HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Plan Volume 1 The Plan
The Town of IthacaThe Town of IthacaThe Town of IthacaThe Town of Ithaca
Transportation PlanTransportation PlanTransportation PlanTransportation Plan
Volume I:Volume I:Volume I:Volume I:
The PlanThe PlanThe PlanThe Plan
Version:
July 9, 2007
Town of Ithaca Town Board
Contact:
jkanter@town.ithaca.ny.us
IIII N T R O D U C T I O N T R O D U C T I O N T R O D U C T I O N T R O D U C T I O N N N N ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1111
GGGG O A L S A N D O A L S A N D O A L S A N D O A L S A N D OOOO B J E C T I V E S B J E C T I V E S B J E C T I V E S B J E C T I V E S ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5555
ACCESS AND MOBILITY ....................................................................................................................5
LIVABILITY .....................................................................................................................................5
SAFETY .........................................................................................................................................6
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT .........................................................................................6
COORDINATION ..............................................................................................................................6
LAND USE PLANNING ......................................................................................................................6
ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................................................................7
BBBB A C K G R O U N D A C K G R O U N D A C K G R O U N D A C K G R O U N D CCCC O N D I T I O N D I T I O N D I T I O N D I T I O N S O N S O N S O N S ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8888
THE TOWN OF ITHACA......................................................................................................................8
POLICY, PLANNING, AND FUNDING FRAMEWORK .................................................................................9
Federal Policy: ISTEA, TEA-21, & SAFETEA-LU.......................................................................................9
New York State Transportation Policy..................................................................................................11
Regional and Local Policy Framework..................................................................................................12
Other Related Regional Transportation Plans & Policies ....................................................................13
DEMOGRAPHIC & TRANSPORTATION PROFILE ...................................................................................14
Census Data...........................................................................................................................................14
Demographic and Housing Data......................................................................................................14
Transportation-Related Data ...........................................................................................................16
National Travel Surveys.........................................................................................................................17
Trip Purpose......................................................................................................................................18
Trip Mode..........................................................................................................................................18
Trip Purpose and Mode....................................................................................................................19
Town of Ithaca Transportation Survey..................................................................................................20
Work Here, Live There: Commuters.....................................................................................................23
IIII N V E N T O R Y A N V E N T O R Y A N V E N T O R Y A N V E N T O R Y A N D N D N D N D AAAA N A L Y S I S N A L Y S I S N A L Y S I S N A L Y S I S ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................24242424
STATE , COUNTY, AND TOWN ROADWAYS .........................................................................................24
The Official Highway Map and Road Network Design.........................................................................24
Inventory ...........................................................................................................................................25
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................26
Identification of Needs.....................................................................................................................27
Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design.......................................................................................28
Inventory ...........................................................................................................................................28
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................32
Identification of Needs.....................................................................................................................33
Traffic Data: Volumes, Speeds, & Crashes .........................................................................................34
Volume & Capacity Data ..................................................................................................................35
Speed Data.......................................................................................................................................39
Road Safety: Crash Information & Location Analyses ...................................................................44
Roadway Maintenance..........................................................................................................................51
Inventory ...........................................................................................................................................51
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................51
Identification of Needs.....................................................................................................................52
A Summary of the Road Network in the Town of Ithaca.....................................................................53
Radial Roads.....................................................................................................................................56
Feeder Roads....................................................................................................................................59
Circumferential Roads......................................................................................................................65
Subdivision Access Roads ...............................................................................................................70
Internal Subdivision Roads..............................................................................................................70
AUTO ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................................................71
Bus Transit and Paratransit..................................................................................................................71
Inventory ...........................................................................................................................................71
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................74
Identification of Needs.....................................................................................................................75
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities..........................................................................................................76
Inventory ...........................................................................................................................................77
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................78
Identification of Needs.....................................................................................................................79
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ..........................................................................................80
Passenger Air and Rail Travel...............................................................................................................80
Inventory and Analysis......................................................................................................................80
Identification of Needs/ Recognition of Limitations.......................................................................81
Freight Via Truck, Rail, and Air..............................................................................................................81
Inventory ...........................................................................................................................................81
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................83
Identification of Needs.....................................................................................................................84
OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ISSUES .......................................................................................85
The Natural Environment and the Transportation System.................................................................85
Sensitivity in Scenic Areas...............................................................................................................85
Air Quality, Water Quality, and Energy Efficiency............................................................................85
Other Environmental Issues.............................................................................................................88
Identification of Needs.....................................................................................................................89
Regional Development and the Transportation System.....................................................................89
A Regional System............................................................................................................................90
Using a Model to Compare Development Patterns........................................................................90
Identification of Needs.....................................................................................................................93
Transportation, the Built Environment, and Public Health .................................................................93
Respiratory Disorders and Diseases...............................................................................................94
Consequences of Physical Inactivity: Obesity and Related Disorders..........................................94
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Vulnerability in Traffic Crashes...............................................................94
Equity and Social Well-Being ...........................................................................................................95
Identification of Needs.....................................................................................................................96
AAAA L T E R N A T I V E L T E R N A T I V E L T E R N A T I V E L T E R N A T I V E S S S S....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................97979797
RRRR E C O M M E N D A T E C O M M E N D A T E C O M M E N D A T E C O M M E N D A T I O N S I O N S I O N S I O N S ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................107107107107
The Town Transportation Plan............................................................................................................108
Roadway and Road Network Issues...................................................................................................108
Bicycle & Pedestrian Issues................................................................................................................112
Transit Issues.......................................................................................................................................115
Regional Cooperation..........................................................................................................................116
Capital Budget Projects.......................................................................................................................117
Zoning, Subdivision Regulations, and Site Plan Review...................................................................118
Attachments.........................................................................................................................................122
Attachment A: Recommendations Involving Non-Town Entities.................................................122
Attachment B: Recommendations Per Goal................................................................................124
Attachment C: Time-Frames and Priorities for New Initiatives...................................................126
Attachment D: The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan & The Transportation Plan...............128
Attachment E: Ideas for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Education and Evaluation................131
Attachment F: Ideas for a Biking and Walking Encouragement Strategy ..................................133
Attachment G: Site Plan Review Checklist...................................................................................135
LLLL I S T O F I S T O F I S T O F I S T O F FFFF I G U R E S I G U R E S I G U R E S I G U R E S
Figure A: Vehicle Availability by Household, Various Sources.......................................................................20
Figure B: Percentage of Households by Mode, Various Sources..................................................................21
Figure C: Transportation Problems in the Town, Survey................................................................................22
Figure D: Transportation Solutions for the Town, Survey..............................................................................22
Figure E: Workers & Residents in Tompkins County......................................................................................23
Figure F: Emission Sources in Tompkins County, 1998 ................................................................................87
LLLL I S T O F I S T O F I S T O F I S T O F TTTT A B L E S A B L E S A B L E S A B L E S
Table 1: Population Distribution Changes, Town of Ithaca, 1990-2000......................................................15
Table 2: Carpooling by Municipality, 2000 Census.......................................................................................17
Table 3: Person Trips per Day by Trip Purpose: 1995 and 2001................................................................18
Table 4: Daily Person Trips by Mode: 1995 and 2001..................................................................................19
Table 5: Mileage in the Town of Each Functional Classification With Examples.........................................31
Table 6: Traffic Data in the Plan .....................................................................................................................35
Table 7: VOC for Various Segments of Routes 96 & 79................................................................................36
Table 8: NYSDOT Target Design Speeds........................................................................................................40
Table 9: Roads with Speeding Problems........................................................................................................41
Table 10: Locations of Crashes Involving Another Vehicle (1999-2001) ....................................................45
Table 11: Locations and Crashes Involving Animals (1999-2001)..............................................................46
Table 12: Crashes on Town-owned Roads or Intersections by First Event, 1999-2001.............................47
Table 13: Hazardous Roads Survey Question and Responses.....................................................................49
Table 14: TCAT Routes Serving the Town of Ithaca.......................................................................................72
Table 15: Truck Volumes on Roads within the Town.....................................................................................82
Table 16: Projected 30-year Increases due to Development........................................................................91
Table 17: VOC on Routes 96 & 79 Under Various Scenarios.......................................................................93
Table 18: Issues, Locations, & Strategies......................................................................................................98
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T SA C K N O W L E D G E M E N T SA C K N O W L E D G E M E N T SA C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee
Current and Former Town Board Representatives:
Will Burbank, Town Board member, Chair
Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor, Former Chair
William Lesser, Former Town Board member, Former Chair
Pat Leary, Town Board member
Tom Niederkorn, Former Town Board member
Planning Board Representative:
George Conneman, Planning Board member
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council Representative:
Fernando de Aragon, Director of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
Cornell University Representatives:
Bill Wendt, Director of Transportation and Mail Services
John Gutenberger, Director of Government and Community Relations
Andrew Eastlick, Transportation Planner
Staff Representatives:
Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning
Dan Walker, Director of Engineering
Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning
Nicole Tedesco, Planner
Esther Blodau-Konick, Planner
The Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee would like to thank the following individuals and groups for
their invaluable input into the development of the Plan:
• The Town of Ithaca Town Board
• The Town of Ithaca Planning Board
• The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board
• Lois Chaplin, Bicycle & Pedestrian Program Manager, Cornell Local Roads Program
• Bruce Brittain and Doug Brittain, Forest Home residents
• All of the other individuals and groups who provided their valuable time and input into the Plan
Finally, the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee would like to especially thank Nicole Tedesco,
principal author and coordinator of the Transportation Plan, for the extraordinary effort that she provided
in the preparation of the Plan and for the excellent document that has resulted.
1
I N T R O D U C T I I N T R O D U C T I I N T R O D U C T I I N T R O D U C T I O NO NO NO N
The Purpose of This Transportation Plan
From gas prices to the bus ride to school, air pollution to neighborhood livability, transportation touches
nearly every aspect of our world. Because of the importance of transportation planning, the Town of
Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan (1993) recommended the creation of a Transportation Plan. This
Transportation Plan was created by the Town Transportation Committee, with technical assistance from
the Town Planning Department.
This Transportation Plan is divided into three volumes. This first volume, The Plan, contains the planning
document itself. The second volume, The Appendices, contains supplemental information about the
Town’s transportation system. The third volume, The Design Guidelines, contains design guidelines
related to streetscapes, bicycling and walking facilities, and traffic calming.
This 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 aim
of this Transportation Plan is to foster a transportation system that enhances the quality of life in the
Town. This Plan outlines seven goals around the themes of Access & Mobility, Livability, Safety,
Transportation System Management, Coordination, Land Use Planning, and the Environment.
Background Conditions
The Background Conditions Chapter of this volume, The Plan, explores the effect that history, geography,
demographics, and policies have on the transportation system in the area. This chapter reveals the multi-
layered governance of the transportation system, the impact of students and commuters on the area
transportation system, and the prevalence of the privately-owned motor vehicle in the transportation
system. Historically, the Town of Ithaca was a rural municipality with residential development on East Hill.
Post-World War II development has been mostly diffuse and low-density (suburban); this is one reason
why the privately-owned motor vehicle is the most popular mode in the Town. The Town is shaped like a
doughnut with the City of Ithaca, the county’s employment and cultural center, located in the middle.
Roads and creeks that run through the Town like spokes leading to the hub of the City affect travel
patterns, especially the impact of commuter traffic. Students at the two major institutions of higher
learning—Ithaca College and Cornell University—are more likely to walk to work or class than their non-
student counterparts. Finally, there are policies and plans at all levels of government that affect the way
that the transportation system is developed and funded.
Inventory and Analysis
The Inventory & Analysis of this volume, The Plan, covers roadways, including volume, speed, and crash
data, public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, other modes like air travel and freight, and other
related topics, such as the built and natural environments, regional development, and public health.
2
Each section begins with an exploration of available data before an analysis of the situation and a
conclusion about problems or needs.
Overall, the roadway system in the Town is functioning well, although there are negative impacts to
neighborhood livability in some areas. In many cases, roads are classified for one function, designed for
another purpose, and employed for yet another use. In many areas, traffic volumes and speeds are so
high that they impact the quality of life for residents and roadway users. Fortunately, roads owned by the
Town have good safety records; clusters of crashes are on County- or State-owned roads. This points to a
reoccurring theme throughout the Plan: many problems occur outside the Town’s jurisdiction.
Therefore, it is very important for the Town to work with other municipalities, organizations, and agencies
to implement the Recommendations of the Plan.
TCAT (Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit) is the transit provider for the Town of Ithaca. Most of TCAT’s
routes are concentrated in the City and Cornell’s campus, but routes extend out to the Town and beyond.
Development on South and West Hills in the Town will lead to increased need for transit in those areas.
Currently, pedestrian facilities in the Town are mostly multi-use trails and walkways, which are owned and
maintained by the Town. There are sidewalks (owned and maintained by property owners) in a few
developments, but dedicated pedestrian infrastructure is rare and disconnected. Facilities for bicyclists
are primarily road lanes and shoulders, although bicyclists are permitted to ride on multi-use trails. There
is not sufficient non-motorized infrastructure for the current level of development in the Town, and the
lack will worsen with further development.
The Plan discusses air travel and freight very briefly. It concludes that there is little the Town can do
actively to improve air travel, but the Town can work to protect neighborhoods from excessive truck
traffic.
Negative environmental effects from over-dependency on low occupancy motor vehicles are felt on
scenic, air, water, and energy resources, as well as via light, heat, and noise impacts. Land use patterns
and transportation affect each other, where dispersed development requires motor vehicles, and
roadways and parking for motor vehicles can lead to additional dispersed development. A transportation
system that is overly dependent on privately-owned motor vehicles leaves behind groups such as the
young, old, poor and disabled, groups that are marginalized in other ways, as well.
Needs and Alternatives
The Inventory and Analysis points to a fundamental imbalance in the current transportation system: it
favors low-occupancy, privately owned motor vehicles at the expense of other modes. Therefore, the
Recommendations of the Plan focus on maintaining the existing roadway network while protecting
neighborhoods from excessive traffic burdens and expanding a system of alternatives to the low
occupancy motor vehicles.
The main needs identified in the Inventory are as follows:
• Adoption of an updated Official Highway Map;
• A set of design guidelines to protect livability, improve safety, and enhance mobility;
• Mitigation for high traffic volumes and speeds in some areas;
3
• Funding and flexibility to construct and maintain appropriate physical infrastructure;
• Improved bicycling, walking, and transit opportunities;
• A reduction of the transportation impacts on the natural environment;
• Examination of how transportation affects land use, and vice versa.
The Alternatives Chapter identifies potential solutions for all of the needs identified in the Inventory and
lists the potential advantages and disadvantages for each. This Chapter emphasizes the need to strike a
balance between the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches to addressing
transportation issues.
Recommendations
The Recommendations Chapter of this volume, The Plan, is organized around seven topics: the
Transportation Plan itself, Roadways and Rights-of-Way, Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues, Public Transit,
Regional Cooperation, Capital Budget Projects, and Zoning, Subdivision, and Site Plan Review.
The Transportation Plan Recommendation advises the Town Board to adopt the Plan as an element of the
Comprehensive Plan and to update the Transportation Plan as necessary.
The Roadways Recommendations cover issues such as the Official Highway Map, engineering and design,
maintenance, traffic calming, enforcement, environmental sensitivity, inter-jurisdictional coordination,
potential new roadway corridors and other issues. Part of this Recommendation is a set of best practices
Design Guidelines for streetscape design, traffic calming, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendation topics include a revised Sidewalk Policy, expansion of
facilities across the Town, design recommendations, connections between transit and non-motorized
modes, multi-use trails, safety education and evaluation, enforcement of bicycle and pedestrian laws, an
encouragement strategy, and bicycle equipment.
The Transit Recommendations recognize that transit will play an important role in the reduction of
congestion and improvement of access and mobility for all in the Town. They focus on Park-and-Ride,
ease of use, funding, transit in existing and new development, and other high-occupancy vehicle
strategies.
The Regional Cooperation Recommendations emphasize that working together and sharing resources will
help to create a transportation system that is seamless across municipal boundaries. The
Recommendations discuss the ITCTC, Cornell’s t-GEIS and TIMS, the Town Transportation Committee,
multi-use trails in the County, Park-and-Ride, design issues, and traffic demand management.
The Capital Budget Projects Recommendations outline the role of a Capital Budget in a local
government’s long-term planning. They concern the role of capital budgeting and the capital budget
horizon, budget appropriations, other funding sources, and specific projects.
Finally, the Zoning, Subdivision, and Site Plan Review Recommendations examine the relationship
between land use and transportation and suggest that the Town should examine the Zoning Code and
4
The Plan uses this arrow
symbol to emphasize important
points or conclusions.
This symbol
highlights important
terms and definitions.
Subdivision Regulations to determine if and how they can better support a balanced transportation
system. These Recommendations offer guidelines on topics ranging from mixing land uses to density,
setbacks to parking requirements, and pedestrian circulation to transit access.
Public Participation
Public participation was an important factor in drafting this Plan. In the fall of 2003, the Transportation
Committee authored a survey that asked about transportation habits and opinions, which was sent to all
property owners in the Town. The purpose was to gauge the public’s attitude about transportation issues.
In addition, the Transportation Committee has sponsored three public information meetings throughout
the course of the development of the Plan, in addition to the three public hearings held as part of the
environmental review of the Plan.
Using Volume I, The Plan
Throughout this volume, boxes highlight
important concepts and terms. See the
example boxes at right for more information.
Figures are labeled with a letter and, in some situations, with a number. Figures labeled with only a letter
are found in the body of the text. Figures labeled with “A” and then a number are found in The
Appendices, Appendix II, “Supplementary Tables.” Tables are labeled with a number, and they are only
found in the body of the text.
5
G O A L S A N D G O A L S A N D G O A L S A N D G O A L S A N D O B J E C T I V E SO B J E C T I V E SO B J E C T I V E SO B J E C T I V E S
The overall mission of this Transportation Plan is to foster a transportation system that enhances the
quality of life in the Town of Ithaca. This Plan envisions a multi-modal transportation system that is
compatible with the Town’s objectives as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, sensitive to the built and
natural environments, and accessible to all. This transportation system will restore a balance between
the privately owned motor vehicle and alternative modes, such as walking, biking, taking transit, and so
on. This Plan seeks to build on the strengths of the current transportation system while mitigating its
weaknesses. It aims to preserve and maintain the current road system while improving safety. The Plan
also endeavors to improve access, mobility, and livability in the Town by expanding multi-modal options.
This Plan recognizes that there are factors over which the Town policy-makers have little control, but
many of those factors can be influenced with creative planning. For example, many non-residents use the
Town’s transportation network as they travel into and out of the City of Ithaca; this Plan seeks to
accommodate their movements while protecting the quality of life for Town residents. This Plan also calls
for the development of new criteria and procedures to guide decision-making and allocation of resources
within the Town’s jurisdiction as the transportation system develops according to the goals identified in
this section.
This section outlines the Plan’s vision, as illustrated through goals and objectives. Goals identify key
topics, while objectives list various components of the topic. The themes of this Transportation Plan are
Access & Mobility, Livability, Safety, Transportation System Management, Coordination, Land Use
Planning, and the Environment.
AAAACCESS AND CCESS AND CCESS AND CCESS AND MMMMOBILITYOBILITYOBILITYOBILITY
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.
LLLLIVABILITYIVABILITYIVABILITYIVABILITY
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.
6
• When modifying or rebuilding roads in residential areas, work to beautify streetscapes, restore
roadways to a human scale, and improve the character and livability of the neighborhoods
through which they pass.
SSSSAFETYAFETYAFETYAFETY
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 data, etc. 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.
TTTTRANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION SSSSYSTEM YSTEM YSTEM YSTEM MMMMANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENT
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.
CCCCOORDINATIONOORDINATIONOORDINATIONOORDINATION
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.
LLLLAND AND AND AND UUUUSE SE SE SE PPPPLANNINGLANNINGLANNINGLANNING
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
7
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.
EEEENVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENT
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.
8
Gorges, hills, and waterfalls
are products of the region’s glacial
history. Educational institutions
have a great influence on the
culture of the region.
B A C K G R O U N D B A C K G R O U N D B A C K G R O U N D B A C K G R O U N D C O N D I T I O N C O N D I T I O N C O N D I T I O N C O N D I T I O N SSSS
Many non-transportation related factors affect the transportation system. It is necessary to understand
the context within which the local and regional transportation system operates. This Chapter presents a
brief history of the Town of Ithaca. It also outlines the policies at the national, state, regional, and local
level that guide Town Boards and private decision-makers. The Chapter concludes by using
demographics to profile the characteristics of Town residents, as well as their transportation choices and
habits. Census and survey data describe the travel patterns, habits, and choices of residents; this profile
is influenced by the current transportation situation and influences the development of our future
transportation system. This section provides information about the mode choices, travel purposes,
vehicle availability, and other transportation characteristics of Town residents.
TTTTHE HE HE HE TTTTOWN OF OWN OF OWN OF OWN OF IIIITHACATHACATHACATHACA
This section presents a brief history of the Town of Ithaca, from its
geological history through its development as part of the regional
center commonly known as “Ithaca.” It is within this context that the
transportation system was established and has grown into its
present form.
The Town of Ithaca is located on the hills and along the Inlet Valley at the southern end of Cayuga Lake in
the eastern Finger Lakes region of central New York State. Map 1 and Map 2 in Appendix 1 of Volume II,
The Appendices, show Ithaca and the surrounding region. The Town of Ithaca, established in 1821,
includes the Village of Cayuga Heights, which was incorporated in 1915. Currently, the Village of Cayuga
Heights maintains its own board of trustees and planning board, police force, and zoning board of
appeals and code enforcement officer; thus, the focus of this Transportation Plan is the rest of the Town
outside the Village. The Town surrounds the City of Ithaca; the eight other towns of Tompkins County
surround the Town of Ithaca.
Prominent features of the region’s natural environment—its lakes, gorges, hills, and soils—are mainly the
result of Ice Age glaciations. Natural features such as these affected the development of the
transportation system by creating natural corridors and barriers to movement (see Map 3, Volume II,
Appendix II (“Topography of the Town of Ithaca”).
This region was originally populated by the Iroquois Confederation, who were driven away by European
settlers. Settlers introduced different ways to use the land by clearing forests to establish farms and by
mining to extract coal to feed the growing industrial cities of Upstate New York. The land that now is the
Town of Ithaca remained largely rural and agricultural in character until the end of the nineteenth century.
The Town’s population (outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights) has grown significantly since the turn of
the last century (in 1900, only 1,500 people lived in the Town). At the close of World War II, the Town’s
population stood at 4,000; by 2000, the population grew to nearly 15,000. The Town’s development has
9
been largely residential and institutional in character, with some commercial development. For more
demographic information about the Town, please see the Census subsection under the Transportation
Profile section in this chapter.
In recent decades, the local economy and changes in the physical environment—including the
transportation network—have been driven by the educational institutions in Ithaca: Cornell University and,
to a lesser degree, Ithaca College. Founded in 1865, Cornell combines endowed, private colleges with
state public land-grant colleges. The University has now grown to nearly 20,000 students and 10,000
staff members, and it is the largest employer in Tompkins County. Ithaca College, founded in 1892,
enrolls approximately 6,300 students and employs 1,600 teaching staff. The academic, research,
commercial, and real estate activities of these institutions contribute to the area’s vibrant, yet small-town
feel, its economy, and the diversity of its residents.
PPPPOLICYOLICYOLICYOLICY,,,, PPPPLANNINGLANNINGLANNINGLANNING,,,, AND AND AND AND FFFFUNDING UNDING UNDING UNDING FFFFRAMEWORKRAMEWORKRAMEWORKRAMEWORK
This section provides a brief discussion of the policies, programs, and plans that guide transportation
planning and development in the United States of America, New York State, Tompkins County, and the
Town of Ithaca. Policy is the main governmental tool for improving the access and mobility, livability, and
safety of the transportation system. This Plan provides examples of the important role of non-profit
organizations and the necessary cooperation between municipalities, other governmental agencies, and
non-profit organizations. Funding for the implementation of the recommendations of the Plan—that is,
programs and policies—is imperative if its vision is to become a reality.
FFFFEDERALEDERALEDERALEDERAL PPPPOLICYOLICYOLICYOLICY:::: ISTEA,ISTEA,ISTEA,ISTEA, TEATEATEATEA----21,21,21,21, &&&& SAFETEASAFETEASAFETEASAFETEA----LULULULU
The history of federal transportation policy reflects a slow transition from auto-centric interstate highway
funding to an emphasis on connectivity, intermodality, and public participation. Before World War II, the
federal government had little to do with the planning or funding of transportation activities. Private
industries supplied rail, trolley, and road projects. The efficiency of Germany’s autobahns during World
War II inspired President Eisenhower to sign the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which provided federal
funds for 90% of the construction or upgrade of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 shifted some of the responsibility for creating the Interstate system
to the states themselves by requiring that state highway departments be part of a “comprehensive,
continuing, coordinated” planning process. The 1976 Federal-Aid Highway Act made it possible for a
portion of federal highway funds to be used for other transportation projects, such as mass transit.1
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) helps fund transit programs by giving funds to a State
Department of Transportation (DOT), which, in turn, allocates the funds to Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) within the state. A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is responsible for
transportation planning at the regional level for urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000.
The MPO for the greater Ithaca area is called the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC).
1 Reeves, 2002
10
There are many FTA programs that affect public transit in Tompkins County, including Sections 5307,
5309, 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 (all federal funds), as well as STP Flex (federal funds) and STOA
(state funds). Section 5307 provides the bulk of federal funds to public transit in Tompkins County; the
funding can be used for capital projects or operating assistance. Section 5309 provides funding for
buses and bus facilities, Section 5310 provides funds for transportation for the elderly and disabled, and
Section 5311 provides funds for rural services. Section 5316, also known as "Job Access and Reverse
Commute" (JARC) funds, are used to connect low-income persons to job opportunities, and Section 5317
funds ("New Freedom" funds) are used for services for persons with disabilities. STP Flex (Surface
Transportation Program Flexible Funding) are federal highway funds that can be transferred to Section
5307 for capital projects. Finally, STOA (State Transit Operating Assistance) is funding from the state,
which provides $0.405 per passenger and $0.69 per vehicle mile.
Three pieces of recent legislation have directed the course of
transportation planning into the 21st century. The Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 changed the
direction of federal transportation policy toward a vision of “an
interconnected national intermodal transportation system that is
‘economically efficient and environmentally sound, provides the
foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy, and
will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner.’”2 The act expanded the ability to spend
federal highway funds on transportation projects other than highways, including bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and emphasized “the need to manage the existing transportation system more efficiently rather
than increasing supply (i.e. building more roads).”3 In contrast to previous decades of centralized,
bureaucratic transportation engineering, the ISTEA gave more planning oversight to regional organizations
and encouraged public participation in transportation planning.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998 confirmed the direction set by the
ISTEA of 1991. The largest public works bill in U.S. history, TEA-21 changed the federal budget structure
by guaranteeing a minimum level of funding ($194 billion total over six years) while providing for the
possible allocation of more ($217 billion).4 Overall, TEA-21 increased funding for surface transportation
projects; for example, it authorized $42 billion and guaranteed $36 billion for transit projects, an increase
of 50% over the funding provided through ISTEA.5
In July of 2005, Congress passed SAFETEA-LU (“Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users”), a $286.4 billion five-year reauthorization bill. 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 (population <200,000).
2Reeves, 2002, and Congress, 1991
3Hanson, 1995, p. 22
4NYSDOT, “What Is…”
5American Planning Association, “Legislative Priority…”
Transportation affects nearly
every aspect of our lives, from our
quality of life to our jobs to the price
of bread. Our government is
responsible for negotiating a balance
between various needs to protect the
safety and welfare of its citizens.
11
NNNNEWEWEWEW YYYYORKORKORKORK SSSSTATETATETATETATE TTTTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION PPPPOLICYOLICYOLICYOLICY
Transportation policy at the state level takes the form of environmental
guidelines, such as the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and
storm water regulations, and funding mechanisms for transportation
programs. The process laid out in SEQRA examines the impact that certain
actions—such as the construction of a freeway or bus depot—could have on
the natural and built environments. SEQRA allows the lead agency, or the group reviewing the action, to
require the applicant to mitigate any negative environmental consequences that the action may cause.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recently updated the state’s storm water
regulations, which indirectly affect surface transportation. As water from rain or melted snow filters back
into the watershed, it picks up pollutants and sediments. Impervious surfaces, such as paved parking
lots and roads, increase the rate of runoff and often are sites of contamination. The system of culverts
and ditches constructed or maintained next to a road must comply with storm water regulations. Policies
such as SEQRA and the storm water regulations are indirectly a part of the policies governing the state
transportation system.
The state is also responsible for much of the allocation of funds from state and federal budgets. These
funds are distributed through programs such as the Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP), the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and the Consolidated Local Street and Highway
Improvement Program (CHIPS).
The federal ISTEA established TEP to provide “federal reimbursement for non-traditional projects that add
value to the transportation system by relating to the needs of people.”6 Eligible projects include facilities
for bicycles and pedestrians, safety and educational activities for bicyclists and pedestrians, acquisition
of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, landscaping and other scenic beautification, other
context sensitive planning activities, historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of historic
transportation buildings or facilities, preservation of abandoned railway corridors, control and removal of
outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and research, environmental mitigation to address water
pollution due to highway runoff, and establishment of transportation museums.7 The New York State
Department of Transportation, in conjunction with a local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), evaluates proposals for TEP funding.
STIP coordinates the projects qualifying for and receiving federal funding to develop the statewide surface
transportation network.8 CHIPS is a funding program whose purpose is to “assist localities in financing
the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of local highways, bridges, highway-railroad crossings,
and/or other local facilities.”9
In August of 2005, New York State voters approved the $2.9 billion Rebuild and Renew New York
Transportation Bond Act of 2005 as part of the State’s Transportation Plan. This money will be used for
6 NYSDOT, 2002
7 Ibid.
8 NYSDOT, “Statewide Transportation…”
9 NYSDOT, “CHIPS…”
Too much “alphabet
soup?” See Volume II,
Appendix X for a listing of
acronyms.
12
infrastructure improvements and will be split between highways/ bridges and other transportation modes,
such as public transit, biking, and walking. One of the projects to be funded through this bond in the
Southern Tier is the conversion of Route 17 into Interstate 86.
RRRREGIONALEGIONALEGIONALEGIONAL ANDANDANDAND LLLLOCALOCALOCALOCAL PPPPOLICYOLICYOLICYOLICY FFFFRAMEWORKRAMEWORKRAMEWORKRAMEWORK
As previously mentioned, a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is responsible for transportation
planning at the regional level for urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000. The MPO for the
greater Ithaca area is called the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). Voting members
of the Policy Committee include Tompkins County, the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of Lansing,
Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Dryden, and NYSDOT. Non-voting members include TCAT, Cornell
University, the Towns of Danby, Groton, Ulysses, Newfield, Enfield, Caroline, and Lansing, and FHWA
(Federal Highway Administration), and FTA (Federal Transit Administration). The Planning Committee
includes representatives from the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, Village of Cayuga
Heights, Town of Dryden, Village of Lansing, Town of Enfield, Town of Ulysses, TCAT, NYSDOT, Cornell
University, FHWA, and FTA (all are voting members except FHWA and FTA).
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). The Unified
Planning Work Program is an “annual work program detailing activities of the ITCTC.”10 The
Transportation Improvement Program is a list of specific, short-term (five-year), tangible projects that are
the practical translation of the priorities of the ITCTC’s LRTP and UPWP.11 The LRTP is the fulfillment of
the Federal Highway Act of 1962, which required a “continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive”
approach to transportation planning at the regional level. The LRTP takes the longest time frame—20
years—to plan both short-term and long-range transportation strategies and goals. The ITCTC has helped
with the development of the Town’s Transportation Plan by providing technical support, including data
analysis and transportation models, and advisory assistance.
Within the Town of Ithaca, the Comprehensive Plan of 1993, subdivision regulations, and the zoning
ordinance have helped to guide the development of this Transportation Plan. In fact, one of the highest
priority actions identified in the Comprehensive Plan was to “initiate the preparation of a Transportation
Plan.” Attachment D at the end of the Recommendations Chapter of this volume, includes a discussion
on how this Plan has fulfilled the charge of the Comprehensive Plan.
The institutions of higher education in the county are often responsible for the roads on their campuses.
For example, Cornell University owns and maintains Tower Road, Campus Road, and Plantations Road,
although both university- and non-university related traffic drive on them. The institutions set their own
policies concerning road construction and maintenance, parking regulation, the construction of
sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes, and so on. Even though the university transportation system is on
university-owned property and the university controls its programs and policies related to transportation,
the university must still seek the appropriate permits and approvals from the Town before beginning
construction or rehabilitation efforts.
10 ITCTC, “2003-2006 TIP…”
11 Ibid.
13
OOOOTHERTHERTHERTHER RRRRELATEDELATEDELATEDELATED RRRREGIONALEGIONALEGIONALEGIONAL TTTTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION PPPPLANSLANSLANSLANS &&&& PPPPOLICIESOLICIESOLICIESOLICIES
Several recent regional and local transportation plans and policies inform the development of this plan,
including:
• Town of Ithaca Interim Sidewalk Policy (2003);
• Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study;
• Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan;
• North Campus Circulation Study;
• Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) & the follow-up NESTS Transit Study;
• Northeast Walkability Study;
• Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan;
• Cornell Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS).
The Town of Ithaca Interim Sidewalk Policy was adopted in 2003 in order to establish criteria by which the
Town could determine what locations need pedestrian facilities. There are two sets of criteria (one for
new development, one for existing development). As a result of the Policy, the Town distinguishes
between sidewalks, which are owned and maintained by property owners for the benefit of the immediate
vicinity, and walkways, which are owned and maintained by the Town for the benefit of the general public
beyond the immediate neighborhood.
The Freight Study recommended changes to certain routes and areas in the County to protect the livability
of neighborhoods while enhancing the efficiency of freight delivery.
The main recommendation of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan is to direct development into
nodes. This preserves undeveloped and agricultural land and presents the opportunity for development
of sufficient density to allow realistic alternatives to the low occupancy motor vehicle. The Plan also
recommended the development of a bicycle suitability map, the development of a Route 13 Corridor
Management Plan, a traffic signal evaluation and upgrade project, a crash reporting project, an
infrastructure needs assessment project, implementation of the Freight Study recommendations, and the
development of a comprehensive Park-and-Ride system for the County.
The North Campus Circulation Study examined the traffic patterns around Cornell’s north campus, with a
focus on the Thurston Avenue Bridge area, and recommended projects to improve pedestrian conditions.
Work on the bridge began in the summer of 2006 and its anticipated completion date is October 2007.
The original Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) study was an area-wide transportation
study for the Northeast area of Ithaca. The follow-up NESTS Transit Study examined the feasibility of
encouraging commuters in the northeast part of the Town who now use a privately operated motor vehicle
to switch to transit. The Study discovered that the main determining factor was coverage of transit,
including frequency of service.
The Northeast Walkability Study is a pilot project by the County Planning Department that is funded
through a federal grant. The goal of the project is to come up with a set of specific, concrete, and
practical recommendations to improve the walkability of a neighborhood. The study begins with the
14
creation of a walkability checklist, tailored to the conditions in the Northeast neighborhood, including a
section of the Town of Ithaca and a small part of the Village of Cayuga Heights. Then, residents will rate
their neighborhood on the walkability criteria, and recommendations will be made based on the
information collected during the project. If the project is successful, it may be expanded to other
locations and municipalities in the future.
Residents of Forest Home hired a consultant to create the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan, which
recommends gateway treatments to the six entrances to the Forest Home neighborhood, as well as other
traffic calming features and pedestrian amenities to be located throughout the neighborhood. The draft
Plan was completed in early 2007.
According to the Scope of Cornell’s t-GEIS, the purpose of the t-GEIS is
…to identify, examine, and evaluate transportation-related impacts of hypothetical Cornell
University population growth scenarios over the next decade on transportation systems and
neighborhoods. The t-GEIS will address these impacts by evaluating and proposing mitigation
measures to encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle use by those traveling to and
from Cornell. A major objective of the t-GEIS is to develop ways to reduce the number of trips by
motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods to and from Cornell. It will identify
ways to get people, not vehicles, to campus.12
TIMS, or Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies, will follow from the findings of the t-GEIS.
DDDDEMOGRAPHIC EMOGRAPHIC EMOGRAPHIC EMOGRAPHIC &&&& TTTTRANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION PPPPROFILEROFILEROFILEROFILE
This section answers the following questions:
Who lives in the Town (and region)? How do different groups of residents get around? What do
they think about transportation in the Town?
To answer these questions, this section examines data from the national Census, the National Personal
Transportation Survey and the National Household Travel Survey, and a survey of Town residents
conducted by the Town Transportation Committee. This chapter presents a brief demographic profile of
the Town for background reference, and then provides a more detailed analysis of data pertaining to the
travel choices and habits of residents in the Town and region.
CCCCENSUSENSUSENSUSENSUS DDDDATAATAATAATA
Demographic and Housing DataDemographic and Housing DataDemographic and Housing DataDemographic and Housing Data
Changes in population lead to changes in the transportation system, such as new roads to accommodate
new subdivisions, or a decrease in the number of pedestrians due to increased use of motorized vehicles.
Thus, demographic data is essential to understanding changing transportation needs. Between the 1990
and 2000 Census, the total population of the Town of Ithaca (outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights)
12 t-GEIS Project Team, February 2006
15
increased 4.4%, growing from 14,340 to 14,972 persons (an average annual growth rate of 0.4%). This
growth rate is twice that of Tompkins County as a whole, similar to that of the Towns of Danby and
Newfield, and approximately half of the growth rate of the Towns of Lansing and Enfield.
Table 1 summarizes the population distribution changes in the Town of Ithaca between 1990 and 2000.
In 1990, much of the Town’s population was concentrated on East Hill; by 2000, however, East and
South Hills were home to equal proportions of the Town’s residents. East Hill’s population decreased
slightly, West Hill’s population grew at a moderate rate, and South Hill’s population increased at twice the
rate of West Hill.
Table 1: Population Distribution Changes, Town of Ithaca, 1990-2000
East Hill South Hill West Hill Total
Population: 1990 6,412 5,654 2,274 14,340
Population: 2000 6,389 6,210 2,373 14,972
% change: 1990-2000 -0.4 % 9.8 % 4.4 % 4.41%
% of Town pop. 1990 44.7 % 39.4 % 15.9 % --
% of Town pop. 2000 42.7 % 41.5 % 15.8 % --
The average household size in the Town of Ithaca decreased from 2.40 to 2.25 persons between 1990
and 2000. (The figures for Tompkins County in its entirety are 2.46 and 2.32). Compared to other
municipalities in the County, the Town of Ithaca has the smallest average household size. Trip 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 a greater number of vehicle trips with a lower
average vehicle occupancy.
As noted above, different types of housing and the diverse characteristics of its occupants have varying
effects on the transportation system. Single-family homes are the most common housing in the Town; the
number of single-family homes increased approximately 18% between 1990 and 2000 (an addition of
318 units). The number of dormitory units in apartment-style buildings of three or more units (like
student housing buildings or nursing homes) and the number of apartment buildings (three or more units)
also increased approximately 18% between 1990 and 2000.
Age demographics affect mode choices and travel patterns, and thus they are an important part of
understanding the transportation system. Persons between the ages of 18 and 24 make up the largest
age group in the Town—not surprising, given the proximity to Ithaca College and Cornell University (in fact,
college students account for 40% of the Town’s population). The second largest age group is between 25
and 44 years old, followed by retirees and senior citizens (ages 65+). The age group that grew the fastest
was the elderly population (ages 75+), which increased 59% between 1990 and 2000. In Tompkins
County, the largest rate of growth overall was in the 44 to 65 age group (the “baby boomers”), a group
that didn’t have a large rate of growth in the Town.
Median household income also affects travel patterns and choices. Wealthier households or families find
it easier to own two or more vehicles, while poorer households or families are more likely to use transit
out of necessity, instead of choice. The median household income for Town residents in 1999 was
16
Mode: A method for
transporting people or materials. Ex:
walking, biking, driving, transit.
Multi-modal: Consisting of two or
more modes. Ex: walking to a bus
stop and then taking a bus to work is
a multi-modal trip.
$45,281, which is 21.5% more than the $37,272 median income of
Tompkins County households as a whole. Similarly, the median family
income in the Town was $68,346, 28.9% higher than the county’s
median family income of $53, 041.
TransportationTransportationTransportationTransportation----Related DataRelated DataRelated DataRelated Data
Figure A-1 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the modes by which
workers get to work and students get to school for all workers and students age sixteen and older.
According to the 2000 Census, residents in the Town of Ithaca drive less than their counterparts in other
places in Tompkins County or in the nation, but they drive more than their neighbors in the City of Ithaca.
