refine the project scope during early phases, the team conducted on-site brainstorming meetings and phone interviews with members of the Town Council, the Planning Board, and Lansing's Town Plan- ner. As the scope narrowed and major thematic issues began to emerge, representatives of the team distributed project information and team contact info at meetings of the Planning Board and Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, which generated interest in the project and feedback about current transportation issues and potential interventions. Informal con- versations with community leaders and local residents following those meetings also proved informative. Additionally, the team benefited from the fact that a town-wide survey on a number of transportation and planning-related issues had recently been conducted as a part of the comprehensive plan update process. While Lansing is a large community and some residents were difficult to reach, long-form survey responses and town records provided to the group served as an excellent resource in gauging community sentiment on a variety of relevant topics. ■ The team delivering a project update to the Planning Board. 7 Analysis Framework Distilling a wide range of community concerns and issues into a coherent set of themes posed an early challenge for the group. The range of transportation system challenges identified by community contacts, taken together with the large geographic extent of the proposed study area, made settling on a framework difficult. Eventually, an analytical framework emerged that was designed to approach many different issues through a broad, holistic look at trans- portation and related land use issues in the southernmost portion of the community. The team opted to explore several broad transportation themes: traffic volumes and asso- ciated effects, alternative transportation, regional connections, streetscape design, and land use. Through this lens, the team chose to assess baseline conditions in the town and explore potential short- and long-term changes to the community's transportation system as dif- ferent forces exert influence over time. Finally, using information gathered during research, outreach, and the baseline conditions assessment, the team elected to highlight best practic- es for transportation issues in rural communities and identify locations where interventions might be deployed in the Town of Lansing. The guide to best practices was to include infor- mation on how to finance improvements to the town's transportation system, along with reflections on how changes to town policy and planning procedure could generate positive changes in the community transportation landscape. 8 00 Approximate StudyAL = ■ Jw �Fq- ` .. ... _- - r y �.: TovM Center ., f T � lw ■ :" ;. ..,y ;. � Asbury R.oa:d`' M % f Ana N } Waterwagon Road WEB /51. �; .� l ir s 1 �:. ei r: ;• Approximate StudyArea Boundary • Baseline Conditions The Town of Lansing's existing transportation network consists largely of roads with a vari- ety of classifications and purposes. Two major north-south roads, Route 34 and Triphammer Road, run the length of the study area, channeling traffic to and from Ithaca and the commer- cial areas of the Village of Lansing. These two roads are classified by local agencies as Urban Minor Arterials. Another north-south road located further east, Warren Road, moves traffic through industrial areas of the community and past the airport, and is classified as an Urban Collector Street. Asbury Road, which connects the three major north-south routes between the Village line and the town center, shares this classification. Other streets in the commu- nity are classified as Urban Local Roads, reflecting their status as low volume streets serv- ing denser, suburbanized neighborhoods. Local planning agencies have also identified Route 34 and Triphammer road as major freight corridors, thanks to the presence of several major freight generators nearby. Surveys conducted to inform the Town of Lansing's comprehensive plan update, along with interviews of local residents, reveal a number of different perceived problems with the Town's road network and overall transportation system. While most streets in the study area are effective at moving vehicle traffic swiftly through the community, this convenience has come partly at the expense of other modes. Residents cited high traffic speeds, high traffic volumes, and truck traffic as major disincentives for pedestrians and bicyclists. Noting the absence of shoulders in much of the town, the scarcity of signaled intersections and street lighting, and the few designated pedestrian crossing areas, many residents shared memories of recent accidents. They made clear that perceptions of danger limit interest in other modes and can make the experience of driving uncomfortable. Other issues, such as the absence of turn lanes and the congestion along certain arterial roads, contributed to perceptions that some form of intervention could be required. Route 34, the town center area, Triphammer Road, Waterwagon Road, Hillcrest Road, and Warren Road were frequently mentioned as unsafe or dysfunctional during these conversations. 10 N Town of Lansing A �� State Highways County Boundaries n5-r Yo x&: FT—car,rrar Municipal Boundaries 1903 Art,American D- z,,-- County Roads Local Roads i State Pack r'65'000 Unpaved Local Roads State Marine Park 0 2 Seasonal Roads Miles ' Private Roads re yx ns Ceuny �nFw WJun Tecnnvmvr swrrca: 9 inch equals 1.03 miles 'iyYirs ri,rtrdne[1'r IT'.:zc media, .c•rrin ax�n•�r,• ..0E.pC•y eft I:r.a °Hartry - 4 � � I p�iu tt; ..N[u5n unr.dy�y I 4 V\ �,l East --til - e - }pacarw.;im "" - I soot � a Eansing - I ,wyeis 6 = - I kV SS LY 5 5 E - •` �•-•--I SYS - �� k = •� 5. k�nvl ni' '��x, •� l `•k Y4 n.�.,xi Rn .x,y i ......---'---'-- ■ �� j ` . IWA E N r 1 E L 0 � l 1 i k A map from the Tompkins County Planning Office showingjurisdition over roads in the Town of Lansing.The study area is located in the lower right hand quadrant of the map. 11 Consistent with these perspectives, records kept by the Lansing Town Clerk's Office reveal a long history of neighborhood requests for transportation interventions in the study area. Along Route 34, improvements have been requested at intersections with Eastlake Road, Waterwagon Road, and E. Shore Circle, which fall along a high-speed curve. One 2011 peti- tion with nearly 100 signatures from neighbors requested new signage, flashing lights, lower speed limits, more enforcement, lighting, and improved sight lines, indicating a strong degree of neighborhood support for focusing on safety. In this instance, the state approved a flashing beacon on the southbound portion of Route 34 approaching the intersection with Waterwag- on Road. Speed limits have also been lowered along Route 34 between Eastlake and 3413, but many of the issues that caused neighbors concern have not been resolved. Similar requests for lower speed limits, traffic signals, lighting, enforcement, and other traffic pattern changes have been made for Waterwagon Road, Asbury Road, Triphammer Road, and Warren Road, with a special focus on sensitive intersections along these corridors in- cluding Waterwagon / Triphammer, Asbury / Triphammer, and Warren / Asbury. Residents of neighborhoods alongside Asbury and Triphammer Roads have supported their requests with petitions and letters to local officials. While some of these requests have resulted in lowered speed limits, others have been rejected. Major accidents in the study area along the Triphammer corridor in 2013 and 2014, which required victims to be airlifted to regional hospitals, have kept Lansing's transportation safety issues alive in both local news and the public consciousness. Coupled with a series of recent high-profile articles about new growth, it is expected that community residents in the study area will remain invested in town-wide conversations on transportation system develop- ments related to new growth and change. 12 Traffic Volumes 7521 5067 5.4 1071 1478 ro 1i ,average DaiIy Traffic; 2012 7:�s{ No Data —1 - 1500 —1501 - 4000 .1 { 327" .I 59 Y —4001 10000 CP 1 —10001 - 25000 —25001 75000 Cr. —75000 300000 Average traffic counts over a 24-hour period along all major roads through the study area from the New York State Department of Transportation. 