HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Plan Executive SummaryTown of Ithaca
Transportation Plan
Executive Summary
Town of Ithaca
Town Board
July 9, 2007
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1
OUTREACH & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................1
GOALS & OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................2
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ..................................................................................................................2
POLICY, PLANNING, & FUNDING....................................................................................................3
DEMOGRAPHIC & TRANSPORTATION PROFILE .................................................................................3
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................4
STATE HIGHWAYS & COUNTY & TOWN ROADWAYS ..........................................................................4
The Official Highway Map & Road Network Design..........................................................................4
Roadway Function & Right-of-Way Design........................................................................................5
Traffic Data: Volumes, Speeds, & Crashes ......................................................................................6
Roadway Maintenance.......................................................................................................................8
Summary of the Road Network..........................................................................................................8
AUTO ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................8
Bus Transit & Paratransit..................................................................................................................9
Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities.........................................................................................................10
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION MODES ........................................................................................11
OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ISSUES ...................................................................................12
The Natural Environment .................................................................................................................12
Regional Development.....................................................................................................................13
Public Health.....................................................................................................................................14
ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................................................15
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................15
ROADWAY & ROAD NETWORK ISSUES .........................................................................................15
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ISSUES ..................................................................................................16
TRANSIT ISSUES ........................................................................................................................17
REGIONAL COOPERATION ...........................................................................................................17
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS .......................................................................................................18
ZONING, SUBDIVISION, & SITE PLAN REVIEW ...............................................................................18
VOLUME II: THE APPENDICES ....................................................................................................19
VOLUME III: THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ........................................................................................19
STREETSCAPE DESIGN ...............................................................................................................19
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN....................................................................19
TRAFFIC CALMING DESIGN .........................................................................................................20
WORKS CITED.........................................................................................................................21
1
INTRODUCTION
This Transportation Plan grew out of the recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan of 1993, which recognized a
need for a close look at the transportation system to
identify needs and to guide future decision-making. The
Town Transportation Committee, a committee of Town
Board, Planning Board, Cornell, and Ithaca-Tompkins
County Transportation Council (ITCTC) representatives,
began working on the Transportation Plan in 2003. The
writing of the Plan was performed by Planning Department
staff, with technical assistance from the Town Engineering
and Public Works Departments.
The Transportation Plan is a long-range plan (with a
general horizon of 20 years) that defines a community
vision of how the transportation system should develop
and what it should become.
The Transportation Plan has three volumes, plus this
Executive Summary. In Volume I: The Plan, the Inventory
Chapter examines every aspect of the transportation
system, from the anatomy of a typical right-of-way to the
relationship between transportation and the natural
environment. The Alternatives Chapter outlines alternative
solutions to meet each need, gives the advantages and
disadvantages of each, and provides the rationale for the
direction of the Plan’s recommendations. The
Recommendations outline actions that will meet the needs
identified in the Inventory, based on the vision set forth at
the beginning of the Plan. Volume II: The Appendices
includes maps, tables, and other supplemental
information. Volume III: The Design Guidelines outlines the
“best practices” for designing a transportation network,
including right-of-way design, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and traffic calming.
OUTREACH & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public participation has been an important part of the
creation of this Transportation Plan. In the fall of 2003,
the Town Transportation Committee initiated a survey to
gauge Town residents’ travel habits and attitudes. The
survey focused on residents’ opinions concerning the
current transportation system and hopes for a future
system. The data obtained from the survey guided the
creation of the Goals and Objectives and, hence, the Plan
as a whole.
Over the course of the development of the Plan, the
Transportation Committee hosted a series of three public
informational meetings. The purpose of the meetings was
to keep the public informed on the progress of the Plan
and to obtain feedback on specific sections of the Plan as
they were completed. In addition to these three meetings,
the Town held three formal public hearings as part of the
environmental review of the Plan. Finally, a form on the
Transportation Plan’s website (http://www.town.ithaca.
ny.us/trans) allowed stakeholders to submit their
comments directly to the Planning Department.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The overall mission of the Transportation Plan is to foster a
transportation system that enhances the quality of life in
the Town. The Plan envisions a multi-modal transportation
system that is compatible with the Town’s growth
objectives as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan,
sensitive to the built and natural environments, and
accessible to all.
The Plan has seven main goals. Each of the goals has a
set of objectives, which describe what must happen to
achieve the goal. The Goals & Objectives are:
Access and Mobility
Goal: Develop and maintain a
multi-modal transportation
system that provides for the
effective movement of people
and goods.
Objectives:
• Develop a
transportation system
that serves the mobility
interests of Town
residents and businesses, while recognizing the
interests of through traffic.
• Develop a multi-modal transportation system that
includes appropriate public transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities.
Livability
Goal: Develop and maintain a transportation system that
promotes safe, healthy, and attractive neighborhoods.
Objectives:
• Employ road design guidelines that encourage
compliance with posted speed limits and protect
neighborhoods from undue traffic burdens, such
as noise and air pollution.
• When modifying or rebuilding roads in residential
areas, work to beautify streetscapes, restore
roadways to a human scale, and improve the
Accessibility for all is a
theme of this Plan.
2
character and livability of the neighborhoods
through which they pass.
Safety
Goal: Strive to provide a safe transportation system and
prioritize safety and security in the implementation of every
goal for both motorized and non-motorized modes of
transportation.
Objectives:
• Monitor the transportation system using crash,
speed, sight distance, and other types of data to
identify and mitigate safety problems.
• Work to lower 85th percentile speeds on certain
roads through design changes, and continue to
request NYSDOT to lower speed limits on certain
roads.
• Implement a transportation safety program,
including elements of education, enforcement,
and engineering.
Transportation System Management
Goal: Preserve and maintain the transportation system.
Objectives:
• Work to ensure that sufficient capital resources
are available to maintain the transportation
system.
• Preserve current and planned rights-of-way for the
transportation system.
• Periodically update the Town Transportation Plan
to reflect changes within the transportation system
and the consequent evolution of transportation-
related problems, needs, and solutions.
Coordination
Goal: Work with other local and regional organizations to
ensure a regionally coordinated transportation system.
Objectives:
• Continue to explore opportunities for increased
inter-municipal sharing of facilities, equipment,
labor, knowledge, and expertise.
• Support the establishment of community and
regional pedestrian and bicycle facilities
throughout the County.
Land Use Planning
Goal: Ensure that future development minimizes adverse
impacts on the current and future transportation system by
promoting development patterns that reduce the need for
and use of automobiles and encourage the use of alternate
modes of transportation.
Objectives:
• Consider transportation impacts when making
land use decisions, and consider land use impacts
(in terms of land use patterns, densities, and
designated uses) when making transportation-
related decisions.
• Relate the scale and concentration of
development to what can be supported by the
transportation system, according to the Town
Comprehensive Plan.
Environment
Goal: Protect the environment, including the significant
natural, agricultural, scenic, and historic resources of the
Town of Ithaca.
Objectives:
• Consider the environmental consequences of
transportation decisions and minimize negative
impacts on the natural environment whenever
reasonable and to the greatest possible degree.
• Work to reduce the negative effects of motor
vehicle over-dependence, including detriments to
open space and air quality, by reducing the
number of vehicles on the road and the average
distance and duration of trips.
BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Many non-transportation related factors affect the
transportation system, including the history, geography,
and demographics of an area and policies at the national,
state, regional, and local level. The Background Conditions
Chapter of the Plan discusses these factors, among others,
to outline the context within which the local and regional
transportation system operates.
A transportation system includes physical infrastructure
(like roads and walkways), as well as intangible aspects,
such as the government’s policies related to transportation
and transportation-related demographics. A transportation
network refers to physical infrastructure, like roadways and
sidewalks.
THE TOWN OF ITHACA
The Town of Ithaca encircles the City of Ithaca in Tompkins
County in the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York.
The region’s glacial topography is marked by long, narrow
lakes, which were formed when the glaciers retreated, and
deep gorges, which were cut by the creeks that flow to the
lakes, often forming spectacular waterfalls. The steep
slopes throughout the Town influenced historical
settlement patterns, which in turn affected the location of
transportation routes that are still in use today.
The Town of Ithaca was established in 1821. Historically,
the Town was a rural, agricultural place. Between World
3
War II and today, the Town’s population grew dramatically,
and suburban development increasingly took the place of
farms. Low-density residential development contributes to
the prominence of the privately-owned motor vehicle, as in
many suburban areas throughout the country.
The academic, research,
commercial, and real estate
activities of the institutions
of higher education in the
area (Cornell University and
Ithaca College) contribute to
the area’s vibrant yet small
town feel, its economy, and
the diversity of its residents.
