The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTransportation Plan Volume 2 Appendices The Town of IthacaThe Town of IthacaThe Town of IthacaThe Town of Ithaca Transportation PlanTransportation PlanTransportation PlanTransportation Plan Volume II:Volume II:Volume II:Volume II: The AppendicesThe AppendicesThe AppendicesThe Appendices Version: July 9, 2007 Town of Ithaca Town Board Contact: jkanter@town.ithaca.ny.us AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX I:I:I:I: MMMMAPSAPSAPSAPS…………………………………………………………………………………………..1…………………………………………………………………………………………..1…………………………………………………………………………………………..1…………………………………………………………………………………………..1 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX II:II:II:II: SSSSUPPLEMENTARY UPPLEMENTARY UPPLEMENTARY UPPLEMENTARY TTTTABLESABLESABLESABLES ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1111 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA.................................................................................................................................3 ROAD JURISDICTIONS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA .............................................................................................9 VOLUME DATA FOR SELECT ROADS..........................................................................................................11 CAPACITY (LOS) DATA FOR SELECT INTERSECTIONS ..................................................................................13 SPEED DATA .........................................................................................................................................15 CRASH DATA .........................................................................................................................................17 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX III:III:III:III: TTTTOWN OWN OWN OWN OOOOF F F F IIIITHACA THACA THACA THACA TTTTRANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION SSSSURVEYURVEYURVEYURVEY ....................................................................................................................................................................................18181818 SAMPLE SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................18 RESIDENTS’ SURVEY DATA AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................21 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX IV.IV.IV.IV. IIIINTERSECTION AND NTERSECTION AND NTERSECTION AND NTERSECTION AND RRRROAD OAD OAD OAD SSSSEGMEEGMEEGMEEGMENT NT NT NT AAAANALYSESNALYSESNALYSESNALYSES ....................................................................................................................................................................33333333 INTERSECTIONS .....................................................................................................................................34 Route 79 / Honness Lane Intersection:..................................................................................................34 Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane Intersection:........................................................................................35 Seven Mile Drive / Route 13 (Elmira Road) Intersection:......................................................................36 Troy Road / East King Road Intersection:...............................................................................................37 Warren Road / Hanshaw Road Intersection:..........................................................................................38 Route 96B / King Road Intersection:......................................................................................................40 Pine Tree Road / Maple Avenue Intersection:........................................................................................41 SEGMENTS ...........................................................................................................................................42 Sandbank Road Segment:.......................................................................................................................42 Stone Quarry Road Segment: ..................................................................................................................43 Pine Tree Road Segment: ........................................................................................................................44 Pleasant Grove Road Segment:...............................................................................................................45 Mecklenburg Road Segment: ..................................................................................................................46 Route 96 / Trumansburg Road Segment:...............................................................................................47 Route 96B (nearing City) Segment:.........................................................................................................48 Elmira Road (From 13A to Enfield-Town of Ithaca line) Segment:.........................................................49 CRASH SCREENING:...............................................................................................................................50 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX V:V:V:V: SSSSIDEWALK IDEWALK IDEWALK IDEWALK OOOORDINANCES AND RDINANCES AND RDINANCES AND RDINANCES AND PPPPOLICIESOLICIESOLICIESOLICIES ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................63636363 Sidewalk Ordinance..................................................................................................................................63 Sidewalk Policy for the Town of Ithaca....................................................................................................67 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX VI:VI:VI:VI: IIIIDENTIFYING DENTIFYING DENTIFYING DENTIFYING &&&& PPPPRIORITIZING RIORITIZING RIORITIZING RIORITIZING BBBBICYCLE AND ICYCLE AND ICYCLE AND ICYCLE AND PPPPEDESTRIAN EDESTRIAN EDESTRIAN EDESTRIAN IIIIMPROVEMENTSMPROVEMENTSMPROVEMENTSMPROVEMENTS ............................69696969 PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS: SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION .......................................................................69 High Priority, Essential Corridors: Ten year horizon................................................................................70 Recommended Corridors: Twenty year horizon.....................................................................................71 Miscellaneous:..........................................................................................................................................72 BICYCLE CORRIDORS: SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION .............................................................................73 High Priority Segments: Five - ten year horizon .....................................................................................74 Medium Priority Segments: Ten – fifteen year horizon.........................................................................74 Low Priority Segments: Fifteen – twenty year horizon...........................................................................75 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX VII:VII:VII:VII: PPPPUBLIC UBLIC UBLIC UBLIC PPPPARTICIPATIONARTICIPATIONARTICIPATIONARTICIPATION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................78787878 FIRST PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING .....................................................................................................78 SECOND PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING .................................................................................................79 THIRD PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ....................................................................................................82 COMMENTS FROM FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS .........................................................................................84 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX VIII:VIII:VIII:VIII: WWWWORKS ORKS ORKS ORKS CCCCITED AND ITED AND ITED AND ITED AND FFFFURTHER URTHER URTHER URTHER IIIINFORMATIONNFORMATIONNFORMATIONNFORMATION ................................................................................................................................................................................87878787 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX IX:IX:IX:IX: AAAACRONYMSCRONYMSCRONYMSCRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................93939393 1 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX I:I:I:I: MMMMAPSAPSAPSAPS 1. Regional Map of the Finger Lakes 2. New York State, Tompkins County, and the Town of Ithaca 3. Topography of the Town of Ithaca 4. Official Highway Map, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State 5. Functional Classification of Roads in the Town of Ithaca 6. Traffic Volume Data: Counter Locations & Counts 7. Population Density, Functional Classification, and Traffic Volumes in the Town of Ithaca 8. Locations of Serious Crashes: 1999-2001 9. Locations of Serious Crashes Involving Animals: 1999-2001 10. Existing and Planned Trails and Parks in the Town 11. Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs 12. Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs 3 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX II:II:II:II: SSSSUPPLEMENTARY UPPLEMENTARY UPPLEMENTARY UPPLEMENTARY TTTTABLESABLESABLESABLES DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Figure A - 1.: Modal Split of Journey to Work by Municipality, Workers Age 16 Years and Over, 2000 Census a. Raw Data (reported by numbers) Primary ModePrimary ModePrimary ModePrimary Mode City of City of City of City of IthacaIthacaIthacaIthaca Town of Town of Town of Town of IthacaIthacaIthacaIthaca Tompkins Tompkins Tompkins Tompkins CountyCountyCountyCounty New YorkNew YorkNew YorkNew York United StatUnited StatUnited StatUnited Stateseseses Car, truck, or van: 5,841 5,741 34,118 5,377,096 112,736,101 Drive alone 4,767 4,757 28,339 4,620,178 97,102,050 Carpool 1,074 984 5,779 756,918 15,634,051 Public transportation: 1,050 532 2,286 2,006,194 6,067,703 Bus/ trolley bus 1,043 512 2,245 475,389 3,206,682 Streetcar/ trolley 0 0 0 6,058 72,713 Subway 0 16 16 1,217,009 1,885,961 Railroad 0 0 0 228,215 658,097 Ferryboat 0 0 0 11,626 44,106 Taxicab 7 4 25 67,897 200,144 Motorcycle 12 4 80 3,625 142,424 Bicycle 236 116 407 25,036 488,497 Walk 5,493 1,892 7,951 511,721 3,758,982 Other means 45 56 127 40,375 901,298 Work at home 658 427 2,425 247,869 4,184,223 TOTAL:TOTAL:TOTAL:TOTAL: 13,33513,33513,33513,335 8,7688,7688,7688,768 47,39447,39447,39447,394 8,211,9168,211,9168,211,9168,211,916 128,279,228128,279,228128,279,228128,279,228 b.... Compiled Data (reported as a percentage of universe) c. Modal Split of Journey to Work by Municipality, 2000 Census (Continued) Primary ModePrimary ModePrimary ModePrimary Mode City of IthacaCity of IthacaCity of IthacaCity of Ithaca Town of Town of Town of Town of IthacaIthacaIthacaIthaca Tompkins Tompkins Tompkins Tompkins CountyCountyCountyCounty New York StateNew York StateNew York StateNew York State United StatesUnited StatesUnited StatesUnited States Car, truck, or van 43.8% 65.5% 72.0% 65.5% 87.9% Public transit 7.9% 6.1% 4.8% 24.4% 4.4% Bicycle 1.8% 1.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% Walk 41.4% 21.6% 16.8% 6.2% 2.9% Motorcycle 0.09% 0.05% 0.17% 0.04% 0.11% Other means 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% Work at home 4.9% 4.9% 5.1% 3.0% 3.3% 4 Figure A - 2: Students v. Non-Students, Modal Split, 2000 Census Figure A - 3: Travel Time to Work by Municipality, Workers Aged 16 Years and Older, 2000 Census a. Raw Data (reported as numbers) Travel TimeTravel TimeTravel TimeTravel Time City of City of City of City of IthacaIthacaIthacaIthaca Town of Town of Town of Town of IthacaIthacaIthacaIthaca Tompkins Tompkins Tompkins Tompkins CountyCountyCountyCounty New YorkNew YorkNew YorkNew York United StatesUnited StatesUnited StatesUnited States Did not work at home: 12,677 8,341 44,969 7,964,047 124,095,005 < 5 minutes 683 494 2,084 219,036 4,180,407 5 to 9 minutes 2,755 2,346 7,349 680,270 13,687,604 10 to 14 minutes 3,474 2,115 9,717 956,590 18,618,305 15 to 19 minutes 2,936 1,516 9,395 1,020,084 19,634,328 20 to 24 minutes 1,350 802 7,531 1,013,757 17,981,756 25 to 29 minutes 452 180 2,160 399,384 7,190,540 30 to 34 minutes 531 356 3,268 1,058,688 16,369,097 35 to 39 minutes 43 44 373 203,722 3,212,387 40 to 44 minutes 164 88 657 340,311 4,122,419 45 to 59 minutes 122 157 1,092 806,556 9,200,414 60 to 89 minutes 115 170 935 848,185 6,461,905 90+ minutes 52 73 408 417,464 3,435,843 Worked at home 658 427 2,425 247,869 4,184,223 Total:Total:Total:Total: 13,33513,33513,33513,335 8,7688,7688,7688,768 47,39447,39447,39447,394 8,211,9168,211,9168,211,9168,211,916 128,279,228128,279,228128,279,228128,279,228 b. Compiled Data (reported as percentage of universe) Travel TimeTravel TimeTravel TimeTravel Time City of IthacaCity of IthacaCity of IthacaCity of Ithaca Town of IthacaTown of IthacaTown of IthacaTown of Ithaca Tompkins CountyTompkins CountyTompkins CountyTompkins County New York StateNew York StateNew York StateNew York State United StatesUnited StatesUnited StatesUnited States < 5 min. 5.1% 5.6% 4.4% 2.7% 3.3% 5-9 min. 20.7% 26.8% 15.5% 8.3% 10.7% 10-14 min. 26.1% 24.1% 20.5% 11.6% 14.5% 15-19 min. 22.0% 17.3% 19.8% 12.4% 15.3% 20-24 min. 10.1% 9.1% 15.9% 12.3% 14.0% 25 min. + 11.1% 12.2% 18.8% 49.6% 36.1% 90 min. + 1.3% 0.8% 2.8% 15.4% 2.7% Work at home 4.9% 4.9% 5.1% 3.0% 3.3% 5 c. Graphed Data Figure A - 4: Vehicles per Household, Student v. Non-Student Households, 2000 Census Figure A - 5: Public Transportation Use by Travel Time to Work, 2000 Census a. Table Travel Time to Travel Time to Travel Time to Travel Time to WorkWorkWorkWork City of City of City of City of IthacaIthacaIthacaIthaca Town of IthacaTown of IthacaTown of IthacaTown of Ithaca Tompkins CountyTompkins CountyTompkins CountyTompkins County New York New York New York New York StaStaStaStatetetete United StatesUnited StatesUnited StatesUnited States <30 min. 91.9% 89.4% 85.0% 53.8% 65.5% Transit Use 7.5% 5.2% 4.3% 8.2% 1.7% 30-44 min. 5.8% 5.9% 9.6% 20.1% 19.1% Transit Use 20.1% 23.4% 11.4% 31.7% 6.7% 45-59 min. 1.0% 1.9% 2.4% 10.1% 7.4% Transit Use 16.4% 18.5% 9.7% 47.8% 11.4% >60 min. 1.3% 2.9% 3.0% 15.9% 8.0% Transit Use 3.0% 0% 3.4% 60.1% 20.6% 6 b. Graph Figure A - 6: Private Vehicle Person Trips by Trip Purpose (Ithaca Urbanized Area), 2001 NHTS Figure A - 7: Alternate Mode Person Trips by Trip Purpose (Ithaca Urbanized Area), 2001 NHTS 7 Figure A - 8: Trip Purpose, NPTS & NHTS (Note: In 2001, the values for bicycle travel were calculated by taking the values from the “other” category and subtracting from it “walk” and “school bus.”) 8 Figure A - 9: Trip Mode, NPTS & NHTS (Note: In 2001, the values for bicycle travel were calculated by taking the values from the “other” category and subtracting from it “walk” and “school bus.”) 9 ROAD JURISDICTIONS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA Table A - 10: Road Jurisdictions State Roads: DANBY ROAD (ROUTE 96B) DRYDEN ROAD (ROUTE 366) EAST SHORE DRIVE (ROUTE 34) ELMIRA ROAD (ROUTE 13) ENFIELD FALLS ROAD (ROUTE 327) FIVE MILE DRIVE (STATE ROUTE 13A) MECKLENBURG ROAD (ROUTE 79) SLATERVILLE ROAD (ROUTE 79) TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD (ROUTE 89) TRUMANSBURG ROAD (ROUTE 96) WEST DANBY ROAD (ROUTE 34/96) County Roads: BOSTWICK RD BUNDY RD CODDINGTON RD DUBOIS RD EAST KING RD ELLIS HOLLOW RD HANSHAW RD HAYTS RD IRADELL RD PINE TREE RD PLEASANT GROVE RD SHEFFIELD RD TROY RD WARREN RD Town Roads: BIRCHWOOD DR BLACKSTONE AVE BRANDYWINE