13 Road Average Daily Traffic(2012) Route 34 7942 Triphammer Road at Village Line 6867 Warren Road 4805 Asbury Road 1071 Route 34B at Route 34 7648 Route 34B at Armstrong Road 5087 Route 34 at Town Center 7521 Summary table of 2012 average daily traffic along major road segments. Recent traffic counts from the Town of Lansing indicate that many of the major roads within the study area have experienced double-digit percentage increases in traffic volume over the past decades. The most significant traffic volumes were recorded at the intersection of Route 34 and Route 34B in the town center, along the southermost reaches of Triphammer Road, and along the major corridor of Route 34 near Ithaca. While traffic counts provide only a limited view into the traffic issues, and sometimes con- tain idiosyncrasies, a macro-level assessment of changing traffic volumes in the community supports the assertion that changes in the community are fueling changes in road usage pat- terns and increases in overall traffic generation. 14 Congestion Several areas in the community have been identified as particularly congested. Particularly, the segment of Route 34B immediately west of the town center was identified by both local residents and assessments carried out by other agencies as an area of particular concern. Residents mentioned that traffic flowing southward through the community from the school area creates dangerous and congested conditions daily for much of the afternoon and eve- ning. Another area identified as congested was a segment of Warren Road immediately north of the Village of Lansing line. In both of these areas, traffic volumes exceed the acceptable bounds of road capacity. While congestion is experienced by residents one way and defined by transportation planners another, conversations with locals indicated that smaller-scale pockets of congestion and crowding at intersections exist elsewhere in the community as well. y rEwvu Ra z c = Q J O .�� n RDHE ip RG -- g EET Rqp IP'U30k C �Tll ER aC' ° Rp[tiv RO a a i 3 �i iRo RRT VILLA NSING CR>=5T R �•y Rp h RT DR T mwr c+F o F s cial con er arc in'red n.c. MT yskN1 V L _ Ll ELM T ELLg'b � W p dF U 6 � I RE �ptP �Tp wp— _ yi Q m e4s 3 e � T Congested Roads L�q 5.6 PM Peak Hour wr —p—, Tompkins County 2014 O Miles � 7 Congestion maps from the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council indi- cate significant PM congestion on Route 34B and Warren Road in Lansing 15 Traffic Safety A study of traffic accidents across Tompkins County from 2000 to 2010 conducted by the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council largely confirms many of the perceptions of local residents regarding road safety. Intersections with high crash rates are concentrated al- most entirely along Triphammer Road and Route 34, where high-speed collector roads meet neighborhood feeder streets. The road segments where accidents occur most frequently fall along Route 34, Hillcrest Road, Triphammer Terrace, and along other major North-South car- rier roads in the northern portion of the town. LANSING GEHOATDWNLI�. - SILLRD NIT RIDGE RD -- .... F FLLLRD m STARKE DECAMP Rt3 LODE RD D FENNER RD z �o STDR7.1 RD yC N LANSNG SCHOOL RD n n z s NEWMANRD a p tlrt O npji G"-- JERRY SMITH RD 5� � O ALGERINE RD BACON RD rY❑ A 1IJN pa EMMCNSRD IDUAINTOWN OF NSINOT LMI1ROSS SINERD11 J1IV de_ Si WcK R➢ 1 SQWER R 5 9RRsON RD S Rtce ti ANSBHRG F,q yyp � _PERUVI I o i w pp AGARD RD '•L - $ .p '.AS&3RY RD � I(RAFr RD X REACHR Y 0 TOWN OF LILYSM HOUGHTON RD 1I COLEGROVE RD A ' O MEI�EL RD \ C 8S i I-IFRRY RD z PERRY O�L n l� � Q O 696VRIAOE OF LAN5106 Cl gRO/IN RD y, 'S �p 18 >rt ROOT O Legend Location of High-Crash Rate N Roads and Intersections Intersections w/High Crash-Rate-Lansing Tawn of Lansing 2000-2010 Road Segments w/Hlgh Crash-Bate-Lansing (1 crash/year minimum) 1 _ Prepared by the Id:aea-Ta pklns Jr'•I•C CapinN T+anspoAalia�'Coy-r it•V!y'3 scaIG The study area, in the lower right-hand corner of this map, hosts a high concen- traion of high crash rate intersections. 16 A look into the severity of the accidents that occurred during that time frame reveals a similar picture. High-severity crash intersections are concentrated even more noticeably in the town center and along Triphammer Road leading southward at intersections with Hillcrest Road, Waterwagon Road, and Asbury Road. The segment of Route 34 that passes through the study area south of the town center also plays host to a large number of high-severity accidents. LJ�SINGGENDATDINN LINE RD -. 51LLRD NUT R1D[.'E RD MILLRD omp S ARRS DEDAMP RD LorME RD a m FENNER RD Z C $ CAY 5 �j s rrm � STORM AD N LARSNG SCHOOL RD G A Z I S C O A RPNMAN RD 'Dw JERRY SMUM RD ALGERINE RD N III¶Ill BACON RDI IAUNID"A" ` � p �EMMDNS RD�FL�� q O RE R❑ WN TO DF HSINGERD1 EALES ftD ��F,ASTLANSIN S RUGC RD S (` g yyL50N ftD y S O C FICE r q ANSDURO 144 - ❑ •.- 34 - —PERUN 9 Sq > � —RD RD RY RD I LL Cq AFTER RD yC. Rd REACH RN p 1(RAEr RD AW 0 4cF TOWNOFULYSSLS IIOLX*NDN RD �i FAR �\ COL.EGROLE RO 31 % I` 0 MEKEE1 RD 8R GI � ss � ERRY RD Aa PERRY D O � O Y J.�1 O p0 0. 4 9.y� YRLAOE LAME A W OF� 'P BADWN RD RD pp pp JE ROUTE -� 13 - C Location of High-Crash Seventy N Legend Roads and Intersections Intersections wlHigh Crash-Severity-Lansing Town of Lansing 2000-2010 Road Segments wlHigh Crash-Severity-Lansing (1 crashlyear minimum) 6 2 Prepared by tee idea T—pki,s FP.iles Coonry hartaponatlon Cooncll-311113 Srai High-severity crashes are also a common occurence. While roads and intersections in Lansing do not rank among the highest in the County for ac- cidents between vehicles and bikes or pedestrians, this lower frequency of incidents may be attributable to the low-density suburban character of the study area, which likely contributes to lower rates of walking and biking overall. Notably, conflict between vehicles and deer is strongly evident in accident patterns, with most collisions occurring along Triphammer Road and Route 34. 17 Streetscape Conditions Matrix Warren Triphammer East Shore Route 34B Asbury Waterwagon Hillcrest Town Pnafl ONE_ Road Road d,,Road Road Road Type County County State State County Local Local County/ State Lanes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Shoulder Yes,Wide Yes, Mod- Yes,Wide Varies No Shoulder No Shoulder Yes, Narrow Yes, Presence erate and Un- Narrow and Condi- paved tion Right Turn Yes None None Yes None None None Yes Lanes Sidewalks None None None None None None None None Lighting None None None None None None None Limited Runoff Grading; Grading and Grading Grading and Grading and Grading and Grading, Grading, Manage- mix of soft culverts culverts culverts culverts dispersed dispersed ment and hard culverts and sewer infrastruc- drains drains ture Public Open None None Dispersed None None None Dispersed Dispersed Space Pedestrian None None None None None None None Trash cans Amenities near ath- leticfields Streetscape Views Hillcrest Road 44 m f - q i 18 F _ lit �r �L r - Q �7 '• C • M1 -r ..�_ �;��. err - ` • '• C .t- �d� �- Y ji.�"a,� r r �''� � F.Y.: "` .,.f•:. .- .� -_ .i 1 _ - � 'O�! - ! - � _ - -- - - • • • • by •r C`.`•��� .