POLICY, PLANNING, & FUNDING
Policies and programs at the federal, state, regional, and
local level affect the Town’s transportation system. The
current federal transportation bill, renewed during the
summer of 2005, is called SAFETEA-LU (“Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users”). This legislation focuses on the
safety and security of the nation’s highway system, but it
also offers opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian
programs (including Safe Routes to School programs),
funding for the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program
(including the conversion of diesel buses to cleaner fuels),
and funding to improve transit in small cities (with
populations of fewer than 200,000 people).
New York State allocates federal transportation funds via
programs such as the Transportation Enhancement
Program (TEP), the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), and the Consolidated Local Street and
Highway Improvement Program (CHIP). In addition to these
programs, the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), which established a process to examine the
environmental impact of certain actions, affects
transportation-related decisions.
Regional and local transportation policies generally
originate with the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) for the area, the Ithaca-Tompkins County
Transportation Council (ITCTC). The ITCTC is responsible
for three main activities: the Unified Planning Work
Program (UPWP), the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), and the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
Town policies that affect transportation include the
Comprehensive Plan of 1993, the Subdivision and Zoning
Chapters of the General Code, and the Interim Sidewalk
Policy of 2003.
Please see the complete Plan for more information on
transportation policies and other related regional
transportation plans.
DEMOGRAPHIC & TRANSPORTATION PROFILE
Demographics, such as population distribution, household
size, and age distribution, affect the transportation system.
According to the 2000 Census, the Town of Ithaca is home
to around 18,710 residents. The majority of residents live
on East Hill, but the population of South Hill has increased
while the population on East Hill has declined over the past
ten years. As of 2000, about 43% of Town residents lived
on East Hill, 42% lived on South Hill, and 16% lived on
West Hill. Also, many workers in the City and Town of
Ithaca and Tompkins County do not live in the area. Many
of these commuters travel through the Town to reach their
jobs in the City, affecting traffic patterns, transit demand,
and so on.
Average household size in the Town decreased from 2.40
to 2.25 persons between 1990 and 2000, according to
Census data. Trip generation rates are related to the
number of persons per household, because small
households tend to generate more trips per person than
larger households. This translates to more vehicle trips
with lower vehicle occupancy.
According to the 2000 Census, residents between the ages
of 18 and 24 account for nearly 40% of the Town’s
population—not surprising, given the presence of Ithaca
Ithaca is famous for its
natural beauty.
4
College and Cornell University. According to statistics from
the Census Bureau, students are more likely to walk and
less likely to drive to work or to school.
According to the National Personal Transportation Survey
(1995) and the National Household Travel Survey (2001),
the highest percentage of trips made by area residents are
for family or personal business, social or recreational
business, and work, in that order. Residents traveled the
greatest number of miles for weekend social or
recreational trips, followed by weekday or weekend family
or personal business and weekday trips to earn a living.
Finally, the average length of a vehicle trip is longest for
earning a living (during the week) or social and recreational
trips (on the weekend).
The privately-owned motor vehicle is the most popular
mode choice for area residents, followed by walking.
Between 1995 and 2001, however, the percentage of trips
made in a private vehicle dropped from 83% to 70%, while
the percentage of trips made on foot increased from 11%
to 15% and the percentage of trips made using public
transit rose from 1.5% to almost 10%.
For more information about the demographic and
transportation profile of Town residents, please see the
complete Transportation Plan, as well as Volume II: The
Appendices, Appendix II, Supplementary Tables.
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Inventory & Analysis Chapter is to
examine the Town of Ithaca’s transportation system to
identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current
system. Once an inventory of the system is complete, it is
necessary to analyze the inventory to identify ways in which
the system could be improved to meet the previously
outlined goals.
STATE HIGHWAYS & COUNTY & TOWN ROADWAYS
The Official Highway Map & Road Network Design
The Town of Ithaca is uniquely shaped like a square with a
hole in it. The City of Ithaca is in the center, and the
remainder of the County surrounds the perimeter. This
means that much of the traffic in the Town is traveling into
or out of the City. Furthermore, the Town is segmented like
a pie cut into slices by the creeks and gorges that converge
in the Inlet of Cayuga Lake. This unique geography and
hydrology means that many roads in the Town radiate
outward from the City of Ithaca, while circulation in the
Town is restricted because of the gorges.
The current road network of the Town of Ithaca is shown in
the Town’s draft Official Highway Map, included in Volume
II, Appendix I of the Transportation Plan. The purpose of an
Official Highway Map is to state in the public record the
specific locations of existing and proposed streets,
highways, parks, and sometimes drainage systems. By
fixing the location of both existing and proposed
infrastructure, the Map helps to prevent development
within planned rights-of-way.
Roads owned and maintained by the Town are mostly low
to moderate-speed, two-lane roads serving residential land
uses. Driveways connecting to Town-owned and -
maintained roads generally do not have access controls,
existing Town roadways do not have bike lanes, and most
do not have walkways adjacent to the roadway.
The Town anticipates only a few new major roads outside
of subdivisions. Roads that have been approved but not
yet built include the extension of Conifer Drive from
Mecklenburg Road to Bundy Road and the future road
shown on the Overlook at West Hill Subdivision map, which
loops from Trumansburg Road to Hayts Road. On the
Town’s Official Highway Map, these roads are shown with a
dashed line. The Official Highway Map also indicates the
location of a potential future roadway corridor that
connects the extension of Conifer Drive to Overlook using a
cross-hatched strip. This right-of-way has not been formally
proposed or approved.
Another potential roadway that has received attention in
recent years is a Northeast bypass road, which could help
to keep traffic out of residential areas on East Hill in the
Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, and Lansing. The 1999
Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) called for
a design and feasibility analysis for this potential
connector.
Finally, Recommendation Seven of NESTS called for a
connector road between Pleasant Grove Rd. and the
Thurston Ave. bridge that would act as a “gateway” to the
Cornell campus and would help to divert unnecessary
through-traffic out of the residential Forest Home
neighborhood. The Town is currently exploring this option
with Cornell University, but it is not shown on the draft
Official Highway Map.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Adoption of an updated Official Highway Map;
5
• Design guidelines to ensure that adequate right-of-way
is reserved;
• Support for regional transportation planning and inter-
municipal efforts toward the creation of new through-
roads in other municipalities;
• Continued cooperation with Tompkins County Highway
Department and NYSDOT;
• A Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Map to
serve as an Official Map for non-motorized
transportation.
Roadway Function & Right-of-Way Design
Functional classification is the system that attempts to
classify each road according to its role in the road network.
The functional classification system is made up of arterial
roads, collector roads, and local roads. Ideally, an arterial
road carries
relatively intense
traffic, and land
access to
arterials is
subordinate to
the traffic flow on
the arterial itself.
Conversely, local
roads are intended to carry lower traffic volumes with lower
speeds and should provide the highest level of access
within land uses and access to higher levels of the
functional classification system. Collectors fall somewhere
in between.
Roads and highways are eligible for federal funding based
on their functional classification. Classifying roads is a
necessary part of the funding process. A road’s functional
classification typically influences its design, or its
geometrics. Design parameters, such as the design speed,
the maximum curvature of the road, and lane widths, are
associated with each functional classification. In order to
acquire funding for a roadway project, in general the
design must comply with the standards associated with the
roadway’s functional classification.
The functional classification system is not perfect. It
assumes that longer trips will be concentrated on a few
major roads, while minor roads collect traffic at the
beginning of trips and disperse it at the end of trips. This is
not the only—or even the best—type of road network; for
example, the grid of urban streets disperses traffic, so the
burden is not concentrated on any one neighborhood.
Furthermore, existing roads often do not fit into the
predefined hierarchy. Conflicts among the designated
functional classification, the actual use of the roadway, the
design of the roadway, and the adjacent land uses often
results in the facilitation of through movements at the
expense of neighborhood livability.
Compounding the negative effects on neighborhood
livability is the practice of over-designing roads, meaning
that roads are sometimes wider, flatter, and straighter than
they need to be. Designs based solely on the design
vehicle, design speed, design driver, design year, and
design volume focus on people who are going somewhere,
instead of the people who already are somewhere.
In contrast, roads that are designed to protect and promote
safety and livability in residential areas will naturally elicit
responsible driver behavior, rather than facilitate high
vehicle flow rates. Narrower roads with lower design
speeds or the addition of appropriate traffic calming
measures may lead to the slower, more careful driving that
is appropriate for residential neighborhoods
In the Town of Ithaca, the lack of sidewalks, bicycle lanes,
adequate shoulders, and other infrastructure for non-
motorized travel sets a dangerous precedent for the long-
term development of the Town’s transportation system.