This can be explained in part by the differences between the Town (which has lower-density residential
zones separate from commercial zones and less pedestrian infrastructure) and the City (which is
characterized by higher density, mixed land uses and extensive pedestrian infrastructure). Moreover, the
City is home to a large population of Cornell University students, who tend to live on or near campus and
who walk as a primary means of transportation. Finally, the Town has higher density development than
other areas of the County, but it is less dense than the City.
The data also show that nearly one quarter of the residents of the
Town of Ithaca report that walking is their primary means of
getting to and from work. While the modal split of walking is half
that of the City of Ithaca, nearly 30% more residents walk to work
in the Town of Ithaca than in Tompkins County as a whole.
Approximately three and one half times as many walk in the Town
as the State, and over seven times as many Town residents walk
to work compared to the national average. Again, the presence of
two major institutions of higher learning and their thousands of students may explain some of the
popularity of walking.
Census data show interesting but not entirely surprising results when
disaggregated to examine the differences between the transportation
habits of college students and non-students (see Figure A-2 in Volume
II, Appendix II). A far greater proportion of students walk, while the
proportion of non-students who drive alone to work is more than twice
as great as the proportion of students who drive alone. Students tend to live on or a short distance from
their campuses. Even though walking speeds are generally slower than driving speeds, the mean
commute duration for a student in the Town of Ithaca is 11.6 minutes, versus 17.4 minutes for non-
students.
Figure A-3 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the travel time to
work or school for all workers and students ages sixteen and older. The vast majority (87.8%) of workers
residing in the Town of Ithaca travel less than 25 minutes to arrive at their place of employment.
Household: All the people
who occupy a housing unit as
their usual place of residence.
Family: A group of two or more
people who reside together and
who are related by birth,
marriage, or adoption.
Aggregate: To aggregate is
to present as a sum.
Disaggregate: To disaggregate is
to break down into parts.
17
Tompkins County has a higher proportion of workers commuting at least twenty-five minutes to work
because many workers commute from outlying rural areas to the Town of Ithaca or through the Town to
the City. Overall, Figure A-3 shows that Town of Ithaca workers enjoy a shorter commute compared to
national averages.
Figure A-4 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the number of
vehicles per household, disaggregated by student status. As previously noted, households include all the
people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence, and a student household is one in
which all of the persons living within a given housing unit report their occupation as “student.” In terms of
absolute numbers, there are more non-student households in each category because the total number of
non-student households is greater than student households (4890 v. 1545). Student households are
most likely to have one car, while non-student households are almost equally likely to have one or two
cars.
Figure A-5 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the rate of transit use
as a function of commute time to work. Of all workers over the age of sixteen in the Town of Ithaca who
do not work at home, those who commute thirty to forty-five minutes have the highest rate of transit use.
In this demographic, nearly one in four (23.4%) uses public transit. This rate is misleading, however,
because there are fewer than 500 workers in the entire Town that spend thirty to forty-five minutes on
their commute. In fact, those who commute less than one half hour to work has the highest number of
transit patrons (389), although only 5.2% of this demographic uses public transit to get to work.
Of the Town of Ithaca workers age sixteen and older who take a car to work, the 2000 Census shows that
17.1% carpool. A slightly higher percentage carpool in the City of Ithaca, a slightly lower percentage
carpool in Tompkins County, and a still lower percentage carpool across New York State and the nation.
Table 2: Carpooling by Municipality, 2000 Census
City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Tompkins
County New York State United States
Carpool 18.4% 17.1% 16.9% 14.0% 13.9%
Drive alone 81.6% 82.9% 83.1% 86.0% 86.1%
NNNNATIONALATIONALATIONALATIONAL TTTTRAVELRAVELRAVELRAVEL SSSSURVEYSURVEYSURVEYSURVEYS
The Census data above are mostly aggregate data that focus on journey-to-work travel; that is, they
describe regions or zones without defining exactly who is within a zone or what they are doing during their
personal travel. The U.S. Department of Transportation initiated an effort to collect data concerning
personal travel in 1969. The most recent surveys, the National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) of
1995 and the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) of 2001, disaggregate the data to describe who
is traveling, from where and to where they are traveling, for how long they travel, how often they travel,
why they are traveling, and how they travel. According to the 2001 NHTS, “Data on personal travel trends
are needed to examine the reliability, efficiency, capacity, and flexibility of the Nation’s transportation
system to meet current demands and accommodate future demands.”13 These surveys are aggregated
for the entire urbanized area of Tompkins County (the City of Ithaca, most of the Town of Ithaca, and
13 Hu and Reuscher, 2004, p. 1
18
some of the Town of Lansing). Thus, these surveys cannot provide information about the Town
specifically, but they do provide useful information regarding regional personal travel habits. A sample of
national survey data is provided below.
Trip PurposeTrip PurposeTrip PurposeTrip Purpose
There are several ways to examine answers to the question, “What is
the purpose of the personal trips made in Tompkins County?” These
include the average daily person trips for each purpose, the average
daily person miles of travel for each purpose, and the average daily
vehicle trip length for each purpose.
As shown in Table 3 below, residents of the urbanized area take the highest percentage of trips for
family/ personal business, social/ recreational business, and work, in that order. Compared to New York
State and the nation, trips for educational or religious purposes comprise a higher percentage of trips for
residents, likely reflecting the prominence of the institutions of higher learning in the area. From 1995 to
2001, the percentage of trips for social or recreational purposes increased, while the percentage of trips
for work, family and personal purposes decreased (see Table 3 below).
Table 3: Person Trips per Day by Trip Purpose; 1995 and 200114
Trip Purpose Tompkins County
1995 2001
New York State
1995 2001
National
1995 2001
Work 19.63% 17.80% 19.85% 18.80% 20.26% 17.70%
Family/
Personal 44.52% 42.86% 45.88% 43.96% 45.86% 44.60%
Educational/
Religious 11.42% 11.47% 9.28% 9.89% 8.80% 9.80%
Social/
Recreational 24.20% 26.70% 25.00% 26.65% 24.91% 27.10%
Miscellaneous 0.23% 1.17% 0.00% 1.10% 0.16% 0.80%
The graphs in Figure A-8 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) examine the
distance and time residents travel for each purpose. In general, residents travel 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. The average length of a vehicle trip is longest for earning a
living during the week or social and recreational trips on the weekend (note that for unknown reasons
there was a large jump from 1995 to 2001 in average trip length for weekend trips with a civic,
educational, or religious purpose).
Trip ModeTrip ModeTrip ModeTrip Mode
During the past fifty years, the role of automobiles in American society has grown tremendously. As the
emphasis of development shifts from cities to suburbs and exurban areas, Americans drive farther to
14 ITCTC, 2004, section I, p. 13
Person trips: The number
of trips per person.
Person Miles: The total number of
miles traveled per person.
19
work, to shop, and to play. From 1960 to 1990, the percentage of workers living within the county in
which they work declined, while the percentage commuting to places outside their county of residence
increased 200%. As Americans drive more, roads become more congested, and Americans spend more
time behind the wheel. Shockingly, the average American driver spends a total of 443 hours per year
driving—the equivalent of eleven workweeks. “From 1992 through 1996, the increase in the number of
annual person-hours of delay spent in an automobile in Los Angeles was 9%; in Orlando 62%; and in
Kansas City 81%.”15
Overall, Tompkins County residents drive far less than their national counterparts, and the percentage of
trips made in a private vehicle for the Ithaca Urbanized Area dropped during the 1995-2001 period. The
percentage of walking trips made increased at the local and state level between 1995 and 2001, and at
all levels walking accounts for the largest proportion of trips not taken with a private vehicle. See Table 4
below for more detail. Unfortunately, the NHTS did not capture the recent changes in public transit
expansion and improvement in the Ithaca area, which were not implemented by the time of the survey.
See the section “Bus Transit and Paratransit” for more information.
Table 4: Daily Person Trips by Mode; 1995 and 200116
Trip Mode Tompkins County
1995 2001
New York State
1995 2001
National
1995 2001
Private vehicle 83.3% 70.3% 89.3% 86.5% 65.6% 80.3%
Public Transit 1.5% 9.7% 1.8% 1.5% 10.0% 1.2%
Walk 10.7% 15.4% 5.6% 8.6% 20.1% 15.0%
Bicycle 1.5% 0.8% 0.9% n/a 0.7% 0.9%
Other 3.2% 3.8% 2.4% 3.4% 3.4% 2.6%
The role of various modes of transportation in the Town of Ithaca can be examined using the same
measures as purposes of travel (see Figure A-9 in Appendix II): the total miles traveled via each mode for
each person, and the average length of a trip made via each mode. These measures confirm that the
privately operated vehicle is the most common mode of transportation, based on the numbers of trips
persons make and the daily person miles traveled. The length of a trip, however, shows that many trips
via transit in 2001 are just about as long as trips made via privately owned motor vehicle.
Trip Purpose and ModeTrip Purpose and ModeTrip Purpose and ModeTrip Purpose and Mode
Figure A-9 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the popularity of the
private vehicle for all purposes. Figure A-6 shows that if a resident in the Town drove for a trip, it was
most likely that the trip was for family or personal business. Figure A-7 examines other modes of
transportation besides the private vehicle. As noted above, walking accounts for the greatest number of
trips for all purposes out of the alternate modes. Most walking is for social or recreational purposes. Not
surprisingly, most trips made by a school bus were for civic, educational, or religious reasons. Transit
users were equally likely to make trips for any reason, while bicyclists were most likely riding a bike for
purposes related to making a living.
15 Jackson and Kochtitzky, undated
16 Ibid.
20
TTTTOWNOWNOWNOWN OFOFOFOF IIIITHACATHACATHACATHACA TTTTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION SSSSURVEYURVEYURVEYURVEY
In the fall of 2003, the Town Transportation Committee initiated a survey to gauge Town residents’ travel
habits and attitudes (see Volume II, The Appendices, Appendix III). The survey focused on residents’
opinions concerning the current transportation system and hopes for a future system—data that the
national surveys and Census were unable to measure. The survey was mailed to all property owners in
the Town. This means that the survey probably did not reach many of the students living in the Town.
While the response rate of 13.76% is respectable for a general survey, the voluntary nature of the survey
means its conclusions may not be generalized to represent the Town as a whole. Typically, voluntary
surveys elicit answers from many respondents with strong opinions on the survey’s topic. In conclusion,
the survey’s results cannot be taken as representative of the entire Town, but as characteristics of a
subset of the Town’s population.
A copy of the survey and a detailed analysis of the survey’s results is included in Volume II, The
Appendices, Appendix III.
Respondents to the survey had, on average, 1.81 vehicles available for their personal use.
Figure A below compares the number of vehicles available for personal use as reported by the Town’s
survey to the values reported by the NHTS and the NPTS.17 As previously noted, the NHTS and the NPTS
included residents of the entire urbanized area, including the City of Ithaca, most of the Town of Ithaca,
and some of the Town of Lansing. The Town’s survey, which included only residents of the Town, shows a
higher percentage of households reporting two vehicles and far fewer reporting no vehicles than either
the 1995 NPTS or the 2001 NHTS, perhaps reflecting the suburban, single family household
characteristics of the Town.
Figure A: Vehicle Availability by Household, Various Sources
Vehicle Availability by Household, Various Sources9.042.035.014.09.437.237.016.41.035.747.915.40
10
20
30
40
50
60
None One Two Three+
Number of Vehicles Per Household% Households1995 NPTS
2001 NHTS
2003 Town Survey
17 Hu and Reuscher, 2004 & Hu and Young, 1998
21
Figure B: Percentage of Households by Mode, Various Sources
Percentage of Households by Mode, Various Sources3.40.011.33.210.266.92.30.09.61.90.70.23.471.919.49.086.70
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Private vehicle Public transit Bike Walk Other Unknown
Primary Mode of TransportationPercentage of Households 1995 NPTS 2001 NHTS 2003 Town Survey
**2003 Town Survey had no households
report "unknown" mode
According to all three sources, the primary mode of transportation for residents in the Town of Ithaca is
overwhelmingly the private motor vehicle. The Town’s survey showed a greater percentage of households
relying on the privately owned vehicle and fewer relying on transit or walking than the surveys that
considered the entire Ithaca Urbanized Area, reflecting the demographics of the Town and potentially
indicating a small number of student respondents (see Figure B).
Two in three respondents to the Town’s survey said there was a TCAT route reasonably close to their
home, but when asked, “Would you use a TCAT bus if there were a route reasonably close to your
residence?” only 16% answered “regularly.” Thirty-seven percent responded “occasionally,” 17% replied
“seldom,” and 30% said “highly unlikely.” Respondents cited an increase in the frequency of service and
routes that get to destinations sooner as incentives to ride TCAT. Of the 1,198 members of responding
households, nearly nine percent currently use a bicycle for transportation and over thirty percent use one
for pleasure. Fifteen percent of responding households use the Town trail system regularly and 37% use
it occasionally.
The survey listed a series of common transportation problems and asked respondents to indicate which
they thought were the most obvious. Respondents were allowed to choose more than one or to write in
their own response. Figure C lists the percentage of respondents choosing each problem. Forty-six
percent of all respondents cited the generally high volume of traffic as the most obvious transportation
problem in the Town. Respondents also voiced their concern by citing inadequate space for bicycle and
pedestrian traffic. “Speed limits not enforced” and “Roads inadequately maintained” were cited third and
fourth most frequently.
22
Figure C: Transportation Problems in the Town, Survey
Transportation Problems in the Town of Ithaca:
Town of Ithaca Transportation Survey
46.0%
36.3%
35.4%
32.5%
24.3%
21.6%
14.0%
10.6%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
High volumes of traffic generally
Inadequate space for bicycle/ pedestrian traffic
Speed limits not enforced
Roads inadequately maintained
Inadequate bus service
Too much traffic in residential areas
Too many trucks
Other
Percentage of Respondents Citing Issue
Figure D contains respondents’ solutions to transportation issues. Forty-four percent of respondents
thought that bike lanes or paths should be provided and nearly as many (42%) wanted more enforcement
of speed limits. Thirty-five percent of respondents believed that building sidewalks in developed areas
would help alleviate some of the problems identified above.
Figure D: Transportation Solutions for the Town, Survey
Solutions to Transportation Problems:
Town of Ithaca Transportation Survey
44.1%
42.0%
35.5%
30.0%
29.1%
19.0%
8.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Provide bike lanes/ paths
Enforce speed limits
Build sidewalks in congested/ built-up areas
Expand bus service
Improve certain intersections
Widen major roads
Other
Percentage of Respondents Citing Solution
The final section of the Town’s survey asked respondents about the transportation situation in their own
neighborhood. Fifty-two percent of respondents said that the traffic passing their home was “usually low
to moderate,” eighteen percent replied there was “occasionally heavy volume,” and twenty-five percent
responded that there was “often heavy volume” (another six percent responded “other”). Of the thirty
percent of respondents who were unsatisfied with the speed limit in their neighborhood, ninety-five
percent indicated that the speed limit was too high. One in three respondents said that there was a need
for sidewalks or walkways in their neighborhood, and around sixty percent of that one third said they
would be willing to contribute to their construction and upkeep.
23
Again, the survey and data analysis are included in Volume II, The Appendices, Appendix III.
WWWWORKORKORKORK HHHHEREEREEREERE,,,, LLLLIVEIVEIVEIVE TTTTHEREHEREHEREHERE:::: CCCCOMMUTERSOMMUTERSOMMUTERSOMMUTERS
Figure E: Workers & Residents in Tompkins County
The total number of workers in
Tompkins County is greater than the
number of resident workers (employees
who both live and work in Tompkins
County). The 2000 Census shows that
the total number of employees in
Tompkins County was 57,032. Yet the
number of people who lived in Tompkins
County and also worked (somewhere)
was 47,394, and the number of workers
both residing and working in Tompkins
County is only 43,319! Of the people
who are living in Tompkins County and
working somewhere, 4,075 (or 8.6%)
are working outside Tompkins County.
Furthermore, nearly one in four of the
persons employed in Tompkins County
live outside the county (13,713 workers,
or 24% of the county workforce). See
Figure E for more detail.
This means that Tompkins County imports workers (in-commuters) and exports income (as workers spend
their income in their county of residence). The City of Ithaca is home to many major employers, such as
Cornell University (the largest employer in the County). In order to get to work, or to move from one side
of Cayuga Lake to the other, commuters must pass through the Town and City of Ithaca. The Town’s
unique circumstances—as a doughnut with the City in the center—mean that planners have little control
over much of the development that creates traffic on roads in the Town.
Red Circle:
Total Living in Tompkins County
Total: 47,394
Blue Circle:
Total Working in Tompkins County
Total: 57,032
Outer Blue Section:
Work in Tompkins County;
Live elsewhere
Outer Red Section:
Live in Tompkins County;
Work elsewhere
Inner Red & Blue Section:
Live and Work in
Tompkins County 13,713 4,075 43,319
Workers and Residents in Tompkins County:
2000 Census
*Not to Scale*
24
I N V E N T O R Y I N V E N T O R Y I N V E N T O R Y I N V E N T O R Y A N D A N A L Y S A N D A N A L Y S A N D A N A L Y S A N D A N A L Y S I SI SI SI S
This chapter will answer the questions:
“What is the Town’s transportation system? What aspects of the system are working well? What
aspects of the system could be improved?”
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the Town of Ithaca’s transportation system by taking a thorough
inventory of the system as it exists today. A transportation system includes physical infrastructure—like
roads and the buses that travel on them—as well as the government’s policies and the public’s personal
choices relating to transportation. 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.
The first three sections of this chapter examine the physical infrastructure of our transportation system:
the highway network; public transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and passenger air travel and
freight networks in and around the Town. In each of these three subsections, the Plan outlines the
existing condition of each network before analyzing the data to identify weaknesses, limitations, or sub-
optimal performance in each network. In the fourth section, the Plan explores non-modal related issues
that affect and are affected by the system, including the natural environment, land-use and regional
development, and public health aspects. The next Chapter, Alternatives, synthesizes the weaknesses
identified throughout the analyses and sets the stage for the Recommendations Chapter.
SSSSTATE TATE TATE TATE ,,,, CCCCOUNTYOUNTYOUNTYOUNTY,,,, AND AND AND AND TTTTOWN OWN OWN OWN RRRROADWAYSOADWAYSOADWAYSOADWAYS
This section explores the highway network that runs through the Town.
Roads are useless unless they connect to another road or lead to a
destination—hence, the term “road network.” The Town occupies a unique
position in the regional highway network. Geographically, the Town encircles
the City of Ithaca, which is a regional destination for traffic. Thus, much of
the traffic in the Town is merely “passing through,” and Town planners and policy-makers have little
control over the generation of this traffic. Also, the Town does not own every road within its municipal
boundary. The State of New York, Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County, and private entities (such
as Ithaca College and Cornell University) own roads that are in and pass through the Town (see “The
Official Highway Map & Road Network Design” below). Thus, this section focuses on the road system as a
network: roads owned by the Town and roads owned by others in the Town, interconnections between
roads in the Town, and connecting roads in other jurisdictions.
TTTTHEHEHEHE OOOOFFICIALFFICIALFFICIALFFICIAL HHHHIGHWAYIGHWAYIGHWAYIGHWAY MMMMAPAPAPAP ANDANDANDAND RRRROADOADOADOAD NNNNETWORKETWORKETWORKETWORK DDDDESIGNESIGNESIGNESIGN
This section examines the current road network, that is, how the roads in the Town form a web that allows
one to drive to most destinations in the Town. It presents the limited options for building new roads and
Road network: a web
of roads that lead from
destination to destination.
25
discusses the need for right-of-way standards that reflect the Town’s long-term vision. Finally, it
concludes that the existing non-motorized network is inadequate for the extent of development in the
Town.
InventoryInventoryInventoryInventory
As has been described previously, the Town of Ithaca is in the unique
shape of a doughnut, with the City of Ithaca in the center and the
remainder of the County surrounding the perimeter (refer to Volume II,
Appendix I, Map 2). 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 near 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 travel around the City in the Town is restricted because of the
waterways.
The current road network in the Town of Ithaca is shown on the Town’s Official Highway Map (Volume II,
Appendix I, Map 4). 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 intends to prevent development within
the right-of-way of existing or future highways.
Creation of an Official Highway Map begins with a survey of the existing road system infrastructure (on the
Town’s Official Highway Map (Map 4, Appendix II) this is shown with unbroken lines. The survey is
combined with an examination of approved subdivisions that have not yet been constructed; whenever a
subdivision is approved, the infrastructure shown therein automatically becomes part of the Official
Highway Map. Roads that have been approved but not yet built in the Town include the extension of
Conifer Drive from Mecklenburg Road through the remaining lands of Conifer LLC and the Perry property
up 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. Finally, planners and policy-makers indicate the locations of future corridors that may, in
the future, offer potential connecting roads (this corridor on West Hill, shown with cross-hatching, is
discussed further in the Analysis).
This Official Highway Map classifies roads by the jurisdiction that controls them, since many of the roads
that pass through the Town of Ithaca are neither owned nor maintained by the Town. New York State,
Tompkins County, and private owners (for example, Cornell University) control roadways within the Town’s
municipal boundaries. There are approximately 20 miles of State highways in the Town, which provide
major east-west and north-south corridors. These roads provide both regional linkages (south to Elmira
and Owego, west to Watkins Glen, north to Seneca and Cayuga Counties, and east to Cortland) and local
access to residential, commercial, and agricultural land uses. Tompkins County owns and maintains
around 25 miles of road, and the Town of Ithaca controls approximately 50 miles of road within the
Town’s municipal boundaries. (A complete list of the roads owned and/ or maintained by the Town of
Ithaca is included in Table A-10, Appendix II, Volume II.) Private owners of roadways in the Town of Ithaca
Right-of-way: the entire
width of the road corridor,
including shoulders, sidewalks,
utility easements, and so on. In
the Town of Ithaca the right of
way is usually 60’ wide.
26
include Cornell University, which controls about 15 miles of roadway, and Ithaca College, which controls
about 11 miles.
AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis
Development often involves the construction of new roads. Official
Highway Maps guide the development of the road network by
indicating the intended approximate location of right of way (ROW)
acquisition needs. As mentioned previously, the Town already has
approved a connector road from the Linderman Creek development
on Route 79 to Bundy Road and another road within the future Overlook development to connect Route
96 and Hayts Road. A corridor that may be useful for a connector road is between Bundy Road and Route
96. This corridor is shown in a wide section of crosshatch because it is not part of any formal subdivision
or plan. This corridor could provide connections for the rapidly expanding development on West Hill; for
example, it may be possible to create an east-west link between this corridor and Route 96. Besides
these three potential roads—two of which are fairly certain to occur, and another that may never happen—
the Town lacks reasonable options for the construction of new major through-roads within its municipal
boundaries. Road construction is expensive in terms of monetary and environmental costs, as well as the
impact on neighborhoods near the new road.
One potential connector corridor that has received attention in recent years is a Northeast bypass. In the
1999 Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) of 1999, three connector segments were
studied.18 The first ran from Slaterville Road (Rt. 79) in the Town of Dryden north to Dryden Road (Rt.
366). The second segment would travel from Route 366 to Route 13 in the vicinity of the eastern portion
of Hanshaw Road. The third connector segment would run from Route 13 west of North Triphammer
Road to Route 34 and Route 34B in the Town of Lansing.
The intended purpose of these connector roads would be to provide a corridor for multi-modal through-
traffic in order to keep motor vehicle traffic out of residential areas on East Hill in the Towns of Ithaca,
Dryden, and Lansing. To this end, the study proposed that no new curb cuts would be allowed onto these
connector segments, besides those that would connect to existing roads. The suggested speed limit on
the segments would be 45-55 mph, and separate multi-use paths would be adjacent to the roadway
(bicyclists would also have the option of riding on the shoulder). Traffic calming would be implemented
on neighborhood roads in order to slow traffic speeds and to encourage through-traffic to stay on the
connector road.
The main benefit of the connector roads would be to reduce traffic in residential areas while enhancing
motor vehicle mobility. While several neighborhoods in the Town of Ithaca could potentially benefit from
the construction of the connector roads, most of the connector roads would run through adjacent
municipalities. Potential negative impacts from the construction of the road corridors include negative
impacts on important natural areas and significant monetary cost for design, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction. In the end, NESTS recommended a design and feasibility analysis for the potential
connectors. Importantly, this analysis would occur within the context of a greatly enhanced transit system
18 NESTS Working Group, 1999
It is unlikely that the Town
will construct many new roads.
New roads will likely be internal
subdivision roads.
27
coupled with targeted traffic calming efforts and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities. To date, this
study has not occurred.
Recommendation Seven of NESTS included creation of a connector between Pleasant Grove Road and
the Thurston Ave. bridge that would act as a “gateway” to the Cornell campus. The North Campus
Gateway Committee, which included representatives from the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of
Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County, Cornell University, and the ITCTC, convened to develop concept
alternatives. The goals of the project were to better manage existing traffic (by creating no change or a
reduction in traffic in nearby neighborhoods), to intercept campus traffic where parking is provided, to
improve multimodal access to the University, to create a sense of arrival to campus, to coordinate
committee work with other transportation management plans (i.e. NESTS) and agencies (i.e. TCAT, ITCTC,
etc), to develop project concepts for a North Campus Gateway connector road, and to reduce vehicle/
pedestrian/ bicycle conflicts.
The final concept developed by the Committee was a new road that connected to Pleasant Grove Road
north of A-lot, ran along the north and west sides of the parking lot, and connected to the western end of
Jessup Road to the south. Routing traffic around the north side of North Campus, instead of through it,
would reduce vehicular/ pedestrian/ bicycle conflicts. The proposed new gateway connector road would
potentially decrease traffic in the Forest Home residential area by capturing traffic destined for Cornell
well to the north of the neighborhood; traffic volumes in other residential areas, such as Cayuga Heights
and Cornell Heights, would not be affected.
Besides the construction of new roads, development also increases need for pedestrian and bicyclist
accommodations. Eventually, the Town may want to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of its
Official Highway Map. In 1997, the Town Board adopted the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan,
which included plans for developing recreation parks and trails in the Town. Neither the Park, Recreation,
and Open Space Plan nor the Official Highway Map indicate potential locations of sidewalks and
walkways for a network geared toward non-motorized transportation needs. The section entitled “Bicycle
and Pedestrian Facilities” includes more information about non-motorized transportation needs.
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
First, the Town needs to adopt an updated Official Highway Mapadopt an updated Official Highway Mapadopt an updated Official Highway Mapadopt an updated Official Highway Map in order to reserve future rights-of-way.
Furthermore, the current right-of-way reservation standards may be inadequate to meet future changing
needs. For example, developers may need to set aside larger rights of way to provide for sufficient
shoulder width, bicycle lanes, and/ or sidewalks on appropriate future roads. Furthermore, the Town
does not have a formal policy specifying the desired nature of the road network in future subdivisions.
The Town needs a set of design guidelines to direct the future deveThe Town needs a set of design guidelines to direct the future deveThe Town needs a set of design guidelines to direct the future deveThe Town needs a set of design guidelines to direct the future development of the transportation networklopment of the transportation networklopment of the transportation networklopment of the transportation network
in order to ensure that development does not preclude future transportation options. These criteria
would deal with the design of the road itself, that is, the location and size of travel lanes, sidewalks, and
so on. It would also describe the ideal design of the road network, or how the roads connect together to
form a seamless network.
28
In some cases, the extent of current development may make it impossible for the Town to reserve
adequate right-of-way for future connector roads within the Town’s municipal boundaries. If the
opportunity arises, the Town of Ithaca needs to support regional transportation planning and interTown of Ithaca needs to support regional transportation planning and interTown of Ithaca needs to support regional transportation planning and interTown of Ithaca needs to support regional transportation planning and inter----
municipal efforts toward the creation of new throughmunicipal efforts toward the creation of new throughmunicipal efforts toward the creation of new throughmunicipal efforts toward the creation of new through----roads in other municipalitiesroads in other municipalitiesroads in other municipalitiesroads in other municipalities if the roadway would
relieve traffic burdens within neighborhoods in the Town.
Since so many of the roads in the Town are not controlled by the Town, the Town needs to continue to the Town needs to continue to the Town needs to continue to the Town needs to continue to
cooperate with the County and NYSDOT on decisioncooperate with the County and NYSDOT on decisioncooperate with the County and NYSDOT on decisioncooperate with the County and NYSDOT on decision----making for roads in the Townmaking for roads in the Townmaking for roads in the Townmaking for roads in the Town. This theme is
repeated throughout the entire Inventory.
As noted in the above Analysis, the Official Highway Map does not include the locations of existing or
potential future pedestrian or bicycle corridors. Similar to the way an Official Highway Map identifies
future right-of-way needs, the Town needs a Planned Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Map to help guide the Town needs a Planned Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Map to help guide the Town needs a Planned Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Map to help guide the Town needs a Planned Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Map to help guide
the development of an efficient, useful nonthe development of an efficient, useful nonthe development of an efficient, useful nonthe development of an efficient, useful non----motorized networkmotorized networkmotorized networkmotorized network.
RRRROADWAYOADWAYOADWAYOADWAY FFFFUNCTIONUNCTIONUNCTIONUNCTION ANDANDANDAND RRRRIGHTIGHTIGHTIGHT----OFOFOFOF----WWWWAYAYAYAY DDDDESIGNESIGNESIGNESIGN
This section examines the relationship between the design of a roadway, its functional classification, and
its actual use, as well as its relationship to adjacent lands. This section concludes that problems arise
when functional classification, design, and adjacent land use are not compatible.
InvInvInvInventoryentoryentoryentory
The first section of this inventory describes the functional classification system, including its origins, its
meaning, and its applications. Then, it explains the connection between functional classification and
roadway design. The second section of the inventory describes how the concepts of the functional
classification system and roadway design standards are applied in the Town of Ithaca.
The Functional Classification System and Roadway GeometricsThe Functional Classification System and Roadway GeometricsThe Functional Classification System and Roadway GeometricsThe Functional Classification System and Roadway Geometrics
As noted in the discussion of federal transportation policy, the 1956
Federal-Aid Highway Act established the federal-aid highway system. In
order to update and modify the federal-aid highway system, the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 formally implemented the concept of
functional classification. The United States Department of
Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) describes the
functional classification system as
…the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to
the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the recognition that
individual roads and streets do not serve travel independently in any major way. Rather, most
travel involves movement through a network of roads. It becomes necessary then to determine
how this travel can be channelized within the network in a logical and efficient manner.
Functional classification defines the nature of this channelization process by defining the part
Functional Classification: a
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.
29
that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips through a highway
network.19
The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (the regional MPO) is responsible for recommending
changes in the functional classification system within the Ithaca-Tompkins County Urbanized Area to the
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). NYSDOT approves the changes before passing
them on to the FHWA. While the Town does not directly control any aspect of the classification process, it
does have input into it.
Ideally, an arterial road carries relatively high traffic volumes
traveling at relatively high speeds; land access to arterials is
subordinate to the traffic flow on the arterial itself. In rural areas,
principal arterials include the Interstate Highway System, as well as
those routes that serve statewide or interstate corridor movements.
Minor arterials complement principal arterials by linking developed
areas to form an intercounty network. In urban areas, the system of
principal arterials consists of Interstates, freeways and expressways,
other routes that carry a high volume of traffic on a minimum of
mileage, and routes carrying the majority of trips entering, exiting, or
bypassing the urban area. Urban minor arterials serve trips of
moderate length, offering lower mobility in exchange for greater land
access. Ideally, minor arterials do not penetrate neighborhoods and
are spaced no more than one mile apart in fully developed areas.
Collector roads are envisioned as providing access between neighborhoods and other land uses. They
“collect” local traffic and channel it onto arterials (and vice versa). Rural major collectors generally serve
intracounty trips of shorter length and slower speed than those on an arterial; they serve major traffic
generators such as a county seat, larger towns, consolidated schools, or shopping malls. Minor collector
routes are spaced at intervals to collect traffic from local roads and provide service from major collectors
to smaller rural communities. In urban areas, collectors provide both land access and circulation
functions. They may penetrate residential neighborhoods to collect and channel local traffic into the
urban arterial system. In the central business district, the street grid, which circulates traffic while
providing local access, includes some urban collectors.
According to the functional classification system, local roads should provide mobility within
neighborhoods or within other land uses. Both rural and urban local roads are designed for traffic with a
local origin or destination. Ideally, they carry lower traffic volumes, speeds are slower, and trips are
shorter. Local roads are designed to provide the highest level of access within land uses, as well as
access to higher levels of the functional classification system. See Figure F for a schematic of the
relationship between mobility, land access, and functional classification.20
In rural areas, determining the functional classification of a road network generally begins with identifying
traffic generators (population centers) and ranking them based on population. Then, the traffic
19 USDOT, FHWA, 1974
20 FHWA, 1989
Figure F: Mobility, Land Access,
and Functional Classification
30
generators are connected in such a manner as to logically channelize the trips on the road networks. The
functional classification of each connection is based on the (population) size of the travel generators that
it serves, the predominant distances served, and the size of the travel shed it serves (that is, from how far
it channels trips). For urban areas, the functional classification of a road in the network is determined by
several factors, including service to urban activity centers (based on measures of size and intensity of
use), system continuity, land use considerations, spacing between routes, average trip length, traffic
volume, control of access, and vehicle-miles of travel. 21
Roads and highways are eligible for federal funding based on their
functional classification, either as part of the National Highway
System (NHS) or the Surface Transportation Program (STP). Federal-
aid eligible roads include all arterials (principal and minor), all urban
collectors (major and minor), and rural major collectors. Rural minor
collectors have limited eligibility for federal funds, while local roads
are not eligible.22 Therefore, classifying roads is a necessary part of
the funding process.
A road’s functional classification typically influences its design, or
geometrics. Geometric factors include grade (steepness of slopes),
sight distances (how far one can see up and down the road), width
(number and size of lanes), curvature, speed limit, turning lanes,
number and alignment of residential and commercial driveways,
control and alignment of intersections, presence and condition of
shoulder and/or sidewalk for non-motorized travel, lighting, signage,
and striping. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publishes A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets (2001),23 which outlines geometric
standards for roads based on 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. Recently,
a trend has emerged that recommends flexibility in design standards and sensitivity to adjacent lands.
Context-Sensitive Design (CSD) incorporates roadway standards and development practices that are
flexible and sensitive to community values. CSD allows roadway design decisions to balance economic,
social and environmental objectives.
21 Ibid.
22 Michigan Department of Transportation, 2002
23 AASHTO, 2001
Geometrics: the physical
characteristics of a road, like width,
curvature and number of lanes,
sight distances, and intersection
controls, if applicable.
Intersection Control: stop
signs, traffic lights, and so on, which
control how traffic on two
intersecting roads interacts.
Context-Sensitive Design:
design guidelines that are flexible
and sensitive to community needs.
Also known as Context Sensitive
Solutions.
Functional classification is
important because it determines
eligibility for federal funding and
influences design.
31
Functional Classification and Design in the ToFunctional Classification and Design in the ToFunctional Classification and Design in the ToFunctional Classification and Design in the Town of Ithacawn of Ithacawn of Ithacawn of Ithaca
Table 5 below shows the total roadway mileage for each functional classification in the Town and gives a
few examples for each functional classification.24 Map 5 (“Functional Classifications of Roads in the
Town of Ithaca”) in Appendix I, Volume II shows roads in the Town by their functional classification.
Table 5: Mileage in the Town of Each Functional Classification With Examples
Classification Mileage Examples
Urban Principle Arterial 4.51 Elmira Road (Rt. 13)
Urban Minor Arterial 16.38 Slaterville Road (Rt. 79), Trumansburg Road (Rt. 96)
Urban Collector 19.10 Ellis Hollow Road, Coddington Road (Burns Rd. to City)
Urban Local 48.60 Honness Lane, Indian Creek Road, Winthrop Drive
Rural Minor Arterial 3.46 Mecklenburg Road (Rt. 79)
Rural Major Collector 2.55 Enfield Falls Road (municipal line to entrance of Treman Park)
Rural Minor Collector 2.76 Bostwick Road, Sheffield Road
Rural Local 14.01 West King Road (west of Buttermilk Falls Park), Culver Road
Unknown/ Not Available 11.93 Approved but not yet built roads, some small subdivision roads
Total 123.3
Many of roads that the Town owns are classified as local roads. While these roads are ineligible for
federal aid for maintenance or improvement projects, the Town has more flexibility in the design of the
roadway. The Town’s current design standards are limited to road construction specifications, which
relate to the actual construction of roads, including substrate needs, pavement thickness, and so on. The
Town currently does not have a set of criteria to guide the design of the cross-section of the right-of-way,
nor does it have guidelines for how to provide for multi-modal travel, including non-motorized travel.
Roads owned by the Town are mostly low-volume, two-lane roads serving residential land uses.
Driveways entering Town roads generally do not have intersection controls, and most existing Town
roadways generally do not have sidewalks or bike lanes. Unless otherwise posted, the default speed limit
for Town of Ithaca roads is the 55 mph speed limit established by the State of New York. The Town has
successfully appealed to NYSDOT to lower the limit to 25-45 mph in most areas.
24 Data were generated by the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), distributed by the Tompkins County
Information Technology Services, GIS Division, and compiled by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
32
AAAANALYSNALYSNALYSNALYSISISISIS
The functional classification hierarchy 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 way for a road network to function. The grid of
streets common in urban areas disperses traffic, so the burden of
traffic is not concentrated in the neighborhoods along major roads.
Because the street grid has many connections, roadway users have
many possible routes to their destination, which can result in more
direct trips when the user doesn’t have to travel out of the way to get to a collector or arterial. Improving
connectivity means increasing the number of connections within the roadway network to spread the
traffic burden over a greater area and to provide more direct routes (in number and degree of directness).
Another common criticism of the functional classification system is that existing roads often do not fit into
the predefined hierarchy, and misclassifications sometimes result. Conflict between 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.
For example, a road that carries high volumes of through-traffic may run through the middle of a
residential area. The road does not fit the definition of an ideal arterial, where land access is subordinate
to through-traffic, nor does it fit the definition of an ideal local road, where the movement of through-
traffic is subordinate to land access. Roads that are not classifiable based on the mobility versus land
access concept are often classified based on other factors, such as traffic volumes.
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. If the
functional classification of a road is used as the basis for roadway
design, then the range of corresponding design speeds is
determined (for more information about design speed, please see
the Analysis of the “Speed Data” section). The FHWA states that once this occurs, “the degree of
flexibility available to the designer is significantly limited,”25 because chosen design speed will limit
geometric factors such as vertical and horizontal alignments, lane width, shoulder width, and other major
design features.26 Road design, as directed by AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets, is based on the worst case scenario anticipated for the future. This type of road design is based
on:
• A design vehicle: the largest vehicle that would typically be expected to use the road (this also
accounts for the performance of the design vehicle);
25 FHWA, 1989
26 FHWA, 1997
Design Speed: a speed based
on driver comfort used to determine
the various geometric design features
of the roadway. Please see the
Analysis of the “Speed Data” section
for more information.
Connectivity: the degree of
“connectedness” in a road network,
where connections spread out the
traffic burden across neighborhoods.
Urban street grids generally have
good connectivity, while the functional
classification’s hierarchy of roads
generally has poorer connectivity.
33
• A design speed: “a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of
the roadway;”27 often set at the 85th percentile speed for a roadway (the speed at which 85% of
drivers are traveling at or below, regardless of the posted speed limit);
• A design driver: the 95-99th percentile worst driver on the road;
• A design year: at least 20 years in the future;
• A design volume: the peak traffic volume in the design year.28
Designs based on the above factors alone focus on the roadway and do not take into account loss of
neighborhood integrity and character, decreased bicyclist and pedestrian safety, or increased traffic
speeds and noise. In the end, this means that the roadway is designed to serve through traffic at the
expense of livability in neighborhoods adjacent to the road. In other words, these designs focus on
people who are going somewhere, instead of the people who already are somewhere.29
Many transportation problems have their roots in out-dated or poor
designs that do not adequately address the trade-offs inherent in
each transportation decision. For example, a wide, smooth, and
flat road can encourage speeding and tailgating, but a narrow,
twisting road can be a safety hazard as well. Large numbers of
access points on a major road can pose intersection safety hazards and can reduce the carrying capacity
of the road, but too few access points make it difficult for residents to get to their homes or for shoppers
to access businesses. The proper lighting of intersections illuminates pedestrians, but insufficiently
shaded streetlights can cause glare on windshields, making it difficult for drivers to see. The goal of
transportation planning is to balance the trade-offs associated with each decision. As previously noted,
the Town does not have its own design guidelines to direct the design of a roadway corridor, even though
many Town roads are classified as local roads that are not directly subject to AASHTO standards.