DR BRIARWOOD DR BURLEIGH RD BURNS RD BURNS WAY BUTTERMILK FALLS RD E BUTTERMILK FALLS RD W CALDWELL RD CALKINS RD CHASE LA CHRISTOPHER CIR CHRISTOPHER LA CLOVER LA COMPTON RD CONCORD PL COY GLEN RD CREST LA CULVER RD DEERFIELD PL DOVE DR DREW RD EASTERN HEIGHTS DR ELM ST EVERGREEN LA FAIRWAY DR FIDLER RD FOREST HOME DR GAME FARM RD** GLENSIDE RD GRAY RD GROVE PL GROVE RD HACKBERRY LA HALCYON HILL RD HAPPY LA HARRIS B DATES DR HARWICK RD HELEN’S WAY HICKORY PL HOMESTEAD CIR HONNESS LA HOPKINS RD INDIAN CREEK RD JOANNE DR JOHN ST JUDD FALLS RD JUNIPER DR KAY ST KENDALL AVE KING RD W 10 Town Roads, Cont’d KINGS WAY LAGRAND CT LANDMARK DR LEXINGTON DR LISA LA LOIS LA MAPLE AVE MARCY CT MAX'S DR McINTYRE PL MURIEL ST N CAYUGA ST NORTHVIEW RD ORCHARD HILL RD ORCHARD ST PARK LA PEACHTREE LA PEARSALL PL PENNSYLVANIA AVE PENNY LA PERRY LA PHEASANT LA PINEVIEW TERR PINEWOOD PL POOLE RD REGENCY LA RENWICK DR RENWICK HTS RD RENWICK PL RICH RD RIDGECREST RD ROAT ST ROSE HILL RD SAINT CATHERINE CIR SALEM DR SANCTUARY DR SAND BANK RD SANDRA PL SAPSUCKER WOODS RD** SARANAC WAY SAUNDERS RD SCHICKEL RD SESAME ST SEVEN MILE DR SHARLENE RD SIENNA DR SIMSBURY DR SKY VUE RD SNYDER HILL RD Town Roads, Cont’d SPRUCE WAY STONE QUARRY ROAD STRAWBERRY HILL RD SUGARBUSH LA SUMMERHILL LA SUNNYHILL LA SUNNYVIEW LA SYCAMORE DR TAREYTON DR TERRACEVIEW DR TETON CT TEXAS LA TOWERVIEW DR TOWN LINE RD TUDOR RD UPDIKE RD VALLEY VIEW RD VERA CIR VISTA LA W NORTHVIEW RD WEST HAVEN RD WESTVIEW LA WHITETAIL DR WILDFLOWER DR WILLIAMS GLEN RD WINNERS CIR WINSTON CT WINSTON DR WOODGATE LA WOOLF LA **Roads partially in the Town of Ithaca’s jurisdiction 11 VOLUME DATA FOR SELECT ROADS Table A - 11: Volume Data (ADT) + Town of Ithaca Public Works Department *New York State Dept. of Transportation ROAD (LOCATION) DATE ADT *CALDWELL RD (600’ N. of Rt. 366) 2003 3518 + SNYDER HILL RD April 2003 872 + SAND BANK RD (bottom) July 2003 1138 + SAND BANK RD (middle) July 2003 1102 + SAND BANK RD (top) July 2003 975 + CODDINGTON RD (near #301) Sept. 2003 2496 + CODDINGTON RD (near #403) Sept. 2003 2181 + COY GLEN RD (at Floral Ave.) Sept. 2003 455 + ELM ST (at City Line) Sept. 2003 969 + KING RD E (near #177) Sept. 2003 2350 + KING RD E (near #370) Sept. 2003 1552 + PINE TREE RD (near #127) Sept. 2003 4686 + PINE TREE RD (between Snyder Hill and Ellis Hollow Rds) Sept. 2003 6862 + SNYDER HILL RD Sept. 2003 1989 + WEST HAVEN RD (at Route 79) Sept. 2003 347 + BOSTWICK RD (near #358) April 2004 1801 + BUNDY RD (1000’ east of Hopkins Rd.) April 2004 376 + BURNS RD (NE of Town Trail) April 2004 1920 + BURNS RD (SW of Shooting Range) April 2004 2299 + CODDINGTON RD (near #259) April 2004 2621 + CULVER RD (near #287) April 2004 266 + E. KING RD (near #172) April 2004 2622 + HAYTS RD (near #230) April 2004 1273 + POOLE RD (near #124) April 2004 476 + SEVEN MILE DR (near #176) April 2004 719 + STONE QUARRY RD (bottom) April 2004 2778 + STONE QUARRY RD (middle) April 2004 2730 + STONE QUARRY RD (top) April 2004 2713 + TROY RD (near #127) April 2004 750 + HANSHAW RD (near #1034) June 2004 5630 + HANSHAW RD (near #1310) June 2004 5714 + HANSHAW RD (near #1430) June 2004 3620 + HANSHAW RD (East of Sapsucker Woods Rd.) June 2004 3519 + MURIEL ST (near #128) June 2004 871 + SALEM DR (near #106) June 2004 1654 *STATE ROUTE 13 (between Five Mile Dr. & Seven Mile Drive) Aug. 2004 15646 *HANSHAW RD (0.1 mi east of Salem Dr.) Sept. 2004 3716 12 + JUDD FALLS RD (N. of Plantations Rd.) Sept. 2004 6247 + JUDD FALLS RD (S. of Plantations Rd.) Sept. 2004 6057 *BURNS RD (Rt. 79 to Burns Way) Oct. 2004 2023 *EAST SHORE DR (from City line to entry ramp to Rt. 13) Oct. 2004 5231 *FIVE MILE DR (Near Coy Glen Rd.) Oct. 2004 6441 + ELLIS HOLLOW RD (near #1027) April 2005 4228 + FOREST HOME DR (326) April 2005 874 + HONNESS LA (near #137) April 2005 1724 + MITCHELL ST (near #921) April 2005 4966 + PLEASANT GROVE RD (N. of Hasbrouck Apts.) April 2005 6162 + WARREN RD (500’ N. of Fairway) April 2005 4163 *MAPLE AVE (Between Pine Tree & City line) May 2005 2805 + LOIS LA (S. of Penny Lane) Aug. 2005 219 + LOIS LA (N. of Penny Lane) Aug. 2005 843 + PENNY LA (east of trail) Aug. 2005 191 + PENNY LA (east of Lois Lane) Aug. 2005 267 + STATE ROUTE 13 (between Five Mile Dr. & Seven Mile Drive) Aug. 2005 16346 + BRANDYWINE DR (near #108) Sept. 2005 433 *BURNS RD (between Rt. 79 & Burns Way) Sept. 2005 2023 *EAST SHORE DR (from City line to entry ramp to Rt. 13) Sept. 2005 5231 *HANSHAW RD (0.1 mi east of Salem Dr.) Sept. 2005 5536 + SIMSBURY DR (near #120) Sept. 2005 168 *STATE ROUTE 13A (Near Coy Glen Rd.) Sept. 2005 6441 + WINTHROP DR (near #311) Sept. 2005 850 + WINTHROP DR (East of elementary school) Sept. 2005 524 + WINTHROP DR (near # 408) Sept. 2005 509 *CALKINS RD Oct. 2005 161 *CULVER RD (Bostwick Rd. to Poole Rd.) Oct. 2005 189 *STATE ROUTE 13 (Rt. 34/96 to Rt. 327) Oct. 2005 17398 *STATE ROUTE 13A (near City/ Town line) Oct. 2005 5300 *STATE ROUTE 96 (0.15 mi. north of Duboise Rd.) Oct. 2005 8399 + SANDBANK RD (150 yards south of S-curve) May 2006 1123 + STONE QUARRY RD (near #326) April 2006 3883 + STONE QUARRY RD (near #355) April 2006 3818 + WESTHAVEN RD (near #130) May 2006 405 + W KING RD (near #123) May 2006 4944 + W KING RD (near #215) May 2006 977 + W KING RD (near #344) May 2006 845 13 CAPACITY (LOS) DATA FOR SELECT INTERSECTIONS Table A - 12: Capacity (LOS) Data for Select Intersections The data in this table were compiled from traffic impact analyses performed for various development proposal reviews in the Town and other projects. Many of the studies did not include data for every turning movement at an intersection. The data below are conditions current for the year listed in “date.” Abbreviations: WB = westbound EB = eastbound NB = northbound SB = southbound AM = morning peak PM = evening peak L = left R = right T = through TR = shared through & right turn lane O = overall LOS for the intersection Town IntersectionsTown IntersectionsTown IntersectionsTown Intersections LOS LOS LOS LOS ---- PM peak PM peak PM peak PM peak SourcesSourcesSourcesSources DateDateDateDate Danby Rd (Rt 96B) & King Rd (NB = A); (SB = A); (EB = C); (WB = B) "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for College Circle ApartmentsCollege Circle ApartmentsCollege Circle ApartmentsCollege Circle Apartments." SRF Associates, February 2002 2002 Danby Rd (Rt 96B) & College Circle Apts. Entrance (WB L = C); (WB R = B); (SB L = A) "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for College Circle ApartmentsCollege Circle ApartmentsCollege Circle ApartmentsCollege Circle Apartments." SRF Associates, February 2002 2002 Danby Rd (Rt 96B) & Ithaca College entrance (EB = C); (WB = C); (NB = B); (SB = A) "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for College Circle ApartmentsCollege Circle ApartmentsCollege Circle ApartmentsCollege Circle Apartments." SRF Associates, February 2002 2002 Danby Rd (Rt 96B) & King Rd (EB = A); (WB = A); (NB = A); (SB = A) "Capacity Analysis Results: Country Country Country Country Inn and Suites HotelInn and Suites HotelInn and Suites HotelInn and Suites Hotel." SRF. Assoc. Feb. 2005 Dryden Rd (SR 366) & Game Farm Rd (WB = A); (NB L = C); (NB R = B) "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Rite Rite Rite AidAidAidAid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. Sept. 2005 Dryden Rd (SR 366) & Pine Tree Rd (EB = F); (WB = F); (NB L = C); (NB R = B) "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Rite Rite Rite AidAidAidAid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev." SRF & Assoc. Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 Ellis Hollow Rd & Game Farm Rd (EB = A); (SB L = C); (SB R = A) "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed RitRitRitRite e e e AidAidAidAid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev." SRF & Assoc. Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 Hanshaw Rd & North Triphammer Rd (Cayuga Heights) (SB L = F) "NESTSNESTSNESTSNESTS: North East Subarea Transportation Study." NESTS Working Group, July 1999 1997 Hanshaw Rd & Pleasant Grove Rd (Cayuga Heights) (NB L = E); (NB R = E) "NESTSNESTSNESTSNESTS: North East Subarea Transportation Study." NESTS Working Group, July 1999 1997 14 Town IntersectionsTown IntersectionsTown IntersectionsTown Intersections LOS LOS LOS LOS ---- PM peak PM peak PM peak PM peak SourcesSourcesSourcesSources DateDateDateDate Hanshaw Rd & Triphammer Rd (Cayuga Heights) (NB L = F); (NB R = E) "NESTSNESTSNESTSNESTS: North East Subarea Transportation Study." NESTS Working Group, July 1999 1997 Pine Tree Rd & Ellis Hollow Rd (EB L = C); (EB TR = C); (WB L = C);(WB TR = C); (NB L = A); (NB TR = A); (SB L = A); (SB T = B); (SB R = A); (O = B) "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Rite Rite Rite AidAidAidAid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev." SRF & Assoc. Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 Pine Tree Rd & Honness La (EB L = B); (EB R = B); (NB = A) "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Rite Rite Rite AidAidAidAid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev." SRF & Assoc. Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 Pine Tree Rd & Snyder Hill Rd (WB L = C); (WB R = A); (SB = B) "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Rite Rite Rite AidAidAidAid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev." SRF & Assoc. Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 Pine Tree Rd & Snyder Hill Rd (WB L = C); (WB R = A); (SB L = A) "Traffic Impact Study for Burger KingBurger KingBurger KingBurger King." Traffic Solutions, February 1999. 1998 Slaterville Rd (Rt 79) & Pine Tree Rd (EB L = D); (SB L = A); (SB R = A) "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Rite Rite Rite AidAidAidAid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev.Office Dev." SRF & Assoc. Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 Slaterville Rd (Rt 79) & Pine Tree Rd (EB L = A) (SB L = C); (SB R = C); "Traffic Impact Study for Burger KingBurger KingBurger KingBurger King." Traffic Solutions, February 1999. 1998 Trumansburg Rd (Rt 96) & Bundy Rd (NB L = A); (EB L = C) "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Museum of the EarthMuseum of the EarthMuseum of the EarthMuseum of the Earth." SRF Associates, February 17, 2000 2000 Trumansburg Rd (Rt 96) & Dates Dr (Cayuga Medical Center) (NB = B); (SB = A); (WB = C); (O = B) "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Museum of the EarthMuseum of the EarthMuseum of the EarthMuseum of the Earth." SRF Associates, February 17, 2000 2000 Trumansburg Rd (Rt 96) & Dates Dr (Cayuga Medical Center) (WB = C); (NB = A); (SB = A) "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Overlook at West HillOverlook at West HillOverlook at West HillOverlook at West Hill." SRF & Assoc. for Holt Architects, P.C. Sept. 2003 Trumansburg Rd (Rt 96) & the Paleontological Research Center (PRI) (SB L = A); (WB L = C) "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Museum oMuseum oMuseum oMuseum of the Earthf the Earthf the Earthf the Earth." SRF Associates, February 17, 2000 2000 Warren Rd & Hanshaw Rd (EB AM = B); (EB PM = D); (WB AM=D); (WB PM=C); (NB AM = B); (NB PM = D); (SB AM = D); (SB PM = D) Project Data for Hanshaw Road Hanshaw Road Hanshaw Road Hanshaw Road Reconstruction projectReconstruction projectReconstruction projectReconstruction project, Fisher Associates 2006 15SPEED DATA Table A - 13: Speed Data (as of June 2006) RoadRoadRoadRoad LocationLocationLocationLocation JurisdictionJurisdictionJurisdictionJurisdiction DateDateDateDate Speed Speed Speed Speed LimitLimitLimitLimit % % % % SpeedingSpeedingSpeedingSpeeding 85th 85th 85th 85th Perct.Perct.Perct.Perct. 85th/ 85th/ 85th/ 85th/ limitlimitlimitlimit % of Lim+10% of Lim+10% of Lim+10% of Lim+10 Avg Avg Avg Avg SpeedSpeedSpeedSpeed NotesNotesNotesNotes Forest Home Drive E. of 25 mph zone Town April 2005 45 2.1% 40 0.88 0.05% 33 Troy Road 127 County April 2004 55 8.4% 53 0.96 0.9% 45 Seven Mile Drive 176 Town April 2004 45 9.9% 44 0.98 0.5% 37 Hanshaw Road 1310 County June 2004 40 8.2% 39 0.98 0.2% 33 Brandywine Drive 108 Town Sept. 2005 30 12.2% 30 1.00 0.0% 25 Winthrop Drive East of school Town Sept. 2005 30 13.5% 30 1.00 0.0% 26 Westhaven Road 130 Town April 2006 40 14.5% 40 1.00 0.8% 32 Hayts Road 230 County April 2004 55 12.3% 55 1.00 8.9% 46 Ellis Hollow Road 1027 County April 2005 45 28.3% 49 1.09 3.4% 42 Coddington Road Rich Rd County April 2004 40 31.7% 44 1.10 2.2% N/A Elm Street City Line Town Aug-Sept 03 40 23.3% 43 1.10 1.9% 35 Simsbury Drive 120 Town Sept. 2005 30 26.2% 33 1.10 1.2% 26 Pleasant Grove Southern end County April 2005 30 26.6% 33 1.10 0.23% 26 Data quality = poor Winthrop Drive 408 Town Sept. 2005 30 29.2% 33 1.10 1.3% 27 W. King Road 123 Town April 2006 40 37.8% 44 1.10 1.2% 39 Hanshaw Road E. Sapsucker County June 2004 40 34.1% 45 1.13 2.8% 34 Hanshaw Road 1430 County June 2004 40 35.3% 45 1.13 1.7% 38 Honness Lane 137 Town April 2005 35 33.2% 40 1.14 4.5% 30 Snyder Hill Road e. Sugarbrush Town Sept-Oct 03 40 49.2% 46 1.15 3.5% 40 Judd Falls Road S. Plantation Town Aug. 2004 30 44.2% 35 1.17 10.1% 28 W. King Road 215 Town April 2006 40 57.2% 47 1.18 5.3% 41 Pine Tree Road County April 2003 35 67.3% 43 1.23 4.6% 38 Pleasant Grove N. Hasbrouck Apts. County April 2005 30 57.7% 37 1.23 3.5% 28 Coddington Road Rich Rd County Sept-Oct 03 40 64.5% 49 1.23 3.2% 42 Pine Tree Road Sny-Ellis County Sept-Oct 03 35 68.5% 43 1.23 4.4% 38 W. King Road 344 Town April 2006 40 66.6% 50 1.25 12.2% 43 Mitchell Street 921 County April 2005 35 75.7% 44 1.26 4.9% 38 16RoadRoadRoadRoad LocationLocationLocationLocation JurisdictionJurisdictionJurisdictionJurisdiction DateDateDateDate Speed Speed Speed Speed LimitLimitLimitLimit % % % % SpeedingSpeedingSpeedingSpeeding 85th 85th 85th 85th Perct.Perct.Perct.Perct. 