� - .. ! - tow lk- F " F Al— ,i U O.3 Streetscape Conditions Streetscapes in Lansing are largely rural in nature. Most roads have two lanes, no sidewalks, and minimal pedestrian amenities such as lighting. The widths of shoulders vary - sever- al roads have only narrow gravel shoulders, while others are as wide as three or four feet. Stormwater runoff grading on the side of the road varies in steepness and drops sharply in some areas. Most local roads wind smoothly around the topography of the area. The low density of housing allows for an abundance of natural vegetation, primarily deciduous and coniferous trees, along the sides of the roads. Community perspectives on streetscape changes are varied. According to information gath- ered from the pre-comp plan update Community Survey, 58.04% of surveyed residents would like to see tax dollars used for sidewalks and 69.70% are willing to spend tax dollars on bike paths/lanes on roads. After a review of open ended survey responses, a majority cited the lack of sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks as the main contributing factor to lack of road safety. Other factors include lack of lighting, sharp drop offs, and lack of bike and pedestrian pathways. Main areas of concern include East Shore Drive, Triphammer Road and Asbury Road. Although many people indicated a desire for pedestrian walkways, some felt that the lack of sidewalks contributed to the rural character of the area. 23 Regional Connections and Commuting Patterns The Town of Lansing is connected to greater Ithaca and the Central New York region by arteri- als like Route 34 (Auburn Road/East Shore Drive), Route 13, Route 34B (Peruville Road/Ridge Road), and Triphammer Road. The most important regional connections are those that lead to Ithaca, namely Route 13, East Shore Drive, and Triphammer Road. In addition, several TCAT routes lead from Ithaca and Cornell University into Lansing, providing a means of alternative transportation into and out of the town. Major employment sectors in the Town of Lansing are Education, Health and Social Services (1,549 employees), Manufacturing (405), Retail Trade (351), Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing (345). Many people commute to jobs outside of Lansing each day, particularly those who work for Cornell University--a substantial percentage of the popula- tion. Public adrninist ation 16 Other services(except public administration) JW Arts,entertainment,recreation,accommodation and... Uurational,health and social3Mkes ProfeSSionaL scientifiC,management,ad ministratiae,... rinana,insurance,real estate,and rerwtai and Ieasina 3 Informatlon iransportati ion and wamhousing,and utilities Retail t rade Wholesale trade � Menufact�,ri�g � Construction � Agriculture,forestry,fishing and huntln&and mlydng 0 200 40D 600 SM 1O00 1200 14DO 16W Nurnber of employees !a 2010 z 2000 A chart of the Town's employment distribution shows a large number of work- ers in education-related fields, manufacturing, and retail - all industries which are concentrated outside of the community. 24 Between 2000 and 2010, the labor force in the Town of Lansing (outside of the Village) in- creased by 5.9% from 3,922 to 4,155. During the same time frame, the labor force in the Village of Lansing increased by 18.6%, from 1,663 to 1,972. Comparatively, Tompkins County saw its labor force increase by only 4.3% during those years, from 51,187 to 53,371. Lansing, particularly the Village of Lansing, has thus grown at a higher rate than the rest of Tompkins County in recent times. Much of that increase is workers drawn to jobs in other parts of the county. Lansing's employment distribution reflects the high number of professionals commuting to Cornell and other major employers in Ithaca. In-commuting to Tompkins County from Cayuga County, immediately to the north of Lansing, has increased steadily in recent years. In keeping with patterns identified in Lansing's road hierarchy, sources indicate that a sig- nificant number of the study area's residents commute southward along major north-south corridors into the CitV and Town of Ithaca. ManV are employed by the countV's major educa- tional institutions, Cornell University and Ithaca College, with others employed in business and industrial parks located immediately outside the town's southernmost boundaries. Commuting Mode Split In terms of commuting modes, the Town of Lansing is much more auto-oriented than Tomp- kins County as a whole, with 72% of people driving to work alone and another 13% of people carpooling to work. Mode split in the Village of Lansing is much closer to Tompkins County as a whole, with 56% of people driving to work alone and 17% carpooling. Walking to work, in both the Village and the Town of Lansing (with 1% and 2% mode share respectively), is very rare in comparison to Tompkins County as a whole, where walking to work has 17% mode share. Residents of the Town of Lansing take the bus to work at approximatelV the same rate as people of Tompkins County as a whole (7%), but people in the Village take the bus in much greater numbers, at 20% mode share. Cycling is the least chosen waV to work, with mode shares of 0%, 1% and 2% in Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing and Tompkins County respec- tivelV. 25 Mode to Work•Town of Lansing 12012 S Cd75us ACS} ax 2x. stc, �*4 C ck-e Awe 13% ■{arlmq o eLA DWak aW.Vcb o wogs 41 Fhx* FjR¢ Mode to Wa+k-Village of Lanyhg OW 2 S Census ACS) 1�. 20%, Y Urbw Abn r ■Glalpad oeil ❑walk A d work At rbrro Mode to Work-Tompkins County(2D12 S Census Aus) r-t 159Eff m 6rKe Alone f Carped d BuL +1 ❑walk f 57% �2�ryt�f f 9 WGFk at Hwm r Charts of commuting modes indicate that the rate of commuters using alterna- tives to single-occupancy autos lags far behind regional averages. 26 Alternative Transportation Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Infrastructure intended solely for use by pedestrians and cyclists is relatively rare in the Town of Lansing. Major roads through the community including East Shore Drive, Ridge Road, War- ren Road and Auburn Road have shoulders available for pedestrians and bikes, yet many oth- er streets lack both space and infrastructure for pedestrians or bikers. Visibility around high speed curves is limited on roads such as Route 34, and other streets such as Hillcrest Rd present visibility problems as they rise up steeper hills, creating safety risks for pedestrians and bicycles attempting to share road space. Narrow and winding country roads with no shoulders carry frequent 18-wheeler traffic from the airport-area industrial park, salt mine, and other industrial facilities. Because some roads lack tonnage limits, pedestrians and bi- cyclists are drawn into conflict with larger, dangerous vehicles on top of regular automobile traffic. There are also some intersections that pose specific dangers for pedestrians and bikers. The town center intersections of Triphammer Road / 34 and 34B / RT34, in particular, lack any form of safety measures, and high-speed right-hand turns passing outside of the travel lane and through bicycle and pedestrian space are very common. This practice is common else- where in the town, both for turning and for passing of turning vehicles, which leaves pedes- trians and bikers along shoulders exposed to high speed traffic. 27 Transit Service TCAT busses serve the suburban neighborhoods within the study area. Two regular routes, Route 36 and 37, pass through between northern portions of Lansing and Ithaca. Route 36 follows the path of East Shore Drive and serves a park-and-ride lot in the town center area. Route 37 follows Warren Road, Asbury Road, and Triphammer Road before continuing north. One additional weekend-only trip, Route 77, also follows Warren Road, but terminates before reaching the town center. Little formal infrastructure exists for these bus lines, but bus policy allows pickups for flag-stop riders throughout Lansing. While in practice this makes for an easier ride, it can make identifying origin points of riders more difficult. Current service schedules mean that Lansing is currently served by bus during the morning and evening rush hours only. The absence of a regularly-available bus line has been identified as an obstacle for users who would like to rely more on the bus as a substitute for a personal vehicle. However, low ridership patterns across the community, especially when compared to neighboring communities of similar size, indicate that service frequency is unlikely to increase anytime soon. The community's low density nature and other factors also contribute to a history of poor ridership. 28 J , JAY �y�� J yL •J q!' �1•• �} w vY,'L Aj� •F�r�r•y. '.r 1f•lf+ ,�.fLl Vl `_}.� •f'. {�T'�f'��� ,d \ � , r' ,€ifs�:� �j` �.y�5.�{t. • 'a Iry }r{;" � ,'•;,� r�"r � �- '+N4� „ f f � jr may¢ rv :�F•tr 3 7! 5 �r +,�� ; ��r R�_a • 5��•�• , •a�h.ry� +} � '; �y' h_ to�;n� i,. %-� `IliFS- .r• •�}S: r.-=VS -`,ti}'� �•' } •\ sses _ ••yJy+ i h°,' .-k♦i :.k' •Fy �`:'-.+v€.iYin-�'-.,Y• � { deril +�•ige"` :"T?'.