Furthermore, in the Town of Ithaca, the current lack of sidewalks, bicycle lanes or adequate shoulders
and other infrastructure for non-motorized travel presents a problem for the long-term development of the
Town’s transportation system. Many existing neighborhoods have no bike or pedestrian infrastructure on
busy roads. 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 the basic physical and policy
infrastructure for non-motorized transportation is not in place. For example, a walkway is useless to a
pedestrian who must cross a high-volume, high-speed road with no traffic controls to help him cross. For
more detail, please see the Bicycle and Pedestrian Section.
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
While it may be difficult to change the designated functional classification of a road, it is far more difficult
and costly (in monetary, social, and environmental costs) to alter adjacent residential land uses to suit
the needs of through-traffic. Therefore, roadway modifications need to reflect the permanent needs of
residential areas, instead of the excessive over-design standards associated with potentially
27 AASHTO, 2001
28 FHWA, 1989; Rural Roads Design Standards Advisory Committee, 2000; Hale, et. al, 1999
29 Rural Roads Design Standards Advisory Committee, 2000
Poor design, or inappropriate
design, can cause problems for
everyone—pedestrians, motorists,
bicyclists, residents, school-children,
dog-walkers, truck drivers…
34
inappropriate functional classifications. Instead of improving network capacity by adding lanes, widening
existing lanes, or increasing the design speed, the Town needs to advocate for roadway designs that are Town needs to advocate for roadway designs that are Town needs to advocate for roadway designs that are Town needs to advocate for roadway designs that are
compatible with adjacent land uses and that elicit safe driver behaviorcompatible with adjacent land uses and that elicit safe driver behaviorcompatible with adjacent land uses and that elicit safe driver behaviorcompatible with adjacent land uses and that elicit safe driver behavior, while recognizing current traffic
loads.
The Town needs to protect and promote safety and livability in residential areasThe Town needs to protect and promote safety and livability in residential areasThe Town needs to protect and promote safety and livability in residential areasThe Town needs to protect and promote safety and livability in residential areas, , , , with residential streets
designed to 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. Therefore,
whenever a section of road in the Town is rebuilt, rather than being restricted by the functional
classification system's somewhat abstract labels alone, the Town the Town the Town the Town needs to needs to needs to needs to work to address any known work to address any known work to address any known work to address any known
safety problems and to ensure the new roadway design is suitable for and compatible with the adjoining safety problems and to ensure the new roadway design is suitable for and compatible with the adjoining safety problems and to ensure the new roadway design is suitable for and compatible with the adjoining safety problems and to ensure the new roadway design is suitable for and compatible with the adjoining
land useland useland useland usessss.... In many cases, this involves coordination with the County and State for roads not under the
Town's jurisdiction.
To this end, the Town needs to establish design guidelines to guide the physical design and construction, the Town needs to establish design guidelines to guide the physical design and construction, the Town needs to establish design guidelines to guide the physical design and construction, the Town needs to establish design guidelines to guide the physical design and construction,
or redesign and reconstruction, of roads and intersectionsor redesign and reconstruction, of roads and intersectionsor redesign and reconstruction, of roads and intersectionsor redesign and reconstruction, of roads and intersections. The guidelines should be flexible enough to
adapt to local needs, to reflect changing needs, and to provide for anticipated future needs. The design
guidelines should include “best practices” for the layout of right-of-way elements and the layout of the
roadway network (including intersection alignment standards, etc.). The guidelines should stress that the
physical design of the roadway should relate to its intended purpose and the road should be in scale with
its surroundings.
Some elements of a roadway deserve particular design consideration. For example, bicycle and bicycle and bicycle and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities need to be considered as part of the geometrics of a roadwaypedestrian facilities need to be considered as part of the geometrics of a roadwaypedestrian facilities need to be considered as part of the geometrics of a roadwaypedestrian facilities need to be considered as part of the geometrics of a roadway. Because they
historically have not been included as part of roadways in the Town, they need to be outlined in greater
detail in a separate design toolbox.
As previously explained, generally the State owns the roads used for mobility, the Town owns roads used
for access, and the County falls somewhere between the two. In some cases, the Town owns collector
and arterial roads that serve a higher function in the roadway network than the Town’s other local roads.
Conversely, the County owns several roads that serve a primary purpose of local access. The Town and The Town and The Town and The Town and
County need to explore opportunities where it may mCounty need to explore opportunities where it may mCounty need to explore opportunities where it may mCounty need to explore opportunities where it may make sense for the Town and the County to “swap” ake sense for the Town and the County to “swap” ake sense for the Town and the County to “swap” ake sense for the Town and the County to “swap”
responsibility for certain roadsresponsibility for certain roadsresponsibility for certain roadsresponsibility for certain roads. Specifically, the Town and County may want to trade responsibility of a
Town-owned collector or arterial for a County-owned local road. One example of this is Town-owned Burns
Road and County-owned Bundy and Hayts Roads.
TTTTRAFFICRAFFICRAFFICRAFFIC DDDDATAATAATAATA:::: VVVVOLUMESOLUMESOLUMESOLUMES,,,, SSSSPEEDSPEEDSPEEDSPEEDS,,,, &&&& CCCCRASHESRASHESRASHESRASHES
This section 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. These sources are briefly explained in Table 6.
35
Table 6: Traffic Data in the Plan
Type Source Purpose Potential Uses
Volume ,
Capacity, &
Level of
Service Data
Town of Ithaca Public
Works Department;
NYS Department of
Transportation; select
development studies
To create baseline volume
and turning counts
• Measure changes in ADT over
time.
• Evaluate the level of traffic
burden on residential areas.
• Measure the delay at an
intersection
Speed Data Town of Ithaca Public
Works Department
To identify locations where an
unacceptable percentage of
drivers exceed the speed
limit.
• Manage law enforcement more
effectively.
• Evaluate locations for speed
mitigation.
Crash Data
NYS Department of
Transportation &
Dept. of Motor
Vehicles
To understand where and why
crashes occur in the Town.
• Mitigate hazardous design
flaws.
• Target patrols, signage, and so
on to raise safety awareness.
Volume & Capacity DataVolume & Capacity DataVolume & Capacity DataVolume & Capacity Data
As noted above, volume, capacity, and level of service data are used for monitoring changes in traffic
volume, evaluating the traffic burden in residential areas, evaluating the functioning of intersections, and
so on. The purpose of these activities is to maintain or improve access and mobility and to protect
livability in neighborhoods.
InventoryInventoryInventoryInventory
There are several traffic volume and capacity measures, including ADT (average daily traffic), VOC (vehicle
to capacity ratio), and LOS (level of service). The Inventory in this section explains the definition of each
and provides and overview of volume and capacity data related to the Town.
Motor Vehicle Volumes
Transportation engineers collect volume data by determining
the number of vehicles that pass the data collection site in
one day (the Average Daily Traffic (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).
A full, chronological listing of recent volume data for roads in the Town of Ithaca is included in Table A-11
in Appendix II. Map 6, “Traffic Volume Data: Counter Locations & Counts” in Appendix I shows data
collection locations labeled with the average daily traffic volume and the date of data collection.
ADT: average number of vehicles per day,
which varies by day of week and month of year.
AADT: average number of vehicles per day,
adjusted for seasonal factors to be an average
over the whole year.
36
Roadway Capacity
One way to measure congestion is the “vehicle over capacity
ratio (VOC),” which is a relative measure of traffic congestion
that can be used for different types of roads with different
volumes. The VOC is the ratio of the volume of vehicles using a
road segment to the theoretical carrying capacity of the road. As
the VOC approaches 1.00, the congestion worsens and vehicle
speeds are reduced. Values greater than 1.00 indicate that,
theoretically, the road is carrying more traffic than it was designed to handle.
In 2004, the ITCTC adopted the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan, which will guide the development
of the regional transportation system for the next twenty years. As part of the LRTP (see also the sections
“Regional and Local Policy Framework” and “Regional Development and the Transportation System”), the
ITCTC calculated the VOC’s of roads throughout the county. According to their model, Route 96 in the
Town of Ithaca from the City of Ithaca to Iradell Road is already operating at or near capacity. The
outbound segment from the City of Ithaca to Harris B. Dates Drive (the hospital driveway) is operating at a
VOC of 1.08, while the segment from the hospital to the Town of Ulysses is operating at a VOC of 0.86-
0.87. For comparison, the outbound segment of Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) is operating at 0.37 near
the city, 0.33 past Rachel Carson Way, and 0.25 nearing the Town of Enfield.
Table 7: VOC for Various Segments of Routes 96 & 79
Road Segment (outbound) Current
Route 96
City Hospital 1.08
Hospital Dubois Rd. 0.87
Dubois Rd. Ulysses 0.86
Route 79
City West Haven 0.37
West Haven halfway to Enfield 0.33
Halfway to Enfield Enfield 0.25
According to the LRTP, roads in the Town that carry more than their theoretical capacity are:
1. Trumansburg Road (Route 96): City to Town line
2. Elmira Road (Route 13/34/96): City to 13 (Enfield Falls Road) and 34/96 (West Danby Road)
intersection
3. Slaterville Road (Route 79): Pine Tree Road to Park Lane
4. Pine Tree Road: Honness Lane to Snyder Hill Road
Roads where volumes are approaching the maximum that they were designed to accommodate include:
1. Danby Road (Route 96B): Ithaca College to King Road
2. Slaterville Road (Route 79): Park Lane to Burns Road
3. Pine Tree Road: Slaterville Road to Honness Lane; Snyder Hill Road to Maple Ave
4. Dryden Road (Route 366): Caldwell Road to Town of Dryden
Vehicle over Capacity Ratio (VOC):
considers both the volume of traffic and
the capacity of the road. It is the relative
measure of congestion that can be used
for different types of roads with different
volumes.
37
Level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of
delay. It is 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.
5. Route 13: segment in the Town between the City and the Village of Cayuga Heights
Intersection Capacity
The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines Level
of Service (LOS) as "a qualitative measure describing
operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on
service measures such as speed and travel time, freedom
to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and
convenience."30 For intersections, LOS is defined in terms
of delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort,
frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time.
For intersections, the HCM defines six levels of service, which are assigned letter designations from “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.
The Level of Service concept also can be used to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian flow. For example, an
LOS analysis would describe the crowded sidewalks of Manhattan as having a lower LOS than the well-
used but less crowded sidewalks in Ithaca. A low LOS rating can help to justify an expansion of bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, where appropriate.
One problem with motor vehicle LOS measurements for intersections is that they do not account for
bicycle and pedestrian safety. For example, turning lanes for motorists at an intersection may improve
LOS for motorists but may make the intersection more hazardous for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Roadway and intersection changes to improve LOS must not sacrifice bicycle and pedestrian access and
safety.
According to data drawn from recent development review studies, the eastbound and westbound
approaches to the intersection of Dryden Road (Route 366) & Pine Tree Road are operating at LOS F.
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis performed in 2005 for the Rite Aid development at East Hill Plaza,
the eastbound left turn movement at Slaterville Road (Route 79) and Pine Tree Road is operating as LOS
D. (A study in 1998 measured the LOS of that turning movement as A.) In the Village of Cayuga Heights,
some turning movements at the intersections of Triphammer Road and Hanshaw Road, North
Triphammer Road and Hanshaw Road, and Hanshaw Road and Pleasant Grove Road have a LOS of E or
F.
A full listing of available intersection LOS data is included in Table A-12 of Volume II, Appendix II.
AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis
Map 7 in Volume II, Appendix I shows residential population densities, traffic volumes, and functional
classifications of roads for the Town of Ithaca. This information illustrates demographic and development
30 Transportation Research Board, 2000
38
trends in the Town of Ithaca. First, there is a relationship between classification and volume. In the
federal functional classification scheme, local roads channel a small amount of traffic into a collector,
which then deposits a moderate amount of traffic onto a high capacity arterial. Traffic volumes on local
streets are currently higher on South and East Hills than on West Hill. With the exception of some
Cornell-owned land on East Hill, most of South and East Hills have higher population densities than on
West Hill. State routes and arterials on West Hill, however, carry as much traffic as their counterparts on
East and South Hills because they serve as through-roads that carry traffic from outlying parts of
Tompkins County and beyond into the Town and City of Ithaca (Trumansburg Road, for example, carries
well over 8,000 vehicles per day).
In the residents’ survey discussed earlier, forty-six percent of Town survey respondents cited “high
volumes of traffic generally” and 22% cited “too much traffic in residential neighborhoods” as the most
serious transportation problems in the Town. Several urban minor arterials and collectors with relatively
high traffic volumes run through areas with relatively high population densities that are zoned for
residential development. Thus, given our cultural preference for “quiet” neighborhoods, it is clear why
many Town residents believe traffic volumes are too high.
If the Town is to control high volumes of traffic on local roads and congestion on through roads now and
in the future, it should seek to reduce the number of cars on the road, instead of adding capacity to the
road network for the sole purpose of attempting to alleviate congestion. Reducing the number of vehicles
on the road can be accomplished with increased use of public transit, carpooling, other high occupancy
vehicle strategies, and the provision of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Even a small reduction in
the number of vehicles on the road can lead to a significant decrease in the congestion level. Traffic
congestion follows the pattern of a non-linear function, which means that a small decrease in traffic
volume can have a very large effect on congestion. For example, reducing a peak volume from 2,000 to
1,900 vehicles per hour (a 5% reduction) can reduce delays 10 to 30 percent,31 in some circumstances.
Recent research has shown that congestion will increase until it reaches equilibrium, at which point there
is no more capacity in the road network to absorb new trips.32 If congestion-mitigation measures are
implemented, or if the roadway capacity is increased, “generated traffic,” or traffic that results from the
added capacity, often will fill a significant portion of the added capacity. “Generated traffic” includes
diverted travel (trips shifted in time, route, or destination) and induced travel (shifts from other modes,
longer trips, and new trips).
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
High traffic volumes on local roads and congestion on through-roads are problems that are not unique to
the Town of Ithaca. In order to address traffic moving through the Town, Town planners and policy Town planners and policy Town planners and policy Town planners and policy
makers need to work together with City, County, and other municipal officials.makers need to work together with City, County, and other municipal officials.makers need to work together with City, County, and other municipal officials.makers need to work together with City, County, and other municipal officials. An increase in traffic
affects not only the Town of Ithaca, but the City as well, which is either a destination for much of the
commuting traffic or a pass-through area to reach major employment centers (such as Cornell University).
Working together can address both sides of the equation—traffic origins and destinations. The “Regional
31 Litman, 2005; also cited in ITCTC, “2025 Long Range…”, 2004, p 1.14
32 Litman, 2001
39
Development and the Transportation System” section in the “Other Transportation System Issues”
chapter has more information about the relationship between land-use planning and transportation.
This Plan recognizes that it is impossible to completely eliminate through-traffic on local roads within the
Town. In order to mitigate the negative effects of traffic on neighborhoods, the Town needs a set of the Town needs a set of the Town needs a set of the Town needs a set of
design criteria to guide the construction and reconstruction of roadsdesign criteria to guide the construction and reconstruction of roadsdesign criteria to guide the construction and reconstruction of roadsdesign criteria to guide the construction and reconstruction of roads. The design criteria must connect
the design of roads, the characteristics of the land uses through which they pass, and the role that they
should serve in the larger road network. The design of collectors serving neighborhoods must balance
the needs of existing through-traffic with the needs of the neighborhood, without unfairly favoring through-
traffic. Finally, the design criteria must allow flexibility to consider the unique circumstances of each road
segment.
This Plan includes different types of traffic volume and congestion data for many locations in the Town.
The Town needs The Town needs The Town needs The Town needs to continue to collect and monitor volume and congestion data.to continue to collect and monitor volume and congestion data.to continue to collect and monitor volume and congestion data.to continue to collect and monitor volume and congestion data. By collecting data at the
same locations every few years, planners and engineers can quantify the changes in volume and
congestion. The Town should also continue to collect data at new locations in order to expand the variety
of baseline counts. The Town should continue to use the valuable information in NYSDOT counts and
data from development reviews.
Finally, the Town should work to expand the options for transportation via modes other than the private
motor vehicle. The Town should promote walking, biking, and transitThe Town should promote walking, biking, and transitThe Town should promote walking, biking, and transitThe Town should promote walking, biking, and transit, as well as development patterns development patterns development patterns development patterns
that are transitthat are transitthat are transitthat are transit----friendly and bring goods and services within walking and biking distance of residents’ friendly and bring goods and services within walking and biking distance of residents’ friendly and bring goods and services within walking and biking distance of residents’ friendly and bring goods and services within walking and biking distance of residents’
homes.homes.homes.homes.
Speed DataSpeed DataSpeed DataSpeed Data
Speeding is hazardous not only for the driver, but also for other people (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists)
using the road and the neighborhoods through which the drivers pass. As noted above, the Town of
Ithaca Public Works Department regularly collects speed and volume data for Town and County roads
within the Town of Ithaca. The speed data are used to identify areas where an unacceptable number of
motorists exceed the speed limit. Roads across the Town show a wide range of speeding severity. A
larger selection of data, including speed distribution tables, is available at Town Hall.
InventoryInventoryInventoryInventory
Design speed, posted speed limit, and operating speed are not the same thing. Design speed is the
speed at which the majority of motorists would be expected to feel comfortable driving, based on
AASHTO’s assumptions about driver behavior.33 Operating speed is the speed at which the 85th
percentile motorist actually drives, or the speed that 15% of motorists exceed.34 Because most drivers
are comfortable driving at or above the design speed, the operating speed is often higher than the design
speed (in the absence of speed limits). Posted speed is the speed which drivers should not exceed,
according to the law. Posted speed limits are sometimes based on adjoining land uses that can be
33 AASHTO, 2004, pp. 66, 134-135
34 AASHTO, 2004, p. 66
40
incompatible with higher speeds (e.g., school zones), but in practice, speed limits are often set at the 85th
percentile speed (the operating speed).
The FHWA has advocated that the design speed be higher than either the posted speed or the operating
speed of a facility, regardless of the posted speed,35 a situation that is difficult to maintain over the long
term. When a road is rebuilt with an increased design speed without other limitations, motorists will feel
comfortable driving faster, and the operating speed of the road may therefore increase to match or
exceed the new design speed. Eventually, the speed of traffic on such a road may become more of a
safety problem. To avoid this escalating speed situation, roads undergoing reconstruction could be
designed to encourage compliance with posted speed limits, as speeding is often an indication that the
design speed of the road is too high. Rather than responding by further increasing the road’s design
speed, the design speed could be reduced or traffic calming measures could be introduced to influence
drivers’ behavior.
As discussed in the “Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design” section, design speed is tied to
functional classification. Table 8, below, shows NYSDOT’s target design speeds for roads of various
functional classifications. These recommendations would result in all Town roads, including low traffic
residential roads, having a design speed higher than 30 mph. This illustrates the difficulties that can
arise from following broad-brush design standards without understanding the effects that they would
have on driver behavior or on the land uses surrounding the roadways.
Table 8: NYSDOT Target Design Speeds
Minimum Design Speeds for Urban and Rural Arterials and Collectors and Urban Local Roads (in mph)
Functional Class. Terrain Design Speed Range
Suburban/ Developing Areas 37-62 Urban
Central Business District 31-62
Level 37-68
Rolling 37-62
Arterial
Rural
Mountainous 37-56
Urban N/A 31-62
ADT=0-400 400-2000 2000+
Level 37-62 50-62 62
Rolling 31-62 37-62 50-62
Collector
Rural
Mountainous 19-62 31-62 37-62
Local Urban N/A 31
35 FHWA, 1997
41
Minimum Design Speeds for Rural Local Roads (in mph)
ADT: <50 50-250 250-400 400-1500 1500-4000 >4000
Level 31 31 37 50 50 50
Rolling 19 31 31 37 37 37
Rural
Mountainous 19 19 19 31 31 31
The ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the speed limit is a value that is comparable across different
speed limits and indicates the distribution and extent of speeding. The 85th percentile speed is the speed
that 15% of drivers exceed (stated another way, 85% of drivers go the 85th percentile speed or slower). A
ratio greater than 1.00 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. This is an indication that the
speed limit is too low for the design speed of the road, which can be remedied by either raising the speed
limit or by redesigning the road in order to decrease the design speed. Table A-13 (Appendix II) gives the
aforementioned data for two-dozen major roads that run though the Town of Ithaca.
Examples of roads in the Town with speeding problems are listed in Table 9 below. For the purposes of
this discussion, a road with a speeding problem is defined as any road with a ratio of 85th percentile
speed to posted speed limit that has a value of 1.25 or greater. In other words, on these roads, at least
15% of vehicles are traveling at least 25% faster than the speed limit. For example, on a road with a
speed limit of 30 mph, at least 15% of motorists are traveling at least 37.5 mph (125% of the speed
limit).
Table 9: Roads with Speeding Problems
Roadway Location (House # or
Otherwise Indicated)
Ratio of 85th Percentile
Speed to Speed Limit
West King Road 344 1.25
Mitchell Street 921 1.26
Stone Quarry Road 355 1.26
Winthrop 311 1.27
Muriel Street 128 1.27
Bundy Road 1000' east of Hopkins Road 1.27
Judd Falls Road north of Plantations Road 1.27
Stone Quarry Road top 1.29
Hanshaw Road 1034 1.33
Warren Road 500' North of Fairway Dr. 1.33
Forest Home Drive east of the 25 mph zone 1.33
Culver Road 287 1.37
Sandbank Road “S” curve 1.37
Poole Road 124 1.38
King Road school zone 1.40
Stone Quarry Road 220 1.40
Bostwick Road 358 1.40
Forest Home Drive between Plantation and McIntyre 1.40
Caldwell Road across from water plant 1.44
Stone Quarry Road bottom 1.44
Coddington Road Juniper Rd 1.47
Forest Home Drive 326 1.56
42
Extent of Speeding: refers to the
percentage of motorists exceeding the
speed limit.
Severity of Speeding: considers the
characteristics of the adjacent land uses.
Not every section of every road in the Town has been surveyed, and the data included in Appendix II and
Table 9 above are not an exhaustive study of the Town. By drawing attention to certain neighborhoods in
the Town, these data do not deny the need for change in others. The Town Public Works Department
collects volume and speed data every year to increase the number of studied roads. The Public Works
Department also returns to previously studied roads in order to determine trends or changes over time.
AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis
While the concept of design speed is easy to understand, several problems can arise in its application.
First, the limiting factor in design speed is driver comfort, not safety. It is possible to have a safe roadway
design that does not meet AASHTO's comfort-based specifications.36 Second, AASHTO's assumptions
about driver comfort, which were derived from research published between 1934 and 1940, do not
necessarily reflect modern driver behavior, as drivers may feel comfortable exceeding AASHTO's design
speed. Third, design speed is based on the comfort of the driver, not the comfort or safety of other
roadway users or roadside residents. This focus on driver comfort can lead to inappropriate roadway
designs. By contrast, an important component of roadway design includes an evaluation of the vehicle
speed that is compatible with adjoining uses and bicycle and pedestrian activity, and incorporation of
design elements that encourage motorists to drive no faster than that speed. It is unreasonable to expect
drivers to adopt the viewpoint of the pedestrian or bicyclist that they are speeding past; the discomfort of
speeding has to be experienced by the driver himself before he will voluntarily reduce his speed. This
ability to influence driver behavior contributes to good roadway design.
As previously noted, posted speed limits do not necessarily reflect the character of adjacent land uses. In
order to account for neighborhood needs, this Plan distinguishes between the extent and the severity of
speeding. In this Plan, the extent of speeding refers to the ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the speed
limit. It is an objective measure that can be used to compare different locations. The severity of
speeding, on the other hand, accounts for the characteristics of the road and describes the impacts on
the adjacent land uses. Many factors affect the severity of speeding. For example, Bostwick and Poole
Roads have higher speed limits and run through low-density
residential and agricultural land uses. There is little
pedestrian activity and few residents live there. Thus, the
severity of speeding in these areas is relatively less than that
in other areas, in spite of the fact that these two roads each
have an 85th percentile to speed limit ratio of approximately
1.40.
In contrast, the data collection sites on Hanshaw, Coddington, King Roads, and Forest Home Drive are in
areas with a great potential to impact residents. The sites on Hanshaw, Coddington Roads, and Forest
Home Drives are in medium density residential areas with high concentrations of pedestrians (Hanshaw
Road runs from Community Corners through the Northeast neighborhood, and Coddington Road runs
through medium density residential development past Ithaca College and into the City). The data
36 AASHTO, 2004, pp. xliii, 134-135, 146
43
collection site on King Road is within the school speed zone, indicating the presence of pedestrians and
children.
The list below outlines characteristics that increase the severity of speeding on a road.
• Adjacent land use: high or medium density residential land uses;
• Adjacent land use design: smaller front yard setbacks;
• Special areas: school zones, community centers, places of worship, parks, shopping centers, and
other centers of pedestrian and bicycle activity have a low tolerance for speeding;
• Posted speed limit: the effects of speeding will feel more severe on a road with a low speed limit.
Based on the considerations above, and the data presented in Table A-13 in Volume II, Appendix II, some
areas 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.
The geometric characteristics associated with each design speed are overly generous, because they were
calculated years ago, when automotive technology wasn’t as good. In practice, the recommended
geometric characteristics for each design speed are often used as a minimum, in order to avert liability
charges in the event of an accident. The result of the application of the current design speed concept is
often a road that is wider, flatter, and straighter than it needs to be, especially if it is in an area that is
sensitive to speeding (see above). Once the road is designed to be wider, flatter, and straighter than it
was before, traffic speeds naturally increase, pushing up the 85th percentile speed. This increases the
design speed for the road the next time it is redesigned for reconstruction. The best way to avoid liability
is to design a road that achieves the desired safe driver behavior.
Because roads are often wider, flatter, and straighter than they need to be, many motorists speed without
realizing how fast they are traveling. The wide, straight streets in some suburban residential areas mirror
the design of rural roads with higher posted speed limits and few pedestrians or bicyclists to cue
motorists to slow down. These motorists will naturally slow down if their surroundings indicate that they
should do so. Alerting motorists to their surroundings through design changes improves safety, speed
limit compliance, and protects the livability of neighborhoods through which the road passes.
Unfortunately, some motorists irresponsibly speed on purpose, and they will attempt to speed regardless
of the design of the road. Reasons they speed include being late for an appointment, fooling around and
feeling “invincible,” or driving while intoxicated. The best solution for these speeders is enforcement.
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
The Analysis above concluded that speeding is a problem on many roads in the Town. Thus, this Plan this Plan this Plan this Plan
identifies a need for speed mitigationidentifies a need for speed mitigationidentifies a need for speed mitigationidentifies a need for speed mitigation, focusing on (but not limited to) residential, medium-density areas,
school zones, roads with lower speed limits, and areas of high pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Guidelines
could set forth criteria by which the extent and severity of speeding would be assessed and would offer
mitigation measures based on the characteristics of the road and the adjacent land uses.
44
As noted above, speed mitigation efforts need to focus on areas where the severity of speeding is worstspeed mitigation efforts need to focus on areas where the severity of speeding is worstspeed mitigation efforts need to focus on areas where the severity of speeding is worstspeed mitigation efforts need to focus on areas where the severity of speeding is worst.
The Analysis above identified the Northeast, the southern part of Pine Tree Road, the Forest Home
neighborhood, and Coddington Road near Ithaca College as areas where speeding is severe. These
locations may form the first “round” of speed mitigation projects. A more complete listing of locations
with speeding problems is included in the Alternatives section.
In order to adequately and appropriately address the causes and effects of speeding, each situation must
be examined individually, and the Town must address both intentional and unintentional speeders. To
this end, the Town needs to continue, and perhaps increase, enforcement opportunities to catch the Town needs to continue, and perhaps increase, enforcement opportunities to catch the Town needs to continue, and perhaps increase, enforcement opportunities to catch the Town needs to continue, and perhaps increase, enforcement opportunities to catch
intentional speeders. intentional speeders. intentional speeders. intentional speeders. The enforcement of speed limits sends a clear message to speeders that their
carelessness is unacceptable. The presence of law enforcement in “problem” areas can be especially
effective because it demonstrates to residents that law enforcement considers protection of their quality
of life to be an important goal. Over time, it may teach motorists to be aware of their surroundings,
including the presence of the officer.
In order to target unintentional speeders, the Town needs to
adopt a set of design guidelines that tie the design of the road to
the desired motor vehicle speed. Furthermore, the Town needs the Town needs the Town needs the Town needs
to explore alternate design stto explore alternate design stto explore alternate design stto explore alternate design strategies that have worked well for rategies that have worked well for rategies that have worked well for rategies that have worked well for
other municipalities, such as traffic calming measures, to target other municipalities, such as traffic calming measures, to target other municipalities, such as traffic calming measures, to target other municipalities, such as traffic calming measures, to target
speeding in certain areas to protect the livability of speeding in certain areas to protect the livability of speeding in certain areas to protect the livability of speeding in certain areas to protect the livability of
neighborhoodsneighborhoodsneighborhoodsneighborhoods. Traffic calming techniques cue motorists that
they are in an area where speeding is inappropriate. As noted at
the end of the Analysis, traffic calming saves time for law enforcement, preserves the quality of life for
residents, and encourages motorists to follow the law. Traffic calming is a valuable design tool when
applied correctly in appropriate situations.
The Town needs to continue to collect speed data at regular intervals at the same and new locationsThe Town needs to continue to collect speed data at regular intervals at the same and new locationsThe Town needs to continue to collect speed data at regular intervals at the same and new locationsThe Town needs to continue to collect speed data at regular intervals at the same and new locations.
This allows planners and engineers to track changes in the level of speeding and will be very valuable in
evaluating the effectiveness of speed mitigation measures. By expanding the locations where speed data
is collected, the Town will get a better understanding of speeding problems across the area and will help
to ensure that neighborhoods are not overlooked.
Road Safety: CraRoad Safety: CraRoad Safety: CraRoad Safety: Crash Information & Location Analysessh Information & Location Analysessh Information & Location Analysessh Information & Location Analyses
Safety for all users of the transportation system, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, children, and
others, is one of the overarching Goals of this Plan. In this section, information about crashes is
presented and analyzed to recognize particularly hazardous locations and to identify needs related to
transportation safety.
Traffic Calming: Combinations of
mostly physical measures that reduce the
negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter
driver behavior, and improve conditions for
non-motorized street users. One example
is a raised crosswalk, which alerts
motorists to the presence of pedestrians
and cues them to slow down.
45
Transportation planners refer to “accidents” as
crashes. “Accident” implies an unforeseen and
unpreventable event, like a deer stepping into the
road. Most (but not all) automobile crashes stem from
preventable causes, like fatigue leading to increased
reaction time leading to a collision with a deer. For
simplicity’s sake, this Plan uses “crashes” instead of
“accidents” to describe all incidents.
InventoryInventoryInventoryInventory
This inventory contains two types of road safety information. The first section presents a tabulation of
crash locations using Department of Motor Vehicles crash data. The second section describes the safety
analysis performed by a consultant and Town Planning staff.
Crash Information Database
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 reportable
crashes, that is, those causing injury or more than
$1,000 in property damage (the more serious
crashes). The database includes drivers’ profiles,
the weather conditions at the time of the crash,
the cause of the crash (weather conditions, driver error, etc), and the object involved in the crash (deer,
utility pole, other vehicle). The locations of these crashes are shown in Map 8 (“Locations of Serious
Crashes: 1999-2001”) in Volume II, Appendix I.
Figure A-15 in Volume II, Appendix II shows the “first event,” or the object initially involved in the collision,
for crashes included in the study. Of the 548 crashes citing a first event, 48% involved another vehicle.
Table 10 below shows the roads or intersections with the highest frequency of serious crashes involving
another vehicle
Table 10: Locations of Crashes Involving Another Vehicle; 1999-2000
Location Number of
Crashes
The northern part of Route 89 (Taughannock Blvd), just before Ulysses 12
Hayts Road and Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) 5
Harris B. Dates Drive (Hospital driveway) and Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) 5
Route 13 (Elmira Road) and Sand Bank Road 4
Route 13 (Elmira Road) and Five Mile Drive 8
Route 13 (Elmira Road) between Seven Mile Drive and Calkins Road 10
Route 34/96 (West Danby Road between the Town of Ithaca-Town of Newfield line and
the intersection with Route 13 (Shady Corners) 7
Route 96B (Danby Road) and entrance to Ithaca College 4
Route 96B (Danby Road) and Emerson Power Transmission 5
Route 96B (Danby Road) between Ithaca College and Emerson Power Transmission 6
Route 96B (Danby Road) and King Road 5
Route 79 (Slaterville Road) and Honness Lane 4
Route 79 (Slaterville Road) and Pine Tree Road 10
Pine Tree Road between Snyder Hill Road and Mitchell Street 9
Route 366 (Dryden Road) between Caldwell Road and Town of Ithaca – Town of Dryden
line 13
46
Locations with higher traffic volumes are expected to have a higher number of vehicular crashes. Since
the Town does not have traffic volume data specific to each location, the number of crashes at these
locations have not been normalized based on traffic volume.
Another 34.3% of the crashes citing a first event involved an animal (probably a deer). Map 9 in Appendix
I shows the locations of serious crashes involving an animal. Table 11 below shows the roads or
intersections with the highest frequency of this type of crash.
Table 11: Locations of Crashes Involving Animal; 1999-2001
Location Number of
Crashes
Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road): EcoVillage to the City 24
The northern part of Route 89 (Taughannock Blvd), just before Ulysses 11
Route 13/34/96 (Elmira Road): between Calkins Road and Seven Mile Drive 8
Route 13/34/96 (Elmira Road): near the intersection with Route 13 A (Five Mile Drive) 4
Intersection of Coddington and Troy Roads 4
Intersection of Route 79 (Slaterville Road) and Burns Road 5
Intersection of Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Roads 5
Route 96B (Danby Road): around Sesame Street 6
Route 96B (Danby Road): around entrance to Ithaca College 4
Route 96B (Danby Road): around the entrance to Emerson Power Transmission 4
Length of Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) 44
Intersection of Hayts and Hopkins Roads 4
The remaining 17.7% of the crashes listing a first event are comprised mostly of physical roadway
elements, such as guardrails or utility poles, although five crashes involved bicyclists and two involved
pedestrians (1.3% total over the course of three years). These incidents are of particular concern
because of the high rate of injury or fatality of bicyclists and pedestrians involved in crashes with motor
vehicles. The locations of crashes involving a vehicle and a bicyclist or pedestrian include:
Pedestrian:
1. Route 96B (Danby Road) and Ithaca College entrance: 1
2. Route 366 (Dryden Road) at City/Town line: 1
Bicyclist:
1. Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) between Ecovillage and Conifer Lane: 1
2. Route 96B (Danby Road) & Sesame Street: 1
3. Route 79 (Slaterville Road) & Burns Road: 1
4. Route 366 (Dryden Road): one to the west and one to the east of Caldwell Road
Figure A-16 in Volume II, Appendix II categorizes the causes of motor vehicle crashes included in the Town
of Ithaca’s database. Fully one third of crashes were caused by an animal action. The second most
common causes of crashes were 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, glare, or a tire blowout) 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. The few crashes
47
that occur on roads or at intersections completely controlled by the Town of Ithaca are listed below. Most
of these areas had between one and three crashes over a three-year period, and many were one-car
crashes involving an animal or road object, such as a ditch or sign post.
Table 12: Crashes on Town-owned Roads or Intersections by First Event, 1999-2001
Road/ Intersection Number of Crashes - First Event
Elm Street & Culver Rd. 1- tree
Elm Street & West Haven Rd. 3- animal
1- earth/ rock cut/ ditch;
2- vehicle
2- signpost Stone Quarry Rd.
2- other
2- animal
1- vehicle Stone Quarry Rd. & W. King Rd.
1- earth/ rock cut/ ditch
2- animal W. King Rd. 1- earth/ rock cut/ ditch
2- vehicle Kendall Ave 1- animal
1- animal Snyder Hill Rd. 1- fixed object
1- animal Judd Falls Rd. 1- fixed object
1- vehicle Caldwell Rd. 1- other
Winston Ct. 1- vehicle
Intersection Analyses and Crash Screenings
During the fall of 2005, the Town’s Transportation Committee hired Fisher Associates, a consulting firm,
to analyze several intersections and road segments in the Town. The analysis consisted of taking traffic
counts at intersections and using a checklist to consider the safe and unsafe aspects of the location.
Fisher Associates examined the following locations:
Intersections: Route 79 & Honness Lane; Pine Tree Road & Honness Lane; Seven Mile Drive &
Route 13; Troy Road & East King Road; Route 96 & Bundy Road; Route 96 & Hayts Road; Route
96B & King Road; Pine Tree Road & Maple Avenue; Warren and Hanshaw Roads.
Segments: Sandbank Road; Stone Quarry Road; Pine Tree Road; Pleasant Grove Road;
Mecklenburg Road; Trumansburg Road/ Route 96 (segment near City); Route 13/ Elmira Road
(Route 13A/ Five Mile Drive, southwards).
At many locations, Fisher Associates recommended a crash screening. Crash screenings look at the
actual accident reports in order to determine if there is a pattern among the crashes at a location. The
Transportation Committee chose to focus the crash screenings on locations perceived to have the most
48
serious safety problems and locations involving Town roads. The crash screenings, along with Fisher
Associates’ location summaries, are found in Volume II, Appendix IV.
The crash screenings showed no obvious, immediate safety hazards. In most cases, possible mitigation
measures are as simple as improving signage to alert drivers to unexpected intersections or road curves.
In other cases, the crash screening showed that mitigation measures may be needed in the future, such
as improved traffic controls (such as a traffic light).
Sight DistancesSight DistancesSight DistancesSight Distances
The Town Engineering Department is in the process of surveying every intersection in the Town to
measure sight distances. Sight distance at an intersection is dependent on the configuration of the
intersection, the topography of the intersecting roadway, and any obstacles (like fences or bushes) that
obstruct the motorists’ view of the road. By factoring in the speed limit of the intersecting roadway, one
can determine the sight distance necessary for safe entry into the intersecting roadway. Sight distance is
measured from the “typical” location of a driver (three feet up from the ground) stopped at the correct
location behind a stop sign (four feet back). The Engineering Department is also measuring how much
the sight distance improves if a motorist begins to creep into the intersection. Once the inventory is
complete, the Engineering and Public Works Departments will prioritize the list and will begin to
systematically address the problems.
Addressing sight distance problems does not necessarily mean removal of roadside vegetation and other
features. In fact, increasing sight distances at an intersection by completely clearing an intersection and
widening the curb radius (decreasing the “sharpness” of the curve) can make it more difficult for
motorists to judge the distance and speed of approaching traffic. It also encourages motorists to roll
through stop signs and to speed. 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 stop line could be moved closer to the through road, thereby improving visibility up
and down the street.
AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis
The Town Transportation Survey highlighted areas that residents believed to be hazardous. To facilitate
tabulation, most were categorized by cluster of intersections within a small area. As noted above, the
Town does not control most of these intersections or roads. Below is the survey question along with the
tabulated location responses.
49
Table 13: Hazardous Roads Survey Question and Responses
Are there any roads or intersections in the Town of Ithaca you consider to be particularly hazardous?
If yes, please identify location and problem(s).
Area or Intersection
Number of
Times Cited
Community Corners, including Warren and Hanshaw 99
Area of intersections between Honness, Pine Tree, & Rt. 79 52
Area of Coddington, Burns, Coddington, & Troy; Troy , & E. King Rd. 43
Route 13 in general, plus intersections with Seven Mile/ Five Mile Dr. & Kmart 29
Area of Burleigh, Winthrop, Simsbury, Christopher 19
Area of Forest Home 17
Route 96B in general, including near Ithaca College 14
Intersection at Sheffield and Mecklenburg 14
Area of Winston, Salem, Muriel 9
Rt 79 (Slaterville Road) in general 9
The most commonly cited area of concern (Community Corners) lies mostly outside the Town’s municipal
boundaries. Although many residents consider these areas to be hazardous (likely because they live in
these neighborhoods), only two crashes occurred in these areas over the course of three years.
According to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), there has been a decline in the
fatality rate for motor vehicle crashes in Tompkins County. In 1996, there were 16 fatalities on roads
within the County (1.08% fatality rate in crashes); by 2000, the rate had dropped to 0.23%, or 6
fatalities.37 The crash fatality rate is declining across the country, even though the number of vehicles,
number of licensed drivers, and the number of vehicle miles traveled has increased. The Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) lists many reasons for the decline, including seat belt promotion, child
safety seat awareness, increases in motorcycle helmet usage, campaigns against drunken driving,
improvements in highway and vehicle design (including greater separation of traffic), and better and
prompter medical attention to crash victims.38
In short, the Town of Ithaca is fortunate to have relatively safe roads, which may be due in part to the
modest scale of many Town roads. This does not permit complacency, however, as even one preventable
crash or injury is one too many.