85th/ 85th/ 85th/ 85th/ limitlimitlimitlimit % of Lim+10% of Lim+10% of Lim+10% of Lim+10 Avg Avg Avg Avg SpeedSpeedSpeedSpeed NotesNotesNotesNotes Stone Quarry Road 355 Town April 2006 35 74.2% 44 1.26 6.5% 37 Bundy Road 1000' E Hopkins County April 2004 45 64.2% 57 1.27 17.1% 48 Judd Falls Road N. Plantation Town Aug. 2004 30 58.2% 38 1.27 22.1% 30 Muriel Street 128 Town June 2004 30 58.3% 38 1.27 5.7% 31 Judd Falls Road north of Plantation Town Sept. 2004 30 58.2% 38 1.27 5.6% 30 Winthrop Drive 311 Town Sept. 2005 30 66.2% 38 1.27 8.4% 33 Stone Quarry Road top Town April 2004 35 78.2% 45 1.29 10.0% 39 Warren Road 500' N. of Fairway Dr. County April 2005 30 82.7% 40 1.33 10.5% 34 Hanshaw Road 1034 County June 2004 30 78.5% 40 1.33 14.1% 33 Culver Road 287 Town April 2004 35 59.0% 48 1.37 14.0% 37 No posted limit Sandbank Road "S" curve Town April 2006 30 79.4% 41 1.37 16.9% 34 Poole Road 124 Town April 2004 40 79.6% 55 1.38 26.0% 46 Bostwick Road 358 County April 2004 35 88.0% 49 1.40 28.0% 42 Forest Home Drive between Plantation & McIntyre Town April 2005 25 83.4% 35 1.40 8.8% 29 King Road school zone Town May 2003 30 82.9% 42 1.40 19.1% 36 Stone Quarry Road 220 Town April 2006 25 82.8% 35 1.40 9.9% 29 Caldwell Road across from water plant Town April 2005 25 81.8% 36 1.44 17.6% 29 Note: this is by a stop sign Stone Quarry Road bottom Town April 2004 25 92.7% 36 1.44 15.9% 31 Coddington Road Juniper Rd County Sept-Oct 03 30 86.5% 44 1.47 37.0% 37 Forest Home Drive 326 Town April 2005 25 87.9% 39 1.56 29.5% 32 Data quality = poor Note: N/A = not available 17 CRASH DATA Figure A - 14: First Event of Crashes Figure A - 15: Causes of Crashes 18 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX III:III:III:III: TTTTOWN OWN OWN OWN OOOOF F F F IIIITHACA THACA THACA THACA TTTTRANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION SSSSURVEY URVEY URVEY URVEY In the fall of 2003, the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee authored a survey to solicit public comment for a Town Transportation Plan. The goal of the survey was to understand the current transportation habits, attitudes, and opinions of Town residents. SAMPLE SURVEY The Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee will be establishing a Town Transportation Plan and Policies and is seeking the opinions of Town residents on current transportation issues, practices and desired changes. Please complete this survey and mail it to Town Hall by folding it in half with the selfPlease complete this survey and mail it to Town Hall by folding it in half with the selfPlease complete this survey and mail it to Town Hall by folding it in half with the selfPlease complete this survey and mail it to Town Hall by folding it in half with the self----return return return return stamp on the outside and stapling or taping the cornersstamp on the outside and stapling or taping the cornersstamp on the outside and stapling or taping the cornersstamp on the outside and stapling or taping the corners shut. shut. shut. shut. Thank you for your assistance in this important matter. Section I. Household Data 1. Please describe your status in the household, circling all that apply. a. Parent b. Child c. Grandparent d. Roommate e. Spouse f. Other:____________________________ 2. Describe your residence. a. Single family home b. Mobile home c. Apartment d. Other 3. How many people live at your address? ________ 4. How long have you lived in the Town of Ithaca? ___________________ 5. Please identify the intersection closest to your home. __________________________________________________________________ 6. How many motor vehicles are available for use by people living at this address? __________________________________________________________________ Section II. Person Data 7. Complete one line for each person residing at this address. Employment Status Person Age Sex Licensed to Drive? Full Time Part Time Retired Student Not Employed Other 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 19 Section III: Current Transportation Use Patterns 8. What is the primary mode of transportation for your family to destinations in and around the Town of Ithaca? (Check only one) ____ private motor vehicle ____TCAT bus ____ private motor vehicle andandandand TCAT bus ____ bicycle ____walking ____other (please describe below) __________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Is there a TCAT bus route close enough to your house for you to use if you wanted to? (Check one) ____ yes ____no ____don’t know 10. Would you use a TCAT bus if there was a route reasonably close to your residence? (Check one) ____ regularly ____occasionally ____seldom ____highly unlikely Would weather be a factor in your choice? ____ definitely ____maybe ____no 11. What changes in TCAT services would make the bus service more appealing? (Check only the most important) ____ more frequent service ____ more comfortable shelters ____ lower fares ____ routes that get me to my destination sooner ____other (please describe below) _________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Approximately how many “round trips”—to a destination and back home in a motor vehicle—are generated by the occupants of your residence in a typical weekweekweekweek----daydaydayday? (Check one) ____ 1 or fewer ____ 2 or 3 ____ 4 or more ____ varies greatly ____ don’t know 13. About how many of those weekday trips are: (Indicate approximate number) ____ to work ____ for shopping ____ to school/related activities ____entertainment related ____other 14. For the “typical week-day” identified in #12, how many are to destinations: (Indicate approximate number) ____ inside Ithaca (Town and City) ____outside Ithaca but inside Tompkins County ____ outside Tompkins County 15. How many members of your household use bicycles for each of these purposes? (Indicate approximate number) ____ transportation (to work, shopping, etc.) ____ pleasure ____not at all 16. Have you used the Town’s trail system in the past? (Check one) ____ regularly ____occasionally ____never ____ didn’t know about the trail system 20 Section IV. Satisfaction With Transportation Services 17. What do you think are the most obvious transportation problems in and around the Town of Ithaca? (Check all that apply) ____ high volumes of traffic generally ____inadequate bus service ____ too much traffic in residential neighborhoods ____too many trucks ____ inadequate space for bicycle/pedestrian traffic ____speed limits not enforced ____ roads inadequately maintained ____other (describe below) _________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 18. What could be done to correct the problem(s) identified above? (Check all that apply) ____build sidewalks in congested or built-up areas ____widen major roads ____improve certain intersections ____provide bicycle lanes/ paths ____enforce speed limits ____expand bus service ____other (please describe below) _________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 19. How would you describe the typical traffic volume in your neighborhoodyour neighborhoodyour neighborhoodyour neighborhood or that passes your your your your residenceresidenceresidenceresidence? (Check as many as apply) ____usually low to moderate volume ____occasionally heavy volume ____often heavy volume ____other (describe) ________________________________________________________________ 20. 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) _________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 21. Are there any new roads that you would like to see constructed in the Town? If so, where would they be? ____ no ____ yes (describe location(s) below) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 22. Are you satisfied with the speed limits in your neighborhood? ____ yes _____ no 22(a). If not, please describe why and how the speed limits should be changed. ____ speed too low ____speed too high 22(b). The speed limit in my neighborhood should be changed from the present ______ mph limit to ______ mph. 23. Is there a need for sidewalks or walkways in your neighborhood? __yes __no __ no opinion 23(a). If yes, would you be willing to contribute to their construction and upkeep? ____yes ____no _____ no opinion or don’t know 24. Please identify any other transportation issues in the Town of Ithaca of importance to you. Thank you for your assistance. _________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 21 RESIDENTS’ SURVEY DATA AND ANALYSIS The following pages contain an analysis of the data collected from the returned Town Transportation Surveys. Four thousand four hundred forty (4,440) surveys Four thousand four hundred forty (4,440) surveys Four thousand four hundred forty (4,440) surveys Four thousand four hundred forty (4,440) surveys were mailed with the annual Town newsletter. The newsletter is sent to all addresses within the Town, in addition to the addresses of property owners who do not live in the Town. Some (but not all) students who live in the Town did not receive a survey. Six Six Six Six hundred eleven (611)hundred eleven (611)hundred eleven (611)hundred eleven (611) surveys were returned; this translates to a 13.76% return rate13.76% return rate13.76% return rate13.76% return rate. The survey has yielded important conclusions about the transportation profile of the “typical” respondent. He or she is likely to be a parent or a spouse, live in a single family home, and has lived in the Town for nearly twenty years. The typical responding household relies on the private motor vehicle for transportation. More than half of respondents said that they would regularly or occasionally use the TCAT bus services if a route were close enough to home. The typical respondent is concerned about the high levels of traffic around the Town, the lack of space for bicycle and pedestrian traffic, and the lack of enforcement of speed limits. The provision of bike lanes or sidewalks and the enforcement of speed limits could help alleviate transportation problems in the Town, in the opinion of the typical respondent. The following pages includes all raw data tabulated from each answer to questions on the returned surveys, as well as descriptive and interpretive statistics drawn from the data. 22 Section One: Household and Person Data 1. Please describe your status in the household, circling all that apply. Response Number of responses Percentage of respondents A. Parent 269 45.3% B. Child 9 1.5% C. Grandparent 53 8.9% D. Roommate 7 1.2% E. Spouse 344 57.9% F. Other 125 21.0% Surveys left blank 17 Surveys with response (population for question): 594 2. Describe your residence. Response Number of times circled Percentage of respondents A. Single family home 553 92% B. Mobile home 0 0 C. Apartment 14 2.3% D. Other 34 5.7% Surveys left blank: 10 Surveys with response (population for question): 601 3. How many people live at your address? 23 Total number of persons in all responding households: 1494 Surveys left blank: 6 Surveys with response (population for question): 605 Mean number of persons per household: 2.47 Median number of persons per household: 2 Mode of number of persons per household: 2 4. How long have you lived in the Town of Ithaca? Total number of years spent in Town of Ithaca by all responding households: 11,746.87 yrs Surveys left blank: 14 Surveys with response (population for question): 597 Mean length of residency in Town: 19.7 years Median length of residency in Town: 15 years Mode of number of years residency in Town: 5 years 24 5. Please identify the intersection closest to your home. In order to tabulate the responses to this question, the Town was divided into the following sections: Neighborhood Number of responses Percentage of respondents A. Northeast 103 17.1% B. Forest Home 33 5.5% C. Southeast 99 16.5% D. South Hill 123 20.5% E. Inlet Valley 22 3.7% F. West Hill 56 9.3% G. Northwest 37 6.2% H. Cayuga Heights 122 20.3% I. City of Ithaca 6 1.0% Surveys left blank: 10 Surveys with response (population for question): 601 25 6. How many motor vehicles are available for use by people living at this address? Total number of cars in all responding households: 1073 Surveys left blank: 20 Surveys with response (population for question): 591 Mean number of motor vehicles per household: 1.81 (median = 2 ; mode = 2) Number of Cars Number Responding Percentage of Respondents 0 6 1.0% 1 211 35.7% 2 283 47.9% 3 70 11.8% 4 19 3.2% 5 2 0.3% 7. Person Data (Collected at Household Level) Aggregated by Age: Age Group Number of Persons in Households Percentage of Persons in Households 0-17 268 18.8% 18-30 133 9.3% 31-45 225 15.8% 46-65 462 32.4% 66+ 336 23.6% Total persons in responding households 1424 100% Aggregated by Occupation: Occupation Number of Persons in Households Percentage of Persons in Households Students (greater than or equal to 18 yrs of age) 61 5.3% Workers (full & part time) 636 55.0% Retired 358 31.0% Not employed/ Other 101 8.7% Total persons in responding households greater than or equal to 18 yrs of age 1156 100% 26 Section Two: Current Transportation Patterns 8. What is the primary mode of transportation for your family to destinations in and around the Town of Ithaca? Mode Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Private motor vehicle 528 86.7% TCAT bus 4 0.7% Bicycle 1 0.2% Walking 21 3.4% Private motor vehicle & TCAT bus 34 5.6% Other (combinations of above, especially bike & car, plus rides from friends/ relatives & Gadabout) 21 3.4% Surveys left blank: 2 Surveys with responses (population for question): 609 9. Is there a TCAT bus route close enough to your house for you to use if you wanted to? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Yes 379 62.7% No 179 29.6% Don’t Know 46 7.6% Surveys left blank: 7 Surveys with responses (population for question): 604 10. Would you use a TCAT bus if there were a route reasonably close to your residence? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Regularly 89 16.3% Occasionally 204 37.4% Seldom 92 16.8% Highly Unlikely 161 29.5% Surveys left blank: 65 Surveys with responses (population for question): 546 11. What changes in TCAT services would make the bus service more appealing? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents More frequent service 134 36.1% More comfortable shelters 41 11.1% Lower fares 53 14.3% Routes that get me to my destination sooner 146 39.4% Other 90 24.3% Route/ stop closer to home 36 Nothing 9 In absence of private car 7 Other 38 Surveys left blank: 240 Surveys with responses (population for question): 371 27 15. How many members of your household use bicycles for each of these purposes? Purpose Number of Persons Transportation 106 Pleasure 364 Not at all 728 16. Have you used the Town’s trail system in the past? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Regularly 90 14.9% Occasionally 224 37.1% Never 172 28.5% Didn’t know about it 117 19.4% Surveys left blank: 8 Surveys with responses (population for question): 603 28 Section Three: Satisfaction with Transportation Services 17. What do you think are the most obvious transportation problems in and around the Town of Ithaca? ResponseResponseResponseResponse Number of Number of Number of Number of ResponsesResponsesResponsesResponses Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of RespondentsRespondentsRespondentsRespondents High volumes of traffic generally 269 46.0% Too much traffic in residential neighborhoods 126 21.6% Inadequate space for bicycle/ pedestrian traffic 212 36.3% Roads inadequately maintained 190 32.5% Inadequate bus service 142 24.3% Too many trucks 82 14.0% Speed limits not enforced 207 35.4% Other 62 10.6% Stop light synchronization/ better engineering 6 Residential speed limits too high/ not posted 5 Need walking paths in selected areas 5 Other 46 Surveys left blank: 27 Surveys with responses (population for question): 584 29 18. What could be done to correct the problem(s) identified above? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Build sidewalks in congested or built-up areas 194 35.5% Improve certain intersections 159 29.1% Enforce speed limits 230 42.0% Widen major roads 104 19.0% Provide bicycle lanes/ paths 241 44.1% Expand bus service 164 30.0% Other 44 8.0% Surveys left blank: 64 Surveys with responses (population for question): 547 19. How would you describe the typical traffic volume in your neighborhood or that passes your residence? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Usually low to moderate 305 51.6% Occasionally heavy volume 104 17.6% Often heavy volume 146 24.7% Other 36 6.1% Surveys left blank: 20 Surveys with responses (population for question): 591 20. 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). The table below summarizes the most commonly cited hazardous intersections, aggregated by general area. Many of the suggested intersections fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Town of Ithaca and are not included here. 30 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 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 96 in general, including near Ithaca College 14 Intersection of Sheffield and Mecklenburg 14 Area of Winston, Salem, Muriel 9 Rt 79 (Slaterville Road) in general 9 22. Are you satisfied with the speed limits in your neighborhood? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Yes 409 69.4% No 180 30.6% Surveys left blank: 22 Surveys with responses (population for question): 589 If notIf notIf notIf not, please describe why… Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Speed too low 5 3.8% Speed too high 128 96.2% Surveys left blank (not satisfied, but did not quantify desired change): 47 Surveys with responses (population for question): 133 …and how the speed limits should be changed. Relationship to Residential Location: Speed limit too high by location The table below presents the locations of respondents who think their residential speed limit is too high compared to the Town-wide average. The first column lists the total number of responses from each neighborhood. The second column shows the number of respondents from each neighborhood who thought the speed limit in their neighborhood was too high, and the third column shows the percentage of 31 respondents in each neighborhood who thought the speed limit in their neighborhood was too high. The fourth column presents the ratio of the percentage of respondents who thought the speed limit was too high to the Town-wide percentage of respondents who thought the speed limit was too high (24.7%). A ratio greater than 1.00 means that a higher percentage of residents in a given neighborhood thought that the speed limit was too high as compared to the Town-wide percentage, while a ratio of less than 1.00 means that a lower percentage of people in a given neighborhood thought that the speed limit was too high compared to the Town-wide average. T-tests to determine confidence interval should be performed to determine significance of difference in proportions before policy recommendations are made. Location Total Responses Number of Respondents – speed limit too high Percentage Respondents – speed limit too high Ratio of Percentage respondents to Town- wide Percentage A. Northeast 103 20 19.4% 0.79 B. Forest Home 33 14 42.4% 1.72 C. Southeast 99 25 25.3% 1.02 D. South Hill 123 38 30.9% 1.25 E. Inlet Valley 22 9 40.9% 1.66 F. West Hill 56 16 28.6% 1.16 G. Northwest 37 13 35.1% 1.42 H. Cayuga Heights 122 14 11.5% 0.47 I. City of Ithaca 6 1 16.7% -- Unknown 10 1 10.0% -- TOTAL 611 151 24.7% 1.00 23. Is there a need for sidewalks or walkways in your neighborhood? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Yes 196 33.7% No 332 57.1% Don’t know 53 9.1% Surveys left blank: 30 Surveys with responses (population for question): 581 If yesIf yesIf yesIf yes, would you be willing to contribute to their construction and upkeep? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Yes 89 59.7% No 30 20.1% Don’t know 30 20.1% Surveys left blank: 47 Surveys with responses (population for question): 149 Relationship to residential location: “Yes” response to need for sidewalk in neighborhood This table presents the location of respondents in favor of sidewalks or walkways compared to the Town- wide average. Respondents from Forest Home show a greater interest in sidewalks compared to the Town-wide average. T-tests to determine confidence interval should be performed to determine significance of difference in proportions before policy recommendations are made. 32 Location Number of Responses Number of Total Responses Percentage of Responses Ratio A. Northeast 42 103 40.8% 1.27 B. Forest Home 22 33 66.7% 2.08 C. Southeast 33 99 33.3% 1.04 D. South Hill 37 123 30.1% 0.94 E. Inlet Valley 6 22 27.3% 0.85 F. West Hill 14 56 25.0% 0.78 G. Northwest 5 37 13.5% 0.42 H. Cayuga Heights 30 122 24.6% 0.77 I. City of Ithaca 4 6 66.7% -- Unknown 3 10 30.0% -- TOTAL 196 611 32.1% 1.00 33 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX IV.IV.IV.IV. IIIINTERSECTION AND NTERSECTION AND NTERSECTION AND NTERSECTION AND RRRROAD OAD OAD OAD SSSSEGMENT EGMENT EGMENT EGMENT AAAANALYSESNALYSESNALYSESNALYSES The following pages contain the intersection and road segment analyses conducted for the Town of Ithaca by Fisher Associates. MEMO To: Nicole Tedesco Date: December 29, 2005 Company: Town of Ithaca Planning Dept. Phone #: 607-273-1747 Address: 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 From: Chris Smith CC: Lorenzo Rotoli, Susan Ritter Subject: Intersection & Segment Analyses The following is a summary of the findings for the field observations conducted for the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan. Each page includes a brief discussion of each intersection / segment with observations broken down into capacity/volume and safety categories. Please review and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. INTERSECTIONS Route 79 / Honness Lane Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane Seven Mile Drive / Route 13 (Elmira Road) Troy Road / East King Road Warren Road / Hanshaw Road Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) / Bundy Road & Route 96 / Hayts Road Route 96B / King Road Pine Tree Road / Maple Avenue SEGMENTS Sandbank Road Stone Quarry Road Pine Tree Road Pleasant Grove Road Mecklenburg Road Trumansburg Road Route 96B (nearing City) Elmira Road (Rt. 13A southwards) 34 INTERSECTIONS Route 79 / Honness Lane Intersection:Route 79 / Honness Lane Intersection:Route 79 / Honness Lane Intersection:Route 79 / Honness Lane Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate sufficient gaps in traffic for vehicles to enter Route 79 from Honness Lane and minimal delay during the peak travel periods, indicating acceptable Level of Service (LOS). The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Mainline – Route 79: 487 659 Side Street – Honness Lane: 35 46 Safety: Field observations verify a skewed alignment at this intersection. Honness Lane intersects Route 79 at approximately a 45 degree angle. This alignment limits the sight distance for vehicles exiting Honness Lane, making it difficult to see the vehicles traveling northwest on Route 79. The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan (TITP) indicates there have been 4 serious crashes at this location. Recommendations: A three-year crash screening was completed for this intersection including data from 1999 – 2001 (attached). During that time period seven crashes occurred at the intersection. No discernable crash patterns were evident in the data. The intersection should be monitored for increased crashes or development of crash patterns due to the skewed roadway alignment limiting sight distance for vehicles exiting Honness Lane. 35 Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane Intersection:Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane Intersection:Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane Intersection:Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate limited gaps in traffic on Pine Tree Road and high delay for vehicles exiting Honness Lane during the peak travel periods, indicating unacceptable LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Mainline – Pine Tree Road: 500 579 Side Street – Honness Lane: 61 64 Safety: Field observations indicate that the lanes on Pine Tree Road at this intersection are 10 feet wide, which is not in character with the volume and speed traveling along the roadway. Further, the turning radii at the intersection may not be sufficient to accommodate TCAT buses as a bus was observed turning right onto Honness Lane requiring a vehicle waiting on Honness Lane to back up to make room for the bus. Finally, there is a shrub row along the south side of Honness Lane that makes it difficult for northbound traffic on Pine Tree Road to see vehicles exiting from Honness Lane. Recommendations: The Town of Ithaca is currently in the planning and design stages for the Pew Trail that will run between the Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane intersection and the Eastern Heights neighborhood, thereby increasing pedestrian traffic across Pine Tree Road. It is recommended that the Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane intersection be evaluated for traffic capacity and pedestrian enhancement measures in conjunction with the Pew Trail planning and design to determine if there are measures that can reduce the delay for the side-street vehicles and provide safe efficient access for pedestrians and bicycles. Enhanced pedestrian features may include stamped or colored concrete, a raised crosswalk or raised intersection, specialty signage signifying the Pew Trail, and advance warning flashing beacons may raise driver awareness of the Pew Trail and new pedestrian traffic. The turning radii at the intersection could also be reviewed to determine if larger radii and/or flaring the width of Honness Lane at the intersection will provide safer, more efficient traffic operations for TCAT buses and automobiles in general.* In addition, the shrub row along Honness Lane could be trimmed to improve the sight distance and awareness for drivers traveling through the intersection. Finally, it is also recommended that this intersection be monitored for crashes as poor traffic operations, increased pedestrian activity and the shrub row along Honness Lane may lead to an increased number of crashes. *Note from the Town of Ithaca: increasing the curb radii at this intersection will encourage motorists to roll through the stop sign and will increase the crossing distance for pedestrians. 36 Seven Mile Drive / RoSeven Mile Drive / RoSeven Mile Drive / RoSeven Mile Drive / Route 13 (Elmira Road) Intersection:ute 13 (Elmira Road) Intersection:ute 13 (Elmira Road) Intersection:ute 13 (Elmira Road) Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate limited gaps in traffic on Route 13 and high delay for vehicles exiting Seven Mile Drive during the peak travel periods; indicating unacceptable LOS. This unacceptable LOS is common for low volume, stop controlled intersections during peak travel periods along primary commuter corridors. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Mainline – Route 13: 1577 1867 Side Street – Seven Mile Drive: 21 28 Safety: Field observations and a follow-up detailed sight distance analysis found that there are high speeds on Route 13 and limited sight distance for vehicles turning left from Seven Mile Drive onto Route 13. Vehicles on Seven Mile Drive have only 256-feet of sight distance to the right, less than the required 500- feet. The limited sight distance is due to a vertical curve on Route 13 west of the intersection, as well as an embankment and bushes on the east side of Seven Mile Drive. Vehicles are required to slowly move forward at the intersection until they are able to see vehicles on Route 13. Due to the high volume and speeds mentioned above, vehicles on Seven Mile Drive were aggressive and accepted small gaps in traffic as they entered Elmira Road creating near collision conditions. Recommendations: A crash screening was completed to determine if any identifiable crash patterns existing at the intersection (attached). The crash analysis found nine crashes in a three-year period between 1999 – 2001. There were no discernable crash patterns found in the data. Due to the potential seriousness of crashes at this intersection it is recommended that the intersection be monitored for increased crashes or an identifiable crash pattern. Obstacles should be lessened or removed to improve the sight distance to the recommended 500 feet. 37 Troy Road / East King Road Intersection:Troy Road / East King Road Intersection:Troy Road / East King Road Intersection:Troy Road / East King Road Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Collected data and field observations indicate that all approaches experience low volumes. However, the mainline has lower volumes than the side street. Field observations indicate sufficient gaps in traffic for vehicles to enter Troy Road from East King Road and minimal delay during the peak travel periods, indicating acceptable LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Mainline – Troy Road: 88 44 Side Street – E. King Road: 175 243 Safety: Field observations indicate that vehicles on Troy Road are traveling at high speeds and that no signage exists warning drivers of the intersection. The eastbound approach has a steep downhill slope upon which the speed limit reduces from 45 mph to 35 mph but there are no warning signs for the stop ahead. Recommendations: Advanced intersection warning signage could be evaluated to determine if signs or flashing beacons would provide drivers with advanced knowledge of the intersection. In addition, four-way stop warrants could be investigated to determine if a four-way stop is warranted at this location. Due to the potential seriousness of crashes at this intersection it is recommended that this intersection be monitored for a higher number or severity of crashes. 38 Warren Road / Hanshaw Road Intersection:Warren Road / Hanshaw Road Intersection:Warren Road / Hanshaw Road Intersection:Warren Road / Hanshaw Road Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Collected data and field observations indicate that all approaches experience similar volumes and are approaching capacity during the peak travel periods. Field observations indicate queues on the southbound approach during both the AM and PM peaks and on the EB approach during the PM peak. These factors indicate borderline LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Mainline – Warren Road: 548 644 Side Street – Hanshaw Road: 506 545 Safety: Field observations indicate that the main safety issue at this intersection is the congestion. Additionally, vegetation surrounding the “STOP” and “STOP AHEAD” signs on the westbound approach is obstructing the view of those signs from the motorists. Recommendations: This intersection is currently being analyzed as part of Tompkins County’s Hanshaw Road reconstruction project, which will analyze and attempt to address deficiencies at the intersection. 39 Route 96 (Trumansburg Road)/Bundy Road & Route 96/Hayts Road Intersection:Route 96 (Trumansburg Road)/Bundy Road & Route 96/Hayts Road Intersection:Route 96 (Trumansburg Road)/Bundy Road & Route 96/Hayts Road Intersection:Route 96 (Trumansburg Road)/Bundy Road & Route 96/Hayts Road Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations noted that Route 96 experiences high volumes and high speeds. Observations also indicate sufficient gaps in traffic on Route 96 which allow traffic from side streets to enter at Route 96 (indicating acceptable LOS). The following is a general summary of traffic at these intersections during the peak periods: SEGMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Mainline – Route 96: 800 979 Side Street – Hayts Road: 92 33 Side Street – Bundy Road: 35 21 The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the Overlook at West Hill development, conducted in 2003, showed acceptable LOS at these intersections during both existing conditions and after the implementation of the new development in 2007. Safety: Hayts Road & Route 96: Field observations verify a slightly skewed alignment on Hayts Road at Route 96. Hayts Road widens out and angles slightly to the right. Right turning vehicles use this flare to travel around vehicles waiting to make a left turn. This alignment does not limit the sight distance at this intersection. The TITP lists 5 serious crashes involving another vehicle at the Route 96 / Hayts Road intersection. Bundy Road & Route 96: There does not appear to be any unusual geometry at the Bundy Road / Route 96 intersection. During field observations a TCAT bus was flagged down at the southwest corner of the intersection by a pedestrian waiting for the bus. This created a brief interruption in traffic, however, this appears to be random in nature as there is no formal bus stop at this location. A Highway Safety Investigation (HSI) was completed by NYSDOT in March, 2002 at this location. A HSI is a detailed crashes analysis completed at intersections or along segments of roadway that have been identified to have existing safety deficiencies, high crash rates, and/or identifiable crash patterns. Crash reports are obtained for the location and reviewed in detail by a professional traffic & safety engineer to determine the causes of the crashes. Finally, recommendations are made to mitigate the number or pattern of crashes. The 2002 HSI at this location recommended the following measures to improve safety at the intersection: Deer zone extended with appropriate warning signs in Fall 2001, Upgrade signs at Bundy Road, Hayts Road, and DuBois Road intersections, Clear brush near Hayts Road, and Upgrade weathered signs in corridor with new 36-inch signs. These measures appear to have been completed. Recommendations: It is recommended that this intersection be monitored for crashes to determine if the HSI improvements have reduced the number and rate of crashes through this corridor. 