�`j .a! ,♦ � 'fir�}F�',�a:+ +-r'"2��'�'�'• � � •��• ',-��-3. i .rig ,f,..: 'Enfield' �•` il�S4'y',� ..Y, • � ild .'.,�.:.6. .• MI'4 �i}`'* •�A, # •fir/ •� x•`�i�F� ,4` +L' i ��J\•{? 9� -f +}4� r {:14?;;� `.fi 4 {+ 4 i ,r a } 'i1 v�'iu`hft_�E7•r I ne ., •�•^'•r# �• �--� ,h-:*i. ;���f� Sf"�*.ry' i• ~�' � •r���rl 7��•'�rZy `!jl•• gipp. ••Wfipp} d:+ r`tifr .�,'S _six�� F' 4�•ltihr'Sf '� * t •~lh h - hr ash - -, - '' '#'y '+�: .,••,{}•' fy Ridership Y -Wry High Ridemlilp - High Ridership TCAT Ridership by Route Segment - Medium Ridership ouC"ide 2013 Low Rimder$NP Very Low Ridersbip 2010 Census Pop ufation 1 Ooi= 1 1�etso-n 0 P 4 8 Miles ' Despite relatively high population densities, maps of TCAT ridership reveal that the Town rates lower than other Tompkins County communities in transit rid- ership. 29 Community Perspectives on Alternative Transportation According to open-ended survey conducted in advance of the town's comprehensive plan update, residents feel some degree of dissatisfaction about alternative transportation in the community. Concerns surrounded a number of different issues, including lack of sidewalks, crosswalks, crossing lights, crossing signs and bike lanes, traffic lights not long enough for pedestrians to get across, narrow shoulders, high speed limits, heavy truck traffic, poor visi- bility at night and absent lighting, lack of turning lanes along some roads, lack of road safety education for pedestrians and drivers, inadequate road maintenance for bikes and pedestri- ans terms of clearing snow and grass, lack of speed monitoring on roads, poor road condi- tions for the elderly, and blind spot on certain corners. Because of the way the survey questions were formulated, most responses related to the state of the community's physical infrastructure for alternative modes. Fewer responses were recorded relating to commuting, mode choice, and community policy towards transit. It is also worth noting that many survey respondents expressed satisfaction with the current state of the community's alternative transportation system, and were skeptical that the ben- efits of investment in new infrastructure would have a positive impact for taxpayers in the northernmost rural areas of the town. 30 Land Use and Density IR r RA a 5 1 y $1 F f IR 'r Legend 1S2 {- Tax Parcels ( ., - 0 Lansing Town&Village Roads f j = ��T..d Town of Lansing Zoning 2003 - P,' —T rll — Commercial Mixed Use(B1) � �1 � ;N f — — Commercial(B2) i�1� IR' ,i:-�.•-f� Industrial/Research(IR) Lakeshore(L 1) Residential-Low Density(R1) L ® Residential-Moderate Density(R2) _ ---- Residential-Mixed Use(R3) N — Rural Agricultural(RA) Cayuga Lake , o.s ❑ P 3 4Mk. i The Town of Lansing's current zoning map. 31 Study Area Land Cover (2012) n 0 � x o RN A pERUviLLE RA M � � d gy R R RVATH F TER R S 5 0 5 R R. OMIIes WAT RWAGON RU P A EASTLAKE R RRELL R Existing Land Cover 2012 MUR IEL 4R g D Residential ~�-Q J Agriculture LU C -Inactive Agriculture X W -Recreation L -vegetative Cover 1 -Wetlands Barren or Disturbed Industrial,Transporta Ron,Trsnsrnmsion Commercial Publicllnsttutionel i L RO Water 'i Otter t A r Land cover within the study area varies, although significant areas are occupied by residential development, forestlands, and agricultural lands. The Town of Lansing is currently divided into 8 distinct land control districts. The districts are Rural Agricultural, Lakeshore, Residential Low Density, Residential Moderate Density, Res- idential Mixed-Use, Commercial Mixed-Use, General Commercial, and Industrial/Research. The vast majority of northern portions of the Town, outside of the study area, is zoned Rural Agricultural. The RA district is intended to support and preserve farming activities that have taken place within the community for centuries, although small scale residential development is allowed in this area. Low and Moderate Density Residential zoning, along with Lakeshore zoning, can be found along Route 34B in the area of the Lansing Schools, reflecting the higher development intensity in this area. 32 Within the study area, the zoning picture is somewhat more complicated. The study area is punctuated by a Commercial Mixed Use zone covering the town center area, intended to foster the development of a discernable town center with varied commercial and residential development forms. From the town center and the Village of Lansing line, a corridor of Mod- erate Density Residential spans the approximate area between Route 34 and Triphammer Road, two of the Town's busiest travel corridors. West of Route 34 on the Lakefront and east of Triphammer Road are areas of Low Density Residential. A large Industrial/Research area covers lands immediately to the north of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport which include light manufacturing and offices. Finally, Residential Mixed Use districts intended to accom- modate denser growth as infrastructure take shape are located to the east and north of the town center. The densest single family residential development allowed under the current zoning code is possible in the Moderate Density Residential Zone, with a minimum lot size of 20000 square feet. In the Moderate Density Residential Zones and Mixed Use Commercial Zones, multi- unit residential can be developed at an intensity of up to 8000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. In Low Density Residential zones, minimum lot size is 40000 sq. ft., or nearly one full acre. With the exception of the Rural Agricultural Zone, townwide height limits cap buildings at 35ft. All residential zones feature mandatory minimum front-facing setbacks of at least 30 ft, and minimum open space requirements on lots range from 85% to 20% in the densest commercial districts. The Town currently mandates that one- and two- family residential units include a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. Residential developments with 3 or more units require 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Parking requirements for commercial, industrial, and civic uses vary significantly with proposed use. Despite residential zoning, large tracts of agricultural, inactive agricultural, and wooded land remain intact along the southern and eastern edges of the town within the study area. Resi- dential development has been most intensive in the area between Triphammer Road, Warren Road, and Asbury Road. On the fringes of undeveloped lands in the study area, division of land into fragmented single home lots along major street edges is a common practice. 33 Recent Trends and Short-Term Outlook New Development As of early 2014, nearly 20 unique residential development projects were in different phases of Lansing's development pipeline.The housing units expected to come into existence through these proposed projects number in the hundreds. While not all of the development proposals may come to pass, the projects currently in the pipeline offer a sense of what Lansing's near- term development future may look like. Distributed across the study area, they serve as a reasonable approximation of locations in which growth might be expected to appear and the overall number of units which might be added to the Town's housing stock on a shorter time horizon. By entering the location and expected number of new units for each development into trans- portation models, it is possible to estimate how traffic volumes and flows might change in the community over the coming years. Using data supplied by the Design Connect team, the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council prepared models estimating how traffic vol- umes might change on the Town of Lansing's major roads as the currently-proposed devel- opments take shape. 34 Town Center-,Ca*!nar _ t +` _ ' T'own Center-Corn er ':.e' 1 _ Town Cgnfbr-Green Square °' �" f ;.�• , �rnknCenter-NIA Posi� 1e }J1 Cottonwood _ + - '•� Lansmg Commons -°!_: ..T"., p y 9a.Farms iownhomesLa „ *? •'� -' - ' Whispering Pines P ��j.: �:i': ���'-:'�. ':' �• .- to*_- - � .,.