Unfortunately, there is little that the Town can do on its own to improve road safety. It is unlikely that the
Town can do much to mitigate the most common cause of crashes (animals, especially deer, in the
roads). Much of the Town is agricultural, conserved, or developed to a low density to preserve a rural feel;
deer in the woods and on the roads are a part of that feel. The Town Public Works Department already
addresses design flaws on Town-owned roads that could compromise driver safety, but the Town is
unable to control the actions of these drivers on the roads. Furthermore, the Town does not control most
of the roads with high crash rates. Most of the roads with many crashes are owned by the State of New
York, while others belong to the County. While the Town cannot dictate changes to the designs or policies
37 ITCTC, “2025 Long Range…”, page 1.16
38 Ibid.
50
governing these roads without cooperation from the relevant jurisdiction, the Town can continue to
advocate for designs and policies that protect safety and livability.
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
One theme of this Plan is the need to coordinate and cooperate to achieve common goals. Most of the
roads with high crashes are controlled by entities other than the Town. In addition, the Town does not
have its own law enforcement agency. Thus, teamwork is a necessary component of any safety strategy.
The Town needs to coordinate with other municipalities, organizations, and agencies in order to improve The Town needs to coordinate with other municipalities, organizations, and agencies in order to improve The Town needs to coordinate with other municipalities, organizations, and agencies in order to improve The Town needs to coordinate with other municipalities, organizations, and agencies in order to improve
transporttransporttransporttransportation safety ation safety ation safety ation safety in the Town, such as Tompkins County, NYSDOT, the Tompkins County Sheriff’s
Department, City of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights Police, Cornell University and Ithaca College
Police, the Ithaca City School District, and so on.
Since fully one third of serious crashes in the Town are caused by animal actions, the Town needs to
explore ways to keep deer off roads in the Town or ways to make motorists more aware of the potential explore ways to keep deer off roads in the Town or ways to make motorists more aware of the potential explore ways to keep deer off roads in the Town or ways to make motorists more aware of the potential explore ways to keep deer off roads in the Town or ways to make motorists more aware of the potential
presence of deer on the roadwaypresence of deer on the roadwaypresence of deer on the roadwaypresence of deer on the roadway. For example, the Town could work to reduce vehicle speeds at known
deer crossings. Also, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board has studied the deer population in the Town,
and the Town Board has indicated interest in looking at ways to restrict the deer population. This Plan
fully supports their efforts, while recognizing that there is little that it can do to directly prevent deer-
related crashes. Locations with high numbers of animal-related crashes are listed in the Alternatives
section.
Some crashes are caused by roadway design problems. The Town needs to make sure that roadway The Town needs to make sure that roadway The Town needs to make sure that roadway The Town needs to make sure that roadway
design is as safe as possible and promotes safe driver behaviordesign is as safe as possible and promotes safe driver behaviordesign is as safe as possible and promotes safe driver behaviordesign is as safe as possible and promotes safe driver behavior. For example, conditions that decrease
the safety of roads in the Town include: improper intersection alignment or control, road characteristics
that encourage unsafe driver behavior (such as wide, flat roads that encourage speeding), unexpected,
abrupt changes in design speed, and poorly maintained pavement (especially hazardous for bicyclists).
The Town should follow the “best practices” of roadway and network design to reduce the number of
preventable crashes. Locations with high numbers of vehicle-vehicle crashes are listed in the Alternatives
section.
The Town needs to include enforcement of traffic laws as a part of a safety strategyThe Town needs to include enforcement of traffic laws as a part of a safety strategyThe Town needs to include enforcement of traffic laws as a part of a safety strategyThe Town needs to include enforcement of traffic laws as a part of a safety strategy. Some motorists
engage in unsafe behavior regardless of the condition of the roadway by speeding or driving while
intoxicated. Furthermore, many bicyclists and pedestrians are not aware of the traffic laws that apply to
them. Enforcement can be an educational tool as well as a deterrent to future law-breaking behavior.
As previously noted, many motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians do not understand the safest ways to use
the roadway. The Town needs to include safety education as a crash reduction meThe Town needs to include safety education as a crash reduction meThe Town needs to include safety education as a crash reduction meThe Town needs to include safety education as a crash reduction measureasureasureasure. Educated
roadway users are more likely to practice safe behavior, even when they are in sub-optimal conditions.
Finally, the Town needs to collect and analyze recent crash datathe Town needs to collect and analyze recent crash datathe Town needs to collect and analyze recent crash datathe Town needs to collect and analyze recent crash data in order to monitor changes in crash
patterns. By monitoring changes, the Town will be able to determine the locations that need mitigation
most and will be able to tailor the mitigation strategies to fit the problems at that specific location.
51
RRRROADWAYOADWAYOADWAYOADWAY MMMMAINTENANCEAINTENANCEAINTENANCEAINTENANCE
This section examines the role of the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department in the construction and
maintenance of Town roadways and the Town road network.
InventoryInventoryInventoryInventory
The Town of Ithaca Public Works Department employs a staff of approximately twenty-eight full-time
employees, with several seasonal employees. It is responsible for most of the maintenance and
improvement of Town-owned roads, as well as the maintenance and some of the construction work of
Town recreation, water, and sewer facilities. The Town, County, and State, however, do share
maintenance of some roads. For example, the Town plows and salts certain roads that are owned by
Tompkins County, while the County plows and salts all of the State roads in the Town.
Currently, the Town uses sodium chloride (NaCl, also known as regular table salt) with a special additive
to de-ice roadways. The additive is a natural byproduct of the beer brewing process. It lowers the
freezing temperature of ice slush, which means that less of the salt mix needs to be used and the salt mix
doesn’t need to be applied as frequently. It also lowers the overall corrosiveness of the salt mix.
During the summer of 2004, the Town of Ithaca Public Works 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 inventory will be updated to reflect deterioration and
maintenance and improvement projects. The goal of this project is to prioritize Town roads in greatest
need for 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.
AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis
The most cost-effective pavement management plan is a system of
preventative maintenance. 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”
condition). 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.39 Thus, a reasonable amount of short-term cost produces a great degree of long-term
benefit. The Cornell Local Roads Program writes:
It is generally most cost effective to spend your money keeping the good roads good than it is to
put all your funds into fixing the worst roads. This idea may be exactly the opposite of what
39 Sterling, 2003, p. 6-7
The best way to save
money in a highway construction
budget is to make sure that the
roads don’t deteriorate in the
first place!
52
personal tendencies would be, but it is basically correct. Keep the good roads good and plan
ahead for the extra money you will need to gradually rebuild the poor roads.40
Currently, the Town is on a 33-year reconstruction schedule. Every year, the Public Works Department
repaves about 1.5 miles of road and performs preventative maintenance on 5-7 miles. This schedule is
sufficient to maintain high quality roads, but there is little room for putting off necessary maintenance.
Because of the variation in regional weather patterns and the constant evolution of the road network, it is
more important to create a framework for maintenance decision-making than to dictate a maintenance
schedule. This also offers greater budgetary flexibility. Roads that should be prioritized are higher traffic
roads requiring preventative maintenance and local roads in such poor condition that they negatively
affect the livability, access, or safety of the neighborhoods through which they run. Also, the impacts of
road maintenance on the natural environment must be mitigated, including roadway drainage, winter
maintenance, and trimming of roadside vegetation.
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
This section has outlined the importance of determining the condition of each roadway, practicing
preventative maintenance, and planning for future projects. Preventative maintenance costs pennies in
the short-term but saves dollars in the long term.
The Town needs to prioritize preventative maintenanceto prioritize preventative maintenanceto prioritize preventative maintenanceto prioritize preventative maintenance while continuing to plan for larger repaving and
reconstruction projects. In order to identify roadways that will need preventative maintenance in the
future, the Town needs to continue to collect datato continue to collect datato continue to collect datato continue to collect data on the pavement conditions on Town roadways,
whether through a formal survey to calculate PCI information, or an informal survey to assess the general
condition of the pavement. Finally, the Town Public Works Department needs flexibility in funding and own Public Works Department needs flexibility in funding and own Public Works Department needs flexibility in funding and own Public Works Department needs flexibility in funding and
schedulingschedulingschedulingscheduling in order to address future needs.
40 Henderson Associates, 2003
53
AAAA SSSSUMMARYUMMARYUMMARYUMMARY OFOFOFOF THETHETHETHE RRRROADOADOADOAD NNNNETWORKETWORKETWORKETWORK ININININ THETHETHETHE TTTTOWNOWNOWNOWN OFOFOFOF IIIITHACATHACATHACATHACA
Introduction
The State Highways and County and Town Roadways section has outlined the current condition of the
roadway network in the Town of Ithaca. It identified locations with high traffic volumes, speeding
problems, and crash clusters. In addition, it pointed to the potential conflict between the designated
function (functional classification), the actual or intended use, and the design of a roadway, all of which
may conflict with the needs of sensitive residential areas. While the Town cannot ignore the functional
classification system or established design standards due to funding and liability reasons, the Town can
use its own system to understand the role of a road for internal decision-making. This understanding, in
turn, may affect the Town’s position on decisions regarding non-Town owned roads.
The categorization outlined below accounts for factors such as the location, type, and character of land
uses served by the roadway, how and by whom the roadway is used, including by what type of vehicle,
traffic speeds and volumes, the extent to which the road is used by bicyclists and pedestrians, the degree
of conflict between adjacent land uses and roadway traffic, and the geometrics of the roadway. The
description of each roadway also includes problems and issues identified in the Inventory and Analysis of
this Volume (Volume I: The Plan); “Identifying and Prioritizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements” in
Appendix VI, Volume II: The Appendices; and “Intersection and Road Segment Analyses” in Appendix IV,
Volume II: The Appendices. The “Identified Problems” section of each roadway description is not
exhaustive, as data are not available for every location.
Like the federal functional classification system, there is some overlap between categories, and not every
road in the Town fits neatly into one category. Furthermore, many roads change character along their
length. Thus, this brief analysis is meant only as a starting point for a new understanding of the road
network in the Town of Ithaca.
The following outline includes abbreviations used in this section. For the “Bike/ Ped Destinations &
Facilities” and the “Geometrics” sections, the outline explains the meaning of the line numbers.
• Adjacent Land Uses:
o LIR: Lower-intensity residential (i.e. Low-Density Residential Zones, Medium-Density
Residential Zones in rural areas)
o HIR: Higher-intensity residential (i.e. Medium-Density Residential Zones in suburban
areas, High-Density Residential Zones, Mobile Home Park Zones, and Multiple Residence
Zone)
o Com: Commercial
o Ind: Industrial
o Agr: Agricultural
o Edu: Educational
o OpS: Open Space or Conservation Zone
• Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:
o (Line #1) Bicyclist and pedestrian generators served by this road segment
o (Line #2) Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities in the right-of-way
54
• Volume:
o vpd: vehicles per day
• Geometrics:
o (Line #1) Horizontal and vertical displacement: hills and curves
o (Line #2) Number and width of lanes
o (Line #3) Presence and condition of shoulder
o (Line #4) Intersection control(s)
Road Categorization
This Plan proposes that there are five main categories of roads in the Town:
Radial roads: Radial roads carry traffic to the employment centers of the County (the City of Ithaca and
Cornell University). They are high volume and often high speed roads. This category includes:
• Coddington Rd.
• Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B)
• Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366)
• East Shore Dr. (Rt. 34)
• Ellis Hollow Rd.
• Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13)
• Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79)
• Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79)
• Taughannock Blvd. (Rt. 89)
• Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96)
Feeder roads: Feeder roads collect traffic from residential areas and outlying areas of the County and
deposit it on radial roads. Feeder roads that extend to the main employment centers deposit traffic onto
radial roads. In both instances, feeder roads do not directly connect employment centers to outlying
residential areas. This category includes:
• Bostwick Rd.
• Bundy Rd.
• Elm St/ Elm St. Ext/ Poole Rd.
• Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327)
• Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A)
• Forest Home Dr.
• Hanshaw Rd.
• Hayts Rd.
• Iradell Rd.
• Maple Ave.
• Ridgecrest Rd.
• Sandbank Rd.
• Snyder Hill Rd.
• Stone Quarry Rd.
• Troy Rd.
• West Danby Rd. (Rt. 34/96)
• W. King Rd.
55
Circumferential roads: Circumferential roads roughly form a ring around the City of Ithaca, connecting
“radial” and “feeder” roads. This category includes:
• Burns Rd.
• Caldwell Rd.
• Coy Glen Rd.
• Culver Rd.
• E. King Rd.
• Game Farm Rd.
• Honness La.
• Hopkins Rd.
• Judd Falls Rd.
• Pleasant Grove Rd.
• Pine Tree Rd.
• Seven Mile Dr.
• Warren Rd.
• Westhaven Rd.
Subdivision access roads: Subdivision access roads channel traffic generated within a subdivision and
deposit it on a radial feeder, or circumferential road.
Internal subdivision roads: Internal subdivision roads provide direct access to homes and circulate traffic
within a subdivision. This category also includes small cul-de-sacs and loop roads, even though they
connect to radial feeder, or circumferential roads, because their characteristics are more like internal
subdivision roads than subdivision access roads.
56Radial RoadsRadial RoadsRadial RoadsRadial Roads Coddington Rd.Coddington Rd.Coddington Rd.Coddington Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) I.C, undergrad housing, trail, elementary school, park 2) Shoulder width and condition varies. *Coddington Rd. is being rebuilt, and sidewalks are part of the design. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect City and Ithaca College to Caroline. Local access to residences. RelatRelatRelatRelative Degree of Conflictive Degree of Conflictive Degree of Conflictive Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. On the northern end of the road, residences are set close to the road and there are many driveways. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 2,181-2,621 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 30 mph from City to Juniper Dr. 40 mph from Juniper Dr. to Troy Rd. 45 mph south of Troy Rd. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding near Juniper Dr; need for bike & pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Generally straight with a few hills 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder width and condition varies 4) Intersecting roads controlled with stop sign. Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B)Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B)Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B)Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR, Com, Ind, Edu Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) Ithaca College students traveling between college and City 2) Wide, paved shoulder in Town; may be insufficient due to motor vehicle volumes and speeds Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect I.C. to City. Commuter route from Danby to City. Some local access. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Residences set back from road or on cul-de-sacs. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 9000 vpd SpSpSpSpeed Limiteed Limiteed Limiteed Limit: 40 mph near City, 50 mph S. of King Rd. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Congestion (I.C. to King Rd.); crashes at various locations, including 2 bike/ ped. crashes; need for bike & pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Long hill near City. Fairly straight. 2) 2 lanes; 4 from I.C. to City 3) Wide, paved shoulder. At Town/ City line, sidewalk stops before shoulder begins. 4) Light at I.C. entrance and King Rd. int. Some uncontrolled res. & com. driveways. Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366)Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366)Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366)Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) AdjacAdjacAdjacAdjacent Land Usesent Land Usesent Land Usesent Land Uses: Edu, Ind, Ag Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) C.U, Varna 2) Wide, paved shoulder. Signage indicating bicyclists and pedestrians. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Varna & Dryden to City and Cornell University. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Very few driveways, no residential development. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 9,200 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 30 mph west of Tower Rd. 45 mph east of Tower Rd. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Congestion (Caldwell Rd. to Town of Dryden); crashes at various locations, including 2 bike/ pedestrian crashes Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Gentle slope. Fairly straight. 2) 2 lanes; turning lane westbound at Pine Tree Rd. & eastbound at Judd Falls Rd. & Tower Rd. 3) Wide, paved shoulder. 4) Four-way stop at Pine Tree Rd, traffic signal at Caldwell Rd.
57East Shore Dr. (Rt. 34)East Shore Dr. (Rt. 34)East Shore Dr. (Rt. 34)East Shore Dr. (Rt. 34) Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: HIR, Com Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Town Park, Lansing, Middle and High Schools 2) Narrow to very narrow paved shoulder. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Lansing to City. Local access to seasonal residences. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. Although many residences front a parallel access road and there are few curb cuts, there is little space for bicycle or pedestrian traffic. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 8,450 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Need for bike/pedestrian improvements (not necessarily sidewalk/bike lane—maybe multi-use trail). Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Few hills and curves. 2) 2 lanes. 3) Narrow to very narrow paved shoulder. 4) No major intersections. There are a few uncontrolled driveways. Ellis Hollow Rd./ Mitchell St.Ellis Hollow Rd./ Mitchell St.Ellis Hollow Rd./ Mitchell St.Ellis Hollow Rd./ Mitchell St. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR, Com, OpS, Ag Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential area, East Hill Plaza, grad student housing 2) Moderately wide paved shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Dryden to the City and Cornell University. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. In the Town, there are few residences that actually front on the road. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 4,228-4,966 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 35 mph from City to Ellis Hollow Apts. (east of East Hill Plaza), then 45 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (near # 921); congestion at intersection with Pine Tree Rd; need for bike improvements along Mitchell St. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Moderate hill leading into Dryden and no curves. 2) 2 lanes, except for turning lanes at int. with Pine Tree Rd. 3) Moderately wide paved shoulder 4) Only major intersection at Pine Tree Rd. controlled with traffic light. Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13)Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13)Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13)Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) Adjacent Land UAdjacent Land UAdjacent Land UAdjacent Land Usessessesses: LIR, Ind, Com, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) City, Buttermilk Falls and Treman State Parks 2) Wide, paved shoulder. *Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds present significant safety hazards. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Major commuter route from southwestern portion of the County and beyond to the City. Local access for a few residences and businesses. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Most commercial development is in City. Little residential development. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 15,646-18,900 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 50 mph from City to Rt. 327. 55 mph south of Rt. 327. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Congestion (City to intersection of 13 & 34/96; crashes (Five Mile Dr. & Seven Mile Dr. to Calkins Rd.) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Few hills and curves. 2) 4 lanes between City and Five Mile Dr; two lanes south of Five Mile Dr. 3) Wide, paved shoulder. 4) Traffic signal at Five Mile Dr. Other roads have stop sign at Elmira Rd. Intersection with Seven Mile Dr. a potential safety hazard (see Crash Screenings, Appendix IV in Volume II: The Appendices).
58Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79)Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79)Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79)Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79) Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, Agr Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) EcoVillage, Linderman Creek, City’s West Hill neighborhood 2) Moderately wide, paved shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect City to western portion of Tompkins County and Schuyler County. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Residences are set back from road. Few intersections. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 6,450 vpd (within City) Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 55 mph, except east of Linderman Creek (30 mph) Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Crashes (due to animal action, plus one bike/pedestrian crash); need for bike/pedestrian improvements near City Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Rolling hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder 4) Two intersections: Westhaven Rd. and Sheffield Rd. Intersection roads have stop signs. Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79)Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79)Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79)Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79) Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) City, residential development, churches, parks 2) Wide, paved shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect City to Caroline and beyond (Tioga County). Local access to residences. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. Many residences, some of which are close to road (near City). Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 6,600-10,100 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Congestion (Pine Tree Rd. to Burns Rd.); crashes at Pine Tree Rd & Burns Rd; need for bike/ pedestrian improvements, especially near City Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Few hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder 4) Intersecting roads controlled with stop sign. Through traffic at Pine Tree Rd. has flashing yellow light (entering traffic has flashing red light). Taughannock Blvd. (Rt. 89)Taughannock Blvd. (Rt. 89)Taughannock Blvd. (Rt. 89)Taughannock Blvd. (Rt. 89) Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR, OpS Bike/ PedeBike/ PedeBike/ PedeBike/ Pedestrian Destinations & strian Destinations & strian Destinations & strian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Scenic points, Taughannock Falls, State Park, City. 2) Paved shoulder. Taughannock Blvd. is signed as bike route. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect City to Trumansburg and Ulysses. Local access to residences. Relative Degree ofRelative Degree ofRelative Degree ofRelative Degree of Conflict Conflict Conflict Conflict: Moderate to high. Many driveway curb cuts, but residences are set back from road. No intersections. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: N/A. Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph, except for northernmost 1/3 mile in the Town (55 mph) Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Crashes (vehicular and due to animal action); potential need for some bike improvements (for example, a multi-use trail along the corridor) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Some hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Paved shoulder. 4) No intersections.
59 Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96) Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96) Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96) Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96) Feeder RoadsFeeder RoadsFeeder RoadsFeeder Roads Bostwick RdBostwick RdBostwick RdBostwick Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Tutelo Park, residential development 2) Paved shoulders, varying in width Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Enfield onto Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A) Relative DegreeRelative DegreeRelative DegreeRelative Degree of Conflict of Conflict of Conflict of Conflict: Low to moderate. There are very few residences on Bostwick Rd. in the Town, and they are set back from the road and often buffered by trees. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 1,801 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (near #358) JurisdicJurisdicJurisdicJurisdiction: tion: tion: tion: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Long hill into Enfield. Some curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Paved shoulder, varying in width 4) Intersecting roads (Seven Mile Dr, Culver Rd, Sheffield Rd.) controlled with stop sign. Bostwick has a stop sign at Five Mile Dr. Bundy Bundy Bundy Bundy Rd.Rd.Rd.Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Development on Rt. 96 2) Road shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Sheffield Rd. onto Trumansburg Rd (Rt. 96). Local access to residences. Relative Degree of ConflRelative Degree of ConflRelative Degree of ConflRelative Degree of Conflictictictict: Low to moderate. Residences are set back from road in rural setting. Very low traffic volumes. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 376 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph from Rt. 96 to Hopkins Rd; 55 mph from Hopkins Rd. to Sheffield Rd. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (1000’ e. of Hopkins Rd.) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Rolling hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes. 3) Generally narrow shoulder in varying condition 4) Bundy Rd. has stop signs at Trumansburg Rd. and Sheffield Rd. Hopkins Rd. has stop sign at Bundy Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development (inc. Overlook development), hospital, medical offices, City 2) Wide, paved shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connects City to Hospital, Ulysses, Trumansburg, etc. Local access to residences and businesses. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. There are numerous residential and commercial driveways, as well as a hospital, several nursing homes, multiple residence developments, etc. ApproximateApproximateApproximateApproximate Volume Volume Volume Volume: 8,399-8,650 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph from City to Hayts Rd. and 55 mph north of Hayts Rd. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Congestion along corridor; crashes along corridor; need for bike/pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Slight hill from City to approximately Bundy Rd. No curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder 4) Intersecting roads controlled with stop sign, except for traffic light at Harris B. Dates Dr. (Cayuga Medical Center driveway).
60Elm StElm StElm StElm St./ Elm St. Ext./ Poole Rd../ Elm St. Ext./ Poole Rd../ Elm St. Ext./ Poole Rd../ Elm St. Ext./ Poole Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Narrow gravel shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Sheffield Rd. to City. Local access to residences. Relative DeRelative DeRelative DeRelative Degree of Conflictgree of Conflictgree of Conflictgree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Residences are set back from the road in a rural setting. Low traffic volumes. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 476-969 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 40 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (near #124 Poole Rd.) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Steep hills with some curves. 2) 2 lanes. 3) Narrow gravel shoulder 4) Intersecting roads are controlled with stop signs. Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327)Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327)Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327)Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327) Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Treman State Park 2) Wide, paved shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Enfield onto Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. There are few residences and few curb cuts. Residences are set back from the road in a rural setting. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: N/A Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 50 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Currently none. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Long hill leading down to Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13), one moderate “S” curve 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder 4) Int. with Elmira Rd. controlled with stop sign. Entrance to Treman State Park has a stop sign at Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327) Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A) Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A) Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A) Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A) Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR, OpS Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Paved shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) into the West End of the City Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Homes are not very close to the road and driveways are adequately spaced. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 4,350-6,441 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Crashes (at Elmira Rd.); need for bike improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Generally flat with very few curves 2) 2 lanes. Left turn lane at intersection with Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) 3) Generally wide shoulder 4) Traffic signal at Elmira Rd (Rt. 13). Intersecting roads have stop signs.
61Forest Home DrForest Home DrForest Home DrForest Home Dr. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: HIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Cornell University, residential development, student housing, Cornell Plantations, Chapel & community center 2) Walkway on the western portion. Generally narrow shoulder varies in width and condition Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) into Cornell’s campus. Local access for residents. Segment between Judd Falls Rd. & Caldwell Rd. part of north-south circulation. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. Forest Home is a historical district with a high density of development where residences are very close to the road. Traffic volumes in particular conflict with the residential and historical nature of the area. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 5,453 vpd (at downstream bridge); 874 vpd (east of Caldwell Rd) Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 25 mph, rising to 45 mph after residential development ends on the eastern portion of the road Identified Problems:Identified Problems:Identified Problems:Identified Problems: Speeding (various locations); need for bike/ pedestrian improvements; high volumes Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Flat but many curves, one of which is nearly 90o with a very short radius. 2) 2 lanes, except for two one-lane bridges. 3) Generally narrow shoulder that varies in width and condition 4) All way stop signs at Caldwell Rd, Warren Rd, Pleasant Grove Rd, & Judd Falls Rd. Other intersecting roads have stop signs. Hanshaw Rd.Hanshaw Rd.Hanshaw Rd.Hanshaw Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: HIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development, church, commercial (Community Corners - Village of Cayuga Heights) 2) Shoulders, varying in width, condition, and materials. Sidewalks and shoulders are included in the 2007 reconstruction plan. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Route 13 in the Town of Dryden to Northeast Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights, and to Cornell via Triphammer Rd, Warren Rd, & Pleasant Grove Rd; local pedestrian access Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. The scale and density of residential development conflicts with traffic volumes and speeds, especially west of Warren Rd. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 3,519-5,714, depending on location Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 30 mph west of Warren Rd; 40 mph east of Warren Rd. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (especially near #1034); congestion (near Village of Cayuga Heights); need for bike/pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Relatively flat, except for short hill leading down to the Village of Cayuga Heights. Straight. 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder, varying in width, condition, and material. 4) Intersection with Warren Rd. controlled with four-way stop. Intersecting roads have stop signs. Hayts Rd.Hayts Rd.Hayts Rd.Hayts Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Development on Rt. 96 2) Road shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Enfield onto Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96). Local access to residences. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Residences are set back from road in rural setting. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 1,273 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 55 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Currently none. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hill down to Trumansburg Rd. No curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder 4) Stop signs at Rt. 96 & Sheffield Rd. Hopkins Rd. has stop sign at Hayts Rd.
62 Iradell Rd.Iradell Rd.Iradell Rd.Iradell Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, OpS Bike/ PedestrianBike/ PedestrianBike/ PedestrianBike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Destinations & Destinations & Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) None 2) Shoulder, gravel/earth and generally narrow Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feeds traffic from West Hill onto Rt. 96. Local access to residential land uses. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low. Residential development is sparse and set back from the road. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: N/A Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: None posted. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Currently none. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Straight. Uphill towards Town of Enfield. 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder, gravel/earth and generally narrow 4) Stop signs at Sheffield Rd. and Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96) Maple Ave.Maple Ave.Maple Ave.Maple Ave. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: OpS, Edu Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Cornell University, East Hill Plaza 2) Paved shoulder, walkway Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feeds traffic from Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) & Belle Sherman residential neighborhood to Pine Tree Road Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. There is little residential development on the road within the Town. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 2,805 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 30 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Currently none. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Relatively flat with a few gentle curves 2) 2 lanes. Right and left turning lanes at Pine Tree Rd. 3) Paved shoulder 4) Traffic signal at Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366). Stop sign at Pine Tree Rd. Walkway. RidgecrestRidgecrestRidgecrestRidgecrest Rd. Rd. Rd. Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Narrow gravel shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from residential area in Danby onto E. King Rd. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of ConfRelative Degree of ConfRelative Degree of ConfRelative Degree of Conflictlictlictlict: Low to moderate. The residences on Ridgecrest Rd. are set back from the road, and many are buffered by trees. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: N/A Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 55 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Currently none. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hill leading down to E. King Rd. No curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Narrow gravel shoulder 4) Ridgecrest Rd. has a stop sign at E. King Rd.
63Sandbank Rd.Sandbank Rd.Sandbank Rd.Sandbank Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: OpS, Agr Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Very little 2) Narrow gravel shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from South Hill onto Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13). Some local access. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. There are very few residences and few curb cuts. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 975-1138 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 55 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (especially near “S” curve) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Steep hills, some moderate curves, and one very sharp “S” curve. 2) 2 lanes 3) Narrow gravel shoulder 4) Stop sign at Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13). Townline Rd. has stop sign at Sandbank Rd. Snyder HillSnyder HillSnyder HillSnyder Hill Rd. Rd. Rd. Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR, OpS Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development in Eastern Heights, parks, trail 2) Shoulder, varying in condition and width *Snyder Hill Rd. is being reconstructed, and a walkway may be included as part of the project. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Dryden onto Pine Tree Rd. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. The residences are moderately close to the road, and all residences have their own driveways. ApproApproApproApproximate Volumeximate Volumeximate Volumeximate Volume: 872-1,989 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 40 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Need for pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hill down to Pine Tree Rd. Slight curve in one location. 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder, varying in condition and width 4) Intersecting roads have stop signs. Stop sign on Snyder Hill Rd. at Pine Tree Rd. Stone Quarry Rd.Stone Quarry Rd.Stone Quarry Rd.Stone Quarry Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Some residential development 2) Narrow shoulders in some locations. Purpose SerPurpose SerPurpose SerPurpose Servedvedvedved: Feeds traffic from southside neighborhood of the City onto Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. There is little residential development on the road. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 2,730-3,883 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: Northern end is 25 mph. Southern end is 35 mph. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding along length of corridor Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Entire length is a hill leading down into the City. A few gentle curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Narrow shoulder in varying condition 4) Stop sign at W. King Rd. Roundabout at intersection with Albany St, South Cayuga St.., etc. in the City of Ithaca.
64Troy Rd.Troy Rd.Troy Rd.Troy Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development in subdivisions off E. King Rd. 2) Shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Danby and Caroline onto E. King Rd. or Coddington Rd. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Traffic volumes are low and residences are set back in a rural setting. Approximate VoluApproximate VoluApproximate VoluApproximate Volumemememe: 750 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph from Coddington Rd. to E. King Rd. 55 mph south of E. King Rd. Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Potential long-term need for pedestrian improvements to complete the South Hill loop from Coddington Rd. to E. King Rd. and Danby Rd. JurisJurisJurisJurisdiction: diction: diction: diction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Rolling hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Generally narrow gravel shoulder 4) E. King Rd. has stop sign at Troy Rd. Troy Rd. has stop sign at Coddington Rd. West Danby Rd. (Rt. 34/96)West Danby Rd. (Rt. 34/96)West Danby Rd. (Rt. 34/96)West Danby Rd. (Rt. 34/96) Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: OpS, Ind Bike/ PedBike/ PedBike/ PedBike/ Pedestrian Destinations & estrian Destinations & estrian Destinations & estrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) None 2) Wide, paved shoulder. *Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds present significant safety hazards. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feeds traffic from Danby and Spencer into Elmira Rd. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. There is no residential development and only one curb cut in the Town. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 8,600 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 55 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Crashes (between Ithaca-Newfield line & intersection with Rt. 13) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: State GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Slight hill, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder. 4) No intersections. W. King Rd.W. King Rd.W. King Rd.W. King Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: OpS, LIR, Agr Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Buttermilk Falls State Park 2) Shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Feed traffic from Danby onto Stone Quarry Rd. or Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. The few residences are set back from the road, and there are few curb cuts. Traffic volumes are low. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 845-977 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 40 mph Identified ProbIdentified ProbIdentified ProbIdentified Problemslemslemslems: Speeding (near #344) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hills and curves near the entrance to Buttermilk Falls State Park. Moderate hills on the rest of the road. 2) 2 lanes 3) Generally narrow shoulder, except near Rt. 96B where it is four feet wide & paved 4) Stone Quarry Rd. has a stop sign at W. King Rd. Intersection at Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) is controlled with a traffic signal.
65Circumferential RoadsCircumferential RoadsCircumferential RoadsCircumferential Roads Burns Rd.Burns Rd.Burns Rd.Burns Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: OpS, LIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Community Center, residential development 2) Generally narrow shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect South Hill (Coddington Rd.) to East Hill (Slaterville Rd.) across Six Mile Creek. Only Six Mile Creek crossing in Town. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. There is little residential development on Burns Road, except at the ends. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 1,920-2299 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 55 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Need for some type of bike/ pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Rolling hills and many curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Generally narrow shoulder 4) Stop signs at both ends (Coddington Rd. and Slaterville Rd.) Intersection at Coddington Rd. will be reconstructed as part of County’s project on Coddington. Caldwell Rd.Caldwell Rd.Caldwell Rd.Caldwell Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: Edu, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Cornell (North Campus to Vet School), residential development, Cornell Plantations 2) Paved shoulder, variable width Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) to Forest Home Drive. North-south circulation between East Ithaca and Northeast Ithaca via Warren Rd and Pleasant Grove Rd. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. Although there are no residences on Caldwell Rd, the roadway carries relatively high volumes of traffic. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 3,793 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 30 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (near water plant); need for some bike/ pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hill leading down into Forest Home, some curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Paved shoulder, variable width 4) Traffic signal & turning lane at Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366), stop sign at Forest Home Dr. Coy Glen Rd.Coy Glen Rd.Coy Glen Rd.Coy Glen Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: OpS, LIR, HIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Unpaved shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Five Mile Dr. (Inlet Valley) to Elm St. (West Hill) Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. The highest intensity residential development is located on Glenside Rd, off Coy Glen Rd. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: N/A Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 30 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Long-term need for pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hill leading down to Five Mile Dr, only one significant curve 2) 2 lanes 3) Unpaved shoulder 4) Stop signs at Five Mile Dr. and Elm St.
66Culver Rd.Culver Rd.Culver Rd.Culver Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, OpS Bike/ PedestrBike/ PedestrBike/ PedestrBike/ Pedestrian Destinations & ian Destinations & ian Destinations & ian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Generally narrow unpaved shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Bostwick Rd. (Inlet Valley) to Elm St. Ext./ Poole Rd. (West Hill), plus local access for residents. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Traffic volumes are very low, but road goes through the proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 189-266 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 35 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (near #287) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hill leading down to Bostwick Rd, some gentle curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Generally narrow unpaved shoulder 4) Stop sign at Poole Rd/ Elm St. Ext and Bostwick Rd. E. King Rd.E. King Rd.E. King Rd.E. King Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development, Montessori school, commercial development at Danby Rd. and E. King Rd. 2) Shoulder, varying condition and width Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: East-west circulation on South Hill from Coddington Rd. to Danby Rd. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Most of the higher-intensity residential development is located off E. King Rd, for example, Deer Run and Chase Lane developments. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 1,552-2,622 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph (school zone = 30 mph) Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding in school zone; need for bike/ pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hill leading up to Danby Rd, hill leading down to Troy Rd. and Coddington Rd. Few curves. 2) 2 lanes. 3) Shoulder, varying condition and width 4) Traffic signal at Danby Rd, stop sign at Troy Rd. Game Farm Rd.Game Farm Rd.Game Farm Rd.Game Farm Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: OpS, LIR, Ag Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) East Ithaca Recreation Way, Cornell University 2) Shoulder, varying width & condition Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connects Ellis Hollow Rd. to Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366); access to agricultural & residential areas Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low. There is little residential development on the road. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: N/A Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: None posted Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Currently none. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town/ County/ Town of Dryden GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Straight with some hills 2) 2 lanes. Narrower at bridge 3) Shoulder, varying width & condition 4) Stop signs at Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) & Ellis Hollow Rd. Intersecting roads have stop signs.
67Honness La.Honness La.Honness La.Honness La. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: HIR Bike/ Bike/ Bike/ Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Pedestrian Destinations & Pedestrian Destinations & Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development, church, trail, commercial development at East Hill Plaza 2) Shoulder. Eastern portion has a walkway. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connection between Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79) and Pine Tree Rd, plus local access on the road and access to subdivisions off the road. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. While homes are set back from the road and driveways are spaced out, there is a significant amount of non-local traffic. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 1,724 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 35 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Need for bike/ pedestrian improvements from Recreation Way to Rt. 79 Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Short hill leading down to Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79). Straight. 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder, mostly paved, generally wide, varying in condition. 4) Stop signs at Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79) and Pine Tree Rd. Intersection roads have stop signs. Hopkins Rd.Hopkins Rd.Hopkins Rd.Hopkins Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: Ops, LIR Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities:Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) Overlook residential development, Hospital 2) Unpaved, generally narrow shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Alternate connection (besides Trumansburg Rd) between Hayts and Bundy Roads. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Little development, likely low volumes. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: N/A Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 55 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Currently none Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Relatively flat, no curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Unpaved, generally narrow shoulder 4) Stop signs at Bundy and Hayts Roads Judd Falls Rd.Judd Falls Rd.Judd Falls Rd.Judd Falls Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: Edu, HIR, OpS Bike/ PedeBike/ PedeBike/ PedeBike/ Pedestrian Destinations & strian Destinations & strian Destinations & strian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Cornell, residential development, Plantations 2) Paved shoulder, variable width. Multi-use path from intersection with Campus Rd. to Rt. 366. Walkway from Campus Rd. to Forest Home Dr. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) to Forest Home Drive. North-south circulation between East Ithaca and Northeast Ithaca via Warren Rd and Pleasant Grove Rd. Residential access. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. Residences have small setbacks, there is a high density of driveways, and traffic volumes are relatively high. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 6,057-6,247 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 30 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (north of Plantations Rd.); high traffic volumes Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hills down to Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366), & Forest Home Dr. Very few curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Paved shoulder with curbing at northern end 4) Stop sign with flashing red light at Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366), all-way stop (with sign) at Forest Home Dr, Tower Rd, and Campus Rd.
68Pleasant Grove Rd.Pleasant Grove Rd.Pleasant Grove Rd.Pleasant Grove Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: HIR, LIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Cornell University, residential development, Community Corners 2) Walkway from Cradit Farm Dr. to Community Corners in Village of Cayuga Heights. Wide, paved shoulder within Town. Narrower shoulder of varying condition in Village. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Forest Home Dr. and Hanshaw Rd. North-south circulation. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. Within the Town of Ithaca, there is not that much residential development, but in the Village of Cayuga Heights, residential development may be affected by traffic volumes. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 6,162 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 30 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (especially downhill); congestion at intersection with Hanshaw Rd. (Village of Cayuga Heights) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Steep hill & moderate curve leading down into Forest Home at southern end; otherwise, straight with a few rolling hills. 2) 2 lanes 3) Walkway and shoulders except on southern end 4) All way stop (with stop signs) at Forest Home Dr. Stop sign at Hanshaw Rd. Intersecting roads have stop signs. Pine Tree Rd.Pine Tree Rd.Pine Tree Rd.Pine Tree Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: HIR, LIR, Com, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential and commercial development (including grocery store, restaurants), Reis Tennis Center 2) Paved shoulder, varying in width. Walkway from Snyder Hill Rd. to Ellis Hollow Rd. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Slaterville Rd. (Southeast Ithaca) to Rt. 366/ Dryden Rd. (East Ithaca). North-south circulation on East Hill. Residential access. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Moderate to high. While most residences are concentrated at the southern end of the road and are set back from the road, traffic volumes are high, there are no dedicated pedestrian facilities, & there are many driveways. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 4,686-6,862 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 35 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Congestion (most of corridor); poor LOS at intersections with Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) & Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79); crashes (especially between Snyder Hill Rd. & Mitchell St.); need for bike/pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hills down to Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79), & Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366), few curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder, some sections are paved, some are a combination of paved & gravel, generally wide with some narrow sections 4) Stop sign with flashing red light at Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79). Same, plus all-way stop and turning lanes, at Dryden Rd. Traffic signal at Ellis Hollow Rd. Other intersecting roads have stop signs.