40 Route 96B / King Road Intersection:Route 96B / King Road Intersection:Route 96B / King Road Intersection:Route 96B / King Road Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate that there are no excessive queues or delay created by the signal at this intersection, indicating acceptable LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Mainline – Route 96B: 800 718 Side Street – King Road: 124 402 Safety: Field observations indicate that there are excessive speeds at this intersection, particularly on Route 96B in the northbound direction where there is a down slope. The TITP indicates that the 85th percentile speed is at least 25% greater than the posted speed limit on King Road. Additionally, there is no protected left turn phasing for the northbound and southbound left turning vehicles. In addition, northbound and southbound vehicles are using the shoulders for right-turn-on-red and to pass vehicles waiting to turn left. There appears to be limited sight distance for vehicles traveling eastbound approaching the intersection due to a horizontal curve on West King Road. This curve also restricts the sight distance for right turns on red on the northbound approach and left turns on the westbound approach. It was noted that there were advanced warning signs for the signal at the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches, none on the westbound approach. The TITP lists 5 serious crashes at this intersection, indicating that there may be a high crash rate. Recommendations: It is recommended that a capacity analysis be completed and left turn warrants be investigated to determine if protected left turns are warranted at this intersection. A detailed safety analysis should be conducted at this intersection to determine the crash rate, severity of crashes and crash patterns. 41 Pine TreePine TreePine TreePine Tree Road / Maple Avenue Intersection: Road / Maple Avenue Intersection: Road / Maple Avenue Intersection: Road / Maple Avenue Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate that Pine Tree Road experiences high traffic volumes. Observations also indicate limited gaps in traffic on Pine Tree Road and high delay for vehicles exiting Maple Avenue during the peak travel periods, indicating unacceptable LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Mainline – Pine Tree Road: 587 598 Side Street – Maple Avenue: 74 146 Safety: Field observations indicate that the sight distance for vehicles turning from Maple Avenue onto Pine Tree Road is limited due to a horizontal curve on Pine Tree Road, brush to the north of the intersection, and a vertical curve on Pine Tree Road to the south of the intersection. It was noted that there were advanced warning signs for all approaches to this intersection. Recommendations: It is recommended that a capacity analysis be completed to determine if any mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce the Maple Avenue delay.* In addition, a crash screening was completed for the intersection and found that no crashes occurred at the intersection between 1999 – 2001 (attached). *Note from the Town of Ithaca: There does not appear to be a capacity problem at this intersection. The sight distance to the north forces drivers to come to a full stop and look before entering the traffic stream on Pine Tree Road. This is a relatively safe arrangement, as evidenced by the intersection’s good safety record. 42 SEGMENTS Sandbank Road Segment:Sandbank Road Segment:Sandbank Road Segment:Sandbank Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Sandbank Road is a local low volume road that connects W. King Road in the Town of Danby to Route 13 in the Town of Ithaca. The AADT on Sandbank Road is approximately 1,100 vehicles. Observations verified low traffic volume traveling on Sandbank Road, indicating acceptable LOS. Safety: Observations indicate multiple topographic concerns such as sharp curves and hills throughout the entire length of the roadway. The segment was very well marked with curve warning signs, except where indicated in field observation notes. Approximately 1.7 miles west of W. King Road, there is a significant downgrade making it difficult to travel less than 40 MPH without constant braking. Near W. King Road the character of the roadway changes from a straight roadway with wide shoulders to curving, rolling terrain. Recommendations: A crash screening was completed for Sandbank Road that indicated no crashes occurred along the segment of roadway between 1999 – 2001. Nine crashes occurred at the intersection of Sandbank Road and Route 13. See the attached crash screening for further information regarding this intersection. The corridor could also be evaluated for the installation of speed limit signs and additional warning signs / reflectors / flashing beacons to aid drivers navigating the corridor. 43 Stone Quarry Road Segment:Stone Quarry Road Segment:Stone Quarry Road Segment:Stone Quarry Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Stone Quarry Road is an urban collector with an AADT of approximately 2,740 vehicles. Observations verified low traffic volume traveling on Stone Quarry Road indicating acceptable LOS. Safety: Observations indicate multiple topographic concerns, such as sharp curves and hills, throughout the entire length of the roadway. In addition, the “Weight Limit” sign number has worn completely off. In addition to the physical concerns presented in the Safety Audit, excessive speeds were also witnessed on Stone Quarry Road. The TITP lists the northernmost and southernmost sections of this roadway to have 85th percentile speeds at least 25% greater than the posted speed limit. The TITP does not include Stone Quarry Road in its summary of locations with the highest frequency of serious crashes, indicating there may not be a high crash rate for this segment of roadway. Recommendations: It is recommended that a crash screening, to determine the crash rate and severity of crashes, be conducted for this segment of roadway. Sign upgrades and replacements could also be completed to improve the signage concerns along the corridor. Finally, the City of Ithaca should be notified that the Spencer Street intersection could be evaluated for possible radius improvements to eliminate vehicles crossing the centerline when turning onto Stone Quarry Road.* *Note from the Town of Ithaca: This intersection has been reconstructed as the area’s first roundabout. Field observations indicate that there is very little queuing at the entrances to the roundabout. In addition, the intersection is now less confusing for motorists to navigate. Pedestrian crossings are clearly indicated, so pedestrians know where to cross and motorists know where to expect pedestrians. 44 Pine Tree Road Segment:Pine Tree Road Segment:Pine Tree Road Segment:Pine Tree Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Pine Tree Road is an urban minor arterial. The following is a summary of the AADT’s for the various sections of Pine Tree Road cited in the TITP: Observations verified steady high traffic volumes traveling on Pine Tree Road. The TITP indicates the following sections of Pine Tree Road with high volume to capacity ratios (V/C): Safety: Observations indicated excessive speeds for the existing roadway character. There also appeared to be a worn walking path along the shoulder prior to the start of the sidewalk. The TITP lists 9 serious crashes involving another vehicle on Pine Tree Road between Snyder Hill Road and Mitchell Street. Recommendations: A crash screening was completed for the segment of Pine Tree Road indicating 14 crashes occurred between 1999 – 2001 (attached). A crash screening at the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Route 79 indicated 14 crashes occurred at the intersection as well. It is recommended that a detailed safety analysis, including collision diagrams, be conducted for the segment of Pine Tree Road and the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Route 79 to further investigate the exact location and cause of the crashes. If identifiable crash patterns are apparent, mitigation measures can be recommended to improve the safety of the corridor. New sidewalks should be considered in the location of the worn walking paths to accommodate the pedestrians using the corridor. SEGMENT AADT Slaterville Road to Snyder Hill Road 4,686 Snyder Hill Road to Ellis Hollow Road 6,862 Ellis Hollow Road to Dryden Road 1,219 SEGMENT V/C Slaterville Road to Honness Lane 0.8-1.0 Honness Lane to Snyder Hill Road >1.0 Snyder Hill Road to Maple Avenue 0.8-1.0 45 Pleasant Grove Road Segment:Pleasant Grove Road Segment:Pleasant Grove Road Segment:Pleasant Grove Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Pleasant Grove Road is an urban minor arterial with an AADT of 6,162 vehicles. Observations indicate that the traffic volumes traveling on Pleasant Grove Road were heavy for the character and conditions of the roadway. Many bicycles were also observed on this roadway due to the close proximity to the college. Safety: Observations indicate curves and hills throughout the entire length of the roadway. Excessive speeds for the existing roadway character were also witnessed on Pleasant Grove Road. The TITP lists the section of this roadway located on the hill between the observatory and stop sign to have an 85th percentile speed of at least 25% greater than the posted speed limit. There appeared to be a narrow shoulder on Pleasant Grove Road making it difficult for bicycles and vehicles to comfortably co-exist. Recommendations: It is recommended that this segment be monitored for crashes. Should a higher number of crashes begin to occur, the segment should be analyzed to determine the crash rate and severity of crashes along the roadway. Dedicated bicycle lanes should be considered for future construction projects along the segment. 46 Mecklenburg Road Segment:Mecklenburg Road Segment:Mecklenburg Road Segment:Mecklenburg Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Mecklenburg Road is a rural minor arterial with an AADT of 6,450 vehicles. Observations verified moderate traffic volumes traveling on Mecklenburg Road. Safety: In the westbound direction, the segment has a City feel as there is a sidewalk, the houses are close to the roadway, and vehicles are traveling uphill at slower speeds. In the eastbound direction the houses are set back further from the roadway with no shoulder or curbing. In addition, vehicles are traveling downhill at a higher rate of speed. This, combined with high traffic volumes, likely causes problems for vehicles attempting to exit driveways along the segment. There is a short section of road before entering the city upon which the speed limit drops but vehicles do not slow down. However, observations indicate that this is only a short stretch and that upon entering the city vehicles are forced to slow down due to the physical characteristics of the roadway. A crash screening indicates 26 crashes occurred on Mecklenburg Road between Westhaven Road and the city line. One crash involved a bicyclist that was killed on the section of Mecklenburg Road between Eco Village and Conifer Lane. Recommendations: It is recommended that a detailed safety analysis be conducted for the segment of Mecklenburg Road between Eco Village and the city line to determine the crash rate, severity of crashes and crash patterns. Mitigation measures should be developed to improve the safety of the corridor. 47 Route 96 / Trumansburg Road Segment:Route 96 / Trumansburg Road Segment:Route 96 / Trumansburg Road Segment:Route 96 / Trumansburg Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Trumansburg Road is an urban minor arterial with an AADT of 8,650 vehicles. Observations verified moderate to high traffic volumes traveling on Trumansburg Road. The TITP indicates that Trumansburg Road from the Town Line to the City Line has a V/C that is greater than one. This was not observed in the field; observations indicated that congestion on this roadway begins in and stays within the city limits. Safety: Observations indicate high speeds and many access points along Trumansburg Road. The roadway grade down into the City causes drivers to constantly brake to maintain a reasonable speed. This is likely a cause for concern, especially in the winter months. The TITP lists 44 crashes involving an animal on Trumansburg Road along with 5 serious crashes involving another vehicle at the intersections of Trumansburg Road with Hayts Road and with Hospital Drive. No bicyclist or pedestrian crashes were noted. As stated under the Route 96 / Bundy Road & Route 96 / Hayts Road section, a HSI was completed at this location. According to the HSI this location had accident rates above the statewide averages at multiple intersections. The HSI also identified deficiencies and made the following recommendations for the area: Deer zone extended with appropriate warning signs in Fall 2001, Upgrade signs at Bundy Road, Hyats Road, and DuBois Road intersections, Clear brush near Hyats Road, and Upgrade weathered signs in corridor with new 36-inch signs. Field observations also indicated the center striping appeared faded through this segment. Recommendations: It is recommended that this segment be monitored for crashes to determine if the HSI improvements have reduced the number and rate of crashes through this corridor. 48 Route 96B (nearing City) Segment:Route 96B (nearing City) Segment:Route 96B (nearing City) Segment:Route 96B (nearing City) Segment: Volume/Capacity: Route 96B is an urban minor arterial with an AADT of 9,000 vehicles. Observations verified steady moderate to high traffic volumes traveling on Route 96B. Safety: Upon entering the City Route 96B drops from four lanes to two lanes with no taper. Observations indicate that the northbound vehicles do not slow down as they are approaching the City and there are many near conflicts as the vehicles merge into one lane. The “Right Lane Must Turn Right” sign, approximately 1.2 miles north of the Ithaca College signal, was hidden by trees and graffiti. The TITP lists 13 crashes involving another vehicle located in the area of Ithaca College with the exception of one crash at the Nelson Road intersection. Ten of these crashes were due to driver error/failure to yield. The remaining crashes were due to alcohol involvement and slippery pavement. No bicyclist or pedestrian crashes were noted. Recommendations: It is recommended that the tress and brush covering the warning signals and signs along the segment be trimmed to increase visibility. Due to the high number of Ithaca College students walking into the city, safer pedestrian crossings should be considered. 