�. -5 'i'••. �, yfilla�e Sol ars Phase I ' Village Solars Phase 2 Proposed Development Name Proposed Number of Units Under Review as of May 2014 Lake Forest Circle 17 Cayuga Farms Townhomes 102 Whispering Pines Phase VI 30 East Shore (Novalane) 7 Lake View 17 Sun Path 3 Plated and Approved as of May 2014 Cayuga Way 12 Cottonwood 21 Pond Circle 8-10 Woodland Park 73 Lansing Commons 15 Village Solars / Circle Phase 1 188 Under Discussion as of May 2014 Village Solars / Circle Phase 11 120 Green Square 60 NRP 80 Cornerstone 90 Calamar 1125 The status of developments and approximate expected number of units to be developed. 36 Traffic Modeling Results 4'r a SP T 5 w � it9 72p8 r.+ • � � A1� Iq • • �^ 683 1012 107 aERUNIlE RD 27 784 7 7 2 q R O ! 1 8 ■ � • 3 o rFZ • A a p m v BONE PLAIN RD a 226 � �'C7 m 34 84 AssuRY RD 7 _ 84 TEETER Dyy�O y x • w RUN \1' • � w O� WATERWAGON RD r9 445 Cayuga Lake a �, a RD 464 Uh PA MUR DR EE �i m m O M 539 RD 484 NEW RD a m w 7 w TE D - m 0 0.5 1 Town of Lansing Analysis Legend Miles Traffic Volumes (including trucks) Areas of New Development NOTES: Roads in TOM cam. � kn• "Black"Numbers represent current traffic volumes in pm Peak Hour(5-6 PM) "Red"Numbers represent post-development traffic volumes in pm Peak Hour(5-6 PM) " Traffic counts can be expected to increase across the study area as new devel- opment takes shape, with pressures concentrated on major north-south roads. Traffic count changes at selected locations: Road Existing Peak Hour Count New Development Peak Hour Count Percent Change Route 34 at East Shore Circle 967 1010 4% Route 34 at Town Center 981 927 -5% Triphammer at Waterwagon 1007 1358 35% Triphammer at Sharon Drive 972 984 1% Triphammer at Village Line 1078 1118 4% Hillcrest Road 176 192 9% Asbury at Armstrong Road 606 643 6% Warren at Cherry Road 1053 1137 8% Warren at Hillcrest Road 990 1128 14% Route 34B at Triphammer Road 536 603 13% 37 Oq 81 • w e 9 19 .46 OA1 D-4$ 0.22 0.2 1LLE RD 6.51 W ILA lS. 1 0 26 0. 5 A6 O. d. 0.1 A • W A O BONE PLAIN R9 n Q m OA5 c „ 25 21 ASBURY Rn a .2 0.21 0 0 0 b TEETER U T • m 2 � H • RUN o a WATERWAGON Rn •) 0,34 EASTLAKE 7 AWELLRU IL3 Cayuga Lake SUN Ry MUR 1ELU OR v • �i d o • a P y g � 0.37 tto 0.31 d NEW Rny c 0.38 0.3 a Bu OR4ZON OR pp .�yyp6.RRO .2 ATE 9 1 0 0.5 1 Town of Lansing Analysis Legend • Volume-over-Capacity (VOC) Areas of New Development Miles - including trucks Roads in TDM NOTES Current Volumes F-­"-_ "Black"Numbers represent current VOC in pm Peak Hour(5-6 PM) c„-11,T,.=.,W-nc=,�•,=G.,,,•z•- "Red*Numbers represent post-development VOC in pm Peak Hour(6-6 PM) , Traffic volumes will remain within road capacity limits in some areas, but threat- en to exceed existing capacity in others. Warren Road and Route 34B in the town center show particular vulnerability to this issue. VOC changes at selected locations: Road Existing VOC New Development VOC Net Change Route 34 at Town Center .34 .38 .04 Triphammer at Waterwagon .57 .61 .04 Triphammer at Sharon Drive .42 .46 .04 Triphammer at Village Line .61 .60 -.01 Hillcrest Road .1 .11 .01 Asbury at Armstrong Road .45 .44 .01 Warren at Cherry Road .62 .76 .14 Warren at Hillcrest Road .55 .67 .12 Route 34B at Triphammer Road .21 .22 .01 Town Center .34 .48 .14 38 While some areas of the community are expected to experience no increase or only modest increases in traffic volume, several areas are projected to experience traffic volume increases nearing 10% during peak hours. Raw traffic volumes would increase the most along seg- ments of Warren Road and in the Town Center area. There are limitations to modeling traffic increases - this model assumes no changes in development patterns outside of the town, and estimates vehicle usage on the basis of a variety of ever-changing factors. However, the modeling results are useful in visualizing how broad trends in traffic volume and directional flow may evolve as the town's built landscape changes. BV comparing the expected raw increase in traffic volume for each road segment to the ca- pacity of that road segment, we begin to develop a sense of where congestion will increas- inglV become an issue of concern. Higher Volume-over-Capacity ratios indicate higher levels of congestion and a decreasing overall level of service. A VOC of 1 indicates that a road seg- ment is fulIV at capacity; VOC's above 1 indicate that the road is above capacity, and VOC's approaching 1 indicate that the road is nearing it's maximum capacity. While many of Lansing's roads are projected to have traffic volumes stay well within capacity, several problem areas are also evident. Most notablV, the town's three major north-south corridors (Route 34, Triphammer Road, and Warren Road) and Route 34B carry volumes that are significantly higher than their capacity relative to other roads in the community, and the southern segments of Warren Road are expected to experience negative changes in level of service under this development scenario. Beyond congestion, it is likely that increasing traffic volumes through sensitive intersections and road segments could exacerbate the traffic safety issues that the community has already identified. Increasing numbers of vehicles passing through intersections such as Warren / Hillcrest, Waterwagon /34, Waterwagon / Triphammer, Asbury / Triphammer, and the Town Center maV contribute to an uptick in vehicle-to-vehicle conflict in areas that are already no- table for high accident frequency and severity. Residents along the east-west roads that span the town, including Hillcrest Rd, Waterwagon Rd, Asbury Rd, and Cherry Rd, maV perceive slight increases in the number of vehicles cutting through neighborhoods to reach other parts of town, along with associated road noise and traffic speed impacts. 39 Recent Alternative Transportation Developments Pedestrian and Bicycle The Lansing Town Pathways Committee has spearheaded a recent push to connect residential areas to the town center as a part of a complete network of paths, both sidewalks and trails, to connect local schools, the town hall, Lansing Market, Myers Park, Salt Point, Ludlowville park, and the RINK with one another. Plans developed by the committee and endorsed by the town council express a need to connect neighboring communities with the paths as well. While current pathways in the town center area are largely recreational, the community's paths are eventually intended to be useful for commuting, traveling to school, visiting neigh- bors, and accessing services. Planning efforts have focused on the southern portion of the town, where most intensive residential development has occurred in recent years. Despite the recent surge in interest towards a path network, on-the-ground developments have been few. The pathways committee has identified several steps to success in creating a trail system. Those steps include: • A formalized process to contact landowners of property with the potential for trail devel- opment to link with existing trails or with unique natural areas and seek agreement for property easements. The contact work could be done by volunteers, perhaps from the Lansing Pathways Committee, with oversight from the Town Board. The Town Board, with legal advice, would also oversee easements. ■ Coordination with neighboring communities to link to their trail systems, such as those in the Village of Lansing, the Town of Dryden and the Town of Ithaca. • A Town policy for working with all developers to incorporate trails and open spaces in their plans that link to existing trails or planned trails. ■ Clear communications with specific volunteer and community groups to coordinate work with the Town Parks and Recreation. Groups would include the Cayuga Bird Club, Boy and Girl Scout Troops, Lansing Pathways Committee. • A plan for costs and maintenance of trails through a capital improvements budget, use of volunteer groups, grants from public and private funds. Many local residents, particularly in the heavily agricultural areas of the community, are sup- portive of the trailways concept but skeptical that the benefits may not reach all parts of the community. Sustaining the push for new alternative transportation infrastructure, facilities, and amenities in the near future may be contingent on the identification of an outside funding source to support new investment. 