69SevSevSevSeven Mile Dr.en Mile Dr.en Mile Dr.en Mile Dr. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, HIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Some residential development 2) Moderately wide paved shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Bostwick Rd. to Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13). Parallel route to Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A). Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Low intensity residential development is set back off road or on small subdivision roads off Seven Mile Dr. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 719 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 45 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Sight distance at Rt. 13 intersection Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Relatively flat, few curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Moderately wide paved shoulder 4) Stop signs at Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) and Bostwick Rd. Intersecting roads have stop signs. Warren Rd.Warren Rd.Warren Rd.Warren Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, OpS (south of Hanshaw Rd.). Edu, HIR (north of Hanshaw Rd.) Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Cornell University, residential development, schools, medical center (Village of Lansing) 2) Paved shoulders with bicycle and pedestrian signs north of Hanshaw Rd. South of Hanshaw Rd, relatively narrow paved shoulders. Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connects Forest Home Dr. to Hanshaw Rd. (both feeder roads). Local access to residences. North-south circulation on East Hill. Residential access. Relative Degree of ConflRelative Degree of ConflRelative Degree of ConflRelative Degree of Conflictictictict: Moderate to high. South of Hanshaw Rd, there is little residential development fronting on the road until near the hill in Forest Home. North of Hanshaw Rd, residences front on the road and there is a school zone. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 4.163 vpd SpeeSpeeSpeeSpeed Limitd Limitd Limitd Limit: 30 mph, except for school zone Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Speeding (500’ north of Fairway Dr.); need for pedestrian improvements; high traffic volumes Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: County GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hill in Forest Home neighborhood. Otherwise, flat and straight. 2) 2 lanes, except for turn lanes at Rt. 13 in the Village of Lansing. 3) South of Hanshaw Rd, shoulder is relatively narrow paved strip plus gravel on the outside. North of Hanshaw, there are wide, paved shoulders. 4) Traffic signals at Rt. 13 & Uptown Rd. in the Village of Lansing. All-way stop at intersections with Hanshaw Rd. and Forest Home Dr. Other connecting roads have stop signs. West Haven Rd.West Haven Rd.West Haven Rd.West Haven Rd. Adjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land UsesAdjacent Land Uses: LIR, OpS, Ag Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities:Facilities:Facilities:Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Gravel shoulder Purpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose ServedPurpose Served: Connect Elm St/ Elm St. Ext. to Mecklenburg Rd. North-south circulation on West Hill. Relative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of ConflictRelative Degree of Conflict: Low to moderate. Residences are set back and traffic volumes are very low. Approximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate VolumeApproximate Volume: 347-405 vpd Speed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed LimitSpeed Limit: 40 mph Identified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified ProblemsIdentified Problems: Currently none Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Town GeometricsGeometricsGeometricsGeometrics: 1) Hill leading down to Elm St/ Elm St. Ext. Straight. 2) 2 lanes 3) Gravel shoulder 4) Stop signs at Elm St/ Elm St. Ext. and Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79)
70
SubdivSubdivSubdivSubdivision Access Roadsision Access Roadsision Access Roadsision Access Roads
The primary purposes of subdivision access roads are to provide direct access to homes fronting on the
road and to provide indirect access to homes located on other roads within the development that connect
to the subdivision access road. Subdivision access roads are two lane roads with low design speeds.
When a speed limit is posted, it is generally 30 mph or less. In general, they have low traffic volumes,
although some roads that connect large residential developments to high volume through-roads may
have higher traffic volumes. Subdivision access roads must be designed to protect quality of life for
residents of the road, while allowing residents who live inside the residential development to reach their
homes. Sidewalks or walkways are appropriate on subdivision access roads, especially in suburban
areas.
Examples of this type of road, the residential roads for which they provide access, and the development
name (where relevant) include, but are not limited to:
• Woodgate La & Drew Rd: Vera Circle, Max’s Dr.
• Chase La: Lagrand Ct.
• Whitetail Dr: Saranac Way, Teton Ct, Marcy Ct. (Deer Run development)
• Southwoods Dr: Eldridge Cir, Old Gorge Rd. (Southwoods development)
• Park La: John St, Tudor Rd, Eastern Heights Dr, Joanne Dr, Landmark Dr, Sharlene Rd, Regency
La. (Eastern Heights development)
• Wildflower Dr. & Harwick Rd: Strawberry Hill Cir.
• Terraceview Dr. & Towerview Dr: Sunnyview La, Westview La.
• Muriel St & Salem Dr: Rose Hill Rd, Tareyton Dr, Winston Dr, Winston Cir, Deerfield Pl, Salem Dr,
Birchwood Dr, Sycamore Dr, Maplewood Dr, Pinewood Pl, Briarwood Dr. (Northeast development,
east of Warren Rd.)
• Sapsucker Woods Rd: Sanctuary Dr.
• Winthrop Dr, Christopher La, & Blackstone Ave: Sandra Pl, Simsbury Dr, Brandywine Dr,
Christopher La, Christopher Cir, Sienna Dr, Blackstone Ave, St. Catherine Cir, Burleigh Dr,
Lexington Dr, Concord Pl (Northeast development, west of Warren Rd.)
Internal Subdivision RoadsInternal Subdivision RoadsInternal Subdivision RoadsInternal Subdivision Roads
The primary purpose of an internal subdivision road is to provide local access directly to homes, generally
without connecting to major through-roads. The exceptions to this generalization are cul-de-sacs and loop
roads, which, for the purposes of this discussion, have been included in this category because they
generally do not provide access to other residential roads. Internal subdivision roads generally have
lower traffic volumes than subdivision access roads. Like subdivision access roads, they are two lane
roads designed for speeds of 30 mph or less. Internal subdivision roads should be designed to protect
the quality of life in the neighborhood by calming traffic to slow speeds and designing the road to be as
minimally intrusive as possible.
Examples of this type of road in the Town include, but are not limited to, the following: Grove Rd, Helen’s
Way, Glenside Rd, Peachtree La, Sesame St, Northview Rd, Strawberry Hill Cir, Dove Dr, Fairway Dr,
Tareyton Dr, Christopher Cir.
71
AAAAUTO UTO UTO UTO AAAALTERNATIVESLTERNATIVESLTERNATIVESLTERNATIVES
The State Highways and County and Town Roadways Chapter emphasized the need to expand options for
alternates to the privately-owned, low-occupancy motor vehicle. Use of alternate modes protects public
health, reduces congestion, increases the quality of life in residential areas, protects the natural
environment (by keeping air clean, conserving fossil fuels, reducing wear-and-tear on the roads,
decreasing the amount of run-off by reducing impervious cover associated with roads and parking lots,
preserving open space by avoiding the need to build new roads, and so on), and provides reasonable
transportation options for the young, old, disabled, and low income.
This Chapter considers the two main alternatives to privately-owned, low-occupancy motor vehicles: public
transit and non-motorized transportation (bicycling and walking).
BBBBUSUSUSUS TTTTRANSITRANSITRANSITRANSIT ANDANDANDAND PPPPARATRANSITARATRANSITARATRANSITARATRANSIT
Public transit and paratransit serve travel needs within the Town of
Ithaca and between the Town and other municipalities. Public
transit modes can include bus, van, or light rail. Light rail passenger
service does not exist within Tompkins County; bus service is the
main form of public transit in the area (provided by Tompkins
Consolidated Area Transit, or TCAT). The Community Transportation
Association defines paratransit as
types of passenger transportation that are more flexible than conventional fixed-route transit but
more structured than the use of private automobiles. Paratransit includes demand-response
transportation services, subscription bus services, shared-ride taxis, car pooling and vanpooling,
jitney services and so on. Most often refers to wheelchair-accessible, demand-response van
service.41
In the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County, the ADA service provided through the Tompkins Consolidated
Area Transit and Gadabout (a private not-for-profit organization) serve the elderly and disabled with door-
to-door, demand-responsive service.
InventoryInventoryInventoryInventory
This inventory describes the services of TCAT and Gadabout, bus travel between Ithaca and other
municipalities, and multi-modal options that involve transit.
41 CTAA, “Public and Community Transportation…”
Paratransit: a public form of
transportation that is adjusted to meet
individual needs. Paratransit is more
flexible than fixed-route bus service
but more structured than the use of
private automobiles.
72
TCATCATCATCAT: Tompkins Consolidated Area TransitT: Tompkins Consolidated Area TransitT: Tompkins Consolidated Area TransitT: Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit
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 independent but cooperative agencies, the City of Ithaca (Ithaca Transit, founded 1962),
Tompkins County (TomTran, founded 1981), and Cornell University (CU Transit, founded 1966). 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.
In 2006, TCAT served over three million riders (via TCAT’s and Gadabout’s routes; see “Paratransit:
Transportation for Special Needs” below for information about Gadabout). TCAT and Gadabout buses
and vans traveled nearly two million miles per year. TCAT currently owns 48 buses and contracts 10
buses through a subcontrator to operate routes in outlying rural areas. These 58 buses operate TCAT’s
40 fixed routes throughout the county. Routes change regularly based on need. Currently, TCAT’s fares
are $1.50 for adults, $1.25 for youth, and $0.75 for seniors.42 TCAT offers monthly and yearly passes; for
frequent riders, these passes can provide substantial savings. TCAT also contracts with Cornell University
and Ithaca College to craft special offers for students, faculty, and staff to encourage them to use transit.
Table 14 below summarizes select destinations within the Town of Ithaca and the TCAT routes that serve
them, current as of spring 2007.
Table 14: TCAT Routes Serving the Town of Ithaca
RouteRouteRouteRoute Origin/ Destination/ CorridorOrigin/ Destination/ CorridorOrigin/ Destination/ CorridorOrigin/ Destination/ Corridor
11 Ithaca College
14 Linderman Creek
15 Buttermilk Falls State Park
19 & 21 Cayuga Medical Center, Route 96 corridor
20 EcoVillage, Route 79 corridor
31 Northeast neighborhood, Sapsucker Woods
36 East Shore Drive (Rt. 34) corridor
37 DeWitt Middle and Northeast Elementary Schools, BOCES, Forest Home neighborhood
40 & 41 Hanshaw Road
44 Northeast neighborhood, Hanshaw Road
50 Eastern Heights neighborhood, East Hill Plaza, Honness Lane, Maplewood Apartments
51 Mitchell Street, East Hill Plaza
52 Slaterville Road
53 East Hill Plaza, Ellis Hollow Road
60 Coddington Road
65 Danby Road (Rt. 96B)
67 Elmira Road (Rt. 13)
42 TCAT, “Frequently Asked Questions”
73
Paratransit: Transportation for Special NeedsParatransit: Transportation for Special NeedsParatransit: Transportation for Special NeedsParatransit: Transportation for Special Needs
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires public transit operators to offer equal services
for those with disabilities. All of TCAT’s buses are “kneeling” buses that sink to the curb to allow easy
access for those with limited mobility. For patrons using wheelchairs, some TCAT buses are also
equipped with wheelchair lifts and reserved seats in the front of the bus that fold up to make space for a
wheelchair. TCAT offers hailing cards and large-print schedules for the visually impaired.
For persons unable to get to a bus stop, Gadabout offers door-to-door paratransit for the same areas and
hours of regular TCAT service.
Gadabout, a not-for-profit private service, is the primary paratransit provider for the Town of Ithaca and
Tompkins County. Gadabout serves this population by providing vans specially equipped for wheelchairs
and with 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.
Founded in 1976 with just one bus, the Gadabout service has grown to 26 small buses, which provide an
average of 60,000 rides per year, traveling over 330,000 miles.43 To request a ride, patrons call a local
number (607-277-1878) the morning before the day of the trip.
In 2005, the Town provided $11,600 in funding to Gadabout for services to Town residents.
Bus Travel Between Ithaca and Other MunicipalitiesBus Travel Between Ithaca and Other MunicipalitiesBus Travel Between Ithaca and Other MunicipalitiesBus Travel Between Ithaca and Other Municipalities
Three private companies—Shortline, Greyhound, and Trailways—provide bus service between the Ithaca
metropolitan area and other metropolitan areas. Every day, between 27 and 30 intercity buses serve the
Ithaca area.44 According to a 2001 study by Dwight Mengel and Sara Rakaczky, “The intercity operators
have estimated that 179,000 people per year use the Ithaca bus station. Of those, 133,000 were arriving
or departing passengers. 46,000 passengers transferred to another bus.”45 This indicates that buses
carry a significant amount of travel between the Ithaca metropolitan area and other municipalities.
In addition, Cornell University operates “Campus-to-Campus,” a bus service that connects the Cornell
campus in Ithaca to Cornell Weill Medical Center and the Cornell Club in New York City. During the
academic year, one or two buses per day leave in each direction. The buses are outfitted with wireless
internet, hot and cold taps in the lavatory, a kitchenette, and comfortable seats. Although restricted to
those with a Cornell connection (employee, student, or family member), the service is very popular, and it
serves an important role in connecting Cornell’s Ithaca and New York City campuses.
43 Szudzik, Christine, “Gadabout Gets…”
44 Mengel & Rakaczky, “The Inter-City…”
45 Ibid.
74
MultiMultiMultiMulti----Modal OpportunitiesModal OpportunitiesModal OpportunitiesModal Opportunities
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. TCAT began outfitting its buses
with bike racks in 1996 as part of the BobCat program (the “Bob”
portion stands for “bikes on buses”). The bike racks hold two
bicycles each and are easy to operate. They capture transit rides
from people who otherwise wouldn’t consider biking because of Ithaca’s hilly terrain. The racks are very
popular—they now sit on the front of every TCAT bus—and the program has become the most successful
multi-modal effort in the county. Park-and-Ride lots across the County capture commuters to Ithaca from
outlying rural areas. As of summer 2004, TCAT has routes running past fourteen 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).
AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis
The greatest concentration and frequency of public transit service is in the City of Ithaca and on the
Cornell campus. Many Town residents expressed a desire for greater transit coverage in the 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. Currently, routes through West Hill and South Hill only run on major state and county roads.
This puts bus stops too far away from many homes for many residents to use.
As development on West Hill continues, the current level of transit provision will probably become
inadequate. For example, the senior and subsidized apartments in Linderman Creek have tenants who
are more likely to need transit services. As of August 2006, Linderman Creek was served by Route 14,
which runs to the Commons every half hour on weekdays and every hour on weekends. Linderman Creek
residents also have the option of walking to the entrance of EcoVillage at Rt. 79 to take the Rt. 20 to the
Commons. When the development is fully built out, the current level of service provision will probably be
inadequate.
Of the fourteen Park-and-Ride lots in the County, none are located within the Town of Ithaca. Many Town
residents who would like to travel to the City of Ithaca drive because no transit route stops close enough
to their home. Once the individual is in their car, they are more likely to drive all the way in to the City
than to drive to the nearest bus stop, park in an undesignated area, and ride the bus to the City. The lack
of designated, well-publicized, multi-modal transportation Park-and-Ride hubs may also discourage
residents from bicycling to the nearest Park-and-Ride lot, where they would have the option of safely
storing their bicycles in a covered, secure area or taking their bicycle with them on BobCat buses. Thus,
residents often drive into the City due to the lack of better transportation choices.
TCAT connects neighboring municipalities within Tompkins County. Routes run to Trumansburg, Lansing,
Dryden, Groton, Caroline, Newfield, and Danby. Most of the routes run to the Ithaca Commons, which
acts as a transportation hub where patrons can change buses. Service to outlying communities in
Multi-modal transportation:
using two or more modes to get to
your destination. For example,
walking to a bus stop and then taking
the bus is a simple multi-modal trip.
75
Tompkins County runs infrequently—every few hours—and service stops early in the evening. (Ride Tioga,
the public transit provider of neighboring Tioga County, provides twice daily service between Cornell and
Owego, and Cornell and Waverly.) Also, the number of Park-and-Ride lots in municipalities outside of the
Town of Ithaca is inadequate to be a viable choice of transportation for most County residents.
In short, since residents in outlying areas must travel through the Town of Ithaca to get to the City of
Ithaca and Cornell University, the lack of County 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.
The Volume Data section noted that a moderate reduction in the number of vehicles on a road could lead
to a big reduction in congestion. In the demonstration below, 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 could have on congestion levels.46
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
This section has outlined the importance of transit in the region’s transportation system. The discussion
of traffic volumes and congestion explained that transit likely will become more and more important
controlling traffic volumes and congestion in the Town. Therefore, transit needs to remain a vital part of Therefore, transit needs to remain a vital part of Therefore, transit needs to remain a vital part of Therefore, transit needs to remain a vital part of
the region’s multithe region’s multithe region’s multithe region’s multi----modal systemmodal systemmodal systemmodal system.
46 Beamguard, 1999.
76
To this end, the Town needs to work with TCAT to ensure that locations and residents most in need of the Town needs to work with TCAT to ensure that locations and residents most in need of the Town needs to work with TCAT to ensure that locations and residents most in need of the Town needs to work with TCAT to ensure that locations and residents most in need of
transit are well servedtransit are well servedtransit are well servedtransit are well served. Transit service to areas of West and South Hills is not extensive, and as
development on South and West Hills increases, the demand and need for transit will increase
dramatically.
Transit needs to serve many types of customers, and the Town and TCAT need to work on improvements Transit needs to serve many types of customers, and the Town and TCAT need to work on improvements Transit needs to serve many types of customers, and the Town and TCAT need to work on improvements Transit needs to serve many types of customers, and the Town and TCAT need to work on improvements
for all cfor all cfor all cfor all customer segmentsustomer segmentsustomer segmentsustomer segments. For example, youth and students often do not have licenses or cars. Many
elderly residents depend on Gadabout. Bicyclists & pedestrians benefit from bus shelters and bike racks.
Park-and-Ride is a good opportunity for commuters living in rural areas to take advantage of TCAT’s
services. The lack of Park-and-Ride facilities located in high-density outlying areas leads rural residents to
drive the whole way into the City, increasing the amount of traffic in the Town.
As noted in the first paragraph of the Analysis, transit provision is difficult in some areas of the Town due
to widespread, low-density development. The Town needs to encourage land use patterns and The Town needs to encourage land use patterns and The Town needs to encourage land use patterns and The Town needs to encourage land use patterns and
development designs that do not preclude future transportation options.development designs that do not preclude future transportation options.development designs that do not preclude future transportation options.development designs that do not preclude future transportation options. For example, the Town could
consider amending the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulations to encourage alternative land use
patterns and zoning, such as development that channels residents into hamlets, or centers of population,
separated by open space. This will help the Town to preserve its “rural” feel, while also permitting
residents on the outskirts to live in a place that is serviceable by transit.
Finally, the recommendations to meet these needs must allow TCAT to remain economically solventFinally, the recommendations to meet these needs must allow TCAT to remain economically solventFinally, the recommendations to meet these needs must allow TCAT to remain economically solventFinally, the recommendations to meet these needs must allow TCAT to remain economically solvent. To
this end, the Town may need to provide funding to TCAT in order to maintain or enhance vital services.
BBBBICYCLEICYCLEICYCLEICYCLE ANDANDANDAND PPPPEDESTRIANEDESTRIANEDESTRIANEDESTRIAN FFFFACILITIESACILITIESACILITIESACILITIES
This section examines the current non-motorized transportation system, analyzes the role of bicycling and
walking in the travel of residents, and identifies weaknesses in the non-motorized transportation system.
Before there were cars, before there were carriages, and even before horses were domesticated,
mankind used the simplest means of travel—walking. Walking is a natural human activity that toddlers
learn before their second birthday. Even during an age when personal helicopters are a possibility, the
able-bodied use their feet for short trips, like to the fridge to get milk or to the copy room to grab a
printout. Many still choose to walk to close destinations, instead of driving, or to walk as a recreational
activity. The disabled or mobility-impaired (for example, an elderly man who must use a cane) can enjoy
the benefits of walking where pedestrian facilities are constructed according to the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
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).47 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
47 USDA, undated
77
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 the
sidewalks, next to shopping and social opportunities. The option of using a non-motorized mode provides
a real choice for residents and visitors.
InventoryInventoryInventoryInventory
The four main types of non-motorized transportation infrastructure are: dedicated pedestrian facilities
such as sidewalks, walkways, paths, and pedestrian bridges; 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 paved roadway shoulders, which are multi-use spaces that can be used for
walking, biking, motor vehicle parking, emergency stops by motor vehicles, and so on. In many rural
areas, it is impractical to provide dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the road corridor; instead,
paved roadway shoulders take the place of sidewalks and bike lanes. Multi-use trails are another option
for rural areas.
As of 2006, the Town of Ithaca has approximately 11 miles of walkways within its jurisdiction, including
the William and Hannah Pew Trail on East Hill, which is expected to be
completed in 2007. 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 maintenance.
Currently, the Town does not have an accurate inventory of crosswalks
or bridges with pedestrian or bicyclist accommodations in the Town of
Ithaca.
Besides the bike lanes on some of the roads on the Cornell campus, there are no dedicated bicycle-only
facilities in the Town. Most State and County roads have sufficient shoulder width to encourage bicycle
use. As noted in the “Bus Transit and Paratransit” section, TCAT offers bicyclists the option of carrying
their bicycles on a rack in front of the bus while they ride. This service helps to overcome problems
associated with Ithaca’s hilly terrain, which discourages all but the hardiest from cycling in many areas.
Two of the longest multi-use trails (for pedestrians, bicyclists, and horse riders) owned and maintained by
the Town are the East Ithaca and South Hill Recreation Ways. The East Ithaca Recreation Way connects
the neighborhoods near Pine Tree Rd and Honness Lane with the City of Ithaca. The trail also extends
from the City of Ithaca north of East Hill Plaza to Game Farm Road. The South Hill Recreation Way runs
from Burns Road to the City of Ithaca, parallel to Coddington Road. The East Ithaca Recreation Way is
plowed during the winter months to allow year-round access. The South Hill Recreation Way is not plowed
and is popular with cross-country skiers. These trails serve multiple functions: they allow people to
exercise and enjoy Ithaca’s natural beauty, while also providing important pedestrian linkages between
destinations. Map 10 in Volume II, Appendix I shows existing trails and parks in the Town of Ithaca.
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
According to the existing
Interim Sidewalk Policy, the
Town owns and maintains
walkways. Private property
owners own and maintain
sidewalks.
78
Parks; and the 500 mile long Finger Lakes Trail hiking path which passes through the southern portion of
the Town.”48 These paths generally serve recreational, and not transportation, needs. The ITCTC has
examined a series of seventeen trail corridors that could potentially become part of a countywide trail
system by linking together existing trails or centers of development.49 This network of interconnected
trails would provide the opportunity for non-motorized travel (walking, biking, and hiking) between centers
of population through scenic natural areas. The Council’s report concluded that a trail system in the
northeast portion of the County would serve the greatest number of county residents while connecting
existing trails.
AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis
Non-motorized modes of transportation play a significant role in the transportation system of the Town of
Ithaca. As discussed previously, the 2000 Census indicates that more than one in five Town residents get
to work by walking (many of these residents are students, professors, and staff traveling to Ithaca College
or Cornell University). The 2003 Town Transportation Survey summarized in the Transportation Profile
section found that 9% of individuals in responding households use a bicycle for transportation purposes—
not necessarily to commute to work—while nearly one in three cycle for recreation.
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 available.
A 2002 study examined 4.75 miles of Town-owned walkways and found that sixty percent do not meet
ADA standards.50 The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities
(ADAAG) resulting from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is the official guide of the
NYSDOT for the design of pedestrian facilities. For pedestrians, the ADAAG recommends five-foot wide
sidewalks, driveways that are not difficult to cross, no missing sections or obstacles, and sufficient
vertical clearance, among other characteristics.
Town-owned, non-motorized facilities such as the South Hill Recreation Way and the East Ithaca
Recreation Way are multi-use trails, which introduces the potential for conflict between faster moving
bicycles and slower moving pedestrians. As previously mentioned, shoulders are available for bicyclists
on some State and County roads. Unfortunately, the roads with shoulders are generally roads with high
volumes and speeds of vehicular traffic. On all other roadways, bicyclists share lanes with motorists.
While this is appropriate for experienced bicyclists, shared lanes are less desirable for young or
inexperienced bicyclists, especially on high volume, high speed roadways.
Many area residents walk and bike for recreational purposes. In many cases, recreation facilities can
also serve transportation purposes, if the trail connects two destinations and follows a more direct route
than other available paths. The natural beauty of the Finger Lakes region creates very special and
enjoyable opportunities for non-motorized travel.
48 Town of Ithaca, 1997
49 Planning/ Environmental Research Consultants and Kennedy-Yager Associates, 1996
50 Varricchione, 2003, p. 12
79
As noted above, the ITCTC has identified corridors in the northeast part of the County that would serve a
sizeable population for both transportation and recreation. Two corridors considered in the report run
through the Town of Ithaca (the East Shore Corridor, along the east shore of Cayuga Lake, and the Snyder
Hill Corridor, in the southeastern area of the Town). The Town and the City are currently in the process of
applying for a grant to connect the Black Diamond Trail, on the western side of the City of Ithaca, to the
South Hill Recreation Way, south of the City, via the pedestrian bridge across Route 13. In addition,
anticipated growth on West Hill and increasing traffic volumes on West Hill roads indicate a need for a
new east-west bicycle and pedestrian corridor that would connect to the City of Ithaca.
There are several existing policies and plans relating to bicycle and pedestrian issues in the area. The
Town of Ithaca has an interim policy concerning the design, maintenance, and conditions under which
new sidewalks can be constructed (adopted October 23, 2003, see Appendix V). The Transportation/
Trail Corridor Study of 1996, the NESTS (Northeast Subarea Transportation Study) of 1999, the City of
Ithaca’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan of 1997, and Tompkins County’s Comprehensive Plan of 2004 all
deal with bicycle and pedestrian transportation issues.
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
It is clear that infrastructure for non-motorized travel in the Town of Ithaca is not adequate for the current
extent of development in the Town. As development continues, this lack will grow from an annoyance to a
very serious problem; residents will either be captive to the automobile or be put into an unsafe situation
as a pedestrian or bicyclist.
The existing Sidewalk Policy was adopted in 2003 with the understanding that it would be revisited and
revised as needed. There is no policy that guides the provision of bicycle facilities. The Town of Ithaca The Town of Ithaca The Town of Ithaca The Town of Ithaca
needs to revise the Sidewalk Policy, perhaps expanding it to include bicycle issues, to guide the needs to revise the Sidewalk Policy, perhaps expanding it to include bicycle issues, to guide the needs to revise the Sidewalk Policy, perhaps expanding it to include bicycle issues, to guide the needs to revise the Sidewalk Policy, perhaps expanding it to include bicycle issues, to guide the
development of an appropriate, costdevelopment of an appropriate, costdevelopment of an appropriate, costdevelopment of an appropriate, cost----effective noneffective noneffective noneffective non----motorized travel network that meets all standardsmotorized travel network that meets all standardsmotorized travel network that meets all standardsmotorized travel network that meets all standards. As
in the existing policy, the revised policy should encourage or require developers to provide sidewalks as
an integral aspect of a new development—as important to the safety, livability, and mobility of residents
as roads designed for motor vehicles. Similarly, the policy should include provisions for retrofitting
sidewalks and/or bike infrastructure into existing road ROWs.
Besides the need for policy changes, the Town needs athe Town needs athe Town needs athe Town needs a work plan that shows where facilities are needed work plan that shows where facilities are needed work plan that shows where facilities are needed work plan that shows where facilities are needed
and which locations are priorities for provisionand which locations are priorities for provisionand which locations are priorities for provisionand which locations are priorities for provision. Appendix VI proposes criteria for identifying and
prioritizing locations in need of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. For pedestrians, the highest
priority needs are located in areas of medium-density residential development, areas with pedestrian
traffic generators, and areas with high traffic volumes.
In addition to identifying and prioritizing locations that need bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure, the Town
needs to establish guidelines that outline appropriate types of bicycle or pedestrian facilities for various
situations. Thus, the Town needs a set of bicycle and pedestrian facility design guidelinesThus, the Town needs a set of bicycle and pedestrian facility design guidelinesThus, the Town needs a set of bicycle and pedestrian facility design guidelinesThus, the Town needs a set of bicycle and pedestrian facility design guidelines. As previously
noted, many existing Town-owned walkways are not ADA compliant. The Town should strive totototo make its make its make its make its
pedestrian facilities ADA comppedestrian facilities ADA comppedestrian facilities ADA comppedestrian facilities ADA compliant liant liant liant wherever possible in order to be accessible to everyone.
80
In order to serve long distance non-motorized travel, the area needs a regional multi-use trail system. The
implementation of a countywide trail system would allow hikers and bicyclists to enjoy a trip through
some of the most beautiful areas of the United States, and would serve as a long-distance non-motorized
transportation corridor leading to the cultural and social capital of the County. The Town needs to The Town needs to The Town needs to The Town needs to
continue to participate in the econtinue to participate in the econtinue to participate in the econtinue to participate in the efforts to expand the trail network in the Townfforts to expand the trail network in the Townfforts to expand the trail network in the Townfforts to expand the trail network in the Town, including the Gateway Trail
and the Black Diamond Trail.
As previously discussed, the City and County are also working to improve bicycling and walking conditions
in the region. In the interest of crafting a seamless, consistent network, the Town needs to build upon the Town needs to build upon the Town needs to build upon the Town needs to build upon
and complement the City’s and County’s works. and complement the City’s and County’s works. and complement the City’s and County’s works. and complement the City’s and County’s works. In particular, the Town needs to work with the City to
expand infrastructure for bicyclists and pedestrians on West Hill.expand infrastructure for bicyclists and pedestrians on West Hill.expand infrastructure for bicyclists and pedestrians on West Hill.expand infrastructure for bicyclists and pedestrians on West Hill.
AAAADDITIONAL DDITIONAL DDITIONAL DDITIONAL TTTTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION OOOOPTIONSPTIONSPTIONSPTIONS
PPPPASSENGERASSENGERASSENGERASSENGER AAAAIRIRIRIR ANDANDANDAND RRRRAILAILAILAIL TTTTRAVELRAVELRAVELRAVEL
Long distance passenger transportation is important to the economic vitality of the Tompkins County
area. Currently, long distance trips originating in or destined for the Tompkins County area are made via
private motor vehicle, bus (described in the “Bus Transit and Paratransit” Section of this Volume), and
airplane. Currently, there is no passenger rail travel in Tompkins County. The closest Amtrak station is in
Syracuse.
This subsection describes the air travel options available in the region and realistically concludes that
there is little the Town can do to directly affect the long distance travel options in the area.
Inventory and AnalysisInventory and AnalysisInventory and AnalysisInventory and Analysis
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 from Ithaca
by car 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.
A division of the Department of Public Works of Tompkins County has operated the Ithaca-Tompkins
Regional Airport since 1956, when it purchased the East Hill Airport from Cornell University.51 It has the
longest paved public runway in the county (6601 feet) and boasts a 33,000 square foot terminal. The
number of passengers served by the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport increased 25% in the fifteen years
between 1985 and 2000, but dropped in 2001 due to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
In 2005, the airport served over 158,000 passengers, with over 56,000 total takeoffs and landings.52 As
51 Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, “Airport Facts.”
52 Rudy, 2006
81
of early September 2006, there were 12 daily commercial flights departing from the Ithaca-Tompkins
Regional Airport.53 USAirways runs daily flights to Philadelphia and La Guardia International Airport, New
York City. Northwest Air operates daily flights from Ithaca to Detroit, which provides travelers to the
Midwest and West a convenient layover point.
The Ithaca Airport has weathered service and cost woes over the past few years. For several years,
USAirways was the only constant service provider. USAirways has been in financial jeopardy for a number
of years, so its continued operation cannot be assured. Continental Airlines provided service between
Ithaca and John F. Kennedy International Airport for just seven months in 2000-2001.54 USAirways used
to provide flights to Pittsburgh, but due to low yield, the flights were discontinued.
Identification of Needs/ Recognition of LimitationsIdentification of Needs/ Recognition of LimitationsIdentification of Needs/ Recognition of LimitationsIdentification of Needs/ Recognition of Limitations
The problems facing air travel in Tompkins County are those one would expect any small, regional airport
to face: high costs and low revenue. The Town of Ithaca recognizes that providing this public good is
important. Because there is very little that the Town can do to directly affect the development of air travel
in the County, the Town will continue to support regional efforts to make air travel from the IthacaTown will continue to support regional efforts to make air travel from the IthacaTown will continue to support regional efforts to make air travel from the IthacaTown will continue to support regional efforts to make air travel from the Ithaca----
Tompkins Regional Airport a safe, attractive, efficient, and useful mode of travel for regional residents Tompkins Regional Airport a safe, attractive, efficient, and useful mode of travel for regional residents Tompkins Regional Airport a safe, attractive, efficient, and useful mode of travel for regional residents Tompkins Regional Airport a safe, attractive, efficient, and useful mode of travel for regional residents
and visitorsand visitorsand visitorsand visitors. The Town also supports efforts to connect the Ithaca area to other regional urban centers,
such as Syracuse, Binghamton, Rochester, Albany, and New York City, via other modes, such as bus or
passenger train.
FFFFREIGHTREIGHTREIGHTREIGHT VVVVIAIAIAIA TTTTRUCKRUCKRUCKRUCK,,,, RRRRAILAILAILAIL,,,, ANDANDANDAND AAAAIRIRIRIR
Beyond the movement of people, the regional transportation system supports the movement of freight.
Freight lines bring food to supermarkets, mail to post offices, and coal to power plants. In addition,
freight lines take local produce from farmers to regional distribution centers and salt from the Cargill
Corporation to buyers in other areas. This section examines freight in the Town and region, all of which
moves by rail, air, or trucks.
InventoryInventoryInventoryInventory
Freight is delivered via rail, air, and truck. The Norfolk Southern Railroad provides rail freight transport in
Tompkins County. The railroad primarily delivers coal to AES/ Milliken Station and Cornell University and
ships salt out of Cargill Inc. Air freight comes into and out of the county via the Ithaca Tompkins Regional
Airport. In 2001, the airport handled over 45,000 pounds of mail and freight, including fresh seafood.55
It is important to note that while the airport and the rail freight stations are not actually located within the
Town of Ithaca, they still impact the transportation system and economic base of the Town. Railroad
trains run through the Town; where they run near residential areas, such as on East Shore Drive, they
impact the quality of life for residents.
53 Ibid.
54 Bishop, 2001
55 Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, “Airport Facts.”
82
No freight is carried by barge in Tompkins County. The Cayuga-Seneca Canal, which connects the Erie
Canal to Cayuga Lake, is too narrow to permit the large barges that would be necessary to make barge
freight economically feasible.
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!).56 In order to be economically feasible, however, very large quantities must
be shipped. Since few shipments are large enough to make rail shipping economically feasible, truck
freight becomes the preferred or default option for businesses and shippers.
Trucks carry the majority of freight in the County, often to or from destinations within the City of Ithaca.
This means that much of the truck freight traffic is merely passing through the Town. Table 15 lists truck
volumes for roads within the Town. Volumes marked with an asterisk (*) are from Sear-Brown’s
Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study of 2002.57 All other data were collected by the Town of
Ithaca Public Works Department during the period 2003-2004.
Table 15: Truck Volumes on Roads within the Town
Road Truck Volume/ Day
*Rt. 96B (Danby Rd.) 242
*Ellis Hollow Rd. 184
*Rt. 79 (Slaterville Rd, east of Town) 412
*Rt. 13 (Elmira Rd, City of Ithaca) 309
*Rt. 96 (Trumansburg Rd, north of Town) 385
*Pine Tree Rd. (between Maple Ave. & Mitchell St.) 315
Stone Quarry Rd 40
King Rd 94
Burns Rd 41
Bundy Rd 82
Bostwick Rd 82
Culver Rd 6
Hayts Rd 20
Seven Mile Drive 35
Troy Rd 13
Poole Rd 9
Hanshaw Rd (near Warren Rd) 125
Pine Tree Rd 173
Snyder Hill Rd 25
Elm St 24
Caldwell Rd 92
Coddington Rd 62
56 Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004
57 Sear-Brown, 2002
83
Truck traffic is permitted on all State routes, unless there are posted height, weight, or other restrictions.
In general, most State routes are classified and designed to handle truck traffic.58
While State routes are generally classified and designed for truck traffic, many State routes pass through
residential areas. The aforementioned 2002 study noted six State routes that are particularly unsuited
for truck travel. They are: Route 89, Route 34 (East Shore Drive), Route 96B/ Clinton St. (in the City of
Ithaca), Route 366/ Ithaca Road (in the City of Ithaca), Route 327, and Route 13A.
In addition, not all trucks remain on the State routes. The study noted that Pine Tree Road, Ellis Hollow
Road/ Mitchell Street, North Triphammer Road, and Fall Creek Road—none of which are State routes—are
heavily used by trucks.
Interestingly, the 2002 study estimated that only 6% of daytime truck traffic in the County is merely
“passing through.”59 That is, 94% of the truck traffic has either an origin or a destination within the
County. Still, since many of the locations are within the City of Ithaca, it is reasonable to conclude that at
least some of the truck traffic must pass through the Town on the way into or out of the City.
Section 385 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law requires special hauling permits for vehicles
that exceed permitted dimensions or weights. The 2002 study compiled the hauling permits issued by
NYSDOT in 2001 to determine which routes in Tompkins County are used by oversize or overweight
trucks. Routes in the Town of Ithaca include Route 96 (Trumansburg Road), Route 79 (Mecklenburg
Road), Route 13 (Elmira Road), Route 96B (Danby Road), Route 79 (Slaterville Road), Route 366 (Dryden
Road), Route 13 (north of the City of Ithaca), and Route 34 (East Shore Drive).
AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis
The study surveyed 390 Tompkins County residents in order “to determine the public’s perception of
where trucks travel and what impacts and concerns residents may have with trucks in the area.”60 The
survey found that residents’ concerns focused on six areas: noise, pollution, hours of operation,
vibrations, too many trucks, and the speed of trucks. Locations commonly cited by residents as areas of
concern included Route 366 (Dryden Road), Route 13, State Street, Route 34B, Route 96 (Trumansburg
Road), Route 34 (East Shore Drive), Ellis Hollow Road, and Mitchell Street.
As part of the noise concerns, residents identified the sounds of “jake braking” as a problem. “Jake
brake” uses the engine to slow a vehicle, reducing wear and tear on the mechanical brake system and
providing extra control when descending a hill with a heavy load. According to New York State Traffic Law
(Section 386), vehicles over 10,000 pounds must not exceed 86 decibels while traveling at 35 mph or
less. Vehicles over 10,000 pounds must not exceed 90 decibels while traveling over 35 mph. According
to the 2002 study, “While these levels may not be acceptable to some residents, it is State law, and
trucks are within their rights [under the law] to generate this amount of noise.”61
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
84
Thus, the impacts of truck traffic deemed acceptable by New York State Motor Vehicle Law may be
unacceptable for residents (such as trucks on residential State routes or the level of noise generated by
“jake brakes”).
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
Truck traffic in residential areas negatively affects the safety and livability of those neighborhoods. TheTheTheThe
Town needs to work with other municipalities, agencies, and organizations (including companies that Town needs to work with other municipalities, agencies, and organizations (including companies that Town needs to work with other municipalities, agencies, and organizations (including companies that Town needs to work with other municipalities, agencies, and organizations (including companies that
send and receive shipments and shipping firms) to address the impacts thasend and receive shipments and shipping firms) to address the impacts thasend and receive shipments and shipping firms) to address the impacts thasend and receive shipments and shipping firms) to address the impacts that truck traffic has on t truck traffic has on t truck traffic has on t truck traffic has on
residential areas.residential areas.residential areas.residential areas.
Furthermore, discouraging development that fronts on a collector road or truck route and creating
internal service access roads instead can insulate future development against truck traffic impacts. The The The The
Town needTown needTown needTown needs to adopt streetscape design principles that protect neighborhoods from truck traffic and s to adopt streetscape design principles that protect neighborhoods from truck traffic and s to adopt streetscape design principles that protect neighborhoods from truck traffic and s to adopt streetscape design principles that protect neighborhoods from truck traffic and
should encourage regional development patterns that keep truck traffic away from residential areasshould encourage regional development patterns that keep truck traffic away from residential areasshould encourage regional development patterns that keep truck traffic away from residential areasshould encourage regional development patterns that keep truck traffic away from residential areas.
85
OOOOTHER THER THER THER TTTTRANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION SSSSYSTEM YSTEM YSTEM YSTEM IIIISSUESSSUESSSUESSSUES
This section explores issues that transcend individual modes. The transportation system interacts with
both the built and natural environments. The continued development of areas within Tompkins County
raises important challenges to managing growth. Inter-municipal cooperation can help to preserve and
enhance the regional transportation system while the region gains jobs and protects its natural beauty.
Transportation has effects on public health that often aren’t considered in transportation planning,
including respiratory diseases and disorders, obesity and related disorders, bicyclist and pedestrian
vulnerability in crashes, and equity and social well-being for disadvantaged groups.
TTTTHEHEHEHE NNNNATURALATURALATURALATURAL EEEENVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENT ANDANDANDAND THETHETHETHE TTTTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION SSSSYSTEMYSTEMYSTEMYSTEM
The Finger Lakes region is one of the most distinctive and naturally beautiful regions in New York State
and probably in the Northeast, if not the country. The region’s natural environment offers many
opportunities for hiking, boating, camping, and other activities that take advantage of the “great
outdoors.” This section very briefly summarizes the impacts of the transportation system on the natural
environment, including on scenic, water, energy, and air resources, as well as on noise and light pollution
and effects on the urban and suburban climate.
Sensitivity in Scenic AreasSensitivity in Scenic AreasSensitivity in Scenic AreasSensitivity in Scenic Areas
The regional transportation system interacts with the natural environment in positive and negative ways.
Some of the most beautiful landscapes are so far away from population centers that they are particularly
inaccessible except by road. On the other hand, 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. Effective transportation
planning involves balancing trade-offs such as these.
The New York State Scenic Byways Program, which includes the Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway encircling
Cayuga Lake, protects and promotes the scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, and natural resources of
the region. The recognition was due to the cooperation between three counties—Tompkins, Cayuga, and
Seneca—to promote Cayuga Lake as a state resource. In the Town of Ithaca, Route 89 on the west side
of the lake and Route 34 on the east side of the lake make up part of the Byway.