49 Elmira Road (From 13A to EnfieldElmira Road (From 13A to EnfieldElmira Road (From 13A to EnfieldElmira Road (From 13A to Enfield----Town of Ithaca line) Segment:Town of Ithaca line) Segment:Town of Ithaca line) Segment:Town of Ithaca line) Segment: Volume/Capacity: Elmira Road is a rural major arterial with an AADT of approximately 17,615 vehicles on the segment between the Route 13 / Route 34-96 intersection and Five Mile Drive. Observations verified steady high traffic volumes traveling on Elmira Road. The TITP indicates that this section of Elmira Road has a V/C that is greater than one, which is consistent with field observations. Safety: Observations indicate high speeds along the segment. There were also multiple access points along the entire length of the roadway. Due to the high volume and speeds there were minimal gaps in traffic for the vehicles entering Elmira Road. Vehicles at these points were aggressive and accepted small gaps to exit the access points, creating many near collisions. The TITP lists multiple locations with serious crashes involving another vehicle on this section of Elmira Road. The following is a summary of these locations: Additionally, other crashes involving an animal and a sign post occurred at the following locations on Elmira Road: No bicyclist or pedestrian crashes were noted. Recommendations: It is recommended that a detailed safety analysis should be conducted for this section of Elmira Road to determine the crash rate, severity of crashes and crash patterns. Access management principles should be considered to consolidate the access points along the roadway. SEGMENT/INTERSECTION CRASHES Elmira Road - Sandbank Road to Route 13A 9 Elmira Road - Route 13A to Newfield Townline 18 SEGMENT/INTERSECTION CRASHES Elmira Road - Calkins Road (sign post) 1 Elmira Road – Seven Mile Drive (animal) 1 50CRASH SCREENING: Intersections and Road Segments in the Town of IthacaIntersections and Road Segments in the Town of IthacaIntersections and Road Segments in the Town of IthacaIntersections and Road Segments in the Town of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Contact: ntedesco@town.ithaca.ny.us Table of Contents Intersections: • Slaterville Road (Route 79) and Honness Lane • Slaterville Road (Route 79) and Pine Tree Road • Pine Tree Road and Maple Ave • Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane • Seven Mile Drive and Elmira Road (Route 13) Road Segments: • Sandbank Road • Pine Tree Road • Mecklenburg Road (Route 79) 51Data Analysis and Results In 2002, the Town of Ithaca Planning Department compiled a database of information about vehicular crashes that occurred in the Town from 1999-2001. This screening uses the information in that database to study the circumstances of crashes at select locations, to determine if there is a pattern to the crashes, and to suggest mitigation measures (if any) to improve the safety of the location. Several limitations to the data upon which the crash screening is based exist. They are: • The short duration of data collection (three years); • The age of the data (five to seven years); • The completeness of the data (non-reportable crashes, i.e. crashes resulting in no injuries and less than $1,000 property damage are not included); • The correctness of the data (the database was compiled by hand); • The accuracy of the data in the reports. The crash screening shows that there are very few crashes at several intersections and road segments identified as hazardous by the Town Transportation Committee. This indicates a disjunction between the perceived and actual safety of the location. A location with few crash reports in the database is not necessarily “safe,” due to the limitations of the database described above. Such a location, however, is safer than a location with a demonstrated record of reported, serious crashes. Furthermore, the accident reports may not have accurately identified the location of the accident. Some accident reports list a main road and a side road for the location. The accident may have occurred close to the intersection, not necessarily at the intersection. One example of this is on Pine Tree Road, where reports list the majority of accidents as occurring at “Ellis Hollow Road/ Snyder Hill Road.” From this information, it is impossible to tell the exact location of the accident. One shortcoming of the analyses in this crash screening is that traffic volumes are not considered with regard to the number of accidents. If all other factors are similar, a location with a higher traffic volume will have a greater number of accidents than a location with a lower traffic volume. The Town of Ithaca does not have complete traffic volume data for all locations in the Town, so this normalization step has been omitted. In future studies or traffic safety programs, traffic volumes should be considered when prioritizing locations for mitigation; locations with higher accident to volume ratios should have higher priority. 52INTERSECTIONS ROUTE 79 (SLATERVILLE ROAD) and HONNESS LANE • Description:Description:Description:Description: Honness Lane intersects Route 79 at approximately a forty-five degree angle. Honness Lane travels down a hill to the intersection with Slaterville Road. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign on Honness Lane (though on Slaterville Road). The speed limit on Honness Lane is 30 mph; the speed limit on Slaterville Road is 45 mph. • Weather is unlikely to be a factor in any of the collisions listed below. • Crashes on Slaterville Rd between HCrashes on Slaterville Rd between HCrashes on Slaterville Rd between HCrashes on Slaterville Rd between Honness La. & Pine Tree Rd.onness La. & Pine Tree Rd.onness La. & Pine Tree Rd.onness La. & Pine Tree Rd.: Two of the crashes on Slaterville Road were the result of an animal action; one occurred at five in the morning and the other occurred at nine in the morning. The other crash on Route 79 was due to the driver falling asleep at four in the morning. • Crashes at intersection of Honness Rd. & Slaterville RdCrashes at intersection of Honness Rd. & Slaterville RdCrashes at intersection of Honness Rd. & Slaterville RdCrashes at intersection of Honness Rd. & Slaterville Rd: All of the crashes at the intersection of Honness and Route 79 involved a vehicle crashing into another vehicle. o In one case, a crash was caused by failure to yield while traveling on Honness Lane in a westbound direction. This could have been caused by a vehicle on Honness Lane turning onto Route 79 by trying to “beat the traffic” and pulling into a break in traffic that was too small during morning rush hour. This resulted both in injury and property damage. o Another accident was caused by backing unsafely at three in the afternoon. This could have been caused by someone backing out of a driveway on Route 79 near Honness Lane and striking a car traveling east on Route 79 or Honness Lane. This accident resulted in no injuries, but did cause property damage. o Two crashes at this intersection were rear-end crashes. One involved an eastbound vehicle, and another involved west-bound vehicles. • ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion: There is no strong pattern to the crashes involving human error. Some of the crashes may have been prevented with closer driver attention. Improved signage to alert approaching drivers to the intersection of Route 79 and Honness Lane may improve safety. Crashes at or near the Intersection of Slaterville Road (Route 79) and Honness Lane Intersecting Road Date Time Weather Traffic Control First event Manner of collision # Vehicles Travel Direction # Occu- pants Driver(s) Age(s) Sex(es) Injury Property Damage NOTES HONNESS LA 2/4/1999 14:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/vehicle Rear end 2 East 3carA, 1carB 16A, 43B M/M Y Y Violations charged HONNESS LA 3/17/2001 9:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/vehicle Failure to yield 2 West 3carA, 1carB 36A, 57B M/M Y Y violation car B- 1140-A HONNESS LA 12/31/1999 15:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/vehicle Backing unsafely 2 East 1carA, 1carB 64A,64B F/M N Y violation-1211-A HONNESS LA 1/28/2001 20:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/vehicle Rear end/ driver unawareness 2 West 2carA, 3carB 29A, 51B M/M N Y PINE TREE RD & HONNESS LA 1/1/2000 4:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/head wall/culvert Fell asleep 1 South 1 19 M N Y Violations-1192-3, 1192-2, 1120-A PINE TREE RD & HONNESS LA 11/19/1999 5:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ animalAnimal action 1 North 1 42 M N Y PINE TREE RD & HONNESS LA 3/15/2000 9:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ animalAnimal action 1 East 1 52 F N Y **diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness 53ROUTE 79 (SLATERVILLE ROAD) and PINE TREE ROAD • DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription: Pine Tree Road intersects Route 79 at a forty-five degree angle. Pine Tree Road travels down a hill to the intersection with Slaterville Road. Traffic volumes on both Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road are high at peak hours. The intersection is controlled by a flashing light (red on the Pine Tree Road approach, yellow on the Route 79 approach). The speed limit on Pine Tree Road is 35 mph; the speed limit on Route 79 is 45 mph. • Animal ActionAnimal ActionAnimal ActionAnimal Action: There were two crashes involving animals; both involved vehicles traveling toward the City. They occurred at six and seven in the morning, during peak hours of deer activity. • Elderly, lost consciousness:Elderly, lost consciousness:Elderly, lost consciousness:Elderly, lost consciousness: Another crash involved an eighty-four year old female who lost consciousness while traveling east on Route 79 at one in the afternoon. She struck what the accident report calls “earth/ rock cut/ ditch,” resulting in injury. • WeatherWeatherWeatherWeather: One accident occurred when a seventy-six year old male lost control of the vehicle due to slippery pavement in snowy weather and struck a utility pole while traveling south on the hill leading toward the intersection with Route 79. Another took place in snowy weather when a vehicle was traveling northbound onto Pine Tree Road. It is possible that the person was turning north onto Pine Tree Road and was sideswiped by a vehicle traveling through eastbound on Route 79. Yet another accident, a rear end crash, occurred when a vehicle was traveling south on Pine Tree Road in snowy weather; slippery pavement was noted in the accident report. • Vehicle CrashesVehicle CrashesVehicle CrashesVehicle Crashes: A total of eleven crashes involved two or more vehicles. The crashes were spread out evenly on all approaches (north, south, east, and west). o Northbound (turning onto Pine Tree from Route 79 east or west): One accident was caused by a vehicle turning improperly. o Southbound (exiting Pine Tree Road onto Route 79): An accident occurred southbound on Pine Tree Road; the cited cause was “backing unsafely.” Although the exact cause cannot be determined, this may have been due to a vehicle exiting a driveway on Pine Tree Road without carefully checking for oncoming vehicles. Another accident was due to failure to yield. In this case, it is likely that a southbound vehicle turned onto Route 79 and was struck by a vehicle moving through the intersection (on Route 79). o Eastbound, away from the City (on Route 79): One accident was caused by “failure to yield,” which likely involved a vehicle unsafely turning onto Pine Tree Road. There were two rear end crashes on this approach, caused when an eastbound vehicle slowed to make a left turn onto Pine Tree Road and was struck from behind by an inattentive driver. o Westbound, toward the City (on Route 79): Three accidents occurred on this approach. One was a rear end crash, caused by failure to yield, another was due to unsafe speed, and a third was caused by a failure to yield. The crash due to unsafe speed took place during snowy weather, which compounds the effects of unsafe speed (weather was not cited in the report as a cause). • ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions: At this location, there is no apparent pattern to the accidents. A variety of reasons cause crashes, which happen fairly evenly on all approaches. Because this is a location with a significant number of accidents, and many accidents are caused by unsafe driver behavior, improved signage on all approaches may better alert drivers to the hazardous intersection and warn against typical hazardous behavior at the intersection. Other factors may include the high speed of motor vehicles and the relatively small gaps between vehicles on Slaterville Road (Rt. 79), especially during rush hour. According to level of service data (see Appendix II in this volume), there is a significant delay for the left turn onto Slaterville Road. Thus, some drivers may try to “beat” the oncoming traffic when turning onto Slaterville Road. At some point, this intersection may need traffic control upgrades, such as a traffic light, for capacity and safety reasons. 54 Crashes at or near the Intersection of Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road/ Route 79 Date Time Weather Traffic Control First event Manner of collision # Vehicles Travel Direction # Occupants Driver(s) Age(s) Sex(es) Injury Property Damage NOTES 10/4/2000 7:00 CLOUDY No passing zone collision w/ animal Other 1 West 4 22 F N Y 1/27/2001 9:00 SNOW Stop Sign collision w/vehicle Sideswipe 2 North 2carA, 1carB 49A, 63B M/M N Y 11/3/1999 6:00 CLEAR NONE collision w/ animal Animal action 1 West 1 50 F N Y 7/12/2000 13:00 CLEAR NONE collision w/ earth/rock cut/ditch Lost consciousness 1 East 1 84 F Y N 8/16/1999 15:00 CLEAR NONE collision w/vehicle Rear end/failure to yield 2 West 4carA, 1carB 32A, 31B M/M Y Y 1/12/1999 16:00 SNOW Flashing light collision w/vehicle Rear end 2 South 1carA, 1carB 59A, 22B F/M Y Y slippery pavement 1/29/2001 7:00 CLEAR Traffic signal collision w/vehicle Failure to yield 2 East 2carA, 1carB 37A, 26B M/F N Y Violation carA-1140-A 12/21/2000 14:00 CLOUDY Flashing light collision w/vehicle Backing unsafely 2 South 1carA, 1carB 19A, 66B F/M N Y violation carA-1121-A 11/21/2000 20:00 CLEAR Flashing light collision w/vehicle Turning improperly 2 North 1carA, 2carB 20A, 51B M/M Y Y 4/27/2001 14:00 CLEAR Traffic signal collision w/vehicle Failure to yield 2 South 2carA, 2carB 76A, 16B M/M N Y violation carA- 111-D2 7/18/2000 17:00 CLOUDY Flashing light collision w/vehicle Rear end/ following too closely 2 East 2carA, 1carB 44A, 19B F/F N Y 1/27/2001 10:00 SNOW NONE Utility pole Slippery pavement 1 South 1 76 M Y Y Slippery pavement 3/6/1999 13:00 SNOW Stop Sign collision w/vehicle Unsafe speed 2 West 2carA, 2carB 24A, 28B M/F N Y 6/24/1999 7:00 CLEAR Stop Sign collision w/vehicle Failure to yield 2 West 1carA, 1carB 19A, 23B M/F N Y violation carB- 1142-A 3/27/1999 15:00 CLEAR Flashing light collision w/vehicle Rear end/driver unawareness** 2 Southeast 3carA,2carB 22A, XB F/F N Y **diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness 55MAPLE AVE and PINE TREE ROAD • Description:Description:Description:Description: Maple Ave intersects Pine Tree Road at an angle of nearly ninety degrees. To the north, Pine Tree Road slopes downhill and curves to the left, and it is very difficult to see vehicles approaching. Fortunately, vehicle speeds on this section of Pine Tree Road are somewhat lower than on other sections, due to the hill (the speed limit is 35 mph on Pine Tree Road, and 30 on Maple Ave). Even so, there is a strong perception of hazard when exiting Maple Ave. • There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 1999There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 1999There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 1999There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 1999----2001200120012001. PINE TREE ROAD and HONNESS LANE • Fisher Associates is reviewing this intersection and considering the effect of the transit and pedestrian amenities as part of the Pew Trail project on Pine Tree Road. • There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 1999There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 1999There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 1999There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 1999----2001200120012001. Above: Pine Tree Road and Maple Ave Above: Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane 56SEVEN MILE DRIVE and ELMIRA ROAD (ROUTE 13) • DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription: Seven Mile Drive, a Town-owned local road, intersects Elmira Road (State Route 13) at a nearly forty-five degree angle. When at the intersection on Seven Mile Drive, a combination of a hill and bushes block sight distances to the right. Although sight distances of 500 feet are ideal, motorists and bicyclists can see only 256 feet down the road. This causes them to creep into the intersection to see, creating a hazard for through and turning vehicles on Elmira Road. The speed limit on Elmira Road is 55 mph. • Collisions due to WeatherCollisions due to WeatherCollisions due to WeatherCollisions due to Weather: One crash was caused at two in the morning