40 Transit If transit ridership is to become more viable in the community over the next several years, a number of obstacles need to be overcome. Development and enhancement of park and ride locales, improved communication tactics to raise awareness and improve passenger ex- perience, and the addition of shelters and amenities at bus stops could raise the profile of the transit system and attract more riders. However, recent development trends will likely replicate many of the problems faced by existing neighborhoods - homes are too far-flung from bus routes, trips are too infrequent, and no incentives exist to draw individuals out of their cars. For this reason, the absence of a multi-modal transportation hub surrounded by higher-density neighborhoods will continue to be a barrier to improved transit access and ridership. As community demographics change, the challenges posed by a lack of transportation alter- natives will start to become more apparent. For example, more than 89% of respondents to the town's recent survey indicated that transportation improvements for the elderly and dis- abled represent a good use of community tax dollars. In the same survey, 86% of respondents felt that expansion of housing options for the elderly was a top priority, indicating that aging in the community is a clear concern. Despite this interest, and a steady demographic shift toward becoming an older community, mobility and accessible transportation lag far behind what is necessary to provide a quality existence to non-driving seniors. Less than one percent of respondents felt that Lansing distinguishes itself as a place to retire, perhaps because of transportation barriers and the absence of local goods and services. While the aging are just one example, short-term trends indicate that alternative transportation options may eventu- ally be lacking for a variety of local groups. 41 Recent Land Use Trends and Impacts A number of recent trends have shaped land use in the Town of Lansing. For one, the process of updating the comprehensive plan will eventually contribute to a revision of the communi- tV's zoning codes. According to a November 2013 report bV the Town of Lansing, the Agricul- ture and Farmland Protection plan, one top priority is the protection of agriculture and farm- land. Although a large share of residential development has occurred in South Lansing over the past 15 years, the Town has observed encroachment into the agricultural and rural areas of North Lansing. The town is concerned about the potential impacts of future development on farms as well as suburban sprawl. Over recent decades, residential development outside of the Village of Lansing grew at a rate 3 times faster than development within the village. (The area of the Town of Lansing out- side of the Village is 41,835 acres.) Although the current policies and community support for agriculture has created a favorable farming climate, residents have observed that this high rate of development has had a negative impact on farming in many ways. The town has also observed that rural sprawl results in a more expensive process in the delivery of services to residents, such as water, sewage, well maintained roads, and lighting. As a result of these concerns, the town is hoping to rezone much of the RA zoning district to an agricultural zone, disallow uses least compatible with farming, and revise the definition of agriculture in the zoning code. TheV hope to "encourage in-fill development in South Lansing to reduce rural sprawl and the associated costs of infrastructure development;' and to ex- plore opportunities and properties to fund and preserve the farmland. The following are among the recommendations proposed by the Town of Lansing in order to achieve their goals of farmland protection and reducing suburban sprawl, while allowing ad- equate development for their growing population: • Avoid sprawl bV focusing and promoting development in areas where adequate infrastruc- ture and services already exist or can be easily upgraded. • Preserve and protect lands that contain steep slopes; federal, state or locally designated wetlands; environmentally important areas (such as quality wildlife or plant habitats); for- ests and woodlots; and agriculture. • Require development to take the form of cluster and/or conservation subdivisions in en- vironmentallV, agriculturally, and visually sensitive areas. • Establish more intensively developed mixed use neighborhoods in and near the Town Cen- ter. 42 • Limit the acreage of land zoned for commercial and light industrial uses in the Town. Dis- courage strip commercial development through appropriate zoning mechanisms. Limit heavy industry to existing Industrial/Research (IR) Districts. • Redevelop or retrofit aging or abandoned industrial or commercial sites, where feasible. • Ensure that new development is sensitive to the community's scenic values. Develop a scenic resources inventory. • Encourage new development to contain a mix of uses and recreation spaces that support the daily needs of residents. Locate mixed uses in appropriate areas and in suitable build- ing types. • Provide a variety of housing types and prices that support a broad range of household types, sizes, lifestyles, life stages, and household incomes in new developments. • Incorporate suitable sustainable development practices (such as LEED certification and alternative energy production) in the design and construction of new developments. • Limit intrusion of non-agricultural uses into agricultural and conservation areas. Buffer farms from neighboring development. • Low density residential uses should be limited to areas that have marginal or no value as agricultural or conservation areas, and which are not anticipated to be served by public water or sewer. • Discourage frontage ("strip") residential lots, especially in prime agricultural areas. Study Area Land Cover and Development Proposals Town Center-CaWmar ■ Tv W n Center,-Carneraione M / ■:, 4n1►[-Groan square R ■ C Ca a 0.5 - i in" Miles Lr—^ - ■ �rebpm ffl PMPoeele I� -- Existing Land Cover 2012 $ Tendenkl 1 WPodlaad Park Agriculure ■. —:VII age Soiars Phase 1 -�acnrs•�cukurc lage SPiacs Phase 2 Recreavon VeOemGrc Cever ,�'; -wHynds Baran or Dmn od Wu Ml.7rereponanoa.Tro—loelm J_- CenmtertiM P�IiNnatiWtiotal Mwr viner A Development under existing zoning will radically alter land cover in the study area. 43 Town Center Trends and Developments During a Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting on November 13, 2012 a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis identified the lack of a Town Center as a fu- ture threat that could impact the Town of Lansing. The Town of Lansing has identified goals and objectives around creating a Town Center through its Comprehensive Plan. The Town Center area consists largely of some 140 acres of town owned land located along 34B in between East Shore Drive to the west and Triphammer Road to the east. It is zoned for com- mercial mixed use which allows allows most business and commercial uses, housing, mixed- use, recreation, and some light assembly and manufacturing. The Town Center Policy Plan indicates the desire for higher density housing, commercial services and recreational oppor- tunities that cater to the needs of local residents, increase the tax base and create a greater sense of community in Lansing. If the Town Center is developed, it is likely that the intersection of East Shore Road and 34B will experience increased traffic congestion during peak hours, which has been cited by res- idents and assessments as an area of concern for both congestion and safety reasons. Res- idential development south of 34B will likely increase traffic congestion for school related travel in the morning and afternoon. Local firm Holt Architects submitted a Town Center Plan in 2010 that articulated seven goals ,which included community identity and character, acknowledgment of Town Center activity (new town hall, renovated library, historic grange), increased density, mixed land uses, pedes- trian focus, consolidated parking and public sewers. During a public meeting, seventy Lansing residents raised 6 key issues that included the necessity of strategy, connections to unify the community, improvement of community services, support of small local business develop- ment, the presence of housing in the Town Center, and the promotion of green space. 