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.
Air Quality, Water Quality, and Energy EfficiencyAir Quality, Water Quality, and Energy EfficiencyAir Quality, Water Quality, and Energy EfficiencyAir Quality, Water Quality, and Energy Efficiency
Nearly all forms of transportation affect water and energy resources and air quality, although some have
a greater effect than others. Motorized vehicles on paved roadways, including trucks and buses, have the
greatest impact on the natural environment, but even walking and bicycling can affect water quality if
86
paved bike lanes or walkways increase impervious surface cover (and hence runoff and non-point source
pollution). One Goal of this Plan is to “protect the environment and the significant natural, agricultural,
scenic, and historic resources in the Town of Ithaca.” In order to achieve this goal, this Transportation
Plan recognizes the impacts of excessive motor vehicle use on water quality, air quality, and energy
consumption.
WaterWaterWaterWater
Vegetated areas produce less runoff than paved or covered areas. According to the EPA, when a site is
covered with natural vegetation, less than 10% of storm water runs off into lakes and streams. When the
impervious cover increases to 10-30%, the percentage of runoff doubles.62 (Theoretically, every zone in
the Town permits up to 70% of impervious cover on a parcel.) Widening a lane two feet (from 12’ to 14’)
increases the impervious cover by approximately 15%; just one mile of a 32’ wide road (3’ shoulders, 13’
travel lanes) is the equivalent of approximately four acres of pavement.63 In one study, streets were
found to contribute 54% of all runoff volume in residential areas and 31% in commercial areas. Streets
and parking lots in commercial areas contribute 80% of the total runoff.64
In addition, streets contribute the highest levels of pollutants in
runoff. Many people do not realize that this runoff goes directly into
the nearest water body—not a water treatment plant. Consequently,
wildlife and their habitats suffer just as much from tainted water as
do humans—perhaps more, as humans drink treated water. In the
Santa Clara Valley in California, vehicles are estimated to produce 67% of zinc, 50% of copper, and 50%
of cadmium found in runoff. Pollutants in runoff disrupt the natural ecosystem of a water body and can
lead to oxygen deprivation, causing fish kills, or nutrient saturation, causing algae blooms. Also, the
pollutants can be ingested via drinking water and have negative effects on human health. 65
Road salt has a negative effect on roadside vegetation, soil quality, and drinking water quality. The EPA
notes that, “Five to ten percent of trees along heavily traveled roads are affected by road salt
application.” Road salt can have effects far from the site of application—in Buffalo, ninety percent of road
salt goes through the City storm sewers and into Lake Ontario.66
EnergyEnergyEnergyEnergy
Transportation consumes 65% of the total energy used in America.67 Of this, road transportation uses
approximately 85%. Road travel consumes so much fuel because of the amount that Americans drive and
also because the efficiency of the average internal combustion engine is low. Only 12% of the fuel used
by a typical car actually provides propulsion.68 Every one mile-per-hour increase in speed over 55 mph
62 Center for GIS, “Natural Resources…”
63 Ibid.
64 Bannerman, et. al, 1993
65 Data in this paragraph is from: U.S. EPA, 1996
66 Ibid.
67 EERE, 2005
68 Rodrigue, 2005
Paved, covered areas produce
more runoff than vegetated,
unpaved areas. Contaminants from
streets contribute the most
pollution in runoff.
87
decreases fuel efficiency by approximately one percent (for most vehicles and conditions). In other
words, a vehicle that averages 30.0 mpg at 55 mph will only get 25.5 mpg at 70 mph.69 The amount of
emissions produced from a gallon of gasoline is constant, regardless of whether the vehicle travels ten
miles or fifty miles burning that gallon of gas.
Gas prices have risen sharply over the past few years, and high gas prices are an incentive to drive less.
TCAT, Ithaca’s transit provider, saw a temporary ridership increase of 60% in the fall of 2005 after
Hurricane Katrina and instability in the Middle East caused residents to take transit instead of driving. If
gas prices remain high, there will likely be increased market pressure for fuel-efficient vehicles and a
growing number of commuters taking transit and bicycling to work. In fact, annual bicycle sales of $19
million are nearing the $20 million sold annually during the 1970’s oil embargo. From October 2004 to
October 2005, more bicycles than cars were sold in the U.S.70
AirAirAirAir
Emissions from internal fuel combustion vehicles are a major contributor to the degradation of air quality.
Figure F below shows the main sources of air pollution in Tompkins County in 1998; transportation-
related sources are the largest contributor.71
Figure F: Emission Sources in Tompkins County, 1998
Four of the major pollutants 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); 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 mobile (motor vehicle) sources. 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.72
69 Maryland Energy Administration, 2005
70 AFP, 2005
71 Filiberto, 2004
72 Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2005
Tompkins County Emission Sources: 1998
17%
2%
22%
6%
53%
Residential
Agriculture
Commercial
Industrial
Transport
88
Other Environmental IssuesOther Environmental IssuesOther Environmental IssuesOther Environmental Issues
NoiseNoiseNoiseNoise
Noise levels due to transportation systems are not always considered a significant environmental impact,
although the noise from high traffic volumes, truck, bus, and motorcycle traffic, trains, 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.73
Motor vehicle traffic is a significant contributor to noise pollution in Tompkins County. Motor vehicle
traffic noise is primarily created by the engine, the interaction between the tires and pavement, or faulty
equipment (such as a broken muffler). Besides traffic volumes, the weight of vehicles and the number of
large trucks also affects ambient transportation-related noise. One truck moving at approximately 55
mph makes as much noise as 28 cars.74 Noise levels are also dependent on the speed of traffic. For
example, a typical car traveling at approximately 12 mph creates 55 dBa of rolling noise. At
approximately 25 mph, the typical car creates 65 dBa of noise, at approximately 50 mph it creates 75
dBa of noise, and at approximately 62 mph it creates 80 dBa.75 For comparison, normal conversation is
around 60 db, and a shouted conversation is around 90 db.76 Living in an environment where someone
is constantly talking or shouting would negatively impact the livability of the environment, but because the
public is generally accustomed to ambient transportation noise, it remains unaddressed.
LightLightLightLight
Light pollution includes spillage, trespass, and glare. Spillage occurs when light from a source illuminates
objects other than the target. Trespass is spillage over a property boundary, for example, when a
neighbor’s garage light shines into a bedroom. Finally, glare is the blinding shine of a light pointed
directly at your eyes or bouncing off a highly reflective surface.
Light pollution is common in parking lots, because there are many light poles that are taller than
necessary with lights that are brighter than necessary and bulbs that are unshielded. The Town of Ithaca
recently passed a lighting ordinance that aims to reduce the amount of light spillage, trespass, and glare
in the Town.
HeatHeatHeatHeat
Urban heat islands are caused by dark surfaces that absorb the sun’s energy and a lack of vegetation to
provide shade, absorb solar energy, and cool the air. In some urban areas, the temperatures are 2-10o F
73 FHWA, April 2006
74 Rodrigue, et. al, Chapter 8
75 Ibid.
76 Noise Center, undated
89
hotter than the surrounding countryside.77 Heat islands increase the need for air conditioning and its
associated energy needs, thereby aggravating air pollution. The increased heat radiating from the ground
and buildings coupled with a lack of street trees creates an unwelcoming and potentially hazardous
pedestrian environment.
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.
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
Automobiles play a key role in the transportation system, and it is both impossible and unwise to dictate
the modal choices that residents and visitors should make. Still, excessive driving is harmful to human
and ecological health. An automobile-based transportation system produces negative effects on air and
water quality. It wastes energy, and the byproducts of internal combustion degrade air and water quality.
Minimizing the negative environmental impacts of transportation requires reducing the number of trips
made by single- or low-occupancy motor vehicles and by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles in our
transportation system.
Thus, there is a great need for the provision of attractive, fthere is a great need for the provision of attractive, fthere is a great need for the provision of attractive, fthere is a great need for the provision of attractive, feasible, costeasible, costeasible, costeasible, cost----effective alternatives to the loweffective alternatives to the loweffective alternatives to the loweffective alternatives to the low----
occupancy, privately operated motor vehicleoccupancy, privately operated motor vehicleoccupancy, privately operated motor vehicleoccupancy, privately operated motor vehicle for the reasons outlined in the introductions to the Auto
Alternatives Chapter and in the Natural Environment and Transportation section above. The provision of
real alternatives to driving allows residents and visitors to choose an appropriate mode of travel for
themselves. Even if alternate modes become more popular, however, some will continue to drive.
Therefore, roads need to be designed to minimize negative Therefore, roads need to be designed to minimize negative Therefore, roads need to be designed to minimize negative Therefore, roads need to be designed to minimize negative environmental impacts. environmental impacts. environmental impacts. environmental impacts. For example,
narrower travel lanes on a roadway or pervious pavement on a parking lot can reduce the amount of
stormwater run-off.
RRRREGIONALEGIONALEGIONALEGIONAL DDDDEVELOPMENTEVELOPMENTEVELOPMENTEVELOPMENT ANDANDANDAND THETHETHETHE TTTTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION SSSSYSTEMYSTEMYSTEMYSTEM
Goal Six states, “Ensure that future development minimizes adverse impacts
on the current and future transportation system by promoting development
patterns which reduce the need for and use of automobiles and encourage
the use of alternate modes of transportation.” Land uses and travel patterns
affect each other. Roadways permit the development of land, which
generates trips. “Highways provide access to land, which enables the
development of that land. Land uses generate vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips.”78 Arterials
are more likely to attract large commercial or industrial operation, because the road capacity allows for
the unrestricted flow of goods. Conversely, if a successful commercial or industrial center is built in the
midst of minor collector and local roads, the amount of congestion soon results in road expansion.
Effective planning requires attention to both sides of the equation.
77 EPA, June 2006
78 Humstone & Campoli, 1998
Land use patterns
affect travel patterns and
modal choices, and vice
versa. They operate in a
feedback loop.
90
Land use and modal choice are also related. Residents of an area
dominated by low-density development typically drive if their area is not
serviced by transit and the distances are too great to walk or bike.
Segregated land uses—for example, separating residential and
commercial areas—encourage driving, because everyday goods and
services are far away. It is more cost-effective to provide necessary
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in areas of higher development
density, where distances are reasonable enough to allow walking or
bicycling for transportation.
There are many ways that development patterns and designs can reduce
negative effects on the transportation system. Zoning that supports mixed-uses and “clustered”
development offers a mix of complementary land uses that encourage residents to combine trips, to
reduce the length of motor vehicle trips, and to make trips via bicycle or foot. Designs that emphasize
human scale—with details that consider people, instead of cars—provide even more incentive for choosing
a non-auto mode, thereby creating a more balanced transportation system. Providing many connections
within the transportation network offers a greater number of route options and more direct routes (a
common development pattern with a high degree of connectivity is the grid system of streets found in
urban areas). Connectivity is important for non-motorized travel, because bicyclists and pedestrians are
unlikely to travel far out of the way to get to their destination. See Volume III, Design Guidelines, for more
information.
A Regional SystemA Regional SystemA Regional SystemA Regional System
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. This is one example of how development patterns in
one municipality can affect traffic in another.
Using a Model to Compare DevelopmUsing a Model to Compare DevelopmUsing a Model to Compare DevelopmUsing a Model to Compare Development Patternsent Patternsent Patternsent Patterns
The ModelThe ModelThe ModelThe Model79797979
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 traffic using the road network. The model is a regional
model meant to illustrate broad trends. This model combines
demographic and geographic information with peak-hour counts for most roads to approximate travel
79 Beimborn, 1995
Model: a series of
mathematical equations that are
used to represent how choices
are made when people travel.65
Cluster Development:
development that increases
density in one area to allow
another area to remain
undeveloped.
Nodal Development:
Channeling development
into distinct centers of
population separated from
each other by open space.
91
patterns across the County. After calibration, the model network is available to compare future
development scenarios. 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 in the trend scenario than in the plan scenario.80
The Regional ResultsThe Regional ResultsThe Regional ResultsThe Regional Results
The model indicates several conclusions about the future of the road network in Tompkins County. It is
clear that even with sound planning, our roads are likely to be more congested in thirty years than they
are now. While the plan-based nodal development scenario would theoretically result in less traffic and
congestion than a trend-based, “hands off” approach to development, both scenarios show an increase in
traffic and congestion. Table 16 and the corresponding map below compare the transportation
conditions under the plan-based and trend-based scenarios.81
Table 16: Projected 30-year Increases due to Development
Mode Trend-Based Plan-Based
Automotive
Total miles traveled (evening commute) 263,714 258,942
Transit
New households near bus stop (1/4 mile)
New jobs near bus stop (1/4 mile)
1,798
5,524
3,095
7,317
Pedestrian
New households near community facilities (1/2 mile) 3,207 4,657
In the Plan-based scenario, 45% more new housing units would be built near community facilities
compared to the Trend-based scenario (93% versus 64%). Living within a development node would bring
the most commonly used goods and services within walking or biking distance. In addition, 72% more
households would be located near a bus stop under the Plan-based scenario as opposed to the Trend-
based scenario (62% versus 36%). Focusing development into nodes facilitates transit provision,
because buses need to stop less frequently and more people live or work near a bus stop. Thus, the Plan-
based scenario is more conducive to accommodating changes in the transportation system due to
fluctuations in fuel price, increased congestion, changing development patterns, etc. It also gives
communities the opportunity to a shift away from low-occupancy motor vehicles.
80 ITCTC, December 2004
81 Ibid.
92
TheTheTheThe Local Results Local Results Local Results Local Results
Although the model is a regional model meant to illustrate broad trends, it is possible to examine the
effects of various development scenarios on a regional corridor. The Town Transportation Committee
asked the ITCTC to study the Route 96 corridor leading from the City of Ithaca through the northwest
portion of the Town, past Cayuga Medical Center, and into the Town of Ulysses.
The Town Transportation Committee presented several development scenarios for the Route 96 corridor
for study. Two of them were as follows:
• Scenario 1, which is based on current traffic volume data: The addition of 128 rental units
associated with the proposed Overlook Apartment Complex, the addition of 50,000 square feet of
neighborhood shopping center in front of the Overlook Apartment Complex, and the build out of
the new Office Park Commercial Zone at Cayuga Medical Center and on additional vacant and/or
residential land along Route 96;
• Scenario 2, which is based on projected traffic volume increases according to thirty-year new
housing unit and new job projections from the County’s Comprehensive Plan: All of the elements
from scenario 1 above, plus the addition of 100 single-family homes on a 34-acre lot owned by
Cornell University.
As noted in the volume data section, the ITCTC used the “vehicle over capacity ratio,” or VOC, to project
changes in traffic based on potential land use changes. Table 17 shows the changes in VOC on Route 96
based on the various scenarios. For comparison, the changes in VOC for Route 79 (Slaterville Road) are
also included.
93
Table 17: VOC on Routes 96 & 79 Under Various Scenarios
Road Segment (outbound) Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Route 96 (Trumansburg Road)
City Hospital 1.08 1.29 1.22
Hospital Dubois Rd. 0.87 0.96 0.98
Dubois Rd. Ulysses 0.86 0.93 0.96
Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road)
City West Haven 0.37 0.42 0.43
West Haven halfway to Enfield 0.33 0.36 0.37
Halfway to Enfield Enfield 0.25 0.27 0.29
Based on projections, traffic volumes in Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca will increase if
development continues. The Route 96 corridor is one example in the Town of Ithaca where development
will affect the transportation network. If the Town is to avoid the construction of major new roads outside
of new subdivisions, the plan-based scenario offers a greater opportunity to shift some of the traffic to
alternate modes of transportation, because it channels growth into high-density, mixed-use existing
areas, instead of a low-density, diffuse pattern of development.
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
This section explained how mode choices and travel patterns alter land use patterns, which in turn alter
mode choices and travel patterns. Trend based land use patterns reinforce the current transportation
system, including the prominence of and dependency on the privately operated vehicle. Combinations of
higher densities and mixed-use zoning that connect residential and commercial land uses are important
for promoting walking or bicycling as a reasonable alternative to driving. The Town needs to revisit the The Town needs to revisit the The Town needs to revisit the The Town needs to revisit the
subdivision and zoning ordinances to determine whether there are ways to use them to encourage subdivision and zoning ordinances to determine whether there are ways to use them to encourage subdivision and zoning ordinances to determine whether there are ways to use them to encourage subdivision and zoning ordinances to determine whether there are ways to use them to encourage
“transportation“transportation“transportation“transportation----friendly”friendly”friendly”friendly” land use patterns land use patterns land use patterns land use patterns.
There is a great need to reduce dependence on low occupancy motor vehiclesgreat need to reduce dependence on low occupancy motor vehiclesgreat need to reduce dependence on low occupancy motor vehiclesgreat need to reduce dependence on low occupancy motor vehicles. Mixed-use, moderate
density development should be promoted over low-density development of segregated land uses. This
helps to create an environment conducive to biking, walking, and using transit. In order to be successful,
this effort must be undertaken at every level of local government because of the interconnected nature of
the regional transportation system.
TTTTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION,,,, THETHETHETHE BBBBUILTUILTUILTUILT EEEENVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENT,,,, ANDANDANDAND PPPPUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLIC HHHHEALTHEALTHEALTHEALTH
This section focuses on the impact of transportation 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.
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. In 1999, researchers
estimated the economic burden of the health impacts from air pollution in Austria, France, and
Switzerland at EUR 27 billion per year. The estimated direct health care cost of obesity in America was
94
$70 billion in 1995, and the estimated direct health care costs of physical inactivity was $24 billion.82
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.
Respiratory Disorders and DiseasesRespiratory Disorders and DiseasesRespiratory Disorders and DiseasesRespiratory Disorders and Diseases
Although new 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
driven and time behind the wheel. This has important consequences for respiratory health. The rate of
asthma in children more than doubled between 1980 and 1995 (2.3 million to 5.5 million new cases, far
outstripping the pace of population growth). The number of seasonal asthma attacks directly attributed
to ozone pollution are approximately 86,000 in Baltimore, 27,000 in Richmond, and 130,000 in
Washington D.C. 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%.83
Consequences of Physical Inactivity: Obesity and Related DisordersConsequences of Physical Inactivity: Obesity and Related DisordersConsequences of Physical Inactivity: Obesity and Related DisordersConsequences of Physical Inactivity: Obesity and Related Disorders
Physical inactivity is linked to 250,000 deaths per year in America; physical inactivity is a large
component of the “obesity crisis.”84 Obesity is linked to conditions such as type 2 diabetes (increasing
risk 34 fold), high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, gallbladder diseases, osteoarthritis, some
cancers, and sleep apnea and other respiratory problems.85 One of the most important factors
influencing physical activity is the immediate environment—one’s neighborhood. Un-walkable and un-
bikable neighborhoods are directly linked to low rates of physical activity. Factors that discourage
outdoor physical activity include negative perceptions about safety and a lack of facilities like sidewalks.
Pleasant scenery and nearby destinations encourage people to walk and bike. “People who live in
neighborhoods with a mix of shops and businesses within easy walking distance have a 35% lower risk of
obesity.”86 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.87
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Vulnerability in Traffic CrashesBicyclist and Pedestrian Vulnerability in Traffic CrashesBicyclist and Pedestrian Vulnerability in Traffic CrashesBicyclist and Pedestrian Vulnerability in Traffic Crashes
Injuries and fatalities due to traffic crashes are also a public health issue. Motor vehicle crashes are
discussed in the Inventory; this section focuses on bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Thirteen percent of
traffic-related fatalities occur among pedestrians (10,696 deaths nation-wide over two years)—even
though pedestrian trips account for only six percent of all trips.88 A disproportionate share of the deaths
was among the elderly. A report by the Surface Transportation Policy Project determined that “the most
82 Colditz, 1999
83 Jackson and Kochtitzky, “Creating a Healthy Environment…”
84 Booth et. al, 2000
85 Jackson and Kochtitzky, “Creating a Healthy Environment…”
86 Frank et. al, 2004
87 Ducimetiere, et al, 2001
88 Jackson and Kochtitzky, “Creating a Healthy Environment…”
95
dangerous metropolitan areas for walkers were new, sprawling, southern and western communities
where transportation systems are more focused on the automobile at the expense of other transportation
options.”89
According to national statistics from 2003,90 eighty-five percent of cyclists killed in crashes were not
wearing helmets. Twenty-four percent had blood alcohol contents (BACs) of 0.08 or higher, the legal limit
for intoxicated motor vehicle operation in many states. Fortunately, the number of deaths among young
bicyclists have dropped dramatically over the last thirty years. In 1975, 675 bicyclists under the age of
16 were killed; the number dropped to 148 in 2004, a reduction of 78.1%. Males are involved in fatal
accidents eight times as often as females; twelve year old males are the highest risk group. Thirty-five
percent of cyclist deaths occurred at intersections, which are probably the most dangerous locations for
bicyclists.
The causes of bicycle crashes nationally are as follows:91
• Bicyclist failing to yield to motorist: 28%
• Motorist failing to yield to bicyclist: 22%
• Motorist turning or merging into bicyclist’s path: 12%
• Motorist overtaking a cyclist: 9%
• Bicyclist turning into motorist’s path: 7%
• Other: 22%
Equity and Social WellEquity and Social WellEquity and Social WellEquity and Social Well----BeingBeingBeingBeing
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 traditionally underserved in a car-centered transportation system.
Youth are a segment of the population often overlooked by transportation planners. In suburban areas
where the primary mode of transportation is the private motor vehicle, public transit is not available, and
pedestrian walkways are insufficient, youth without cars or drivers’ licenses must rely on their parents,
friends, or older siblings with cars for transportation. During a life stage when the assertion of
independence is important, an auto-centered transportation system effectively strands youth and
adolescents without a way to experience and explore their community.
Low-income individuals and families are easily disenfranchised by an auto-centered transportation
system. The total cost of an automobile, including insurance, maintenance, and gas, can be prohibitively
high. A lack of transportation can prevent an individual from taking a job with better pay or benefits,
negatively affecting the individual’s already precarious situation.
A transportation system becomes accessible for these populations through the provision of infrastructure
for non-motorized and public transportation. The provision of infrastructure such as sidewalks and bike
89 McCann and DeLille, 2000
90 IIHS, 2003
91 Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization, 2002; PBIC, undated.
96
lanes encourages walking and biking by providing a safe, pleasant atmosphere. Also, encouraging multi-
use development integrated with affordable housing, instead of development with segregated land uses
and affordable housing separated from market-rate units, brings jobs and recreational activities within
walking or biking proximity. This can also foster a sense of inclusion for segments of the population often
excluded from the greater community.
The elderly have special transportation needs. Physical and mental deterioration can rule out the private
automobile as the primary mode of transportation. Also, the costs of maintaining an automobile can put
a financial strain on seniors, especially those on fixed incomes. While the automobile may not be the
mode of transport best suited for the elderly, many seniors continue to drive because the keys to the car
represent a way to remain independent in the sunset of life. In many areas of the country, the most
commonly used alternatives seem to be isolation or dependence on the assistance of friends and family.
Senior citizens in Tompkins County can use Gadabout, but trips must be planned a day in advance.
Like the elderly, many with disabilities do not have the option to drive. Physical disabilities, such as
blindness or the need for a wheelchair, can make driving impractical or impossible. The developmentally
handicapped may not be able to obtain a driver’s license or, if they do, their living or employment
situations may make it impractical to obtain and maintain a car. Without a viable transportation
alternative, the disabled may become even more marginalized. The Ithaca area is fortunate to have
Gadabout, which serves senior citizens and the disabled.
The elderly and disabled need different solutions than youth and the low-income. Often, walking and
biking, except for the shortest of trips, are not viable alternatives. Although TCAT buses and Gadabout
vans are designed to accommodate a wide range of needs, public transit can be physically and mentally
challenging to navigate for some people. The reliance on private, for-profit paratransit (such as taxi
services) can quickly become prohibitively expensive.
Identification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of NeedsIdentification of Needs
This section has shown the public health consequences of over-dependence on private motor vehicles. In
order to protect air quality, the Town should support programs and policies that reduce motor vehicle support programs and policies that reduce motor vehicle support programs and policies that reduce motor vehicle support programs and policies that reduce motor vehicle
dependencedependencedependencedependence. This may occur by decreasing the number of vehicles on the road, the total vehicle miles
traveled, or both. Furthermore, the Town should encourage walkable, encourage walkable, encourage walkable, encourage walkable, bikeablebikeablebikeablebikeable, and transit, and transit, and transit, and transit----friendlyfriendlyfriendlyfriendly
neighborhood designsneighborhood designsneighborhood designsneighborhood designs that give residents the choice to use non-motorized modes for transportation and
recreation, so that residents can integrate activity into their daily routines and so those who cannot afford
a car have the opportunity to walk or bike for transportation, if they choose. In order to protect bicyclists
and pedestrians, the Town should promote roadway and offroadway and offroadway and offroadway and off----road nonroad nonroad nonroad non----motorized facilities demotorized facilities demotorized facilities demotorized facilities designs that signs that signs that signs that
minimize safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, residents, and other roadway usersminimize safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, residents, and other roadway usersminimize safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, residents, and other roadway usersminimize safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, residents, and other roadway users.
Finally, the Town should support transit and paratransit provisionsupport transit and paratransit provisionsupport transit and paratransit provisionsupport transit and paratransit provision, especially to those who are unable to
walk, bike, or drive by themselves (such as the elderly and the disabled).
97
A L T E R N A T I V A L T E R N A T I V A L T E R N A T I V A L T E R N A T I V E SE SE SE S
This brief section is the bridge between the Inventory and Analysis Chapter and the Recommendations Chapter.
To review, the Inventory and Analysis Chapter asked and answered questions such as:
“What are the government’s policies governing the growth and development of transportation? Who uses
the transportation system in the Town, and how do they use it? What is the Town’s transportation system
like, and how is it not serving its residents as well as it could?”
The Alternatives Chapter will ask and answer:
“What are ways to help the transportation system better serve users, and what are some of the pros and
cons of these options?”
The Recommendations Chapter following this Chapter will explore:
“What projects, programs, or policies can build on the strengths and correct the weaknesses of the
transportation system?”
The Inventory and Analysis Chapter demonstrated some of the strengths and weaknesses of the current
transportation system in the Town of Ithaca. Fortunately, most of the roads in the Town have a relatively safe
crash record and most roads and intersections are operating at a good level of service. Public transit service is
good for Town residents living near institutions of higher learning, or in other areas of high population density, and
paratransit is available across the Town. With a few notable exceptions, truck traffic is limited to major arterials.
One of the most notable deficiencies in the Town is the lack of sufficient bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As the
Town continues to grow and develop, the problems associated with a lack of basic infrastructure and costs
associated with retrofitting will increase. Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds are inappropriate for the
residential character of some neighborhoods. Unless positive steps are taken, continued development in the Town
and the County will aggravate the negative effects of volumes and speeds on safety and livability. Likewise,
deficiencies in transit service—already an issue for several parts of the Town—negatively impact residents’ access
to employment, goods, and services. As noted in the Roadway Maintenance section, transportation corrections
cost less when taken as part of a preventative maintenance program and not as an “after the fact” project.
Table 18 on the following pages summarizes the problems identified throughout the Inventory and Analysis, along
with specific locations where these problems are particularly prevalent. For each problem, several alternative
strategies are identified, along with the pros and cons of each. There are several key constraints that affect the
ability of the Town to implement certain alternatives, including: the Town does not control many roads within its
municipal boundaries; limited resources do not allow funding of each and every project; there are very few
reasonable options for the construction of major through-roads in the Town; and currently, there are insufficient
guidelines steering the development of physical infrastructures.
98 Table 18: Alternatives: Issues, Locations, & Strategies Issue Locations Strategy Pro Con Install traffic calming measures • Some measures are very inexpensive • If designed correctly, extremely effective • Can protect or strengthen neighborhood character • Some measures are very expensive • Can be a safety hazard to rescue vehicles if designed poorly • Potential maintenance issues • Not appropriate for many collector or arterial road Increase enforcement • Can be moved from neighborhood to neighborhood, unlike permanent measures • Requires constant police presence (manpower) • Expensive • Not a long-term solution, unless there is a long-term commitment Education & raising awareness • Can be relatively inexpensive • Alters driver behavior directly • Requires on-going effort • Cannot work by itself SPEEDING Roads that are known to have particularly high levels of speeding include:92 • Bostwick Rd. (near #358) • Bundy Rd. (1000' east of Hopkins Rd.) • Caldwell Rd. (across from water plant) • Coddington Rd. (near Juniper Dr) • Culver Road (near #287) • Forest Home Dr. (between Plantations & McIntyre) • Forest Home Dr. (near #326) • Hanshaw Rd. (near #1034) • Judd Falls Rd. (north of Plantations Rd.) • King Rd. (school zone) • Mitchell St. (near #921) • Muriel St. (near #128) • Pleasant Grove Rd. (on hill between observatory & stop sign) • Poole Rd. (near #124) • Sandbank Rd. (“S” curve) • Stone Quarry Rd. (near #355) • Stone Quarry Rd.(top of hill) • Stone Quarry Rd. (near #220) • Stone Quarry Rd. (bottom of hill) • Warren Rd. (500' North of Fairway Dr) • West King Rd. (near #344) • Winthrop Dr. (near #311) Reconstruct roads so that design speed matches speed limit • Excellent long-term solution • Can integrate into on-going reconstruction program • Town does not control design of County and State roads • Will take years to implement 92 Roads that the Town has surveyed, on which the ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the posted speed limit is greater than 1.25. Source: Town of Ithaca Department of Public Works
99Issue Locations Strategy Pro Con Do nothing • Least expensive option • Based on trends, the situation for bicyclists and pedestrian will worsen. • Ignores an opportunity to develop an alternate system, which may be needed in the future Retrofit sidewalks only around “high risk” areas; require sidewalks in most new development • Less expensive than an extensive sidewalk network • Targets sidewalks to those most in need of them • Connectivity is impaired • Sidewalk District costs may be unacceptable to property owners • Not feasible everywhere Retrofit sidewalks into all development; require sidewalks in all new development • Provides optimal connectivity • Expensive for Town and property owners • Neither feasible nor necessary everywhere Retrofit all roads with bike lanes • Targets beginner riders • Benefits intermediate and advanced riders • Extremely expensive • Not feasible everywhere • Poorly designed wide roads can encourage speeding & driver inattentiveness Retrofit all roads of high volume or speed with bike lanes • Targets intermediate riders who may already be comfortable on neighborhood streets • Benefits advanced riders • Expensive • Not feasible everywhere • Poorly designed wide roads can encourage speeding & driver inattentiveness Ensure that road shoulders are adequately designed & maintained for bicyclists • Targets advanced riders who are comfortable riding with traffic • Least expensive • For roads with moderate speeds or volumes, not appropriate for beginner cyclists LACK OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Throughout the Town, but especially a problem in medium density development, near schools, commercial areas, or other areas of population and pedestrian/ bicycle movement. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps show locations identified as needing bicycle or pedestrian improvements. See Maps 11 & 12 in Volume II, Appendix I, as well as Appendix VI. Establish clear policy for enhancing bicycle & pedestrian facilities • Would provide basis to implement a long term improvement program • Difficult to strike balance between flexibility and effectiveness • Needs funding commitment
100 Issue Locations Strategy Pro Con Implement planned system of off-road multi-use trails • Serves both recreation and transportation purposes • Not limited to corridors with available right-of-way • Potential to link existing facilities • Serves multiple modes • Will take years to implement fully • Will likely require non-Town funding Reduce volumes and slow traffic on residential streets to improve bicyclist safety in travel lanes and allow pedestrians to walk in the road • Improves neighborhood livability, as well as benefiting bicyclists and pedestrians • Reduces right-of-way needs and total roadway footprint • Will take years to decades to implement fully • Only addresses neighborhood roads • May not be feasible everywhere Do nothing • Least expensive option • Easiest option • Unacceptable effects on livability and safety for Town residents Install traffic calming measures • Some measures are very inexpensive • If designed correctly, extremely effective • Can protect or strengthen neighborhood character • Some measures are very expensive • Can be a safety hazard to rescue vehicles if designed poorly • Potential maintenance issues • Not appropriate for many collector or arterial roads Reduce design speed to encourage compliance with speed limit • Excellent long-term solution • Can integrate into on-going reconstruction program • Town does not control design of County and State roads • Will take years to implement Improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure • Can help improve neighborhood livability • Can help to calm traffic • Serves both recreation and transportation purposes • Will take years to implement fully • Not feasible everywhere • Does not address traffic volume problems IMPACTS OF VEHICULAR ROADWAY TRAFFIC ON ADJACENT LANDS, especially in residential areas Information in this section is taken from “A Summary of the Road Network in the Town of Ithaca” section of this Volume of the Plan. There are many ways to reduce the impacts of vehicular traffic on residential areas, depending on how the traffic is impacting the neighborhood. The list of ideas at right Moderate to High Impact: • Caldwell Rd. • Coddington Rd. • East Shore Dr. (Rt. 34) • Forest Home Dr. • Hanshaw Rd. • Honness La. • Judd Falls Rd. • Pleasant Grove Rd. • Pine Tree Rd. • Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79) • Snyder Hill Rd. • Taughannock Blvd. (Rt. 89) • Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96) • Warren Rd. Low to Moderate Impact: • Bostwick Rd. • Bundy Rd. • Burns Rd. • Coy Glen Rd. • Culver Rd. • Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) • Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) Route traffic out of residential areas and onto roads with few residences • Protects and enhances neighborhood livability • Does not challenge fundamental imbalance in transportation system (dominance of low-occupancy motor vehicles) • Potentially costly and likely disruptive
101 Issue Locations Strategy Pro Con Promote alternative land use patterns and designs (buffers between residences & roadways, parallel access roads, etc) • Helps to address underlying issues—motor vehicle dependence, poor design, etc. • May not address already developed areas • In already developed areas, expensive to retrofit • Requires a long time to implement is not exhaustive. • East King Rd. • Ellis Hollow Rd/ Mitchell St. • Elm St. Ext/ Poole Rd. • Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) • Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327) • Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A) • Hayts Rd. • Hopkins Rd. • Maple Ave. • Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79) • Ridgecrest Rd. • Sandbank Rd. • Seven Mile Dr. • Stone Quarry Rd. • Troy Rd. • West Danby Rd. (Rt. 34/96) • Westhaven Rd. • West King Rd. To address truck traffic problems, implement a County-wide truck route system. (Note: See other options to address truck traffic below.) • Coordinates efforts by various municipalities • Difficult for public to accept—no one wants their road designated as a truck route • Needs signage and enforcement to be effective Do nothing • Least expensive option • Based on trends, the situation will worsen. Build more roads • Takes advantage of institutions and expertise already in place • By itself, not a long term solution • Environmentally, monetarily, and socially expensive • Perpetuates auto-dependence LARGE AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION Very high:93939393 • Route 96: City to Hospital • Route 13/34/96: City to 13 and 34/96 intersection • Slaterville Rd.: Pine Tree Road to Park La. • Pine Tree Rd.: Honness La. to Snyder Hill Rd. High:94949494 • Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96): Hospital to Town of Ulysses Route traffic out of residential areas and onto roads with few residences • Protects and enhances neighborhood livability • Does not challenge fundamental imbalance in transportation system (dominance of motor vehicles) • Potentially costly and likely disruptive 93 Vehicle Capacity Ratio (VOC) > 1.0 See page 36. Source: ITCTC, “2025 Long Range…”, 2005 94 VOC > 0.8 See page 36. Source: Ibid. 95 Based on Level of Service data from Traffic Impact Studies for various development reviews. See Table A-13 in Appendix II.
102 Issue Locations Strategy Pro Con For intersections, improve alignment, add turning lanes, add traffic signals, etc. • May improve safety • May improve vehicle flow and LOS • May improve capacity • Expensive • Potential negative impacts for neighborhoods • May only work for certain intersections • Does not reduce traffic volumes Promote walking • Inexpensive • Promotes public health • Very little environmental harm • Less expensive for municipalities than road building • Not feasible during some parts of the year due to weather and some parts of town due to topography • Not feasible for the elderly/ disabled • Infrastructure not available in many locations • Not feasible for long trips or shopping Promote bicycling • Inexpensive • Promotes public health • Very little environmental harm • Less expensive for municipalities than road building • Infrastructure (roads) already established • Not feasible during some parts of the year due to weather and some parts of town due to topography • Not feasible for the elderly or disabled • Infrastructure not available • Difficult for shopping Promote transit and Park & Ride • Moderate expense for riders • Accessible to the elderly, young, and disabled • Infrastructure already established • Can increase transit ridership • Expensive for municipalities—requires buses • Less flexible than walking, biking, or driving • Bus size and noise can produce negative environmental impacts. Promote car pooling, or other forms of ride sharing • Inexpensive • Removes peak hour vehicles • More difficult to implement during off-peak hours • Less flexible than personal transportation LARGE AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION (CONTINUED) • Danby Rd.: IC to King Road • Slaterville Rd.: Park Lane to Burns Rd. • Pine Tree Rd.: Slaterville Road to Honness La., and again from Snyder Hill Rd. to Maple Ave • Dryden Rd.: Caldwell Road to Town of Dryden • Route 13: segment in Town between City and Cayuga Heights Intersections:95959595 • Pine Tree Rd. & Rt. 79 • Pine Tree Rd. & Rt. 366 • Pine Tree Rd. & Ellis Hollow Rd. • Hanshaw Rd. & Pleasant Grove Rd. (Cayuga Heights) • Hanshaw Rd. & Triphammer Rd. (Cayuga Heights) **Note: Many of the roads identified above are collector or arterial roads, which are expected to carry higher traffic volumes. Promote car sharing • Flexible • For infrequent drivers, far less expensive than owning a car • Very large initial investment • May take time to catch on with the public
103 Issue Locations Strategy Pro Con Promote alternative land use patterns (higher densities, mixed development, etc) • A solution that truly addresses underlying issues, instead of a band-aid fix • Requires a very long time to see results • Many areas are already built out LARGE AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION (CONTINUED) Promote other TDM strategies: flex-time, reverse commute, parking cash-out, etc. • Provides more flexibility • Allows motorists to drive, but rewards those who do not • Requires organization and cooperation to implement Do nothing • Least expensive • Easiest • Does not address livability and safety issues Develop a County-wide truck route system • Coordinates efforts by various municipalities • Comprehensive and coordinated • Difficult for public to accept—no one wants their road designated as a truck route • Needs signage and enforcement to be effective Post signs indicating preferred truck routes or stating, “No through trucks” • Protects neighborhoods to some extent • Does not guarantee that trucks will stick to preferred routes • Difficult to enforce Switch freight mode from trucks to rail or barge • Saves fossil fuels • May reduce truck volumes • Not within the Town’s control • Cost-prohibitive for many sectors of the economy • Infrastructure may not be in place Coordinate with shipping firms to route traffic away from residential areas • Protects neighborhoods to some extent • Many firms send and receive deliveries • Some companies are outside of the Town or County Enforce existing restrictions and regulations • Does not require new policies or procedures • Ongoing effort required • Law enforcement resources are limited Large volumes of TRUCK TRAFFIC, especially in residential areas Truck traffic is present throughout the Town, although it is concentrated on State and County roads. It has the greatest impact in residential areas. Buy locally produced goods or relocate distribution centers to more convenient locations • Reduces the need to ship goods long distances • Not within the Town’s control • Not all necessary goods are locally produced • New distribution centers may have environmental impacts
104 Issue Locations Strategy Pro Con Postpone maintenance until roads need serious reconstruction • Saves a moderate amount of money in the short term • Avoids inconvenience • Monetary costs are exponentially increased ROADWAY MAINTENANCE & RECONSTRUCTION Preventative Maintenance: 5-7 miles per year Reconstruction: 1.5 miles per year; 33 year cycle Conduct preventative maintenance in a long-term maintenance program • Saves a very large amount of money in the long term • Prevents roads from deteriorating too much • Requires moderate funding in the short term, which may not be readily available • Must have flexibility for emergency repairs Promote the use of deer whistles for cars or roadside reflectors • Relatively inexpensive, as compared to other measures • Questionable effectiveness Deer population control measures • If successful, removes need for difficult task of altering driver behavior • Can be expensive • Questionable effectiveness • May incur public opposition • Can be difficult to administer Wildlife corridor underpass/overpass • Facilitates safe wildlife circulation • Expensive • Potentially difficult to determine best location Reduce speed at deer crossings • Facilitates safe wildlife circulation • Benefits neighborhoods, bicyclists, and pedestrians • Town does not control design of State routes, where most deer accidents occur Traffic calming, including road narrowing, adding visual interest, adding street trees, etc. • Some measures are very inexpensive • If designed correctly, extremely effective • Can protect or strengthen neighborhood character • Some measures are very expensive • Can be a problem for rescue vehicles if designed poorly • Potential maintenance issues • Not all roads under Town control CRASHES: For all of these types of actions, the alternative “Do Nothing” was not considered due to safety considerations. Animal action:96969696 • Mecklenburg Rd.: Eco Village to the City • Northern section of Route 89 • All along Route 96 Bicycle or Pedestrian:97979797 • Route 96B and IC entrance • Route 366 at City/Town line • Mecklenburg Rd. between Ecovillage and Conifer La. • Route 96B & Sesame St. • Slaterville Rd. & Burns Rd. • Route 366: one to the west and one to the east of Caldwell Rd. Vehicle Collisions:98989898 • Northern section of Route 89 • Elmira Rd. between Seven Mile Dr. and Calkins Rd. • West Danby Rd. between the Town line and where Route 13 splits off Driver & bicyclist/ pedestrian education (defensive driving, etc.) • Helps residents to protect themselves • Long-term solution • Questionable effectiveness 96 More than ten serious crashesMore than ten serious crashesMore than ten serious crashesMore than ten serious crashes (defined as crashes creating at least $1,000 of property damage or injuries) listing animal action as the first event over a three-year period, 1999-2001. Data acquired from NYSDOT & NYSDMV. 97 Any serious crashAny serious crashAny serious crashAny serious crash (defined as crashes creating at least $1,000 of property damage or injuries) listing a bicyclist or pedestrian as the first event over a three-year period, 1999-2001. Source: Data acquired from NYSDOT & NYSDMV. 98 Five or more serious crashesFive or more serious crashesFive or more serious crashesFive or more serious crashes (defined as crashes creating at least $1,000 of property damage or injuries) listing vehicle as the first event over a three-year period, 1999-2001. Source: Data acquired from NYSDOT & NYSDMV.