Many existing neighborhoods have no bike or pedestrian
infrastructure (not even for circulation within a
subdivision). Often the size of the right-of-way reserved by
the Town at the time of the subdivision approval is
inadequate for the provision of facilities beyond a two-lane
road. As the number of subdivisions and commercial
centers across the Town increases, it will be difficult to link
nodes of activity with facilities for non-motorized travel if
This diagram shows a sample right-of-way.
6
the basic physical and policy infrastructure for non-
motorized transportation is not in place. For more detail,
please see the Bicycle and Pedestrian Section in this
summary and in the complete Plan.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Protection and promotion of safety and livability in
residential areas;
• To this end, design guidelines or, when the roadway is
not Town-owned, advocacy for designs that:
• Match the physical design of the road to its
intended purpose;
• Are compatible with adjacent land uses and in
scale with its surroundings;
• Are flexible enough to reflect changing needs and
to provide for anticipated future needs;
• Elicit safe driver behavior;
• Address any known safety problems;
• Consideration of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as
normal, expected aspects of a roadway;
• Identification of opportunities where it may make
sense for the Town and the County to “swap”
responsibility for certain roads (the Town giving higher
classified roads to the County, and the County giving
lower classified roads to the Town).
Traffic Data: Volumes, Speeds, & Crashes
This section of the Plan examines volume, speed, and
crash data to identify roads with quantifiable traffic
problems. This Plan uses several types of data from
several sources. Most of the data is collected using
automatic traffic recorders (ATRs), which record the
number, speed, classification (type), and time of vehicles
passing a point on a roadway.
Volume & Congestion
Traffic volume and congestion are quantified in several
ways. Transportation engineers collect volume data by
determining the number of vehicles that pass the data
collection site in one day (the Average Daily Traffic, or ADT).
Seasonal, climatic, and other variables can be factored
into volume counts to determine the average daily traffic
passing a data collection site over the course of a year, or
the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT).
ADT and AADT are absolute measures of volume. Vehicle
Over Capacity Ratio (VOC), on the other hand, considers
both the volume of traffic and the capacity of the road. It is
a relative measure of congestion that can be used for
different types of roads with different volumes.
Intersection capacity is measured via Level of Service
(LOS), which is defined in terms of delay (a measure of
driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost
travel time). There are six defined levels of service, “A” to
“F”; “A” describes little to no delay, and “F” describes long,
unacceptable delays. In general, a LOS of “D” or below is
considered failing.
Please see the Plan for a listing of available ADT, VOC, and
LOS data.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Working together with City, County, and other
municipal planners to address both the origin and
destination of traffic (both of which are often outside
the Town);
• Design criteria that connect the design of roads and
their desired function within the road network,
balancing the needs of through-traffic and
neighborhoods, without unfairly favoring through-
traffic;
• Continued collection of volume data to monitor
changes and develop mitigation measures for
problems;
• Promotion of walking, biking, and transit, as well as
development patterns that are transit-friendly and
bring goods and services within walking or biking
distance of residents’ homes.
Speeding
Like traffic volume and congestion, speeding is quantified
in several ways, including the percentage of vehicles that
speed and the 85th percentile speed (or the speed that
15% of drivers exceed). To compare speeding on two
different road segments, calculate the ratio of the 85th
percentile speed to the speed limit, a value that is
comparable across different speed limits and indicates the
distribution and extent of speeding. A ratio higher than
one means that there is both a relatively high proportion of
speeders to non-speeders and that the speeders are
exceeding the limit by a relatively large margin.
The Plan makes a distinction between the extent and
severity of speeding. The extent of speeding refers to the
percentage of motorists exceeding the speed limit. The
severity of speeding also considers the characteristics of
the adjacent land uses and the impacts of speeding on
those land uses. Therefore, prioritizing locations for speed
mitigation is not as simple as determining the location with
the highest ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the speed
limit.
7
Based on the data
collected for the Plan,
some areas in the Town
that may need speed
mitigation include the
Northeast, the southern
part of Pine Tree Road,
Forest Home, and
Coddington Road near
Ithaca College. All of these areas are in neighborhoods of
medium-density with significant pedestrian activity. Please
see the Plan itself for more information.
Many motorists speed without realizing how fast they are
traveling because the road on which they are driving is
flatter, straighter, and wider than it needs to be. This can
be caused by the overly generous geometric characteristics
associated with each design speed (see the Roadway
Function & Right-of-Way Design section, above). Alerting
motorists that they need to slow down and drive carefully
via design cues (such as a narrow roadway, pedestrian
walkways, or traffic calming) improves safety, speed limit
compliance, and protects the livability of neighborhoods
through which the road passes.
This section of the Plan identifies the following as needs:
• Speed mitigation program that would identify locations
where speeding is a problem, determine the cause of
the speeding, and devise a mitigation strategy;
• Continued, and perhaps increased, enforcement to
catch intentional speeders;
• Exploration of traffic calming to discourage excessive
speed in residential areas;
• Continued collection of speed data at regular intervals
at the same and new locations.
Crashes
In 2003, the Town Planning Department created a
database of crash information. The information was
extracted from NYSDOT crash reports from 1999 to 2001
and was restricted to serious crashes, that is, those
causing injury or more than $1,000 in property damage.
Based on the information in this database, forty-eight
percent of crashes involved another vehicle, while thirty-
four percent involved an animal (probably a deer). The
remainder involved roadway elements such as guardrails
or utility posts. Fortunately, only five crashes over three
years involved bicyclists or pedestrians (less than 1%).
Still, bicyclists and pedestrians involved in motor vehicle
accidents are easily injured or even killed.
Fully one third of the crashes in the database were caused
by animal actions. The second most common causes of
crashes are failure to yield and driver error (including
inattention, inexperience, distraction, falling asleep, or
losing consciousness), causing 11% of crashes each.
External factors (such as slippery pavement or glare) and
following too closely account for 9% of crashes each.
Locations of crash clusters in the Town are fairly
predictable; the vast majority occur on State routes where
volumes and speed limits are highest. Small clusters of
crashes on County roads occur on Coddington Road, East
King Road, Pine Tree Road, Warren Road, and Hanshaw
Road. Very few crashes occur on roads owned by the
Town; most crashes on Town-owned roads were one-
vehicle crashes involving an animal or a road object.
In the fall of 2005, the Transportation Committee worked
with Fisher Associates, a consulting firm from Rochester, to
analyze safety at several intersections and along several
road segments in the Town. Building on Fisher Associates’
work, Town Planning staff evaluated the crashes at the
locations to determine if there was a pattern. The crash
screenings showed no obvious, immediate safety hazards.
Please see Volume II: The Appendices, Appendix IV for
Fisher Associates’ final report and the Town’s Crash
Screening Report.
In addition, the Town Engineering Department is in the
process of surveying every intersection in the Town to
measure sight distances. Addressing sight distance
problems does not necessarily mean removal of roadside
vegetation and other features. Instead, the speed limit on
the through-road could be lowered or traffic calming could
be installed, increasing the amount of time available for
vehicles to turn onto the through-road. Alternately, the
Speeding is common in some
residential areas of the Town.
8
stop line could be moved closer to the through road,
thereby improving visibility up and down the street.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Coordinate with other municipalities, organizations,
and agencies in order to improve transportation safety
in and beyond the Town;
• Exploration of ways to keep deer off roads or to make
motorists more aware of their presence;
• Roadway design that is as safe as possible for all
roadway users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, and
the disabled, and that promotes safe driver behavior;
• Expanded traffic law enforcement and safety
education as part of a safety strategy;
• Continuation of crash data collection and analysis.
Roadway Maintenance
During the summer of 2004, the Town of Ithaca Highway
Department conducted an inventory of the condition of
every Town-owned road. Each road or road segment
received a Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which is a
measure of several signs of pavement deterioration,
including several types of cracking, patching/potholes,
drainage, and roughness. The goal of the project was to
prioritize Town roads in greatest need of maintenance, to
create a regular maintenance schedule, and to assist the
budgeting of Town resources. The information in the PCI
shows that most of the Town-owned roads are in good to
excellent condition.
According to a Road Condition Study conducted by the
Town of Peterborough in New Hampshire, pavement quality
drops only 40% over the first 75% of the pavement lifespan
(i.e. after 10-12 years, the pavement is still in acceptable
or “good’ quality). Over the next four years, however,
pavement quality drops another 40% from “fair” to “very
poor.” More importantly, allowing pavement to degrade
from “fair” to “very poor” increases repair costs at least
five-fold.1 Thus, a reasonable amount of short-term cost
produces a great degree of long-term benefit.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Prioritization of preventative maintenance while
continuing to plan for larger repaving and
reconstruction projects;
1 Sterling, 2003, p. 6-7
• Regular formal or informal pavement condition data
collection;
• Flexibility in funding and scheduling for the Town
Public Works Department to address future needs.