44 Existing His[oric School House with Parking Lot Exlsiing Lansing Library and Grange with Parking Lol ,e..O. Proposed Histuri"choot House with Town Green Proposed Lansng Llh rary and Grange with Town Green Existing Malin FA eek Existing Abandoned Railroad Line i � s f 1 1 ? Pro ooscd Main Sircc[Improve Lens .=t Proposed fogging Trail Proposed designs for the town center area from the Holt Town Center Plan. 45 Recommendations and Long-Term Outlook While long-term outlooks for the Town of Lansing's transportation system are difficult to characterize and largely dependent on design and policy interventions adopted over the com- ing years, near-term trends provide a basis for assessing future conditions if patterns remain unchanged. Based on patterns identified in short term traffic change projections, congestion and traffic incidents can be expected to increase in the study area if development continues at a con- sistent rate. Locations already identified as congested or dangerous, such as Warren Road, Triphammer Road, Route 34, the town center intersections, and intersections with Asbury Road, Waterwagon Road, Hillcrest Road, and East Shore Circle, will continue to present prob- lems for public safety, commuting, and alternative transportation as traffic volumes increase. It will be difficult for the community to expand capacity to accommodate new growth without further compromising community character, yet without expanding capacity, certain prob- lems may be exacerbated. Thus, in accordance with many of the goals identified during the development of the town's new comprehensive plans, alternative approaches will need to be adopted to help the community mitigate against impending problems without costly and unpopular capacity increases. Further expansion of the community's housing stock without some form of investment in alternative transit infrastructure will continue to make potential bikers, walkers, and transit users feel unsafe and potentially alienated as users of the Lansing transportation system. The viability of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles will also be influenced by changes to the community's road networks and the physical form of new development. With many large-lot, low-density, residential-only developments on the horizon, offering pedestrian and bike infrastructure that provides meaningful connections to services and landmarks will be increasingly difficult. Travel by these modes, as well as by bus, will be further frustrated by the expanded use of dead ends, cul-de-sacs, and gated communities, which will continue to enable auto drivers. Significant local interest and momentum behind the development of a town-wide trail system could change Lansing's long-term alternative transportation out- looks, but the overall viability of these modes is closely interlinked with a number of other factors. 46 From a regional connectivity perspective, barring any major structural changes, the southern portion of the town of Lansing will likely continue to serve as a bedroom community for Itha- ca professionals and other workers. Forces outside the region will continue to be the focus of commuting activity. In moving town residents between their neighborhoods and major employers elsewhere in the region, the major north-south corridors of Route 34, Tripham- merRoad, and Warren Road will continue to function as essential linkages. In the long term, the way development and transportation infrastructure take shape along these corridors will have an outsized influence on the feasibilitV of commuting via different modes and percep- tions of the transportation system for commuters. The interplay between new development, land use, density, zoning regulations, and trans- portation will continue to be a primary influence on Lansing's transportation future. Without density increases from infill development, cluster development, retrofits of existing build- ings, relaxation of height limits, and density bonuses, land use patterns are likely to further reinforce the auto-oriented culture of Lansing and pose challenges to the adoption of other modes of travel. The associated costs of developing and maintaining Lansing's vehicle infra- structure can be expected to continue to rise. However, significant community desires exist for reduced pressure on sensitive views and habitats, reduced conflict between development and agricultural character, and a more cohesive community center. If these desires win out, favorable changes in traffic conditions and the greater transportation system could result on the longterm. Past studies examining travel countywide have indicated that bV tailoring practices to densifV communities and preserve existing open space, Tompkins County munic- ipalities could slow the rate of increase in VMT and emissions generation bV up to 45%. It is likely that constraints intended to focus new growth in already-developed areas and around transit could generate similar effects in the Town of Lansing. Concentration of new growth into more dense and diverse clusters, especially in the town cen- ter area, through expansion of services, pedestrian infrastructure, and walkable higher-den- sitV housing, could offer an opportunity for local residents to address some of their needs in the immediate community rather than travelling to neighboring locales to take advantage of businesses and services. If some form of new development takes shape in the town center location, the community could add to available housing stock while potentially reducing the overall number of vehicle trips generated per residential unit. Town center development could compliment the existing TCAT bus stops in the area and, together with a multi-modal trail, re- inforce perceptions of the area as a hub of both transportation and community life. While the long-term future of the town center remains somewhat unclear, many of the goals expressed in the Lansing's existing plans for the area are consistent with improving the transportation system community-wide. 47 Interpreting the Recommendations Matrix A variety of best practices are relevant to the issues and challenges identified in this review of the Town of Lansing's transportation system; many of those policies and design interven- tions are summarized in the following table. This guide is not intended to serve as a comprehensive program of transportation reform. Rather, it functions as a tool kit, with information on techniques that have helped other com- munities improve their transportation systems, opportunities to financially support different projects, and outside sources with additional details. Although the matrix includes recom- mended locations for each intervention, not every tool is appropriate in every place. With these tools and resources as a guide, town leadership and Lansing residents work together to identify high priority, location-appropriate projects to pursue. 48 Recommendations Matrix Additional Details and Potential Supporting Proposed Additional Resources(case Benefits: Intervention: studies,design guides, policy guides,manuals, NOMIL --A s): Sidewalks,Cross- Sidewalks:Town Improve safety for pedestrians, Transportation Alternatives Design Manual for Small walks,Pedestrian Center including the elderly,students,and Program Towns Signage,and Visibility those walking to work; lower acci- Provides funding for on-and Transportation and Land Improvements Crosswalks: dent rates;encourage sidewalk uses, off-road pedestrian and bicycle Use Strategies for Preserv- Intersections of strengthen community character facilities,infrastructure projects ing Small-Town Character Waterwagon&East for improving non-driver access Shore Drive+ Inter- to public transportation and Weedsport NY Complete sections of Water- enhanced mobility,and commu- Streets wagon&Triphammer nity improvement activities.Safe A local case study with Routes to School projects are examples of a complete currently also funded through streets policy the Transportation Alternatives Program Development Impact Fees Developers support infrastruc- ture investments to offset the impacts of new growth Bike Lanes and Wid- Waterwagon Road, Improve bicycle safety,encourage National Scenic Byways Program PEDSAFE Guidelines for ened Shoulders Ashbury Road, 3413/ commuting by bicycle, improve road Funding for eligible projects Sidewalks and Walkways Peruville road network connectivity for non-driv- along portions of Route 34 and A guide to proper street ers. Interventions as simple as road 34B comprising the Cayuga Lake design for pedestrians and restriping can have a significant Scenic Byway bikes effect on the cycling experience CDC Community Transforma- tion Grant Small Communities Program Provides funds for projects, including transportation-related investments,that support active living,healthy&safe physical en- vironments,and physical activity. 