105 Issue Locations Strategy Pro Con Construct bike lanes, sidewalks, and multi-use trails • Removes bicyclists and pedestrians from the travel lane • May encourage walking and biking • Dangerous if the facility has many conflict points with motor vehicle traffic (i.e. crossings) • Potentially costly • May not be feasible in all locations Police presence/ enforcement • Catches reckless motorists who may drive unsafely regardless of surroundings • Popular with the public • Not a long term solution • Expensive (labor costs) • May not actually result in safer motorist behavior CRASHES (CONTINUED) • Elmira Rd. and Five Mile Dr. • Route 79 and Pine Tree Rd. • Pine Tree Rd. between Snyder Hill Rd. and Mitchell St. • Route 366 between Caldwell Rd. and Town of Dryden • Route 96B between IC and Emerson Power Transmission Design solutions: intersection realignment, shoulder rumble strips, etc. • Ideal remedy for crashes caused by road system deficiencies • Can be difficult to diagnose • Can be expensive or otherwise not feasible • Not all roads under Town control Do not make any extra effort to address inadequacies • Least expensive option • Least controversial option • Potential liability problems • Potentially dangerous Address inadequacies only when opportunities arise • Frees resources for other projects • Does not necessarily address the most hazardous locations first Prioritize inadequacies and systematically address them • Most fair and safest • Reduces liability • May be expensive • May be difficult due to obstructions outside ROW Remove all roadside vegetation for greatest possible sight distances • Easier to implement—just cut down everything • Less environmentally friendly • May be more dangerous (motorists judge speed via road edge features) • Unpopular with public • Expensive SIGHT DISTANCES The Town Engineering Department is in the process of surveying all intersections that involve Town roads. Remove only what’s necessary to preserve vegetation benefits while maintaining safety • Faster to implement—remove only what’s necessary • Generally more aesthetically pleasing • Preserve environment & livability • Can increase complexity of maintenance tasks
106
Based on this analysis, the preferred alternative is a balanced approach that provides for both the
maintenance of the current system and the expansion of an alternative system while prioritizing livability.
Continuing the current system entails preventative pavement maintenance on all existing roads and
construction of new through-roads only when vital to the preservation or maintenance of neighborhood
livability or the maintenance of the current transportation system. The expansion of an alternative system
will entail expansion of transit, bicycling, pedestrian, and other alternatives. This mixed approach will
allow the community to reap the maximum benefit while avoiding as many costs as possible. The
correction of existing safety or alignment problems should be addressed in a planned program, as well.
107
R E C O M M E N D A R E C O M M E N D A R E C O M M E N D A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N ST I O N ST I O N ST I O N S
The previous chapters of this Plan have established a vision of transportation in the Town and have
identified problems, locations where problems occur, and potential solutions. 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, 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.
Furthermore, these recommendations address solutions that will occur over various time frames,
including the five-year (short term), ten-year (mid term), and twenty-year or longer (long term) horizons.
Since the transportation system involves many jurisdictions and agencies, some recommendations
cannot be implemented by the Town of Ithaca alone. Many programs require collaboration with several
different entities—some public, some private. Attachment A lists the Recommendations that will require
coordination with other groups.
The Roman numerals within each Recommendation refer to the Goal that is fulfilled via the
Recommendation. To review, the seven themes that summarize the Plan’s seven goals are:
I. Access & Mobility V. Coordination
II. Livability VI. Land Use Planning
III. Safety VII. Environment
IV. Transportation System Management
At the end of this chapter, Attachment B lists the Recommendations organized by the Goal that they
address.
Some of the Recommendations are new initiatives, while others are ongoing policies or projects that have
already begun or will begin in the near future. The note at the end of each Recommendation lists the
time-frame and priority of new initiatives. The time-frames are: short-term, intermediate-term, long-term,
and as feasible. The priority categories are: low priority, medium priority, and high priority. Ongoing
policies and projects are labeled as ongoing and are not prioritized because they are already or will soon
be implemented. The time-frames and priorities of new initiatives are listed in Attachment C at the end of
this chapter.
The Town initiated this Transportation Plan as a result of the findings of the Comprehensive Plan of 1993.
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is “to provide a transportation system that is safe, efficient,
convenient, and environmentally responsible.”99 Attachment D at the end of this chapter summarizes the
Goals & Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and shows how this Transportation Plan fulfills them.
99 Town of Ithaca, 1993
108
1.
TTTTHEHEHEHE TTTTOWNOWNOWNOWN TTTTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION PPPPLANLANLANLAN
1.A. Adoption and ImplementationAdoption and ImplementationAdoption and ImplementationAdoption and Implementation: The Town Board should adopt and implement this Transportation
Plan as a long-term vision and policy guide. (All Goals; short-term; high priority)
1.B. The Comprehensive PlanThe Comprehensive PlanThe Comprehensive PlanThe Comprehensive Plan: The Town Board should amend the 1993 Comprehensive Plan by
incorporating this Transportation Plan. Furthermore, the Town Board could revisit and potentially
revise the Comprehensive Plan, based in part on the findings of this Plan. (All Goals; short-term;
high priority)
1.C. Review and UpdatesReview and UpdatesReview and UpdatesReview and Updates: This Transportation Plan should be reviewed and updated on a regular
basis (five or ten years, perhaps). (All Goals; intermediate- and long-term; high priority)
2.
RRRROADWAYOADWAYOADWAYOADWAY ANDANDANDAND RRRROADOADOADOAD NNNNETWORKETWORKETWORKETWORK IIIISSUESSSUESSSUESSSUES
2.A. Official Highway MapOfficial Highway MapOfficial Highway MapOfficial Highway Map:
2.A.1. Adoption: The Town Board should adopt a revised Official Highway Map to establish the
names and locations of public and private roadways and to preserve corridors for future
right-of-way needs (see Map 4 in Appendix I). (Goals I, III, IV, VI; short-term; high-priority)
2.A.2. Updates: The Town should update the Official Highway Map as needed to reflect new
right-of-way acquisitions, changes in right-of-way location, updates to anticipated right-of-
way needs, or roadway ownership changes. Roadways approved as part of a subdivision
are de facto additions to the Official Highway Map. (Goals I, III, IV, VI; ongoing)
2.B. Engineering and DesignEngineering and DesignEngineering and DesignEngineering and Design: Livability should be the goal of all transportation design in the Town of
Ithaca. To this end, the design of a right-of-way should reflect the intended use of the roadway
and the character of the adjacent lands. Roads should be designed to elicit desirable driver
behavior (such as attentiveness, compliance with speed limits, etc). (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII;
ongoing)
2.B.1. Design Toolboxes: This Plan has established the importance of the design of a roadway
and its elements. In order to enhance the livability of Town neighborhoods and provide
multi-modal options, the Town should use Volume III of this Transportation Plan (The
Design Guidelines) as a general guide (not mandatory standards) for the construction
and reconstruction of transportation facilities. See Volume III: The Design Guidelines
for more information. (Goals I, II, III, IV, VI, VII; as feasible; high priority)
2.B.2. Sight Distances: The Town Engineering Department should continue to evaluate sight
distances at intersections and to identify intersections with sub-standard sight
distances. The Engineering Department should work with the Public Works Department
to create and implement a prioritization system for improvements. The Town should
explore ways to mitigate sight distance issues beyond the clearing of vegetation, such as
recommending lowering the speed limit on the through-road, creating all-way stops
(where appropriate), installing mirrors, etc. (Goals II, III, IV; ongoing)
2.B.3. Hazardous Locations: The Town should request crash data from the DMV in order to
identify crash clusters and dangerous intersections/road segments, and when under the
Town’s jurisdiction, take measures to alleviate the hazards. If the Town does not have
responsibility for the intersection or segment, the Town should alert the responsible
jurisdiction and work with them to mitigate the hazards. (Goals II, III, IV, V; ongoing)
2.B.4. Speeding & Cut-Through Traffic:
109
2.B.4.1. The Town should implement design responses to excessive speeds and cut-
through traffic in neighborhoods, such as traffic calming (see below). (Goal II,
III, IV, V, VII; as feasible; high-priority)
2.B.4.2. The Town should continue to petition the County and State for speed limit
reductions on appropriate roads in the Town. One potential location for speed
limit reduction is Pine Tree Road. (Goal II, III, V, VII; ongoing)
2.B.5. Animal-related Crashes: The Town should explore ways to reduce the frequency and
severity of deer-related crashes, such as roadside reflectors or deer whistles for cars.
(Goal III, VII; as feasible; low priority)
2.B.6. Access Management: Via the site plan or subdivision approval process, the Town should
encourage or, in some situations, require the developer to limit the number of individual
access driveways, roads, and other curb cuts onto arterial and collector roads in order to
maintain traffic safety and roadway capacity and to encourage more compatible use of
adjacent lands. The Town should require the use of shared driveways where
appropriate. See Volume III: The Design Guidelines for more information. (Goals I, II, III,
IV, VI, & VII; ongoing)
2.C. MaintenanceMaintenanceMaintenanceMaintenance:
2.C.1. Flexibility: The Public Works Department should have the flexibility to set its own
schedule for roadway improvements within the context of the overall Budget. (Goal IV;
ongoing)
2.C.2. Pavement Maintenance: The Town should continue to practice preventative
maintenance wherever possible in order to save money over the long term. (Goal IV;
ongoing)
2.C.3. Other Safety Improvements: According to the Crash Screenings, Town and County
rights-of-way in need of minor improvements (i.e. projects that wouldn’t appear on a
Capital Budget) include: (Goals II, III, IV, V; short-term; medium priority)
2.C.3.1. Intersections: Honness Lane & Pine Tree Road (trim bushes)
2.C.3.2. Road Segments: Stone Quarry Road (signage improvements); Sandbank Road
(speed limit signs, additional warning signs, reflectors, or flashing beacons to
aid navigation); Burns Road (striping the road shoulders).
2.C.4. Environmental Sensitivity
2.C.4.1. The Public Works Department should limit trimming of roadside vegetation to
that which fulfills safety & drainage objectives. The Town should consider
roadside vegetation an asset, not a liability. (Goals II, IV, VII; ongoing)
2.C.4.2. The Town should carefully assess any transportation project in an agricultural,
scenic, or historic area to ensure that potential impact to these resources does
not exceed the expected benefits from the proposed project. (Goal II, IV, VII;
ongoing)
2.C.4.3. The Town should continue to explore alternatives to traditional rock salt for de-
icing roads. (Goals II, IV, VII; ongoing)
2.C.4.4. The Town should encourage other jurisdictions with roads in the Town of Ithaca
to adhere to similar standards of environmental consideration. (Goals II, IV, V,
VII; ongoing)
2.C.4.5. Projects involving transportation, such as new road construction, road
reconstruction, or the installation of bicycle or pedestrian facilities, should
110
comply with State and Town stormwater regulations, when possible.
Stormwater management, including the treatment of run-off and flood control,
should be considered as part of projects involving transportation, when
possible. (Goals I, IV, V, VII; ongoing)
2.C.4.6. The Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee and the Town of Ithaca Scenic
Resources Committee should work together to identify and designate road
corridors of visual, cultural, or historic significance as Official Town Scenic
Routes. (Goals II, IV, V, VII; as feasible; low priority)
2.C.4.7. Whenever possible, new roadways should avoid environmentally sensitive
areas, such as wetlands and steep slopes. New roadways should follow the
natural contours of the land, whenever possible. (Goals II, IV, V, VII; ongoing)
2.C.5. Inter-jurisdictional Coordination:
2.C.5.1. The Town Public Works Department should continue to cooperate with the
County Highway Department and NYSDOT on maintenance responsibilities for
roads in the Town. (Goals IV, V; ongoing)
2.C.5.2. The Town Public Works Department and Town Board should work with the
County Highway Department and the County Legislature to determine if there
are County roads that should be Town roads (and vice versa) because of their
function in the highway network, such as: Burns Road (currently a Town road);
Bundy Road & Hayts Road (currently County roads). (Goals IV, V; short-term;
medium priority)
2.C.5.3. The Town should support regional transportation planning and inter-municipal
efforts toward the construction of new through-roads in other municipalities
that would relieve traffic burdens in Town of Ithaca neighborhoods. (All Goals;
ongoing)
2.D. Traffic CalmingTraffic CalmingTraffic CalmingTraffic Calming: As explained throughout the Traffic Calming Chapter of Volume III: The Design
Guidelines, the Town should explore traffic calming measures as one strategy to protect
residential areas from excessive negative effects of motor vehicle traffic. Unlike enforcement
strategies (see below), the goal of traffic calming is to cause motorists to unconsciously slow
down in response to their surroundings. Since traffic calming measures are more permanent
than temporary enforcement measures, traffic calming should be used as a long-term strategy to
reduce speeds and improve livability in neighborhoods. Traffic calming and other livability-
oriented design features, such as street trees, sidewalks, or pedestrian-scale lighting, should be
considered as part of roadway construction or reconstructions. (Goals II, III, VI, VII; as feasible;
high priority)
2.E. EnforcementEnforcementEnforcementEnforcement: The Town should support law enforcement agencies and campaigns that aim to
reduce motor vehicle infractions and discourage reckless, careless, or inattentive behavior.
(Goals I, II, III, V; ongoing)
2.E.1. Personnel: The Town should encourage the County to continue and increase traffic law
enforcement by the Tompkins County Sheriff’s Department. The Town Board should use
a cost/benefit analysis to evaluate the possibility of hiring a Town constable, providing
funding to the County Sheriff’s office, or contracting with other existing police forces to
continue and increase enforcement campaigns in the Town. (Goals I, II, III, V; ongoing)
111
2.E.2. Funding: The Town should provide funding to law enforcement agencies to conduct
targeted enforcement activities within the Town, such as a DUI campaign on New Year’s
Eve or a speed enforcement campaign. (Goals I, II, III, V; as feasible; low priority)
2.E.3. Prosecution: The Town should work with the District Attorney and the Town Court system
to vigorously prosecute traffic violations in school zones when children are present
outside. The Town should also encourage the Court to adopt a low-tolerance policy and
consistently apply it. Finally, the Town should encourage the Court to impose mandatory
safety education in lieu of fines and penalties for minor traffic violations. (Goals I, II, III, V;
as feasible; low priority)
2.E.4. Non-Enforcement Speed Control: With the understanding that law enforcement officers
cannot be present at the time of every traffic violation, the Town should encourage the
use of methods whereby motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians “police” themselves by
consciously changing their behavior in response to feedback from their environment.
Ideas include (but are not limited to) radar signs that display motorists’ speeds and
pedestrian walk/ do not walk signals that include countdown timers. (Goals I, II, III, V; as
feasible; medium priority) (Note: The Town should also use design elements, such as
traffic calming and lower roadway design speeds, which cause motorists to unconsciously
slow down and to obey the speed limit.)
2.E.5. Traffic Noise and Truck Size: The Town should encourage enforcement of existing motor
vehicle laws and noise ordinances that regulate factors that affect traffic noise, such as
speeding. The Town should encourage enforcement of truck size and weight limits in
order to protect livability in neighborhoods. Via the environmental review process, the
Town should explore the possibility of mitigating or avoiding completely any new truck
traffic burdens that could potentially result from new development. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V,
VII; ongoing)
2.F. Potential New Roadway CorridorsPotential New Roadway CorridorsPotential New Roadway CorridorsPotential New Roadway Corridors: This Plan and other plans preceding it have identified several
possible roadway corridors that would provide access to developing areas or potentially could
help to reduce traffic volumes in existing neighborhoods. These corridors include a connector
road on West Hill (shown in cross-hatching on the Official Highway Map in Volume II Appendix I),
a connector road from Pleasant Grove Road to Triphammer Road (identified in the North
Campus Gateway Study), and a possible Northeast connector road outside of the Town of Ithaca
(discussed in the NESTS Study; see the “Official Highway Map and Road Network Design”
section in the Inventory and Analysis Chapter for more information). Furthermore, the Town
should continue to explore means of reducing traffic in residential areas by creating alternate
(non-residential) traffic routes as opportunities arise. (Goals I, II, III, V, VI; ongoing)
2.F.1. West Hill Connector Road: This potential new road would connect Mecklenburg Road (Rt.
79) to the Overlook Development (located at the corner of Hayts Road and Trumansburg
Road/ Rt. 96). The location of the section from Mecklenburg Road to Bundy Road has
already been approved by the Planning Board, so it is shown with a dashed line on the
Official Highway Map. The section that connects Bundy Road to the Overlook
development has not been determined yet, so the Official Highway Map shows a cross-
hatched corridor in the potential general location of the road. The purpose of this new
connector would be to improve access to developing areas on West Hill by providing a
north-south corridor. Developers will construct the road as the area develops.
(Intermediate-term; high priority)
112
2.F.2. North Campus Gateway Connector Road: The North Campus gateway connector road
would connect Pleasant Grove north of A-lot, the main North Campus parking lot, to the
western end of Jessup Road. Two main purposes of the road would be to reduce
vehicular/ pedestrian/ bicyclist conflicts and to reduce traffic in neighborhoods around
North Campus. Cornell University would be responsible for the construction and
maintenance of the road, but the planning and design would involve the Village of Cayuga
Heights, the Town of Ithaca, the City of Ithaca, and Tompkins County. (Intermediate-term;
medium priority)
2.F.3. Northeast Connector Road: The connector segments studied in the Northeast Subarea
Transportation Study (NESTS) would run from Slaterville Road (Rt. 79) in the Town of
Dryden to Dryden Road (Rt. 366), then to Route 13 (in the vicinity of the intersection with
Hanshaw Road), and finally to Route 34 and Route 34B in the Town of Lansing.
Construction of a connector road in this corridor will need additional study to mitigate any
negative environmental impacts and a coordinated, inter-municipal regional effort, and it
should be coupled with enhanced mass transit, traffic calming, and improved bicycle and
pedestrian facilities in the Northeast (per the NESTS Study). (Long-term, low priority)
3.
BBBBICYCLEICYCLEICYCLEICYCLE &&&& PPPPEDESTRIANEDESTRIANEDESTRIANEDESTRIAN IIIISSUESSSUESSSUESSSUES
3.A. Revised Interim Sidewalk Policy:Revised Interim Sidewalk Policy:Revised Interim Sidewalk Policy:Revised Interim Sidewalk Policy: By adopting this Plan, the Town Board would revise the Interim
Town Sidewalk Policy of 2003 into a Non-Motorized Transportation Policy that addresses both
bicycle facilities and sidewalks or walkways. By adopting this Plan and the Non-Motorized
Transportation Policy, the Town Board would adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps
(Maps 11 & 12—in Volume II, Appendix I) as the general development strategy (i.e. locations and
priorities) for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Town. (All Goals; short-term; high priority)
3.B. Bicycle and Pedestrian FacilitiesBicycle and Pedestrian FacilitiesBicycle and Pedestrian FacilitiesBicycle and Pedestrian Facilities:
3.B.1. New and Existing Development: The Town Planning Board should use the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox in Volume III: The Design
Guidelines to determine which type of bicycle and/or pedestrian facility, if any, is
appropriate for new developments or redevelopment. The Planning Board should require
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in new developments when appropriate, as it is more
costly and inconvenient to retrofit facilities later. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should
be included in road reconstructions, again where appropriate. Appropriately designed
and located crosswalks are also important, in order to provide safe connections. Finally,
the Town should use the Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps to retrofit facilities into
existing developments. Paved roadway shoulders can be appropriate for bicyclists and
pedestrians in some rural areas of low-density development. For a listing of bicycle and
pedestrian improvement projects, please see Appendix VI, the Prioritized Bicycle and
Pedestrian Needs Maps in Appendix I, and 6.D.1 below. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII; as
feasible; high priority)
3.B.2. Costs: The Town should assume the cost of construction and maintenance of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities that serve a broader population beyond the adjacent neighborhoods.
Where the benefit is primarily for residents in the immediate vicinity (for example, on a
long cul-de-sac), property owners should be responsible for the maintenance and repair
of sidewalks and walkways. (Goal I, II, IV, V; ongoing)
113
3.B.3. Northeast Walkability Issues: The Town should work with the County Planning
Department on the Northeast Walkability Study. The Town Board and the Town Public
Works Department should help to implement the recommendations of the study, as
appropriate. (Goal I, II, IV, V; intermediate-term; medium priority)
3.B.4. Forest Home Pedestrian Issues: The Town should implement appropriate pedestrian
improvements in the Forest Home neighborhood, as determined by the Public Works
Committee and Town Board. (Goal I, II, III, IV, V; intermediate-term; medium priority)
3.B.5. Ithaca College – Downtown Ithaca Connection: Currently, the walking and biking
connections between Ithaca College and the City of Ithaca’s downtown business district
are very poor. The Town should work with Ithaca College, the City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, NYSDOT, and other stakeholders to improve the safety, aesthetics, and
convenience of this link. (Goal I, II, III, V; intermediate-term; medium priority)
3.C. Bicycle & Pedestrian DesignBicycle & Pedestrian DesignBicycle & Pedestrian DesignBicycle & Pedestrian Design:
3.C.1. The Town should use the guidelines in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design:
Best Practices Toolbox in Volume III: The Design Guidelines as a starting point when
designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As the guidelines do not prescribe mandatory
specifications, the Town should apply the principles of context sensitive design to tailor
the design of facilities to the unique situation of every corridor. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII;
as feasible; high priority)
3.C.2. All bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be ADA compliant, unless there are factors
that cannot be mitigated with reasonable cost and effort. (Goals I, III, IV; ongoing)
3.C.3. The Town should encourage bicycle and pedestrian facilities as normal, “default” aspects
of a right-of-way and, when designing or accepting designs for a right-of-way, should put
the burden of proof on why bicycle and pedestrians should not be included. 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 (see Volume III: The Design Guidelines for more information). (Goals I, II, III,
V, VI; ongoing)
3.D. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit ConnectionsBicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit ConnectionsBicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit ConnectionsBicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Connections: The Town should work with TCAT, Cornell, and
other stakeholders to enhance the connections and transitions between walking, biking, and
transit. (Goals I, II, III, V, VI; long-term; low priority) For example:
3.D.1. Bike-and-Ride: The Town should promote Bike-and-Ride as part of a Park-and-Ride
strategy. (Goals I, II, V; intermediate-term; low priority)
3.D.2. Promotion: The Town and TCAT should use transit stops and shelters as locations for
biking information and promotion, especially information regarding bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit connections. (Goals I, V; intermediate-term; low priority)
3.D.3. Bike Parking: The Town should encourage TCAT to locate bike racks at major bus stops
within the Town. (Goals I, II, V, VI; ongoing)
3.D.4. Connecting Developments: In some areas, it may not be feasible to create or extend new
or existing transit routes to a residential development. In these cases, the Town should
encourage non-motorized links (like a multi-use trail) between that development and
other areas served by transit. For example, the Town could consider how to connect
EcoVillage and Linderman Creek to allow residents of the developments to get from one
development to the other without having to use a car. (Goals I, II, III, V; as feasible;
medium priority)
114
3.E. MultiMultiMultiMulti----Use TrailsUse TrailsUse TrailsUse 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 5.D
below). (Goals I, II, V, VI, VII; ongoing)
3.E.1. The Town should consider multi-use trails as both transportation and recreation facilities
by designing them to accommodate both types of users. For example, multi-use trails
should connect destinations; they also could provide recreational amenities such as
informative signs, benches, and so on. (Goals I, II, VI, VII; ongoing)
3.E.2. The Town should consider maintaining part or all of the South Hill Recreation Way for use
as a commuter transportation route year-round. This may require modifications in the
design and maintenance program for the trail. (The East Hill Recreation Way is already
maintained year-round as a pedestrian commuter route.) (Goals I, VI, VII; short-term; low
priority)
3.E.3. The Town should consider improving access to the South Hill Recreation Way by providing
access points along the length of the trail, in addition to the existing access points at the
ends. (Goals I, VI, VII; intermediate-term; low priority)
3.E.4. The Town should explore ways to improve the aesthetics and security of the walkways in
Northeast neighborhoods that are used by students to access the elementary and middle
schools. (Goals I, III; short-term; low priority)
3.F. Safety Education & EvaluationSafety Education & EvaluationSafety Education & EvaluationSafety Education & Evaluation:
3.F.1. The Town should work with the Ithaca City Police Department, the County Sheriff’s
Department, the Ithaca City School District, and Cornell to devise a bicyclist and
pedestrian safety education strategy for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Cornell
has a bicyclist safety education staff member. See Attachment E for potential
components of such a strategy. (Goals II, III, V; as feasible; medium priority)
3.F.2. The Safe Routes to School (SR2S) movement is working to ensure that every child has
the opportunity to enjoy active transportation to and from school. SR2S can include
programs to encourage children to walk or bike to and from school or a school bus stop.
Other programs organize a "walking school bus," where parents lead groups of children
on a walk to school. SR2S programs can also include building and maintaining a network
of sidewalks and crosswalks. Significant amounts of funding are available through the
federal and state governments to design and implement SR2S programs. The Town
should work with school officials, parents’ associations, and other stakeholders to
explore how the SR2S concept could work for Town of Ithaca elementary and middle
schools. (Goals II, III, V; as feasible; medium priority)
3.G. Encouragement StrategyEncouragement StrategyEncouragement StrategyEncouragement Strategy: The Town should work with other municipalities and advocacy groups
to devise a bicycling and walking encouragement strategy that highlights the benefits of biking
and walking and encourages residents to take advantage of the Town’s bicycling and walking
opportunities. See Attachment F for potential components of such a strategy. (Goals I, II, V, VII;
as feasible; medium priority)
3.H. Bicycle EquipmentBicycle EquipmentBicycle EquipmentBicycle Equipment: The Town should explore how adequate, safe bicycle equipment relates to
safety, enforcement, and encouragement issues. For example, the Town should consider ways
to help residents keep their bicycles and helmets in good working condition. Some safety
problems arise from lack of knowledge about safe equipment, such as properly fitted helmets or
a lack of lights at night. Education and enforcement (warnings, perhaps) can help to teach the
115
public how to keep their equipment in good working condition. Free or reduced-price equipment
may be part of an encouragement strategy. (Goals I, III, V; as feasible; low priority)
4.
TTTTRANSITRANSITRANSITRANSIT IIIISSUESSSUESSSUESSSUES
The expansion of public transit will play an important role in the control of traffic and congestion
in the Town. Ithaca’s terrain and cold and snowy winters present challenges for walking and biking as
year-round, widespread transportation options, and some trips are too long to make on foot or on a bike.
The expansion of public transit also fulfills the objective of maintaining a system that is accessible to all,
including those unable to drive, such as the young, old, low-income, and disabled. The Town should
continue to work with TCAT, major employers, and other stakeholders to improve transit opportunities in
the Town. (All Goals; ongoing)
4.A. ParkParkParkPark----andandandand----Ride:Ride:Ride: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-and-Ride studies by Cornell and the ITCTC. In this system, Park-and-Ride lots located
outside the Town, or on the outskirts of the Town, would “catch” motorists as they begin their
commute into the urbanized area, and transfer them to public transportation or shared rides (for
example, a car pool). As West and South Hills in the Town and outlying areas of Tompkins
County continue to develop, the impacts of increasing traffic volumes on existing and new
neighborhoods need to be addressed. Employers could offer incentives for employees to utilize
alternatives to the privately operated, single occupancy motor vehicle, in order to reduce their
need for parking facilities. For example, Cornell University currently offers incentives such as
“Guaranteed Ride Home” to encourage its employees to take transit. (Goals I, II, IV, V, VII;
ongoing)
4.B. Ease of Use:Ease of Use:Ease of Use:Ease of Use: A common comment is that it is too difficult to use TCAT. The Town should
encourage and work with TCAT to make transit service easy to understand and use. (Goals I, V;
ongoing) TCAT is already pursuing ideas such as:
4.B.1. Posting bus numbers and schedules at stops, like in the City;
4.B.2. Electronic signs that tell riders the time until the next bus;
4.B.3. Naming bus routes by common names, instead of numbers;
4.B.4. Maintaining and improving consistency in pick-up times and locations throughout the day
and throughout the year;
4.B.5. Some riders avoid the bike racks because they are concerned they may use them
incorrectly or may embarrass themselves. Demonstration projects can show the public
how to use the racks, thereby building confidence.
4.B.6. An automated telephone system that would tell riders how long until the next bus arrives
at their stop.
4.B.7. Simplified transit route maps.
4.C. Funding:Funding:Funding:Funding: The Town Board should consider funding for TCAT to ensure adequate levels of transit
service in the Town. The Town Board should continue to fund Gadabout to ensure continued
service for senior citizens and the disabled in the Town. (Goals I, IV, V; ongoing)
4.D. Transit in Existing & New DevelopmentTransit in Existing & New DevelopmentTransit in Existing & New DevelopmentTransit in Existing & New Development: The Town Planning Board and Planning Department
should continue to work with TCAT to ensure that new development in the Town is served by
transit, where feasible, in terms of the site plan and route extensions (or other enhancements).
Ithaca College is an area of existing development that may benefit from expanded transit
116
service, especially as part of a program to reduce car use on campus. West Hill will need
increased transit coverage as the area develops. (Goals I, II, IV, V, VI, VII; ongoing)
4.E. Other High Occupancy Vehicle StrategiesOther High Occupancy Vehicle StrategiesOther High Occupancy Vehicle StrategiesOther High Occupancy Vehicle Strategies: The Town should encourage carpool and carshare
initiatives from the public and private sector (including educational institutions, such as Cornell
and Ithaca College). (Goals I, II, IV, V; as feasible; low priority)
5.
RRRREGIONALEGIONALEGIONALEGIONAL CCCCOOPERATIONOOPERATIONOOPERATIONOOPERATION
While it is not a tangible issue, the topic of inter-municipal cooperation must be addressed
because transportation decisions in one municipality affects the transportation systems in neighboring
municipalities. Inter-municipal cooperation will improve the physical and operational characteristics of
the transportation network.
By sharing resources and working with other municipalities, the Town can ensure a seamless
network of infrastructure (including a network of trails, walkways, and paths designed for non-motorized
modes) and can improve the condition and safety of roads that run through the Town (including roads not
actually owned by the Town). Sharing resources improves the operation of the system, leading to more
efficient use of resources for patrols; coordination on construction, maintenance, and reconstruction;
expansion of public transit service; and management of truck traffic. Due to the area’s unique natural
and political boundaries, cooperation could effectively channel growth into appropriate areas, reserve
adequate rights-of-way to serve the long-term needs of the area transportation system, and enhance
communication among municipal governments, which will lead to effective decision-making. (All Goals;
ongoing)
5.A. ITCTCITCTCITCTCITCTC: The Town should continue to participate in the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation
Council (ITCTC). (Goal V; ongoing)
5.B. tttt----GEIS (TransportationGEIS (TransportationGEIS (TransportationGEIS (Transportation----focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement) & TIMS focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement) & TIMS focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement) & TIMS focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement) & TIMS
(Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies)(Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies)(Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies)(Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies): The Town should support the goals and resulting
TIMS of Cornell’s transportation-focused Environmental Impact Statement of 2006 upon its
completion, 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. The t-GEIS and TIMS may result in additional transportation projects or strategies that can
be considered by the Town Board as a supplement to those identified in this Transportation Plan.
(Goals II, V, VII; ongoing)
5.C. Town Transportation CommitteeTown Transportation CommitteeTown Transportation CommitteeTown 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, the County, and other agencies, when
relevant topics arise. The Transportation Committee should continue to address current
problems and issues and monitor the implementation of the Transportation Plan. (Goal V; short-
term; low priority)
5.D. County TrailsCounty TrailsCounty TrailsCounty Trails: The Town should work with the ITCTC, the County Public Works Department and
Planning Departments, NYSDOT, and NYS Parks & Recreation Department to implement a
county-wide system of trails, including the Black Diamond Trail, based on the precedent
established by the Gateway Trail. (Goals I, V; ongoing)
5.E. ParkParkParkPark----andandandand----RideRideRideRide: 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
studies by Cornell and the ITCTC. (Goals I, II, IV, V, VII; ongoing)
117
5.F. Design IssuesDesign IssuesDesign IssuesDesign Issues: The Town is the geographic transition between the urbanized City and the rural
parts of the County, Therefore, it is very important for the Town to work with the City, Cornell,
and the County to ensure that transportation design is consistent and predictable throughout the
area, in the sense that there should not be an abrupt change in design at municipal boundaries.
For example, any future joint traffic calming projects should aim to maintain consistency across
municipal boundaries, and speed limits should not unexpectedly change at municipal
boundaries when the land use remains substantially the same. Regardless of municipality, the
design of the roadway should reflect adjacent land uses, gradually becoming more urban as
adjacent land uses become more intense. The t-GEIS provides an excellent opportunity to
coordinate such issues. (All Goals; ongoing)
5.G. Traffic Demand Management:Traffic Demand Management:Traffic Demand Management: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, to employees. This is a primary focus of the t-GEIS and TIMS. (All
Goals; as feasible; medium priority)
5.H. Shared Services and ExpertiShared Services and ExpertiShared Services and ExpertiShared Services and Expertisesesese: The Town should continue to identify opportunities to share
responsibility for services, facilities, equipment, labor, and expertise with the City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York State Department of Transportation, Cornell University, law
enforcement agencies, and other entities responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the
transportation network. (Goals I, III, IV, V; ongoing)
5.I. Truck TrafficTruck TrafficTruck TrafficTruck Traffic: The Town should work with the County, the City of Ithaca, the 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. (Goals I, II, III, IV,
V; ongoing)
6.
CCCCAPITALAPITALAPITALAPITAL BBBBUDGETUDGETUDGETUDGET PPPPROJECTSROJECTSROJECTSROJECTS
A Capital Budget is a tool used by governments to strategically plan for major projects, including
acquisition of long-term assets and construction of facilities. For example, one project in the Town of
Ithaca Capital Budget as of 2005 is the reconstruction of Snyder Hill Road. The Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP), part of a Capital Budget, covers five years and is updated annually. As projects are completed,
the costs for their operation and maintenance become on-going in the Operating Budget. 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 & HorizonCapital Budget & HorizonCapital Budget & HorizonCapital Budget & Horizon: The Town should continue to budget for capital needs related to
transportation projects. The Town may want to consider capital planning for ten years in
advance in order to consider the “bigger picture” and to help make decisions within the context
of the Town’s expected development. (Goal IV; ongoing)
6.B. Budget Appropriations:Budget Appropriations:Budget Appropriations:Budget Appropriations: The Town should consider annual appropriations for less costly
transportation projects, such as segments of walkways, shoulder improvements, or crosswalks,
as part of the yearly operating budget. (Goal IV; as feasible; medium priority)
6.C. Other Funding Sources:Other Funding Sources:Other Funding Sources:Other Funding Sources: The Town should apply for additional funds for transportation projects,
using programs such as the Transportation Enhancement Program, TIP, funding sources through
SAFETEA, and so on. Furthermore, the Town should explore funding sources that are not
associated strictly with transportation, such as Quality Communities grants, the NYS Department
118
of Health’s Healthy Neighborhoods Program and Healthy Heart Program, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund/ Municipal Parks Matching Grant Program, and so on. (Goal IV, V; as feasible;
medium priority)
6.D. Specific ProjectsSpecific ProjectsSpecific ProjectsSpecific Projects: The following is a list of projects that could become part of the Capital Budget
in the future:
6.D.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements: For a listing of bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects with descriptions, please see Appendix VI and the Prioritized
Pedestrian and Bicycle Corridor Needs Maps (Maps 11 and 12). The list below includes
all of the corridors identified as high priorities. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V; as feasible; high
priority)
6.D.1.1. Danby Road, City line to Ithaca College
6.D.1.2. Hanshaw Road
6.D.1.3. Coddington Road, Ithaca College to City line
6.D.1.4. Pine Tree Road
6.D.1.5. Honness Lane, Slaterville Road to Town walkway
6.D.1.6. Forest Home neighborhood
6.D.1.7. Trumansburg Road, City to Hospital
6.D.1.8. Maple Ave, connection between the City sidewalk and Town walkway
6.D.2. Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan: Implement elements of the Forest Home Traffic
Calming Plan (FHTCP), when and where appropriate, upon the completion of the FHTCP
and submission to the Town Board. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V; intermediate-term; medium
priority)
6.D.3. Other Traffic Calming Locations: The Town could begin to assess suitability and need for
traffic calming on other roads. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V; intermediate-term; low priority)
6.D.4. The Gateway Trail: The Gateway Trail is a trail that runs along the boundary between the
City and Town that will eventually connect the Black Diamond Trail to the South Hill
Recreation Way. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V; ongoing)
6.D.5. Snyder Hill Road Walkway: A road improvement project for Snyder Hill Road is included
in the current Capital Budget. The project involves drainage improvements, general
layout modifications, shoulder improvements, and possibly a walkway. (Goals I, II, III, IV;
ongoing)
7.
ZZZZONINGONINGONINGONING,,,, SSSSUBDIVISIONUBDIVISIONUBDIVISIONUBDIVISION RRRREGULATIONSEGULATIONSEGULATIONSEGULATIONS,,,, ANDANDANDAND SSSSITEITEITEITE PPPPLANLANLANLAN RRRREVIEWEVIEWEVIEWEVIEW
This Plan has drawn the connection between land use, zoning, and the design of the road
network and the transportation system. Historically, transit and non-motorized transportation have been
an afterthought in the development process. The study of the transportation effects of single proposals is
often considered in isolation of the greater transportation network. This Plan calls for changes to ensure
that the cumulative negative effects of development on the transportation network, as well as on
adjacent land uses, are minimized. This Plan recommends that bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
opportunities are considered in relation to every development proposal. Also, the Town should work to
ensure that the transportation system is able to accommodate proposed development, and that
appropriate mitigating measures are addressed during the development review process. The Town should
alter subdivision and zoning regulations to lessen dependence on the privately owned and operated
motor vehicle and to lessen the strain on the motorized transportation network. Furthermore, the Town
119
should support the findings of the ITCTC’s LRTP and the County’s Comprehensive Plan, that is, to
encourage node-based and transit-oriented development. (All Goals; ongoing)
Attachment G at the end of these Recommendations contains checklists that summarize bicycle
and pedestrian issues that should be considered during the site plan review and subdivision approval
processes. The checklists are meant to be used by the Planning Department and Planning Board as a
supplement to the existing Site Plan and Subdivision Checklists. In addition to the checklists in
Attachment G, the Town Planning and Engineering Departments and the Town Planning Board should use
the information in this Transportation Plan, and particularly in Volume III: The Design Guidelines when
evaluating development proposals. (All Goals; ongoing)
The following Recommendations address both positive and negative aspects of existing
development trends in the Town of Ithaca.