Summary of the Road Network
This section of the Plan summarizes the main
characteristics of roadways in the Town of Ithaca. The
roadway summary includes information about:
• The purpose the roadway serves in the road network;
• Types of adjacent land uses;
• The relative degree of conflict between through traffic
on the roadway and adjacent land uses;
• Bicycle or pedestrian destinations and infrastructure;
• The approximate traffic volume;
• Speed limit;
• Jurisdiction;
• Geometrics (design) of the roadway;
• Whether any problems related to the roadway were
identified in the Inventory and Analysis Chapter.
In this section, roadways are divided into five categories,
roughly based on how the roadway circulates traffic within
the Town: radial roads, feeder roads, circumferential
roads, subdivision access roads, and internal subdivision
roads.
For more information, please see the full version of Volume
I: The Plan.
AUTO ALTERNATIVES
The State Highway and County and Town Roadways
Chapter introduced the need to reduce the number of low-
occupancy motor vehicles on the road. In order to promote
mobility and access, however, alternatives to low-
occupancy vehicles should be encouraged. The Auto
Alternatives Chapter focuses on the two most common
alternatives to the low-occupancy motor vehicle: public
transit and non-motorized transportation (bicycling and
walking).
Alternatives provide choice, protect safety and health, and
reduce congestion. Alternatives can be available for
everyone (including the young, old, disabled, and low
income), and alternatives protect the natural environment
(keeping air clean, conserving fossil fuels, reducing wear-
and-tear on the roads which can negatively affect water
quality due to increased run-off, preserving open space by
avoiding the need to build new roads, and so on).
9
Bus Transit & Paratransit
TCAT is the primary supplier of public transit in the Town of
Ithaca and Tompkins County as a whole. In 1996, the New
York State legislature authorized the formation of
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit from the three existing
independent but
cooperative agencies:
Ithaca Transit (founded in
1962 by the City of
Ithaca), TomTran
(founded in 1981 by
Tompkins County), and
CU Transit (founded in
1966 by Cornell
University). By 1998, these agencies reorganized into
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, or TCAT. In 2004,
TCAT reorganized again into a not-for-profit 501(c)3 service
provider.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires
public transit operators to offer equal services for those
with disabilities. Paratransit is “more flexible than
conventional fixed-route transit but more structured than
the use of private automobiles… [the term paratransit]
most often refers to wheelchair-accessible, demand-
response van service.2” Gadabout, a not-for-profit private
service, is the primary paratransit provider for the Town of
Ithaca and Tompkins County. Gadabout provides vans
specially equipped for wheelchairs and volunteer drivers
who are sensitive to the needs of the disabled. Gadabout
also serves the senior population of Tompkins County
(aged sixty and over) by providing on-demand service in a
comfortable atmosphere. This indispensable service
provides opportunities for education, employment,
personal and health care, and social interaction for
vulnerable populations.
TCAT integrates different modes of transport with public
transit through the BobCat program, Park-and-Ride lots,
and service to local bus stations and airports. In 1996,
TCAT purchased 64 bike racks for installation on the front
of buses, a project known as BobCat (“Bob” stands for
“bikes on buses”). The bike racks hold two bicycles each
and are easy to operate. The racks capture rides from
bikers who otherwise wouldn’t consider the bus because of
Ithaca’s hilly terrain. The racks are very popular—they now
2 CTAA, “Public and Community Transportation…”
sit on the front of every TCAT bus—and the program has
become the most successful intermodal effort in the
county. Park-and-Ride lots across the County capture
commuters to Ithaca from outlying rural areas. TCAT has
routes running past fourteen formal Park-and-Ride lots.
Finally, TCAT offers routes that serve the airport (Route 31)
and the bus station in the City of Ithaca (Routes 14, 19,
20, and 21).
In addition to local service by TCAT and Gadabout, three
private companies, Shortline, Greyhound, and Trailways,
provide bus service between the Ithaca metropolitan area
and other metropolitan areas.
The greatest concentration and frequency of public transit
service is in the City of Ithaca and the Cornell campus.
Many Town residents expressed a desire for greater transit
coverage in the Town in the aforementioned Town
transportation survey. Transit provision for many parts of
the Town—especially West and South Hills—is difficult;
because of low residential densities, buses must travel
long distances to pick up few persons at each stop. This
can make routes prohibitively long for riders and
prohibitively costly for the transit provider. Also, routes
through West Hill and South Hill only run on major state
and county roads. This puts bus stops too far away from
many residential homes to be convenient.
Unfortunately, of the fourteen Park-and-Ride lots in the
County, none are located within the Town of Ithaca. Many
residents who would like to travel to the City of Ithaca must
drive because no route stops close enough to their home.
Service to outlying communities in Tompkins County runs
infrequently—every few hours—and service stops early in
the evening. In short, since residents in outlying areas
must travel through the Town of Ithaca to get to the City of
Ithaca, the lack of Park-and-Ride lots may be creating more
traffic than necessary in the Town. Transit is also missing
out on increased ridership, which could help to make
expanded coverage on West Hill more economically viable
for TCAT. Expansion of transit opportunities can play a part
in congestion reduction.
TCAT is the local transit provider.
10
In the demonstration to the right, forty drivers parked their
automobiles in the street (photograph 1). Next, they
traded their automobiles for chairs (photograph 2). Finally,
they moved their chairs to simulate sitting on a bus
together (photograph 3). This demonstration shows the
dramatic impact that a transition to transit can have on
traffic volumes.3
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Continuation of transit as a vital part of the region’s
multi-modal transportation system;
• Working together with TCAT to ensure that the
locations and residents most in need of transit are
well-served;
• Improvements in service for certain population
segments, like young people, the elderly, bicyclists &
pedestrians, commuters, rural residents, etc;
• Regional land-use patterns that do not preclude future
transportation options, such as transit;
• Recommendations that meet the above needs while
allowing TCAT to remain economically solvent.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
Before there were cars, before there were carriages, and
even before horses were domesticated, mankind used the
simplest means of travel—walking. Even during an age
when personal helicopters are a possibility, many still
choose to walk, rather than drive, to close destinations, or
to walk as a recreational activity.
Besides serving as a mode of transportation, biking and
walking offer personal and societal benefits. Biking and
walking improve personal physical fitness and well-being.
Promoting walking and biking will play an important role in
protecting public health (in fact, exercise is a component of
the FDA’s revised food pyramid).4 Walking or biking
instead of driving for short trips conserves fossil fuels,
saves money, alleviates traffic burdens, promotes the
health of the natural environment (thereby protecting
human health), and protects the integrity of
neighborhoods. Walking and biking foster healthy
communities by encouraging social interactions on the
street and by getting motorists out of their cars and onto
3 Beamguard, 1999.
44 USDA, undated
the sidewalks. The option of using a non-motorized mode
provides a real choice for residents and visitors.
The four main types of non-motorized transportation
infrastructure are: dedicated pedestrian facilities such as
sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian bridges and paths;
dedicated bicycle facilities such as bike lanes; multi-use
trails and paths for pedestrians, bicyclists, inline skaters,
parents with children in strollers, and so on; and roadway
shoulders. In many rural areas, it is impractical to provide
dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facilities. More often,
paved roadway shoulders take the place of sidewalks and
bike lanes (although some rural areas have multi-use
recreation trails).
The Town of Ithaca has approximately 11 miles of
walkways within its jurisdiction. These walkways are
owned and maintained by the Town. There are also a
limited number of newer residential areas with sidewalks,
such as Linderman Creek, in which property owners own
sidewalks and are responsible for their upkeep and
From top: forty cars; forty drivers; forty transit passengers.
11
maintenance. There are
some bicycle lanes on the
Cornell campus, and
many roadways in the
Town have sufficient
shoulder width to permit
comfortable bicycling.
Two of the longest multi-
use trails owned and
maintained by the Town
are the East Ithaca and
South Hill Recreation
Ways. The Town’s 2003
Park, Recreation, and
Open Space Plan calls for the creation of a multi-use trail
system. The Town is already in the process of
implementing that Plan. In fact, off-road multi-use trails in
the Town are more extensive than walkways or sidewalks
that run next to roadways.
Non-Town owned walkways and paths “include the
Plantations Path, a seven mile network of self-guided
walkways, roads, and paths through Cornell Plantations;
the Circle Greenway or Walk Ithaca path which passes
through both the Town and City; the trail systems in
Buttermilk Falls and Robert H. Treman State Parks; and the
500 mile long Finger Lakes Trail hiking path which passes
through the southern portion of the Town.”5 These paths
generally serve recreational, and not transportation, needs.