during snowy weather. This crash was attributed to slippery pavement. • Collisions due to Animal ActionCollisions due to Animal ActionCollisions due to Animal ActionCollisions due to Animal Action: The three crashes involving an animal happened around dawn, a time of peak deer activity. All three vehicles were traveling north (presumably on Elmira Road). The official manner of collision for one accident was recorded as a result of slippery pavement or some type of tire failure. • Collisions Involving Another VehicleCollisions Involving Another VehicleCollisions Involving Another VehicleCollisions Involving Another Vehicle: Two crashes occurred due to driver error, such as inattention, falling asleep, or inexperience. Following too closely compounded one of these crashes. Both crashes occurred in the northbound direction, presumably on Elmira Road. One of these crashes resulted in injuries. Another crash was caused by bicycle or pedestrian error, although the report doesn’t elaborate on the circumstances. A final car crash was caused by a southbound vehicle on Seven Mile Drive turning onto Elmira Road. The vehicle failed to yield to a through vehicle on Elmira Road, causing a crash. This crash fits the pattern of crashes compounded by short sight distances, as mentioned above. • Other CrashesOther CrashesOther CrashesOther Crashes: A final crash occurred at one in the morning involving a westbound vehicle on Elmira Road. The report unfortunately does not list the objects circumstances of the collision. • ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions: There is no strong pattern to crashes at this location. Measurements by the Town Engineering Department and field observations in the intersection and road segment analyses by Fisher Associates indicate poor sight distances at this intersection. Trimming brush that blocks sight distance on Seven Mile Drive, taking other actions to improve sight distance, or reducing speeds on the through road could improve safety. Field observations have noted that there may be insufficient breaks in the traffic on Route 13 to permit safe turns from Seven Mile Drive, leading turning drivers to try to “beat” the oncoming traffic. Crashes at or near the Intersection of Seven Mile Drive and Elmira Road/ Route 13 Date Time Weather Traffic Control First event Manner of collision # Vehicles Travel Direction # Occupants Driver(s) Age(s) Sex(es) Injury Property Damage 8/17/2001 14:00 CLEAR No passing zone Collision w/ vehicle Inattention/ fell asleep/ inexperience & following too closely 3 North 1carA, B &C 44A, 29B, 29C M/F/M N Y 4/5/1999 16:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/ vehicle Driver unawareness** 2 North 1carA, 2carB 42A, 41B M/F Y Y 3/14/2001 15:00 CLOUDY Stop sign Collision w/ vehicle Failure to yield 2 Southeast 1carA, 1carB 88A,26B M/F N Y 2/16/1999 13:00 CLEAR No passing zone Collision w/ vehicle Bicycle/ pedestrian error 2 South 1carA, 1carB 46A, 65B M/F Y Y 5/28/1999 5:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/ animal Animal action 1 Northeast 2 69 F N Y 1/4/2001 6:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ animal Slippery pavement/ tire failure 1 north 1 37 F N Y 10/24/2000 6:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/ animal Animal action 1 North 1 44 M N Y 1/1/2001 2:00 SNOW NONE Earth/ rock cut/ ditch Slippery pavement 1 South 1 19 M N Y 10/26/1999 1:00 CLEAR NONE Other Other 1 West 2 26 F Y Y **diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness 57ROAD SEGMENTS SANDBANK ROAD (and Elmira Road/ Route 13) • DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription: Sandbank Road, a Town-owned local road, runs from Route 13 to the Town of Danby. The road runs through a rural area, climbs a significant hill, and has a section of sharp curves where the road skirts a steep hill. The speed limit on Sandbank Road is 30 mph from Route 13 to Town Line Road, and 45 mph from Town Line Road to the Ithaca – Danby municipal boundary. • There do not appear to be any There do not appear to be any There do not appear to be any There do not appear to be any reportable crashes along the length of Sand Bank Road between 1999reportable crashes along the length of Sand Bank Road between 1999reportable crashes along the length of Sand Bank Road between 1999reportable crashes along the length of Sand Bank Road between 1999----2001.2001.2001.2001. • Although the intersection of Sandbank Road and Route 13 was not identified by the Transportation Committee or studied by Fisher Associates, it was the site of nine accidents during 1999-2001. Three of the accidents were caused by an animal action. Three more were caused by a vehicle following another too closely. One was caused by an environmental factor (slippery pavement, glare, or tire failure). Another was caused by unsafe speed. The final crash was caused by improper or unsafe turning. • ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions: Although the Town can recommend changes, the Town does not have control over Elmira Road (Rt. 13) because it is a State route. It appears that the crashes involved vehicles traveling on Route 13, not Sandbank Road. Sight distances at the Sandbank Road/ Route 13 intersection are adequate (according to data collected by the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department). Thus, there is little that the Town can do on its own to improve safety at this location. Crashes at the Intersection of Route 13 and Sandbank Road: Date Time Weather Traffic Control First event Manner of collision # Vehicles Travel Direction # Occupants Driver(s) Age(s) Sex(es) Injury Property Damage NOTES 7/21/2000 16:00 CLOUDY NONE collision w/vehicle Overtaking/ following too closely 2 Northeast 1carA, 1carB 72A,19B M,M N Y violation car-A 1129-A 3/12/2000 11:00 SNOW NONE collision w/vehicle Following too closely 2 South 1carA, 1carB 25A, 17B M,F N Y violation car-B-1180-A, 1129-A 2/28/2000 17:00 CLOUDY NONE collision w/vehicle Turning improperly, unsafely 2 Southeast 2carA, 1carB 35A, 28B F/M N Y 8/28/2001 17:00 CLOUDY NONE collision w/vehicle Following too closely 2 South 1carA, 2carB 18A, 25B M/M N Y violation car A-1129-A 11/8/1999 16:00 CLOUDY Traffic signal collision w/vehicle Environmental factor* 2 South 1carA, 2carB 69A, 46B M/F Y Y Slippery pavement/ glare/ tire failure 4/3/1999 11:00 CLEAR NONE collision w/vehicle Unsafe speed 2 South 1carA, 1carB 46A, 82B F/M Y Y violation car-B-1180-E 11/19/1999 5:00 CLEAR NONE collision w/ animal Animal action 1 South 1 67 M N Y 6/29/2001 N/A CLEAR NONE collision w/ animal Animal action 1 South 1 81 M N Y 11/13/2000 18:00 CLOUDY NONE collision w/ animal Animal action 1 South 1 23 M N Y * pavement slippery, glare, tire failure. 58STONE QUARRY ROAD: • DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription: Stone Quarry Road is a Town-owned urban collector that runs from Spencer Street in the City of Ithaca uphill to West King Road in the Town. At the bottom of the hill, the speed limit on Stone Quarry Road is 25 mph; from ½ mile outside the City to West King Road, the speed limit is 35 mph. • Collisions due to animal actionsCollisions due to animal actionsCollisions due to animal actionsCollisions due to animal actions: Three accidents on Stone Quarry Road involved animals. One occurred during snowy weather on the northern portion of the road, near the City, while the other two occurred at the southern end of the road, at or near the intersection with West King Road. As expected, most occurred at dawn or dusk. • Collisions potentially compounded by Collisions potentially compounded by Collisions potentially compounded by Collisions potentially compounded by weatherweatherweatherweather: Four accidents occurred during inclement weather. One of these crashes was blamed on an animal action, while three others were attributed to environmental factors, such as slippery pavement, glare, or tire failure. • Collisions due to driver erCollisions due to driver erCollisions due to driver erCollisions due to driver errorrorrorror: The remaining six accidents were attributed to driver error, such as speeding, passing improperly, or driver unawareness. Two of the accidents near Spencer Road were attributed to driver unawareness (one of these involved a 79 year old driver); another was for unsafe speed. Of the accidents near the intersection with West King Road, two were attributed to unsafe speed (one by a 17 year old driver) and another was attributed to improper passing. • ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions: There is no apparent pattern to the crashes on this road. Crashes were due to several different factors. The appearance of clusters may be due to the DMV reporting system, which uses intersections to locate crashes. As with other locations, improved signage may alert drivers to common causes of crashes at this location. Intersecting Road Date Time Weather Traffic Control First event Manner of collision # Vehicles Travel Direction # Occupants Driver(s) Age(s) Sex(es) Injury Property Damage NOTES SPENCER RD/RRXING 12/7/1999 14:00 CLEAR NONE Other Driver unawareness** 1 South 1 79 F N Y SPENCER RD/RRXING 10/5/2000 14:00 RAIN NONE Signpost Environmental factor* 1 North 1 21 F N Y SPENCER RD/RRXING 12/10/2000 11:00 N/A NONE Vehicle other 2 South N/A N/A N/A N Y SPENCER RD/RRXING 1/31/2000 12:00 SNOW NONE Tree Environmental factor* 1 North 1 21 M N Y SPENCER RD/RRXING 1/5/2000 1:00 SNOW NONE Other animal 1 South 2 57 M N Y SPENCER RD/RRXING 7/26/2001 10:00 CLOUDY NONE Earth/ rock cut/ditch Driver unawareness** 1 West 1 23 M Y Y SPENCER RD/RRXING 5/13/2000 8:00 CLOUDY NONE Signpost unsafe speed 1 North 1 36 M Y Y slippery pavement W KING RD 6/28/2001 21:00 CLEAR NONE Animal animal 1 East 1 59 M N Y W KING RD 4/16/2001 17:00 N/A N/A Animal animal 1 N/A 1 53 F N Y W KING RD 11/3/2000 18:00 CLOUDY no passing zone Vehicle improper passing 2 North/ South 1carA, 1carB 63A, 76B M/F Y Y violation car-B-1126-A W KING RD 7/10/2001 18:00 CLEAR NONE Vehicle unsafe speed 2 East 2car A, 0car B 17 M N Y W KING RD 2/28/2001 0:00 SNOW NONE Earth rock cut/ditch Environmental factor* 1 West 1 22 F N Y * pavement slippery, glare, tire failure. **diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness 59PINE TREE ROAD (Slaterville Road/ Route 79 to Snyder Hill Road) • RRRRoad Descriptionoad Descriptionoad Descriptionoad Description: Pine Tree Road, an urban minor arterial, runs from Slaterville Road (Route 79) in the south to Dryden Road (Route 366) in the north. It is a major north-south corridor on Ithaca’s east side. Heading north from Slaterville Road, there ample shoulder along the hill. The shoulder is often inadequate for bicycle traffic, however, because the pavement has deteriorated and is often laden with debris. At the top of the hill the shoulder narrows considerably, and in some places the pavement transitions completely to gravel. At the terminus of Pine Tree Road at Route 366 there is insufficient shoulder width where Pine Tree Road passes under an old bridge, especially because there is no emergency “escape” to the outside of the shoulder for bicyclists or pedestrians. The only dedicated pedestrian facilities on Pine Tree Road are the Town walkway between Snyder Hill Road and East Hill Plaza and a short section of sidewalk near East Hill Plaza. The speed limit on Pine Tree Road is 35 mph. • Crash Crash Crash Crash Database NotesDatabase NotesDatabase NotesDatabase Notes: The crashes listed in this section do not include those in the section that discusses the intersection of Route 79 & Pine Tree Road. Most of the crashes occur on Pine Tree Road between Snyder Hill Road and Ellis Hollow Road. The location identification system for accident reporting may produce a clustering effect—Pine Tree Road is not very long, so the DMV may locate accidents approximately via intersections with cross streets. • Weather crashesWeather crashesWeather crashesWeather crashes: One accident occurred when a seventy-six year old male lost control of the vehicle due to slippery pavement in snowy weather and struck a utility pole while traveling south on the hill leading toward the intersection with Route 79. • Animal action crashesAnimal action crashesAnimal action crashesAnimal action crashes: Unlike other areas of the Town, there are very few crashes triggered by animal action on Pine Tree Road, most likely due to the denser development. One crash occurred while the vehicle was traveling south. • Collision with fixed objectCollision with fixed objectCollision with fixed objectCollision with fixed object: A vehicle traveling south on Pine Tree Road was involved in a collision with a fixed object due to bicycle or pedestrian error. The report does not elaborate on the circumstances of this accident. • Vehicle collisionsVehicle collisionsVehicle collisionsVehicle collisions: o In three instances, crashes were caused by a failure to yield while traveling south between Ellis Hollow Road and Snyder Hill Road (weather does not seem to be a factor in any of these). Another crash was caused by the same reason by a vehicle traveling north. o In two instances, slippery pavement caused rear end crashes between Ellis Hollow Road and Snyder Hill Road. Vehicles were traveling northbound during the winter in both cases. o Two crashes were caused by unsafe speed; it appears that both were traveling south on Pine Tree Road (perhaps down the hill, toward Slaterville Road). o The remaining three crashes were caused by improper passing, unsafe turning, and a hit-and-run sideswipe. • ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions: There does not seem to be an obvious pattern of accidents on Pine Tree Road. Accident seem to cluster between Snyder Hill Road and Ellis Hollow Road, but this may be due to the DMV’s accident reporting system. 60Crashes on Pine Tree Road Date Time Weather Traffic Control First event Manner of collision # Vehicles Travel Direction # Occupants Driver(s) Age(s) Sex(es) Injury Property Damage NOTES 3/7/2001 19:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ vehicle Failure to yield 2 Southeast 1carA, 1carB 51A,31B F/M N Y violation car-B-1141 2/24/2001 12:00 CLEAR Stop sign Collision w/ vehicle Failure to yield 2 South 1carA, 2carB 20A, 20B M/M N Y 7/5/2000 22:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/ vehicle Improper passing 2 Northwest N/A N/A M N Y 2/17/2000 8:00 RAIN no passing zone Collision w/ vehicle Rear end 2 North 2carA, 3carB 59A, 39B M/F Y Y slippery pavement 3/7/2001 8:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/ vehicle Rear end 2 North 1carA, 2carB 53A, 56B F/M N Y slippery pavement 3/13/1999 18:00 CLEAR NONE Collision w/ vehicle Sideswipe 2 Northwest 1carA 21 F N Y Hit and run 2/28/2001 12:00 CLEAR Stop sign Collision w/ vehicle Improper/ unsafe turning 2 South 1carA, 1carB 47A, 37B F/M N Y 2/5/2000 17:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ vehicle Unsafe speed 2 South 3carA,1carB 36A, 26B M/F N Y 5/29/2000 11:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ fixed object Bicyclist/ pedestrian error 1 Southeast 2 21 M N Y 1/27/2001 10:00 SNOW NONE Collision w/ utility pole Environmental factor* 1 South 1 76 M Y Y slippery pavement 6/26/2001 N/A N/A N/A Collision w/ animal Other 1 South 1 32 M N Y 4/20/2000 9:00 CLOUDY No Passing Zone Collision w/ vehicle Unsafe speed 2 East 1carA,2carB 36A, 48B M/F N Y 2/2/2001 17:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ vehicle Failure to yield 2 Southwest 3carA,1carB 21A, 31B M/F N Y Violation-1141 & 0511-1A 11/22/2000 16:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ vehicle Failure to yield 2 North 1carA, 2carB 37A, 28B F/M Y Y Violation-1141 * pavement slippery, glare, tire failure. 