7.A. Recommendations for Zoning Regulations:Recommendations for Zoning Regulations:Recommendations for Zoning Regulations:Recommendations for Zoning Regulations:
7.A.1. Mixed-Uses: Zoning regulations should encourage appropriate mixed-use zones, such as
neighborhood commercial and mixed density residential land uses, that bring the most
commonly needed goods and services within easy walking distance of residents and
provide a wide range of housing opportunities. The Town should encourage mixed-use
development and multi-family dwellings, where appropriate. The Planned Development
Zone in the Town’s Zoning Code can provide such opportunities. (Goal I, II, VI; as feasible;
high priority)
7.A.2. Neighborhood Commercial Zones: The Town should consider adding Neighborhood
Commercial Zones to developing areas as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. In
residential zones, the Town should continue to allow home businesses and, in large
residential developments, should allow for neighborhood commercial zones and other
mixed-use zones. (Goal I, II, VI; ongoing)
7.A.3. Residential Setbacks: In appropriate neighborhood settings, the Town should consider
reducing setback requirements to make homes easily accessible from the sidewalk and
to create a feeling of pedestrian safety and enclosure. Concerns about proximity to the
roadway can be addressed via street trees and other road edge barriers and by limiting
the speed and volume of traffic on residential streets. (Goals I, II, VI, VII; intermediate-
term; low priority)
7.A.4. Commercial Setbacks: In commercial zones, the Town should consider reducing
commercial buildings’ setback requirements and should locate parking at the rear of the
building to encourage transit, biking, and walking. The façade facing the street should be
as attractive or more attractive than the face toward the parking lot. (Goals I, II, VI;
intermediate-term; low priority)
7.A.5. Garages: In residential zones with narrow lots, the garage door can become a significant
part of the house’s front façade. The Town should allow garages to be accessed via an
alley at the back of the lot. (Goals II, VI; intermediate-term; low priority)
7.A.6. Parking Requirements: Massive parking lots are unattractive, increase polluted
stormwater run-off, and are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate; therefore,
parking lot area should be minimized. The Town should encourage retail parking lots that
are designed to accommodate typical peak hour volumes, not the extraordinary volumes
that occur only once or twice per year. Therefore, the Town should review the parking
standards in the Town’s Zoning Code and revise them, where appropriate. The Town
should allow reductions in parking requirements for commercial developments that
120
actively encourage alternate modes of transportation. The Town should require generous
parking lot landscaping, including trees, and should encourage the use of porous
pavement materials for driveways and parking lots. The Town should require bicycle
parking in appropriate developments per Volume III: The Design Guidelines. (Goals I, II, III,
VI, VII; as feasible; medium priority)
7.B. Recommendations for Subdivision Regulations & Review:Recommendations for Subdivision Regulations & Review:Recommendations for Subdivision Regulations & Review:Recommendations for Subdivision Regulations & Review:
7.B.1. Cluster Subdivisions: The Town Planning Board should encourage the use of cluster-type
subdivisions, which discourage land-consumptive patterns and preserve open space. The
Subdivision Regulations include provisions for mandating clustering under appropriate
circumstances. (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII; ongoing)
7.B.2. Connectivity: Through the subdivision (and site plan) approval process, the Town should
promote the greatest possible connectivity between local streets and between non-
motorized facilities to increase the number of linkages, thereby making it easier to get
from point A to point B, reducing trip lengths, decreasing out-of-direction travel,
increasing the safety of an area by providing alternate emergency access routes, allowing
for the possibility of walking and biking as viable forms of transportation, and spreading
out the traffic burden across many streets. (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII; ongoing)
7.B.3. Cul-de-sacs: While cul-de-sacs are effective in restricting motor vehicle through-traffic,
they are also effective in restricting bicycle and pedestrian transportation. The Town
should discourage the use of cul-de-sacs as a development pattern. Developers should
be encouraged to examine alternative residential designs that promote connectivity.
Where cul-de-sacs are allowed, development proposals should provide bicycle and
pedestrian connections to adjacent roadways wherever possible. (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII;
ongoing)
7.C. Recommendations for Site Plan Regulations & Review:Recommendations for Site Plan Regulations & Review:Recommendations for Site Plan Regulations & Review:Recommendations for Site Plan Regulations & Review:
7.C.1. Transit: The Town Planning Board should continue to consider transit access and
adequacy as part of subdivision and site plan reviews for major new developments.
(Goals I, V, VI; ongoing)
7.C.2. Pedestrian Enhancements: The Town should consider sidewalks or walkways, street
trees, and pedestrian-scale lighting as part of every residential, commercial, or mixed-use
development. (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII; ongoing)
7.C.3. Bicycle & Pedestrian Circulation: The Town should work toward ensuring that commercial
sites have clearly delineated crosswalks and adequate sidewalks or walkways that take
the shortest and most direct route to connect pedestrian destinations. The walkways or
sidewalks should lead from parking areas to building entrances, between various
buildings on a site, and to buildings on adjacent sites. (Goals I, III, VI, VII; ongoing)
7.C.4. Impact Evaluation: The Planning Board should ensure that developers proposing an
action that requires a traffic impact evaluation identify and mitigate potential negative
effects on residential areas and non-motorized aspects of the transportation system,
including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit elements. (All Goals; ongoing)
7.C.5. Shared Access: Especially in commercial zones, the Town should require shared access
drives between businesses, where appropriate, to allow site circulation that keeps
unnecessary vehicle trips off the main roadway. (Goals I, III, IV, VI; ongoing)
7.C.6. Motor Vehicle & Bicycle Parking: The Town Planning Board should consider requiring
developers to locate compact parking spaces closer to the entrance of a building to
121
reward drivers who choose compact cars, to protect pedestrians by moving large vehicles
away from the building entrance, and to enhance safety by improving visibility for drivers
of compact cars who otherwise would park next to or between large vehicles. The Town
should encourage developers to explore porous and light-colored pavements to reduce
stormwater runoff and the heat island effect. Where appropriate, the Town should
require short, numerous parking lot light poles that are well shielded, to minimize light
pollution. Furthermore, as part of the site plan or special permit review process, the
Town should encourage the use of energy-efficient fixtures and should discourage
business owners from lighting their parking lots beyond what is necessary for security
after business hours. (Goals I, II, III, IV, VI, VII; ongoing)
122
AAAATTACHMENTSTTACHMENTSTTACHMENTSTTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Recommendations Involving NonAttachment A: Recommendations Involving NonAttachment A: Recommendations Involving NonAttachment A: Recommendations Involving Non----Town EntitiesTown EntitiesTown EntitiesTown Entities
Other Involved Municipalities,
Organizations & Agencies Recommendation Record Number
County Highway Department &
NYSDOT Lower speed limits on certain roads 2 B 4
County Highway Department &
NYSDOT
Continue to cooperate on maintenance
responsibilities 2 C 5.1
County Legislature & County
Highway Department
Work together to determine if there are any
sensible "road swaps" 2 C 5.2
City of Ithaca Police
Department, County Sheriff, &
NYS Troopers
Town provides funding for enforcement 2 E 1&2
District Attorney & Town Court
Vigorously prosecute violations in school
zones; mandatory safety education in lieu of
fines; etc
2 E 3
County Planning Department Town cooperates with Northeast Walkability
Study 3 B 3
Forest Home Neighborhood
Association
Town guides implementation of appropriate
parts of the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan 3 B 4
City, County, NYSDOT, Ithaca
College
Improve the bicycling/ walking connection
between Ithaca College and the downtown of
the City of Ithaca
3 B 5
TCAT Promote connections between bicycling,
walking, & transit 3 D 1-4
County Planning Department &
ITCTC Expand County-wide multi-use trail system 3 E (Also 5.D)
City of Ithaca Police
Department, County Sheriff,
Ithaca City School District,
advocacy groups
Bicycle & pedestrian safety education strategy 3 F 1
School officials, parents’
associations, other
stakeholders
Explore opportunities to implement Safe
Routes to School programs 3 F 2
City of Ithaca Police Department
& County Sheriff Enforce bicycle & pedestrian laws 3 G
TCAT, ITCTC, Cornell, major
employers Create a Park-and-Ride system 4 A (Also 5.E)
TCAT Recommendations for improvement &
expansion of transit. 4 B 1-5 (Also 4.D)
ITCTC Town continues to participate in the ITCTC 5 A
Cornell University Work with Town & other stakeholders on the t-
GEIS & TIMS 5 B
NYSDOT, NYS Parks &
Recreation, City of Ithaca Implement plans for Black Diamond Trail 5 D
Other municipalities,
organizations, agencies
Implement consistent design standards &
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 5 F (Also 5.G)
123
strategies
Other municipalities and
agencies
Explore opportunities to share services,
facilities, equipment, labor, and expertise 5 H
County, City, ITCTC, companies Address truck traffic currently routed through
residential areas 5 I
City of Ithaca, private land
owners, NYS Parks &
Recreation, & Emerson Power
Transmission
Create Gateway Trail 6 D 4
124Attachment B: Recommendations Per GoalAttachment B: Recommendations Per GoalAttachment B: Recommendations Per GoalAttachment B: Recommendations Per Goal Goal Goal Goal Goal RecomRecomRecomRecom---- mendationmendationmendationmendation Goal I: Access & Goal I: Access & Goal I: Access & Goal I: Access & MobilityMobilityMobilityMobility Goal II: Goal II: Goal II: Goal II: LivabilityLivabilityLivabilityLivability Goal III: Goal III: Goal III: Goal III: SafetySafetySafetySafety Goal IV: Goal IV: Goal IV: Goal IV: System System System System ManagementManagementManagementManagement Goal V: CoordinationGoal V: CoordinationGoal V: CoordinationGoal V: Coordination Goal VI: Land Use Goal VI: Land Use Goal VI: Land Use Goal VI: Land Use PlanningPlanningPlanningPlanning Goal VII: Goal VII: Goal VII: Goal VII: EnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironment 1. The Trans. Plan Applicable Applicable Appli-cable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable 2. Roadways 2.A.1 2.B 2.B.1 2.B.6 2.D 2.E 2.B.1 2.B.2 2.B.3 2.B.4 2.C.3 2.C.4 2.D 2.E 2.A.1 2.B 2.B.1 2.B.2 2.B.3 2.B.4 2.B.5 2.B.6 2.C.3 2.D 2.E 2.A.1 2.B.1 2.B.2 2.B.3 2.B.6 2.C.1 2.C.2 2.C.3 2.C.4 2.C.5 2.C.4 2.C.6 2.E 2.A.1 2.B 2.B.1 2.B.6 2.D 2.B 2.B.1 2.B.4 2.D 3. Bike & Walking Issues 3.A 3.B.1 3.B.2 3.B.3 3.B.4 3.B.5 3.C.1 3.C.2 3.C.3 3.D 3.D.1 3.D.2 3.D.3 3.D.4 3.E 3.E.1 3.E.2 3.E.3 3.E.4 3.H 3.I 3.A 3.B.1 3.B.2 3.B.3 3.B.4 3.B.5 3.C.1 3.C.3 3.D 3.D.1 3.D.3 3.D.4 3.E 3.E.1 3.F.1 3.F.2 3.G 3.H 3.A 3.B.1 3.B.5 3.C.1 3.C.2 3.C.3 3.D 3.D.4 3.E.4 3.F.1 3.F.2 3.G 3.I 3.A 3.B.1 3.B.2 3.B.3 3.B.4 3.C.1 3.C.2 3.A 3.B.1 3.B.2 3.B.3 3.B.4 3.C.3 3.D 3.D.1 3.D.2 3.D.3 3.D.4 3.E 3.F.1 3.F.2 3.G 3.H 3.I 3.A 3.C.1 3.C.3 3.D 3.D.3 3.E 3.E.1 3.E.2 3.E.3 3.A 3.B.1 3.C.1 3.E 3.E.1 3.E.2 3.E.3 3.H 4. Transit 4.A 4.B 4.C 4.D 4.E 4.A 4.D 4.E 4.A 4.C 4.D 4.E 4.A 4.B 4.C 4.E 4.D 4.A 4.D 5. Cooperation 5.B 5.D 5.E 5.F 5.G 5.H 5.I 5.E 5.F 5.G 5.I 5.F 5.G 5.H 5.I 5.E 5.F 5.G 5.H 5.I 5.A 5.B 5.C 5.D 5.E 5.F 5.G 5.H 5.I 5.F 5.G 5.B 5.E 5.F 5.G
125 Goal Goal Goal Goal RecomRecomRecomRecom---- mendationmendationmendationmendation Goal I: Access & Goal I: Access & Goal I: Access & Goal I: Access & MobilityMobilityMobilityMobility Goal II: Goal II: Goal II: Goal II: LivabilityLivabilityLivabilityLivability Goal III: Goal III: Goal III: Goal III: SafetySafetySafetySafety Goal IV: Goal IV: Goal IV: Goal IV: System System System System ManagementManagementManagementManagement Goal V: CGoal V: CGoal V: CGoal V: Coordinationoordinationoordinationoordination Goal VI: Land Use Goal VI: Land Use Goal VI: Land Use Goal VI: Land Use PlanningPlanningPlanningPlanning Goal VII: Goal VII: Goal VII: Goal VII: EnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironment 6. Budgeting 6.A 6.B 6.C 6.C 7. Land Use Planning 7.A.1 7.A.2 7.A.3 7.A.4 7.A.6 7.B.1 7.B.2 7.B.3 7.C.1 7.C.2 7.C.3 7.C.4 7.C.5 7.C.6 7.A.1 7.A.2 7.A.3 7.A.4 7.A.5 7.A.6 7.B.1 7.B.2 7.B.3 7.C.2 7.C.4 7.C.6 7.A.6 7.B.1 7.B.2 7.B.3 7.C.2 7.C.3 7.C.4 7.C.5 7.C.6 7.A.1 7.A.2 7.A.3 7.C.4 7.C.5 7.C.6 7.C.1 7.C.4 7.C.5 7.A.4 7.A.5 7.A.6 7.B.1 7.B.2 7.B.3 7.C.1 7.C.2 7.C.3 7.C.4 7.C.5 7.C.6 7.A.3 7.A.6 7.B.1 7.B.2 7.B.3 7.C.2 7.C.3 7.C.4 7.C.6
126Attachment C: TimeAttachment C: TimeAttachment C: TimeAttachment C: Time----Frames and Priorities for New InitiativesFrames and Priorities for New InitiativesFrames and Priorities for New InitiativesFrames and Priorities for New Initiatives This table shows the anticipated time frames and priorities for new initiatives in the Recommendations. The table does not include ongoing or pre-existing actions. The Recommendations in this table are paraphrased; please see the Recommendations Chapter for more information about each item. Priority Time-Frame Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority Short-term • Consider maintaining all or part of the South Hill Recreation Way as a year-round commuter route (3.E.2) • Explore ways to improve safety and aesthetics of walkways around the schools in the Northeast neighborhoods (3.E.4) • Continue to invite other agencies to Transportation Committee meetings (5.C) • Perform minor improvements as noted by the Crash Screenings (2.C.3) • Explore the possibility of trading responsibility for certain roads with the County (2.C.5.2) • Adopt this Transportation Plan (1.A) • Amend or update the Comprehensive Plan (1.B) • Adopt the Official Highway Map (2.A) • By adopting this Transportation Plan, revise the interim Town Sidewalk Policy of 2003 (3.A) Intermediate-term • Promote Bike-and-Ride (3.D.1) • Promote bicycling at transit stops (3.D.2) • Improve access to the South Hill Recreation Way (3.E.3) • Assess suitability and need for traffic calming in neighborhoods across the Town (6.D.3) • Reduce residential and commercial setbacks to improve walkability (7.A.3, 7.A.4) • Allow garages to be accessed via a rear alley (7.A.5) • Study benefits and costs of a North Campus Gateway connector road (2.F.2) • Work with the County on the Northeast Walkability Study and its implementation to improve walkability in the Northeast (3.B.3) • Implement the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan, as appropriate (3.B.4, 6.D.2) • Improve the connection between Ithaca College and downtown Ithaca (3.B.5) • Review and update the Transportation Plan after five or ten years—also long-term (1.C) • Implement plans for a West Hill connector road (2.F.1) Long-term • Improve the connections and transitions between walking, biking, & transit (3.D) • Perform feasibility analysis for Northeast connector road recommended by NESTS • Review and update the Transportation Plan after five or ten years—also intermediate-term (1.C)
127 Priority Time-Frame Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority (2.F.3) As feasible • Explore ways to reduce deer-related crashes (2.B.5) • Designate roads of visual, cultural, or historical significance as Official Town Scenic Routes (2.C.4.6) • Provide funding for targeted traffic law enforcement campaigns (2.E.2) • Prosecute traffic violations in school zones when children are present. Consider safety education instead of fines for traffic law infractions (2.E.3) • Explore how adequate, safe bicycle equipment relates to safety, enforcement, and encouragement issues (3.H) • Explore high occupancy vehicle strategies, such as car sharing (4.E) • Explore ways to reduce vehicular speeds in neighborhoods besides traffic law enforcement (2.E.4) • Connect developments with multi-use trails to allow residents to get around via biking and walking and to access transit stops in other developments (3.D.4) • Work with other stakeholders to implement a bicycle and pedestrian safety education strategy (3.F.1) • Determine how the Safe Routes to School concept could work for schools in the Town (3.F.2) • Work with other stakeholders to implement a bicycling and walking encouragement strategy (3.G) • Work with other stakeholders to devise traffic demand management strategies (5.G) • Consider budget appropriations for transportation projects that are too small to appear in the Capital Budget (6.B) • Apply for additional funds for transportation projects, and explore funds not strictly associated with transportation (6.C) • Minimize parking lot area, explore the use of pervious pavements, and implement other changes to make parking lots more environmentally friendly and less intrusive (7.A.6) • Use the information in the Design Guidelines to guide the development of the transportation network (2.B.1, 3.C.1) • Implement design responses to mitigate excessive speeds and cut-through traffic in neighborhoods (2.B.4.1) • Explore traffic calming as a way to improve neighborhood livability and safety (2.D) • Require bicycle and pedestrian facilities in appropriate new developments, and retrofit bicycle and pedestrian facilities into appropriate existing development (3.B.1) • Implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements, as described in Appendix VI and the Prioritized Pedestrian & Bicycle Needs Maps (6.D.1) • Encourage appropriate mixed-use development (7.A.1)
128
Attachment D: The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan & The TransporAttachment D: The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan & The TransporAttachment D: The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan & The TransporAttachment D: The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan & The Transportation Plantation Plantation Plantation Plan
One of the goals of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (1993) is “to provide a transportation system
that is safe, efficient, convenient, and environmentally sustainable.” To this end, the Comprehensive Plan
recommended the creation of a separate Transportation Plan.
This attachment states the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan’s transportation goal, paraphrases the
recommended actions for each objective, and outlines the ways in which this Transportation Plan fulfills
the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Objective 1: A reduced need for cars in the greater Ithaca area through development of a diversified
transportation system which emphasizes more fuel-efficient forms of transportation such as public
transit, bicycling, and walking.
a) Develop Park & Ride; encourage carpools and vanpools, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and public Develop Park & Ride; encourage carpools and vanpools, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and public Develop Park & Ride; encourage carpools and vanpools, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and public Develop Park & Ride; encourage carpools and vanpools, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and public
transittransittransittransit: This Plan references and supports the recent efforts by the ITCTC to create a Park & Ride
system for Tompkins County. Recommendation 4.A discusses Park-and-Ride, 4.E covers carpools
and other high-occupancy vehicle strategies, Recommendation 3 describes ways the Town could
encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel, and Recommendation 4 outlines ways the Town could
encourage transit use.
b) PedestrPedestrPedestrPedestrian Circulation Planian Circulation Planian Circulation Planian Circulation Plan: Map 11, “Prioritized Pedestrian Corridors Needs” in Volume II: The
Appendices will serve as the Town’s Pedestrian Circulation Plan.
c) Bicycle Circulation PlanBicycle Circulation PlanBicycle Circulation PlanBicycle Circulation Plan: Map 12, “Prioritized Bicycle Corridors Needs” in Volume II: The
Appendices will serve as the Town’s Bicycle Circulation Plan.
d) Improve and expand public transitImprove and expand public transitImprove and expand public transitImprove and expand public transit: Recommendation 4 addresses transit issues.
e) Integrate elements of the transportation network that serve to reduce automobile useIntegrate elements of the transportation network that serve to reduce automobile useIntegrate elements of the transportation network that serve to reduce automobile useIntegrate elements of the transportation network that serve to reduce automobile use: This is
one of the main themes of this Transportation Plan. In particular, Recommendations 3, 4, & 7
address this issue.
Objective 2: An appropriate transportation network.
a) Create Transportation PlanCreate Transportation PlanCreate Transportation PlanCreate Transportation Plan: Adoption of this Transportation Plan fulfills this recommendation of
the Comprehensive Plan.
b) Classify roads according to existing and desired functionsClassify roads according to existing and desired functionsClassify roads according to existing and desired functionsClassify roads according to existing and desired functions: After adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan in 1993, an MPO (metropolitan planning organization), the Ithaca-Tompkins County
Transportation Council, was established for the Ithaca urbanized area. The ITCTC worked with
the Town to apply the federal functional classification system to Ithaca-area roadways. The
federal functional classification therefore serves as the de facto classification system
recommended by of the Comprehensive Plan. For more information about functional
classification, see the “Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design” section of Volume I: The Plan.
c) Update the Official Highway Map and protect planned transportation corridorsUpdate the Official Highway Map and protect planned transportation corridorsUpdate the Official Highway Map and protect planned transportation corridorsUpdate the Official Highway Map and protect planned transportation corridors: This Plan includes
an updated Draft Official Highway Map. The Official Highway Map will be one tool for the Town to
use when planning a new transportation corridor.
d) Participate in the MPOParticipate in the MPOParticipate in the MPOParticipate in the MPO: The Town is a part of the local MPO, the Ithaca-Tompkins County
Transportation Council (ITCTC).
e) Create buffers between land uses & arterialsCreate buffers between land uses & arterialsCreate buffers between land uses & arterialsCreate buffers between land uses & arterials: This is addressed in Volume III: The Design
Guidelines in “The Road Edge” section of “Streetscape Design: Best Practices Toolbox.”
129
f) Participate in Federal Aid System MappingParticipate in Federal Aid System MappingParticipate in Federal Aid System MappingParticipate in Federal Aid System Mapping: This was completed previous to this Plan.
g) Prepare and implement a Streetscape PlanPrepare and implement a Streetscape PlanPrepare and implement a Streetscape PlanPrepare and implement a Streetscape Plan: Volume III: The Design Guidelines includes the
“Streetscape Design: Best Practices Toolbox,” which outlines specific elements that contribute to
safe, aesthetically pleasing roadways that serve all users, including motorists, bicyclists and
pedestrians, and residents. Volume III also includes toolboxes of options for bicycle and
pedestrian design and for traffic calming.
h) Require transportation provisions in new developmentRequire transportation provisions in new developmentRequire transportation provisions in new developmentRequire transportation provisions in new development: The Town already requires various
transportation improvements, including walkways and crosswalks, as part of the subdivision and
site plan review processes. The Plan explicitly addresses this issue in Recommendations 3, 4, &
7, as well as throughout Volume III: The Design Guidelines.
i) Equitable development impact feesEquitable development impact feesEquitable development impact feesEquitable development impact fees: This is beyond the scope of this Plan.
j) Barge Canal SystemBarge Canal SystemBarge Canal SystemBarge Canal System: This is also beyond the scope of this Plan.
Objective 3: Appropriate accident prevention strategies.
a) (Re)design and (re)construct (Re)design and (re)construct (Re)design and (re)construct (Re)design and (re)construct roadways to be safe, efficient, and to encourage compliance with roadways to be safe, efficient, and to encourage compliance with roadways to be safe, efficient, and to encourage compliance with roadways to be safe, efficient, and to encourage compliance with
posted speed limitsposted speed limitsposted speed limitsposted speed limits: Roadway design and its effects on motorist behavior, bicyclist and
pedestrian safety, and neighborhood livability is addressed at length in Volume I: The Plan in the
“Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design” section and throughout the entirety of Volume III:
The Design Guidelines.
b) Employ appropriate signage & traffic controlsEmploy appropriate signage & traffic controlsEmploy appropriate signage & traffic controlsEmploy appropriate signage & traffic controls: Volume III: The Design Guidelines recommends
that signage should relate to a human scale, in order to promote aesthetically pleasing
streetscapes. The Town currently uses the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to
guide selection and implementation of traffic controls, although traffic controls with regards to
bicyclists and pedestrians is covered in the Volume III: The Design Guidelines section of the
“Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox” entitled, ‘Traffic Signals
and Crosswalks.”
c) Ensure that large volumes of traffic are not routed through resiEnsure that large volumes of traffic are not routed through resiEnsure that large volumes of traffic are not routed through resiEnsure that large volumes of traffic are not routed through residential areas or awkward dential areas or awkward dential areas or awkward dential areas or awkward
intersectionsintersectionsintersectionsintersections: This objective is difficult to accomplish, because there is very limited right-of-way
available for new roadways in the Town and because many existing roadways are owned by the
County or State. Still, the Plan emphasizes the need for inter-municipal cooperation, particularly
in Recommendation 5, the need to reduce motor vehicle volumes, and the need to reduce the
negative impacts of motor vehicle traffic on residential areas.
d) Assign priorities based on data in CoAssign priorities based on data in CoAssign priorities based on data in CoAssign priorities based on data in Comprehensive Planmprehensive Planmprehensive Planmprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan was completed
approximately 13 years ago. This Plan includes updated data on traffic volumes, speeds, and
crashes to ensure that priorities are assigned based on need.
e) Provide safe pedestrian crossingsProvide safe pedestrian crossingsProvide safe pedestrian crossingsProvide safe pedestrian crossings: Safe pedestrian crossings are addressed in Volume III: The
Design Guidelines under the section of the “Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best
Practices Toolbox” entitled, ‘Traffic Signals and Crosswalks.”
f) Physical separation of pedestrian paths anPhysical separation of pedestrian paths anPhysical separation of pedestrian paths anPhysical separation of pedestrian paths and bikeways from roads carrying large volumes of d bikeways from roads carrying large volumes of d bikeways from roads carrying large volumes of d bikeways from roads carrying large volumes of
traffictraffictraffictraffic: In some cases, physical separation of motorized and non-motorized facilities is neither
practical nor desirable, and physical separation may not be the best way to prevent bicycle- or
pedestrian-related crashes. Volume III: The Design Guidelines addresses this issue by explaining
the various options for non-motorized transportation infrastructure, the costs and benefits of
each type, and the various situations in which each may be appropriate.
130
Objective 4: Minimal negative impacts on people and the environment from traffic, road maintenance,
road construction, noise, exhaust, and the like.
a) Protect residential areas from adverse effects trafficProtect residential areas from adverse effects trafficProtect residential areas from adverse effects trafficProtect residential areas from adverse effects traffic: Volume III: The Design Guidelines, in
particular the “Streetscape Design: Best Practices Toolbox” section addresses this via limiting
roadway widths, calming traffic, promoting road edge buffers between roadways and residences
(such as roadside vegetation, also addressed in Recommendation 2.C.4.1), and so on.
b) Plan routine road maintenance activities for safety & environmental sensitivityPlan routine road maintenance activities for safety & environmental sensitivityPlan routine road maintenance activities for safety & environmental sensitivityPlan routine road maintenance activities for safety & environmental sensitivity: This is addressed
in Recommendation 2.C.
c) Design arterial and collector roads to be aDesign arterial and collector roads to be aDesign arterial and collector roads to be aDesign arterial and collector roads to be adequately landscaped, visually pleasing, buffered from dequately landscaped, visually pleasing, buffered from dequately landscaped, visually pleasing, buffered from dequately landscaped, visually pleasing, buffered from
residential areas, and rresidential areas, and rresidential areas, and rresidential areas, and respectful of natural land contourespectful of natural land contourespectful of natural land contourespectful of natural land contour: Roadway design that fulfills this
objective is outlined in detail in Volume III: The Design Guidelines and in the Recommendations
(in particular, Recommendation 2.C.4).
d) Avoid environmentally sensitive areas when desigAvoid environmentally sensitive areas when desigAvoid environmentally sensitive areas when desigAvoid environmentally sensitive areas when designing or approving new roadsning or approving new roadsning or approving new roadsning or approving new roads: This is addressed
in Recommendation 2.C.4.7.
Objective 5: Future development designed so as to minimize adverse impacts on present roadway
efficiency and safety, as well as future road corridor locations.
a) Limit developmenLimit developmenLimit developmenLimit development to what system can supportt to what system can supportt to what system can supportt to what system can support: Currently, the Town can require developers
working with significant proposals to provide trip generation estimates. The Town can require
developers to include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in their proposals or to provide
other mitigation strategies to lessen the impact that their development would produce on the
transportation system. It is beyond the scope of this Plan to recommend how development can
be limited to what the system can support.
b) Limit the number oLimit the number oLimit the number oLimit the number of individual access points onto arterials and collectors and consider shared f individual access points onto arterials and collectors and consider shared f individual access points onto arterials and collectors and consider shared f individual access points onto arterials and collectors and consider shared
drivewaysdrivewaysdrivewaysdriveways: Recommendation 2.B.6 addresses access management.
c) Reduce impacts from development outside the TownReduce impacts from development outside the TownReduce impacts from development outside the TownReduce impacts from development outside the Town: It is difficult for the Town to reduce
impacts from development outside the Town, but the Town is committed to working with other
municipalities and major traffic generators, as suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. This
willingness to cooperate with other municipalities, agencies, and organizations is addressed
throughout the Transportation Plan, in the ITCTC’s Long Range Transportation Plan, and the
efforts to create a Park & Ride system.
d) Require tRequire tRequire tRequire trip generation information from developersrip generation information from developersrip generation information from developersrip generation information from developers: Currently, the Town can require developers
working with significant proposals to provide trip generation estimates.
e) Identify & protect future roadway corridorsIdentify & protect future roadway corridorsIdentify & protect future roadway corridorsIdentify & protect future roadway corridors: This is the purpose of the Official Highway Map.
Objective 6: Promotion, protection, and enhancement of agricultural and scenic resources along rural
roads in the Town.
a) Consider designation of scenic roadsConsider designation of scenic roadsConsider designation of scenic roadsConsider designation of scenic roads: Attachment F in Volume I: The Plan notes that roads of
visual, cultural, or historical significance can be designated as official scenic byways as part of a
tourism strategy. Recommendation 2.C.4.6 also addresses this issue.
b) Limit Town road projects in sensitive areasLimit Town road projects in sensitive areasLimit Town road projects in sensitive areasLimit Town road projects in sensitive areas: Recommendation 2.C addresses this issue.
131
Attachment E: Ideas for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Education and EvaluationAttachment E: Ideas for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Education and EvaluationAttachment E: Ideas for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Education and EvaluationAttachment E: Ideas for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Education and Evaluation
Safety EducationSafety EducationSafety EducationSafety Education:
• Children: Investigate ways to support local Safe Routes to Schools
initiatives. Encourage elementary schools to include bicycle and
pedestrian safety units in their physical education classes. Bike Safety
for Kids should be actively promoted in elementary and middle schools.
The Town could provide funding to ICSD to certify P.E. teachers in a
recognized biking and walking safety program. Alternatively, the funding
could be used to provide a biking and walking safety education seminar
through the Town Recreation Department.
• Bicyclists: Issue a press release that clarifies bicycle-related laws, and
include the press release on the City, Town, or County website. Locate “Walk your bike on the
sidewalk” signs next to bicycle parking. Coordinate a county-wide “Share the Road” program,
incorporating “sharrows” into appropriate roadways (see photo from San Francisco above)100.
• College Students: Target college students for safety education. Supplement existing Ithaca
College and Cornell University programs. Freshman orientation is a perfect time for an
educational campaign.
• Motorists: Print small stickers that sit on the car door mirror to remind motorists to look before
opening their car doors in a “Watch for Bikes” campaign.
General PublicGeneral PublicGeneral PublicGeneral Public:
• Prepare a “Large Truck Campaign” that allows bicyclists and pedestrians to sit in the drivers’
seats of large vehicles, so they can understand the blind spots of the vehicles and how to remain
safe around them. At the same time, truck operators are educated on proper road safety
procedures regarding bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Include all stakeholders in bicycle and pedestrian safety in programs, including insurance
companies, health care professionals, police, etc.
• Print and distribute wallet-sized “What to do in the event of a crash” cards, including important
phone numbers, information to report, etc.
• Support the educational efforts of the Cornell Local Roads Program.
• Local driving education courses should teach motor vehicle safety regarding bicyclists and
pedestrians.
• Educational information must stress that bicycles are considered motor vehicles, and thus are
subject to the same “rules of the road” as motor vehicles. Educational literature should include
specific information about our non-motorized transportation system—for example, locations of
trails—as well as universal safety rules for bicyclists and pedestrians.
100 BPAC, 2006
132
Safety EvaluationSafety EvaluationSafety EvaluationSafety Evaluation
Every other year, the Town Planning Department should use the Freedom of Information Act to acquire
crash reports from the DMV, create a database of the information contained in the reports, and
incorporate the database into a GIS. The Planning Department should analyze the information for crash
clusters, and determine if there is a pattern to crashes in each cluster. The Planning Department should
encourage bicyclists and pedestrians involved in “non-reportable” crashes (i.e. crashes resulting in no
personal injury and less than $1,000 property damage) to report the crashes to the Safety Program for
analysis by submitting the information via a form on the Town’s website. Finally, the Planning
Department should work with local law enforcement agencies to expand the database for the entire
County.
133
Attachment F: Ideas for a Biking and Walking Encouragement StrategyAttachment F: Ideas for a Biking and Walking Encouragement StrategyAttachment F: Ideas for a Biking and Walking Encouragement StrategyAttachment F: Ideas for a Biking and Walking Encouragement Strategy
This attachment outlines components that could become part of an effective walking and bicycling
encouragement strategy. The purpose of this attachment is to provide a starting point for the creation of
a biking and walking encouragement strategy.
Public Awareness CampaignsPublic Awareness CampaignsPublic Awareness CampaignsPublic Awareness Campaigns::::
• Initiate bike- or walk-to-work days, weeks, or months.
• Consider other creative encouragement programs: bike repair classes, mountain bike or hike
promotions, provision of free or subsidized bicycles to qualifying low-income residents, free
helmet-fittings, helmet discount coupons or sales, helmets as contest prizes, and incentives like
parking cash-out for employees who walk, bike, or take transit instead of driving.
• Use public service announcements (PSAs) to distribute bicycle safety information and encourage
bicycle use.
• Include a “Bicycle and Pedestrian” corner in the biannual newsletter.
• Provide literature on the bicyclist and pedestrian facilities in the area, including Town Recreation
Ways, the Plantations Path, and other multi-use trails.
Targeted CampaignsTargeted CampaignsTargeted CampaignsTargeted Campaigns::::
• Cyclists: Cyclists can be reached through cycling clubs, such as the Finger Lakes Cycling Club,
local bike shops, RIBS (Recycle Ithaca’s Bicycles), and other existing organizations.
• Sport and Recreation users: Promote walking and bicycling through the Town’s existing Parks
and Recreation programs. For example, provide maps and promotional literature at Town parks.
In addition, triathlon and cycling athletes at Cornell, Ithaca College, and in the community are a
potential audience.
• College students: College students are an ideal target audience because the modal share of
bicycling and walking is very high in this group. Many college students in the area do not bring
cars to campus, and many live in neighborhoods where parking is scarce. College promotional
campaigns should focus on safety education and encouraging students to not bring cars to
campus.
• School-aged children: Children are also more likely to walk or bike than average (as they are
unable to drive). Potential promotional events for children include: Safe Routes 2 School
programs; Bike or Walk to School or Work Day; the Walking School Bus (i.e. a parent is the bus
“driver” who walks their child to school and picks up other kids to “ride the walking school bus”
on the way).
• Tourists: Consider how bicycle & pedestrian facilities can work as a tourist amenity. Consider
designating roads of visual, cultural, or historical significance as official scenic byways under the
New York Scenic Roads Program (Article 49, New York State Environmental Conservation Law).
Work with the Chamber of Commerce and other tourism promotion agencies to promote Ithaca as
a destination for walkers, cyclists, hikers, and others.
Individual CampaignsIndividual CampaignsIndividual CampaignsIndividual Campaigns::::
• Persons issued traffic tickets or summons by law enforcement as part of a Town program should
be encouraged or required to attend educational seminars or to review educational information
as part of or in lieu of their fine or to reduce or eliminate the number of points on the drivers’
license. This program could easily be expanded to all municipalities in Tompkins County.
134
• Doctors and public health officials could distribute information on safe walking and biking to their
patients and clients.
Means of DistributionMeans of DistributionMeans of DistributionMeans of Distribution::::
• Recognizing that there is little the Town can do on its own, establish relationships with other
public, private, and not-for-profit organizations for the promotion of safe and enjoyable bicycle
and pedestrian opportunities.
• Educational literature could be made available in the Town Hall lobby. The audience is people
coming in to pay their taxes, to see the Clerk, to attend the Town Court, Town Board, Planning
Board, or Zoning Board, and so on. People often wait in the lobby before and after their
appointments; this is a good opportunity to offer interesting and informative material to help pass
their time.
• Promotional materials should be made available along with copies of this Transportation Plan.
135
Attachment G: Site Plan Review ChecklistAttachment G: Site Plan Review ChecklistAttachment G: Site Plan Review ChecklistAttachment G: Site Plan Review Checklist
SITE PLAN REVIEWSITE PLAN REVIEWSITE PLAN REVIEWSITE PLAN REVIEW
TRANSPORTATION CHECKLISTTRANSPORTATION CHECKLISTTRANSPORTATION CHECKLISTTRANSPORTATION CHECKLIST
The purpose of this checklist is to provide planners, Planning Board members, developers, and other
stakeholders in the development process with a summary of the most important bicycle- and pedestrian-
related issues that should be addressed during the site plan review process.
Since it would be possible to answer all of the following questions affirmatively, yet still have an
environment that is unpleasant or unsafe for bicyclists or pedestrians, stakeholders should also consider
the following broad questions:
• Does this development promote walking and bikDoes this development promote walking and bikDoes this development promote walking and bikDoes this development promote walking and biking?ing?ing?ing?
• Will this development result in an environment that is pleasant for people on foot or bicycle?Will this development result in an environment that is pleasant for people on foot or bicycle?Will this development result in an environment that is pleasant for people on foot or bicycle?Will this development result in an environment that is pleasant for people on foot or bicycle?
(Note: page numbers within this checklist refer to Volume III: The Design Guidelines of The Town of
Ithaca Transportation Plan of 2007.)
Site Layout (sSite Layout (sSite Layout (sSite Layout (see pages 9ee pages 9ee pages 9ee pages 9----11)11)11)11)
(Y) (N)
As far as possible and where appropriate, are buildings oriented toward the street?
Are access points (driveways) to the site consolidated and minimized?
Are buildings on the site clustered, to encourage people to walk between buildings, instead of
moving their cars?
Motor Vehicle Parking (see pages 10Motor Vehicle Parking (see pages 10Motor Vehicle Parking (see pages 10Motor Vehicle Parking (see pages 10----11)11)11)11)
(Y) (N)
Is motor vehicle parking at the side or rear of the site?
Is the parking lot size minimized as far as possible?
Is there ample landscaping, especially shade trees, throughout the parking lot?
Are parking lot lights numerous, set close to the ground, and adequately shielded to prevent
glare and light trespass?
Is it possible to use a surface more pervious than asphalt?
136
Bicycle Parking Bicycle Parking Bicycle Parking Bicycle Parking (see pages 30 (see pages 30 (see pages 30 (see pages 30----31)31)31)31)
(Y) (N)
Are there a sufficient number of bicycle parking spaces
Is the proposed type of rack adequate?
Will the racks be located as close as possible to the entrance of the building that they will serve?
Does the site plan show that the racks will be installed correctly?
Pedestrian Circulation & Accessibility (see pages 9Pedestrian Circulation & Accessibility (see pages 9Pedestrian Circulation & Accessibility (see pages 9Pedestrian Circulation & Accessibility (see pages 9----11, 2411, 2411, 2411, 24----26)26)26)26)
(Y) (N) (Y) (N)
Are the pedestrian paths continuous, delineated, and clearly visible to motorists and
pedestrians?
Does the site plan meet ADA guidelines, where possible?
Do paths lead directly from parking lots, building entrances, and other locations on adjacent
sites?
Are walkways, sidewalks, or on-site paths designed correctly? Problems to avoid include:
Does the walkway have five feet of clear space, without utility poles, signs, mailboxes,
etc in the middle of it?
Are the walkways free of barriers, such as fences or landscaping)?
If there is underground drainage, are the inlets flush against the curb, instead of a
grate in the bicyclists’ path? Is the bicyclists’ path free of manholes?
Site Amenities (see pages 1Site Amenities (see pages 1Site Amenities (see pages 1Site Amenities (see pages 1----4, 94, 94, 94, 9----11)11)11)11)
(Y) (N)
Is the site constructed at a human scale (are signs small, are light poles low to the ground, is the
building façade visually interesting without long, blank, windowless stretches of wall)?
Where possible and appropriate, does the site plan create outdoor rooms or memorable public
spaces, with benches, fountains, landscaping, tree canopies, public art, and other
enhancements?