Non-motorized modes of transportation play a significant
role in the transportation system of the Town of Ithaca. For
example, the 2000 Census calculates that more than one
in five Town residents get to work by walking (many of
these residents are students, professors, and staff
traveling to one of the institutions of higher education in
the area).
Walking and bicycling are popular in the Town despite
limited supporting infrastructure, and these non-motorized
modes would perhaps be even more popular if sidewalks,
walkways, and bicycle infrastructure were more available.
Many roadways with significant pedestrian traffic do not
even have sufficient shoulder space for a single
pedestrian. Furthermore, a 2002 study examined 4.75
5 Town of Ithaca, 1997
miles of Town-owned walkways and found that sixty
percent do not meet ADA standards.6
As previously mentioned, shoulders are available to
bicyclists on some State and County roads. Unfortunately,
the roads with shoulders are generally roads with high
volumes and speeds of vehicular traffic, which can lead to
an uncomfortable and unsafe bicycling environment. On
all other roadways, bicyclists share lanes with motorists,
which is the least desirable arrangement for both bicyclists
and motorists when motor vehicle speeds are higher than
bicycling speeds.
For more information, please see the full version of the
Plan.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• A revised Sidewalk Policy, perhaps expanded to
include bicycle issues, to guide the development of an
appropriate, cost-effective non-motorized travel
network that meets all standards;
• A work plan that indicates where facilities are needed
and which locations are priorities for provision;
• A set of design guidelines to ensure that facilities are
designed appropriately for their context and are ADA
compliant, where possible;
• Continued participation in the efforts to expand the
multi-use trail network in the Town;
• Build upon and complement the City’s and County’s
efforts to expand the bicycling and walking network, in
particular, to expand non-motorized infrastructure on
West Hill.
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION MODES
There are no airports within the municipal boundaries of
the Town of Ithaca or airports managed at the Town level.
The closest airport to the Town of Ithaca is the Ithaca-
Tompkins Regional Airport, located in the Village of
Lansing, which provides regional passenger air travel.
Approximately one hour by car from Ithaca are the
Syracuse Hancock International Airport, the Elmira/Corning
Regional Airport, and the Greater Binghamton Airport. The
Greater Rochester International Airport is approximately
two hours away by car.
6 Varricchione, 2003, p. 12
The Northeast Ithaca Recreation
Way in the Town of Ithaca
12
This section of the Plan realistically concludes that there is
little the Town can do to affect the air travel options in the
area. The Town will continue to support regional efforts to
make the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport a safe,
attractive, efficient, and useful mode of travel for residents
and visitors.
Beyond the movement of people, the regional
transportation system supports the movement of freight
via rail, air, and trucks. The Norfolk Southern Railroad
provides rail freight transport in Tompkins County. Rail
freight can carry much larger quantities of freight than a
truck. For example, one freight car can carry 100 tons,
while a truck can only carry 20-25; thus one train of 20
cars carries the freight of 80-100 trucks. Besides being
capable of carrying more freight, rail uses less fuel than
trucks to carry any given amount. Specifically, one gallon
of fuel will carry one ton of freight 59 miles via truck and
202 miles via rail (and 514 miles by barge!).7 Even though
rail freight is more efficient than shipping by truck, rail
transport is prohibitively expensive for most shipping,
except for things shipped in extremely large quantities of
bulk. Thus, the rail freight in Tompkins County primarily
transports coal to the Milliken Point Power Plant in Lansing
or salt from the Cargill Corporation.
Airfreight comes into and out of the county via the Ithaca
Tompkins Regional Airport. In 2001, the airport handled
over 45,000 pounds of freight and mail.
Trucks carry the majority of freight in the County, often to
or from destinations within the City of Ithaca. Thus, much
of the truck freight traffic is merely passing through the
Town, and most of it is limited to State highways. Yet there
are many trucks that travel on non-truck routes and local
roads to take shortcuts, avoid traffic, or make local
deliveries. In addition, many State highways pass through
residential areas. This negatively affects livability and
safety in residential neighborhoods.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Cooperation with other municipalities, agencies, and
organizations (including shipping firms and companies
that send and receive shipments) to address the
impacts that truck traffic has on residential areas;
• Streetscape design principles that protect
neighborhoods from truck traffic;
7 Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004
• Regional development patterns that keep truck traffic
away from residential areas;
• Support for continued efforts by County officials to ensure
that the airport remains a viable option for long-distance
transportation for Town and County residents.
OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ISSUES
This section explores other transportation system
components or issues that transcend the various modes
examined in previous sections, including the relationships
between transportation and the natural environment,
transportation and land uses, and transportation and
public health.
The Natural Environment
Transportation, in particular motor vehicle transportation,
affects air, water, energy, and scenic resources, as well as
creates noise, light, and heat.
Some of the most beautiful landscapes are inaccessible
except by road, but the presence of an obtrusive roadway
can degrade the beauty of a landscape. Yet in other cases,
the development of a transportation network in a scenic
area can attract tourists and generate revenue for
protecting the environment. Since many residents of the
Town of Ithaca choose to live in the Town because of the
natural beauty of the region, it is important that the
development of the transportation system minimizes its
impact on the splendor of the area.
The transportation system affects water resources in a
variety of ways, including increased run-off and increased
contamination. Vegetated, uncovered areas produce less
runoff than paved, covered areas. Widening a lane two
feet (from 12’ to 14’) increases the impervious cover by
15%; just one mile of a 32’ wide road (5’ shoulders, 11’
travel lanes) is the equivalent of four acres of pavement.8
Roads alone contribute 54% to the total amount of runoff
in residential areas; in commercial areas, roads and
parking combined account for 80% of runoff.9 In addition,
streets generate the highest levels of pollutants in runoff,
nearly all of which drains directly into the nearest water
body. In the Santa Clara Valley in California, vehicles are
8 Center for GIS, “Natural Resources…”
9 Milwaukee River Basin Partnership, 2003
13
This is one example of poor
connectivity.
estimated to produce 67% of zinc, 50% of copper, and 50%
of cadmium found in runoff. 10
Transportation consumes 65% of the total energy used in
America. Of this, road transportation uses approximately
85%.11 Road travel consumes so much fuel because of the
amount that Americans drive and also the inefficiency of
the average internal combustion engine. Only 12% of the
fuel used by a car actually provides propulsion.12
Emissions from internal fuel combustion vehicles are a
major contributor to the degradation of air quality.
Transportation-related sources are the greatest contributor
to air pollution in Tompkins County.13 Four of the major
components in combustion exhaust are carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and fine particulate matter.
Vehicle emissions are the main source of carbon monoxide
in the air (up to 95% in some cities); toxic carbon monoxide
reduces the oxygen available for the body’s organs. On-
road mobile sources account for 29% of hydrocarbon
emissions, which are a precursor to ground-level ozone, a
major contributor to the formation of smog. A third of
nitrogen oxides come from road emissions. Nitrogen
emissions are precursors to smog and ozone, which both
degrade air quality. Fine particulate matter—especially
from diesel-burning trucks—can reach the deepest areas of
the lung. It contributes to the development of lung cancer,
bronchitis, and asthma. 14
Noise levels due to transportation systems are not always
considered as a significant environmental impact, although
the noise from high traffic volumes, truck and bus traffic,
rail, and airplanes can have a significant negative impact
on the livability of a neighborhood. Excessive noise
disrupts sleep, distracts from activities, impedes learning,
and can contribute to stress. The Federal Highway
Administration notes that transportation noise is the most
pervasive and difficult to avoid source of unwanted noise.15
Light pollution is common in parking lots, because there
are many light poles that are taller than necessary with
unshielded bulbs that are brighter than necessary. The
Town of Ithaca recently passed a lighting ordinance that
10 U.S. EPA, 1996
11 EERE, 2005
12 Rodrigue, 2005
13 Filiberto, 2004
14 Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2005
15 FHWA, April 2006
would reduce the amount of light spillage, trespass, and
glare in the Town.
Urban heat islands are caused by dark surfaces that
absorb the sun’s energy and a lack of vegetation to provide
shade, absorb sunlight, and cool the air. Parking lots and
roads contribute significantly to the heat island effect, and
the heat island effect seems to have a negative effect on
the durability of pavement. Light colored and porous
pavements can reduce the heat island effect by reflecting
light, instead of absorbing it, and by allowing rainfall to
percolate through the pavement, thereby cooling it.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Provision of attractive, feasible, and cost-effective
alternatives to the low-occupancy, privately-operated
motor vehicle;
• Roadway and transportation system design that
minimizes negative environmental impacts.