49 Street Amenities Town Center Street trees and landscaping,deco- New York Main Street Program rative lighting,trash cans,and street Funding for streetscape en- furniture would improve quality of hancements, including trees, the pedestrian environment,pro- furniture,and trash cans mote walking, increase pedestrian comfort level NYS Rural Area Revitalization Pro ei cts Supports restoration and im- provement of public/community facilities and commercial areas in rural parts of the state Bus Stop Amenities Town Center,Warren Permanent shelters, benches, Collaboration with TCAT Guidelines for the Location Road,Triphammer trash cans, bike racks, lighting,and and Design of Bus Stops Road, Route 34 signage can improve transit system A resource from the Transit safety and comfort, increase visibil- Cooperative Research ity,and generate increased aware- Program ness of the presence of transit in the community 50 Multi-Use Trail Alongside one major Promote commuting by bike, provide Recreational Trails Grant Program Guides for Trail Design, north-south corridor recreational opportunities, improve The Recreational Trails Program Construction. Maintenance, between the town pedestrian safety,enhance tourism is a State-administered, Federal and Operation center and Village of potential.Trail would ideally connect assistance program to provide A collection of resources Lansing, between the schools,town center,and goods and and maintain recreational trails from the Federal Highway town center and Town services in the Village of Lansing. for both motorized and non-mo- Administration of Lansing Schools torized recreational trail use Transportation Enhancement Program NYSDOT-administered funds for provision of facilities for pedes- trians and bicyclists, including preservation of abandoned rail corridors for trail uses. Reimburs- es up to 80%of project costs. NYS Environmental Protection Fund: Local Waterfront Revital- ization Program Grants Supports implementation of plans for waterfront areas along designated state inland water- ways, including Cayuga Lake. Past projects include multi-use trail systems. Gateway Signage Entry points to Town Signage and plantings signal to driv- New York Main Street Program Urban Wayfinding Planning Center ers that they are entering a distinct Funding for streetscape en- and Design Manual neighborhood,which reinforces hancements,including signage A resource covering design the urge to slow down and observe and implementation of surroundings signage systems from the Signage Foundation 51 Traffic Calming East-west roads Speed tables, landscaped medians, Consolidated Local Street and Traffic Calming on Main connecting major and curb extensions can iscourage Highway Improvement Program Roads Through Rural Com- commuter corridors, high-speed cut-throughs, improve CHIPS munities including Waterwagon intersection safety, reduce road Administered by NYSDOT,and A design and policy guide Road,Asbury Road, noise, provide pedestrian refuge on supports bicycle,pedestrian,and from the Federal Highway and Hillcrest Road major streets traffic calming measures Administration Highway Safety Improvement Program/High-Risk Rural Roads Program NYSDOT funds traffic control, road reconstruction,and other capital improvements Expanded Design Town-wide Requirements could include:small- Community Challenge Planning Smart Growth America Standards and Guide- er block lengths,smaller setbacks, Grants Program Code and Zoning Audit lines,Site Improve- detailed standards for site layout Supports community efforts to Checklist for identifying ment Requirements and building configuration, reduced adopt and adapt zoning codes, areas of community codes minimum open space requirements, comprehensive plans, neighbor- that could be strengthened infrastructure for pedestrians and hood plans,and corridor plans to promote responsible bicyclists, parking and driveway with goals that contribute to local development guidelines, height and massing sustainability standards,sustainable landscape Smart Growth America requirements, restrictions on cul-de- Policy Audit sacs and gated residential areas Checklist for reviewing community policy for con- sistency with sustainable development tactics Density Bonuses/ Town Center,transit Could be tailored to provide for trail US EPA Building Blocks for Sus- Density Bonuses Amended Density corridors and path provision, resource protec- tainable Communities A guide to density bonus Requirements tion,and public open space. Paired Supports a range of planning policy,case studies,and with reduced parking requirements efforts, including sustainable major issues from the in transit corridors,density bonuses growth strategies for rural com- Puget Sound Regional could also promote transit ridership, munities Council biking,and walking 52 Transfer of Develop- Sending Zones: Rural Draws development pressure away US EPA Smart Growth Imple- Infill Development: Com- ment Rights Program/ Agricultural Zone from rural and agricultural land, mentation Assistance Program pleting the Communitk Infill Incentives while still allowing rural landowners Offers contractor team sup- Fabric Receiving Zones: to profit from the sale of develop- port to communities working A guide to infill develop- Town Center, major ment rights.Channels new growth to develop policies supporting ment incentives, policies, transit nodes in high- into receiving areas identified by the economic development while and case studies from the er-density residential communities as a community center protecting environmental health Municipal Research and areas or transit hub Services Center Transit-Oriented Town Center, major Overlay zones with unique require- TOD Overlay District Model Development Overlay transit corridors, ments surrounding density,urban Bylaws Zones major commuting design,transportation amenities, Sample legislation from corridors and mixed land uses can create new the Massachusetts Smart development possibilities and shift Growth Toolkit population centers closer to quick and easy transportation access, re- ducing reliance on single-passenger auto trips Impact Fees Town-Wide Allows the community to support Impact Fees infrastructure improvements and A guide explaining impact expansion of public services with fees,discussing different financial contributions from devel- fee structures,and listing opers benefits and drawbacks of development fees from the Municipal Research and Services Center Adequate Public Facili- N/A Helps to moderate the speed of new Adequate Public Facilities ties Ordinance development so that infrastructure Ordinances and public services can keep pace A guide from the Maryland Department of Planning explaining the background of APFO's,their benefits, and their drawbacks Relaxed Accessory Town Center area, Increase density and provide afford- Model Bylaw for Accessory Unit Restrictions transit corridors able housing for a mix of residents Dwelling Units while easing development pressures Sample legislation from on open land the Massachusetts Smart Growth Toolkit 53 Alternative Transit N/A Promote and coordinate carpools Traffic Safety Training: Outreach and Educa- and park-and-ride,subsidize transit Walking and Bicycling Pro- tion passes for town employees,distrib- grams ute materials to students Recommended education program content for school programs 54