Regional Development
Land uses and travel patterns affect each other.
Roadways permit the development of land, which
generates trips. Land
use and modal choice
also are related.
Segregated land uses—
for example,
separating residential
and commercial
areas—lead residents
to drive because
everyday goods and
services are far away.
There are many ways that development patterns and
designs can reduce negative effects of motor vehicle traffic
on the transportation system, including zoning that
supports mixed-uses and clustered development, designs
that emphasize human scales, and promoting connectivity
within the road network.
The transportation system in the Town does not operate
independently of the regional system. Transportation
trends in the Finger Lakes, Tompkins County, and the City
of Ithaca affect transportation in the Town. In the City,
developments around the Commons at Cayuga Green and
Seneca Place will attract more employees, visitors, and
shoppers to downtown. If those people come from outside
the City, they will have to travel through the Town at some
point.
14
The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC)
has developed a model of the Tompkins County road
network, which is useful when considering the effects of
various development plans and projects on the road traffic
network.
The ITCTC used the model to compare a trend-based
development scenario, which continues the current
development trends across the County, to a plan-based
development scenario, which channels development into
nodes of housing and employment across the County. The
model predicts a greater overall increase in traffic patterns
in the trend scenario than in the plan scenario.
Furthermore, focusing development into nodes facilitates
transit provision; this type of development is more
conducive to accommodating changes in the
transportation system due to fluctuations in fuel prices,
increased congestion, and so on.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Review and potential revision of the Town’s
subdivision and zoning ordinance to determine
whether there are ways to use the regulations to
encourage land use patterns that are friendly to
alternative modes of transportation;
• Reduce dependence on low occupancy motor vehicles
by encouraging the use of carpooling and ridesharing,
establishing Park & Ride lots, and by promoting mixed-
use, moderate density development patterns over low
density development of segregated land uses, thereby
creating an environment conducive to biking, walking,
and taking the bus.
Public Health
The Plan focuses on four public health-related issues:
respiratory health, health problems related to inactivity,
physical harm due to crashes, and decreased social well-
being among disadvantaged populations.
Although motor vehicles individually pollute less than they
did thirty years ago, collectively they are pumping more
toxins and particulate matter into the atmosphere as a
result of increases in vehicle miles and time behind the
wheel. In a telling example, when city authorities limited
vehicle volumes in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympic Games
to 77.5% of the normal peak morning count, daily ozone
concentrations dropped 27.9% and asthma emergency
events dropped 41.6%.16
Physical inactivity is linked to 250,000 deaths per year in
America;17 physical inactivity is a large component of the
“obesity crisis.” Un-walkable and un-bikable
neighborhoods are directly linked to low rates of physical
activity. “People who live in neighborhoods with a mix of
shops and businesses within easy walking distance have a
35% lower risk of obesity.”18 Even the simple act of
bicycling to work—without any more vigorous form of
exercise—is associated with a lower weight and less weight
gain over time.19
Injuries and fatalities due to traffic crashes are also a
public health issue. Thirteen percent of traffic-related
fatalities occur among pedestrians (10,696 deaths
nationwide over two years20)—even though pedestrian trips
account for only six percent of all trips. A disproportionate
share of the deaths was among the elderly.
Part of an accessible transportation system, as outlined in
the Goals and Objectives section of this plan, is that the
system is accessible for everyone, regardless of age or
ability. Youthful, low-income, elderly, and disabled
populations are particularly vulnerable in a car-centered
transportation system.
Why care about the connection between transportation
and public health? Besides the issue of basic human
rights, deteriorating public health is costly for those who
remain healthy. The estimated direct health care cost of
obesity in America was $70 billion (1995), and the
estimated direct health care costs of physical inactivity was
$24 billion.21 The cost to the fabric of society when
disadvantaged populations continue to be systematically
marginalized is not calculable in a region that values
livability and community.
This section of the Plan identifies the following needs:
• Programs and policies that reduce motor vehicle
dependence;
• Bikeable, walkable, and transit-friendly neighborhood
designs;
16 Jackson and Kochtitzky, “Creating a Healthy Environment…”
17 Booth et. al, 2000
18 Frank et. al, 2004
19 Ducimetiere, et al, 2001
20 Jackson and Kochtitzky, “Creating a Healthy Environment…”
21 Colditz, 1999
15
• Transportation facility design that minimizes safety
hazards for all system users;
• Town support for transit and paratransit.
ALTERNATIVES
The Alternatives Chapter of the Plan summarizes the
problems identified throughout the Inventory and Analysis,
along with the specific locations that these problems are
particularly prevalent. For each problem, several
alternative strategies are identified, along with the pros
and cons of each.
Some of the specific problems identified in the Plan (in no
particular order) are speeding (especially in residential
areas), a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the
negative impacts of vehicular roadway traffic on adjacent
land uses (especially residential areas), large volumes of
traffic (especially in residential areas), large volumes of
truck traffic (especially in residential areas) and
congestion, crashes in some locations, and poor pavement
condition or sight distances in some areas.
Please see the full Plan for more information.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The previous chapters of this Plan have established a
vision of transportation in the Town and have identified
categories of problems in the town, the locations where
they occur, and potential solutions for each category. This
Chapter recommends specific actions to address the
problems.
It is important to remember that this plan cannot examine
everything related to transportation in the Town. This
document is a living document that will be updated to
reflect changes in “best practices,” acquisition of new
information or data, or other changes to the transportation
system in the Town. In addition, these recommendations
address solutions that will occur over various time frames,
including the five-year (short term), ten-year (mid term),
and twenty-year (long term) horizons. Thus, some
recommendations that would take twenty-five years to
generations to implement have not been included. Finally,
there is not an appropriate resolution for every
transportation problem. Some resolutions may be too
expensive, too disruptive, or otherwise infeasible, and
therefore are not included here.
Since the transportation system involves many jurisdictions
and agencies, some recommendations cannot be
implemented by the Town of Ithaca alone. The full version
of the Plan’s Recommendations Chapter highlights the
recommendations that involve non-Town entities (see
Attachment A in the full version). It also indicates the
Goals that each recommendation fulfills (see Attachment
B). In addition, it summarizes the Recommendations by
the time-frame and priority (see Attachment C). Finally, it
explains how the Recommendations fulfill the charge set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment D).
Please see the full version of the Plan for more
information.
The following is a summary of the Plan’s
recommendations:
1.
THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
1.A. - 1.C. The Town Board should adopt the
Transportation Plan as a long-term vision and
policy guide and should amend the 1993
Comprehensive Plan to include the
Transportation Plan as an element. The
Transportation Plan should be reviewed and
updated on a regular basis.
2.
ROADWAY & ROAD NETWORK ISSUES
2.A. Official Highway Map: The Town Board should
adopt the Official Highway Map and should
update it as needed.
2.B. Engineering & Design:
2.B.1. The Town should use Volume III: The
Design Guidelines to guide the development
of the physical transportation network.
2.B.2. The Town should continue to evaluate
intersections with poor sight distances.
Vegetation removal to improve sight
distances should be the last option.
2.B.3. The Town should regularly request crash
information from the DMV to update the
crash database, identify hazardous
locations, and take steps to mitigate the
problems (including notification to the owner
of the road, if not the Town).
2.B.4. The Town should explore design
responses to excessive speeds and cut-
through traffic in residential areas, as well
as continue to petition the County & State
for speed limit reductions in certain
locations.
16
2.B.5. The Town should explore ways to reduce
the frequency and severity of deer-related
crashes.
2.B.6. The Town should encourage developers to
limit the number of individual driveway
access points onto major roads.
2.C. Maintenance:
2.C.1. The Public Works Department should
continue to have the flexibility to set its own
schedule of roadway improvements.
2.C.2. The Town should continue to practice
preventative maintenance wherever
possible in order to save money over the
long term.
2.C.3. The Town should address the minor
improvements recommended in the Crash
Screenings (see full version of the
Recommendations and the Capital Budget
section).
2.C.4. The Town should operate in an
environmentally sensitive manner (see full
version of the Plan for more information).
2.C.5. The Town should continue to work on
maintenance coordination with the County
Highway Department and NYSDOT and
should consider swapping responsibility for
certain roads. The Town should also support
regional transportation and inter-municipal
planning efforts toward the construction of
new through roads in other municipalities
that would relieve traffic burdens in Town of
Ithaca neighborhoods.
2.D. Traffic Calming: The Town should explore traffic
calming measures as one strategy to protect
neighborhoods from excessive negative effects of
motor vehicle traffic.
2.E. Enforcement: The Town should support law
enforcement agencies and campaigns that aim to
reduce motor vehicle infractions and discourage
reckless, careless, or inattentive behavior.
Please see the full version of the Plan for more
information.
2.F. Potential New Roadway Corridors: This Plan and
other plans preceding it have identified several
roadway corridors that would provide access to
developing areas or potentially could help to
reduce traffic volumes in existing neighborhoods.
2.F.1. The West Hill Connector road would
connect Mecklenburg Road (Rt. 79) to the
Overlook development at the corner of Hayts
Road and Trumansburg Road (Rt. 96).
2.F.2. The North Campus Gateway Connector
road would connect Pleasant Grove Road in
the vicinity of A-lot to the western end of
Jessup Road.
2.F.3. The segments of the Northeast Connector
road as studied in the NESTS Study would
run from Slaterville Road (Rt. 79) in the
Town of Dryden to Dryden Road (Rt. 366),
then to Rt. 13, and finally to Rt. 34 and Rt.
34B in the Town of Lansing.
3.
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ISSUES
3.A. Revised Interim Sidewalk Policy: The Town Board
should revise the Interim Town Sidewalk Policy of
2003, using the Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor
Maps in Volume II: The Appendices as the general
development strategy (i.e. locations and
priorities) for facilities in the Town.
3.B. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities:
3.B.1. The Town should use the Volume III: The
Design Guidelines and the aforementioned
Maps to guide the development of bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in the Town.
3.B.2. The Town should assume the cost of
construction and maintenance of bicycle
and pedestrian facilities that serve a
broader population beyond the adjacent
neighborhoods.
3.B.3. The Town should implement the findings
of the Northeast Walkability Study by the
County Planning Department, where
appropriate.
3.B.4. The Town should implement pedestrian
improvements in the Forest Home
neighborhood, as appropriate.
3.B.5. The Town should work with other entities
to improve the safety, aesthetics, and
Chicanes, a type of traffic calming device, force motorists to
slow down and to pay attention to their surroundings.
17
A TCAT rider checks the schedule.
convenience of walking and bicycle
connections between the Ithaca College
campus and downtown Ithaca.
3.C. Bicycle & Pedestrian Design:
3.C.1. The Town should use Volume III: The
Design Guidelines and the principles of
Context Sensitive Design when designing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
3.C.2. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be
ADA compliant, whenever practical.
3.C.3. The Town should encourage bicycle and
pedestrian accommodations as normal
aspects of a right-of-way. For most roads
that have moderate to high traffic volumes
and speeds, walkways are the most
appropriate facility for pedestrians and
paved shoulders are the most appropriate
facility for bicyclists.
3.D. Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Transit Connections: The
Town should work with TCAT, Cornell, and other
stakeholders to enhance the connections
between walking, biking, and taking transit.
Potential projects include: implementing a Bike &
Ride, cross-promoting transit and walking or
biking, improving bike parking, and using non-
motorized links where it is infeasible to expand a
transit route (see also 3.D.1-3.D.4 in the full
Plan).
3.E. Multi-Use Trails: The Town should continue to
expand and improve the multi-use trail network in
the Town and should help the County and the
ITCTC to expand the county-wide network (see
also 3.E.1-3.E.4 in the full Plan).
3.F. Safety Education & Evaluation: The Town should
work with other stakeholders to devise a bicycle
and pedestrian safety education strategy for
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. See
Attachment E in the full Plan for more
information.
3.G. Encouragement: The Town should work with
other municipalities and advocacy groups to
devise a bicycle and pedestrian encouragement
strategy; see Attachment F in the full Plan for
more information.
3.H. Bicycle Equipment: The Town should explore how
bicycle equipment needs relate to safety,
enforcement, and encouragement issues.
4.
TRANSIT ISSUES
4.A. Park & Ride: The Town should work with TCAT,
the ITCTC, and major employers, such as Cornell,
to develop a Park-and-Ride system, using the
findings of the recent origin-destination and Park
& Ride studies by Cornell and the ITCTC.
4.B. Ease of Use: The Town should encourage and
work with TCAT to make transit service easy to
understand and use. Please see the full Plan for
more information.
4.C. Funding: The Town Board should consider
funding for TCAT to ensure adequate levels of
service in the Town. The Town Board should
continue to provide funding for Gadabout to
ensure continued service for senior citizens and
the disabled in the Town.
4.D. Transit in Existing & New Development: The Town
should continue to work with TCAT to ensure that
new development in the Town is served by transit,
in terms of the site plan and route extensions (or
other enhancements). Areas that may need
expansion include Ithaca College and West Hill
(including the Linderman Creek and Overlook
developments).
4.E. Other High Occupancy Vehicle Strategies: The
Town should encourage carpool, vanpool, and
carshare initiatives from the public and private
sector (including educational institutions, such as
Cornell and Ithaca College).
5.
REGIONAL COOPERATION
5.A. ITCTC: The Town should continue to participate in
the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation
Council (ITCTC).
5.B. t-GEIS & TIMS: The t-GEIS is a Transportation-
Focused Generic Environmental Impact
Statement prepared by Cornell University that
examines Cornell’s transportation impacts on the
surrounding community. TIMS, or Transportation
18
Impact Mitigation Strategies, outlines ways for
Cornell to alleviate the transportation impacts of
its future population growth. The Town should
support the findings of the t-GEIS and TIMS,
where appropriate. The recommendations of this
Plan should inform the development of the TIMS,
and updates to this Plan should be receptive to
the progress made by TIMS.
5.C. Town Transportation Committee: The Town
Transportation Committee should continue to
invite representatives from Cornell and the ITCTC
to their meetings and should consider inviting
representatives from Dryden, Lansing, the City of
Ithaca, and the County, when relevant topics
arise.
5.D. County Trails: The Town should work with other
agencies & stakeholders to implement a county-
wide system of trails, including the Black
Diamond Trail.
5.E. Park & Ride: The Town should work with TCAT,
the ITCTC, and major employers, such as Cornell,
to develop a Park & Ride system.
5.F. Design Issues: The Town should work with the
City, Cornell, and the County to ensure that
transportation design is consistent and
predictable throughout the area.
5.G. Traffic Demand Management: The Town should
work with other organizations and agencies in the
public and private sectors to devise traffic
demand management strategies to reduce peak-
hour demand on roadway capacity and to provide
incentives, such as greater flexibility or reduced-
cost bus passes for employees.
5.H. Shared Services and Expertise: The Town should
continue to identify opportunities to share
responsibility for services, facilities, equipment,
labor, and expertise with other owners or
maintainers of the transportation network.
5.I. Truck Traffic: The Town should work with the
County, the City of Ithaca, ITCTC, Cornell
University, companies that ship or receive
shipments, shipping firms, and other regional
players in order to address truck traffic patterns
that route through residential areas.
6.
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS
A Capital Budget is a tool for governments to strategically
plan for major projects, including acquisition of long-term
assets and construction of facilities. The goal of capital
budgeting is to maximize the benefits of the expenditure of
public resources while minimizing negative effects on the
municipality’s finances.
6.A. Capital Budget & Horizon: The Town should
continue to budget for capital needs related to
transportation projects, and the Town may want
to consider budgeting for ten years in advance
(instead of five).
6.B. Budget Appropriations: The Town should
consider annual appropriations as part of the
yearly operating budget for less costly
transportation projects, such as segments of
walkways or crosswalks.
6.C. Other Funding Sources: The Town should apply
for additional funds for transportation projects
and should explore funds not strictly associated
with transportation.
6.D. Specific Projects: Suggestions for potential
projects in updates to the Capital Budget could
include:
6.D.1. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements, as
indicated on the Bicycle & Pedestrian
Corridor Needs Maps.
6.D.2. Implementation of Forest Home Traffic
Calming Plan
6.D.3. Traffic calming in other locations
6.D.4. The Gateway Trail
6.D.5. Snyderhill Road Walkway (already
included in 2006 Capital Budget)
7.
ZONING, SUBDIVISION, & SITE PLAN REVIEW
The cumulative negative effects of development on the
transportation network should be minimized. The Town
should alter subdivision and zoning regulations to lessen
dependence on low occupancy motor vehicles and to
lessen the strain on the motorized transportation network.
Furthermore, the Town should support the findings of
ITCTC’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the
County’s Comprehensive Plan by encouraging node-based
development.
7.A. Zoning Recommendations: The full version of the
Plan’s Recommendations includes details on
topics such as:
7.A.1. Mixed-Use Development
7.A.2. Neighborhood Commercial Zones
7.A.3. Residential Setbacks
7.A.4. Commercial Setbacks
7.A.5. Garages
7.A.6. Parking Requirements
19
7.B. Subdivision Regulations & Review: The full
version of the Plan’s Recommendations includes
details on topics such as:
7.B.1. Cluster Subdivisions
7.B.2. Connectivity
7.B.3. Cul-de-Sacs
7.C. Site Plan Regulations & Review: The full version
of the Plan’s Recommendations includes details
on topics such as:
7.C.1. Transit
7.C.2. Pedestrian Enhancements
7.C.3. Bicycle & Pedestrian Circulation
7.C.4. Impact Evaluation
7.C.5. Shared Access
7.C.6. Motor Vehicle & Bicycle Parking
VOLUME II: THE APPENDICES
The second volume of the Transportation Plan contains
supplementary information, including the following
sections:
• Maps;
• Supplementary Tables;
• Town of Ithaca Transportation Survey and Analysis;
• Intersection and Road Segment Analysis and Crash
Screening;
• Sidewalk Ordinances and Policies;
• Identifying and Prioritizing Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements;
• Public Participation;
• Works Cited and Further Information;
• Acronyms.
VOLUME III: THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The third volume of the Transportation Plan focuses on the
design of the road network, the right-of-way, and right-of-
way elements. The guidelines call for multi-modal streets
that respect and protect the livability of residences
adjacent to the roadway. Specifically, the guidelines seek
roadways that are: safe, secure, comfortable, and
convenient for all users, including residents; universally
accessible; environmentally friendly; and engaging to the
eye.
The document deals with guidelines, not design standards.
Design standards specify precise design attributes. Design
guidelines, on the other hand, are general considerations
that guide, not dictate, the physical design of the
streetscape.
Volume III: The Design Guidelines is divided into three
sections: Streetscape Design, Bicycle and Pedestrian
Infrastructure Design, and Traffic Calming Design.
STREETSCAPE DESIGN
The Streetscape Design section shows the importance of
connectivity in the road network and design of adjacent
land uses for making walkable and bikeable communities.
For example, curb radii should be kept as small as possible
to decrease vehicular speeds around the corner and to
reduce crossing distances for pedestrians. At the road
edge, street trees contribute to a pleasant pedestrian
environment and may help to calm traffic by giving
motorists landmarks to gauge their speeds. Lanes should
be kept as narrow as possible to promote slower traffic
speeds and to promote human-scale development.
This section concludes with sample streetscape designs for
urban/suburban and rural land uses with both intense and
non-intense traffic.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design section
explores the various types of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, the major design considerations for each, and the
types of situations when each is appropriate. It envisions a
transportation network in which streets would be well
designed to accommodate both motorized and non-
motorized modes of transportation, with off-road paths for
non-motorized transportation completing the network.
There are four main types of pedestrian infrastructure:
sidewalks, walkways, multi-use paths, and road shoulders.
Intersections, crosswalks, and enhancements such as
human-scale lighting and street trees complete the
pedestrian environment.
There are five main types of bicycle infrastructure: a shared
lane, a wide curb lane, a paved shoulder, a bicycle lane,
and a multi-use path. Bicycle parking must also be
considered when designing for bicyclists.
20
This section concludes with a checklist that planners and
designers can use to evaluate the walkability or bikability
of an actual or proposed development.
TRAFFIC CALMING DESIGN
The third section of Volume III: The Design Guidelines
presents the most common traffic calming treatments and
identifies the treatments most likely to be useful in the
Town of Ithaca.
Traffic calming is “the combination of mainly physical
measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle
use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non-
motorized street users.”22 Traffic calming can help to
lower vehicular speeds and reduce aggressive driving,
promote walking and bicycling by making the streetscape
environment safe and pleasant, and discourage the use of
residential streets by non-resident cut through vehicular
traffic, among other benefits.
This section is divided into four subsections. Volume
control measures don’t necessarily calm traffic; they are
traffic management tools that can be used to restore the
residential character of a neighborhood where high traffic
volumes or unsafe turning movements are negatively
affecting livability. Vertical and horizontal speed control
measures use vertical and horizontal deflections,
respectively, to draw motorists’ attention to their
surroundings, thereby calming traffic. Finally, measure
such as pavement treatments and street trees are most
often used in conjunction with measures from the
aforementioned subsections as part of comprehensive
traffic calming design.
The traffic calming measures most likely to be useful in the
Town of Ithaca are:
• Speed humps;
• Speed tables;
• Raised crosswalks;
• Lateral shifts/ chicanes/ serpentine roadways;
• Neckouts/ bulbouts/ curb extensions;
• Chokers;
• Bicycle lanes;
22 Lockwood, 1997
• Partial road closures;
• Gateway treatments;
• Street narrowing, via a “road diet” or a visual
narrowing;
• Other streetscape features, such as pavement
treatments and street trees.
21
WORKS CITED
Beamguard, Jim. Images published July 18, 1999. Tampa Tribune. Cited
by Points, Rich and Evan Ravitz. Bike for Peace.
<http://bikeforpeace.org/packing_pavement.html>.
Booth, Gordon, Carlson, and Hamilton. “Waging war on modern chronic
diseases: primary prevention through exercise biology.” Journal of
Applied Physiology 88: 774-787. 2000.
Center for GIS. “Natural Resources: Comprehensive Water Resources
Planning.” Towson University. Undated.
<http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landscape/impervious/all_compwater.a
sp>. September 15, 2005.
Colditz, G.A. “Economic costs of obesity and inactivity.” Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise 31(11), Supplement. pp. S663-S3667.
November 1999.
Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). “Public and
Community Transportation Glossary.” Undated.
<http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/glossary.asp?printview=yes>. September 13,
2005.
Ducimetiere, Simon, Wagner et al. “Leisure-time physical activity and
regular walking or cycling to work are associated with adiposity and 5y
weight gain in middle-aged men: The PRIME Study.” International Journal
of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 2, (2001): 940-948.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), United States
Department of Energy. “Transportation Topics.” September 13, 2005.
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/EE/transportation.html>. Washington, D.C:
U.S. Department of Energy, September 15, 2005.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of
Transportation. “Highway Traffic Noise in the United States: Problem &
Response.” United States Department of Transportation. April 2006.
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/probresp.htm> June 19, 2006.
Filiberto, Heather. “Local Governments and Climate Change.” Tompkins
County Planning Department. June 12, 2004.
<http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/emc/docs/3_climate_change_and_ccp_
presentation.pdf>. August 30, 2006
Frank, Andresen, and Schmid. (2004). “Obesity relationships with
community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars.” American
Journal of Preventative Medicine, 18 (2004): 47-57.
Jackson and Kochtitzky. “Creating a Healthy Environment: The Impact of
the Built Environment on Public Health.” Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse
Monograph Series, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Undated.
Lockwood, Ian. “ITE Traffic Calming Definition.” ITE Journal. July 1997.
Milwaukee River Basin Partnership. “Protecting Our Waters: Streets and
Roads.” September 11, 2003. <http://clean-
water.uwex.edu/plan/streetsroads.htm>. September 15, 2005.
Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “Mobile Source Emissions – Past,
Present, and Future.” Washington, D.C: United States Environmental
Protection Agency, March 11, 2005.
<http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutants/index.htm>.
September 15, 2005.
Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Inland Waterway
Navigation Value to the Nation.” 2004. Rock Island, Illinois: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. <www.mvr.usace.army.mil/Brochures/
InlandWaterwayNavigation.asp>. September 15, 2004.
Rodriguez, Dr. Jean-Paul. “Chapter 8: Transport and Environment.” The
Geography of Transportation Systems. Hempstead, New York: Hofstra
University, Department of Economics & Geography, 2005.
Sterling, George, Planning Board Chairman. “Chapter 6: Traffic &
Transportation.” Master Plan Update. Town of Peterborough, New
Hampshire: Office of Community Development, November 2003.
Town of Ithaca. Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Executive
Summary. Ithaca, N.Y: Town of Ithaca, December, 1997.
Transportation Choices Coalition. “The Environmental Threat: Sprawl, Air
and Water Pollution, Global Warming.” Washington, D.C: Transportation
Choices Coalition, 2003. <http://www.transportationchoices.org/facts-
environmental.asp>. September 15, 2005.
United States Department of Agriculture. “Steps to a Healthier You.”
Mypyramid.gov. Undated.
<http://www.mypyramid.gov/> June 28, 2006.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Indicators of the
Environmental Impacts of Transportation: Highway, Rail, Aviation, and
Maritime Transport.” Washington, D.C: Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
(2126), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication 230-R-96-009,
Government Printing Office, October 1996.
Varricchione, Brian J. “Enhancing Pedestrian Access in Tompkins County:
A Guidebook on Sidewalk Improvements.” A Professional Report
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University.
May 2003.