61MECKLENBURG ROAD (ROUTE 79), City/ Town line to West Haven Road: • Description:Description:Description:Description: Mecklenburg Road, a rural principal arterial, begins in the City of Ithaca and runs through the Town of Ithaca to the Town of Enfield. This crash screening observes the section from the municipal boundary between the Town and the City to West Haven Road. In the City, Route 79 (called Hector Street in the City) runs north as it climbs a large hill. The road is fairly narrow and steep, with a speed limit of 30 mph. While on the hill, it makes a wide 180 degree arc, heads south for a stretch, and then turns to the west (at the Town of Ithaca – City of Ithaca boundary). At the boundary, the road widens and the speed limit increases to 55 mph. In the eastbound direction, the hill and lack of visual or conceptual cues encourage drivers to maintain a high speed when entering the City. There are no pedestrian facilities. In the Town, the shoulder is adequate for bicycle traffic, although beginning cyclists may feel uncomfortable due to the high vehicular speeds. • WeatherWeatherWeatherWeather: As mentioned below, one collision caused by an “animal action” occurred during snowy weather; the remaining twelve crashes occurred during clear or cloudy weather. Four accidents attributed to slippery pavement occurred during snowy weather; in two of those, unsafe speed was a contributing factor. Also, an accident attributed to unsafe speed occurred during snowy conditions, although weather is not cited as a factor in the crash. • AnimalAnimalAnimalAnimal Action Action Action Action: There are thirteen crashes where “animal action” is cited as the primary manner of the collision. Seven occurred as the driver was traveling east, and six occurred when the driver was traveling west. This indicates that there is no sight distance problem blocking one approach. Of the animal-caused crashes, one occurred during snowy weather and one occurred in fog; the rest seem to have no relationship to inclement weather. Most collisions occurred at dawn and dusk (or early evening) when deer are most active. (Note: another nine crashes due to animal action occurred approximately between Rachel Carson Way and Westhaven Road.) • AlcoholAlcoholAlcoholAlcohol: Mecklenburg Road had two accidents involving alcohol intoxication, while other studied intersections and road segments had very few to none. This may either be because the study sample is very small, because the volume on Mecklenburg Road is higher than other studied segments, or because other roads are better patrolled, so intoxicated drivers are pulled off the road before they can cause an accident. In one case involving alcohol, a 23 year old female was traveling toward the City in the rain with one passenger when her vehicle hit a tree. Unsafe speed was cited as a contributing factor. In another crash, a 34 year old male, driving two passengers, hit a guard rail. Again, unsafe speed was cited as a contributing factor. • Crashes involving bicyclistsCrashes involving bicyclistsCrashes involving bicyclistsCrashes involving bicyclists: Mecklenburg Road is also unique for having two crashes involving a bicyclist. In one instance, “bicyclist/ pedestrian error” is cited as the manner of a 2 p.m. collision in which a 19 year old male struck a ditch, but no information regarding the role of the bicyclist/ pedestrian can be gleaned from the report. At 4 p.m. on April 7, 1999, a 56 year old female driver struck a 44 year old male bicyclist. The cause of the accident is listed as “driver inattention.” The crash resulted in the death of the bicyclistThe crash resulted in the death of the bicyclistThe crash resulted in the death of the bicyclistThe crash resulted in the death of the bicyclist.... • Other unsafe driver behaviorsOther unsafe driver behaviorsOther unsafe driver behaviorsOther unsafe driver behaviors: The three remaining collisions were caused by unsafe driver behaviors, including unsafe speed, inattention, backing unsafely, and improper passing. • ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions: Many of the collisions along this stretch of highway are initiated by factors over which the Town has no control, such as the weather and individual actions (driving while intoxicated). The Town may want to consider other mitigation strategies, however, such as increased signage that warns about specific hazards (i.e. “deer crossing,” “deer population” signs or signs warning of the upcoming change in speed limit and land use as motorists approach the City). The Town should also investigate other means to protect motorists from deer (and vice versa). If bicyclists are using Mecklenburg Road as a commuter or recreation route, the Town and City should consider pressuring the State to designate bike lanes and/ or sign appropriately. Finally, incorporating roadway elements that force drivers to pay attention to their surroundings and decreasing the design speed of the roadway could increase driver attentiveness and increase the amount of time drivers have to react to animals in the road. 62Crashes on Mecklenburg Road, from West Haven Road to Warren Place (in the City) Intersecting Road Date Time Weather Traffic Control First event Manner of collision # Vehicles Travel Direction Occu-pants Driver(s) Age(s) Sex Injury Property Damage NOTES WARREN PL 6/20/1999 19:00 CLEAR N/A other Unsafe speed, driver unawareness** 1 North 1 22 M Y Y WARREN PL 11/11/2000 17:00 RAIN NONE tree Alcohol, unsafe speed 1 Unknown 2 23 F Y Y violation -1192-3, 1180-A, 1227-1 WARREN PL 3/12/1999 11:00 SNOW NONE vehicle unsafe speed 2 East 1carA,1carB 34A, 24B M/F N Y WARREN PL 12/5/2000 7:00 CLEAR NONE animal animal action 1 East 1 59 F N Y WARREN PL 9/30/2000 21:00 CLEAR NONE animal animal action 1 East 1 19 F Y Y WARREN PL 12/18/1999 11:00 SNOW NONE tree slippery pavement 1 East 2 36 M N Y WARREN PL 2/16/2000 18:00 SNOW NONE animal animal action 1 West 1 40 M N Y WARREN PL 10/6/2000 20:00 CLEAR NONE animal animal action 1 East 2 55 M N Y WARREN PL 3/16/2000 21:00 SNOW NONE signpost unsafe speed, slippery pavement 1 East 1 32 M N Y WARREN PL 6/16/2001 6:00 CLOUDY NONE animal animal action 1 East 1 41 F N Y WARREN PL/ OAKWOOD LN 6/15/2000 15:00 CLOUDY NONE guard rail Alcohol, unsafe speed 1 East 3 34 M Y Y violation-319-1,511-3A,404-A,1212,1180-E,1192-3 WARREN PL/ OAKWOOD LN 1/12/1999 16:00 SNOW NONE guard rail slippery pavement 1 East 2 18 M Y Y WARREN PL/ OAKWOOD LN 10/24/2000 6:00 FOG N/A animal other 1 West 1 25 M N Y WARREN PL/ WEST HAVEN RD 5/1/2000 14:00 CLOUDY No passing zone earth/ rock cut/ ditch bicyclist/ pedestrian error 1 East 1 19 M N Y WARREN PL/ WEST HAVEN RD 4/23/2000 20:00 CLOUDY NONE animal animal action 1 West 4 46 F N Y WARREN PL/ WEST HAVEN RD 6/27/2001 20:00 CLEAR NONE vehicle backing unsafely, improper passing 2 West 6carA, 1carB 38A, 23B F/F Y Y WARREN PL/ WEST HAVEN RD 9/25/1999 20:00 CLEAR NONE animal animal action 1 West 1 21 F N Y WARREN PL/ WEST HAVEN RD 5/9/1999 8:00 CLOUDY No passing zone animal animal action 1 East 1 39 M N Y WARREN PL/ WEST HAVEN RD 12/22/2000 14:00 CLOUDY Stop sign earth/ rock cut/ ditch improper passing & lane use 1 South-east 1 59 F N Y WARREN PL/ WEST HAVEN RD 3/17/2001 1:00 SNOW NONE earth/ rock cut/ ditch unsafe speed, slippery pavement 1 East 2 24 F N Y WARREN PL/ WEST HAVEN RD 12/9/1999 18:00 CLEAR NONE animal animal action 1 East 2 16 M N Y WARREN PL/ WEST HAVEN RD 4/7/1999 16:00 CLOUDY NONE bicyclist driver unawareness** 2 West 1carA, 1Bike 56A, 44bike F/M Y Y WEST HAVEN RD 9/5/1999 16:00 CLOUDY NONE animal animal action 1 West 1 23 F N Y WEST HAVEN RD 1/23/2001 18:00 CLEAR NONE animal animal action 1 East 2 50 F N Y WEST HAVEN RD 10/2/1999 19:00 CLEAR NONE animal animal action 1 West 2 35 F N Y WEST HAVEN RD 12/16/1999 21:00 CLOUDY NONE animal animal action 1 West 2 37 M N Y **diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness 63 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX V:V:V:V: SSSSIDEWALK IDEWALK IDEWALK IDEWALK OOOORDINANCES AND RDINANCES AND RDINANCES AND RDINANCES AND PPPPOLICIESOLICIESOLICIESOLICIES Sidewalk OrdinanceSidewalk OrdinanceSidewalk OrdinanceSidewalk Ordinance Chapter 230 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS [History: Adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as indicated in article histories. Amendments noted where applicable.] GENERAL REFERENCES Notification of defects—See Ch. 188 Numbering of buildings—See Ch. 192 Property maintenance—See Ch. 205 Traffic—See Ch. 250 ARTICLE I Excavations [Adopted 7-12-1965 by L.L. No. 2-1965] § 230-1. Permit required. No person, firm or corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “permittee,” shall make an excavation within the limits of any Town street or highway or other public place or under any sidewalks, all hereinafter referred to as “street” or “highway,” in the Town of Ithaca without obtaining a written permit therefore issued by the Town Board or such employee, officer, person, or agency as shall be designated by the Board. The application for this permit shall include such drawings, sketches, and other information as the issuing agent may require including, among other things, the date or dates within which work is to be performed. § 230-2. Deposit or security required. No such permit shall be issued unless and until the person applying for the same: A. Has filed with the Town Clerk satisfactory proof of adequate insurance indemnifying or holding harmless the Town of Ithaca, as the insured, from all claims for injuries to persons or property that the Town may be liable for by reason of such excavation, B. Has furnished satisfactory proof that the work shall be done by a person, firm or corporation competent to perform the same, C. Has executed an instrument, in form satisfactory to the Board that he assumes all responsibility for any damage to persons or property which may result or arise from any work performed pursuant to the permit, and further agrees that all work shall be performed in accordance with the conditions of the permit and all applicable laws, rules and regulations and further agrees that the Town is to be saved harmless from any loss, injury or damage arising out of the granting of the permit or as a result of any negligence, fault or act of the permittee, his contractors, servants or agents in connection with the work to be performed. D. Has deposited a sum of at least $300 in cash or certified check payable to the Town as security for the proper performance of the work and the replacement, repair and restorations of the street or highway in such condition and manner as may be reasonably required by the Town Superintendent. If the proposed construction at any time exceeds the sum of $500, by applicant’s estimate, to the satisfaction of the Town Highway Superintendent, a performance bond of a type and in an amount specified by the Town Board may be required. Upon the filing with the Town Clerk of a certificate of the Town Highway Superintendent that the work 64 has been performed in a satisfactory manner and the street or highway has been replaced or repaired as required by him, and all charges, expenses and damages have been paid by the applicant, any deposit shall be refunded to the permittee, provided that the permittee has otherwise complied with this article, and all rules, orders and regulations issued thereunder; otherwise the said deposit, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, may be applied by the Town to the cost of repairing or replacing such other expenses and liabilities as the Town may have incurred or be liable for. [Amended 12-31-1986 by L.L. No. 7-1986] § 230-3. Performance of work A. All such excavations and all other work in connection therewith shall be completed with all possible dispatch and within such time and in such manner as the Town Highway Superintendent shall require. B. During the performance of the work, at least ½ of the street or highway shall be kept open for travel. C. The permittee shall erect such safeguards and barriers, and shall cause the same to be adequately marked by such lights and other warning devices from sundown to sunrise as the Town Highway Superintendent shall require. D. Any permit may be revoked by the Town Superintendent or such other person designated by the Town Board upon two day’s notice in writing should the permittee fail to comply with any of the terms, agreements or conditions thereof unless otherwise designated. E. Any expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the work to be done and the enforcement of the provisions hereof shall be paid by the permittee within 10 days after the Town Clerk shall have sent the permittee a statement of such expenses certified by the Town Highway Superintendent, or such other person as may be designated by the Town Board, and any sum deposited by the permittee pursuant to § 230-2 may be applied toward the payment thereof. F. The Town Board may adopt further regulations regarding the issue of the permit and bearing on the conduct of the work, and establishing standards of construction and quality of materials, which regulations shall be filed with the Town Clerk and the Town Highway Superintendent. § 230-4. Penalties for offenses Any violation of the provisions of this article shall constitute a misdemeanor. In addition, the penalty for each violation of this article shall be a sum not to exceed $200. ARTICLE II Construction and Repair of Sidewalks [Adopted 8-24-1992] § 230-5. Title; statutory authority This article may be cited as the “Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Regulation Ordinance” and is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by New York State Town Law § 130 et seq. and § 200-a. § 230-6. Construction of Sidewalks Sidewalks constructed within the Town of Ithaca, when constructed by parties other than the Town of Ithaca where ordered by the Town Board as set forth below, shall be constructed in accordance with the grades and specifications annexed hereto as Exhibit A89 unless a specification is waived by the Town Board in a particular instance because of unique circumstances or if the Town Board specifically accepts a substitute specification as being equal or superior to the specifications attached. No construction, reconstruction or repair of sidewalks shall be permitted, in those areas where the Town Board has ordered the construction or 65 maintenance of sidewalks, that does not comply with the attached specifications unless waived or modified by the Town Board as set forth above. § 230-7. Maintenance of sidewalks The owner and occupant of premises abutting on any street where a sidewalk has been laid shall keep the sidewalk in front of such premises free and clear from snow, ice, dirt, and other obstructions. All snow and ice shall be removed from such sidewalk within 24 hours of the time of its deposit, such time to be determined by the Town Engineer. Upon default in maintaining sidewalks free and clear from snow, ice, dirt, and other obstructions, the Town may remove such obstructions at the expense of the property owner. The charge to the owner for the cleaning of any such walk will be the actual cost, plus 50% for overhead and administration for such charges and shall be due 30 days from the date invoiced to the owner. Bills remaining unpaid after 30 days shall accrue a late charge at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the bill or $3 per month, whichever is greater, and may be added to the taxes due with relation to, and shall become a lien upon, the premises benefited thereby, until paid. § 230-8. Duty to construct and maintain sidewalks The Town Board may adopt orders from time to time, directing the owners of respective lots and parcels of land abutting on any Town street or highway, or, with the consent of the County Superintendent of Highways or the State Commissioner of Transportation, as the case may be, abutting on a county or state highway within the Town of Ithaca, along which it is desired that sidewalks be built, re-laid or repaired, to construct the same to conform to the terms of this article, and specifying the time within which the same shall be done. The procedures related to such orders shall be as follows: A. The Town Clerk shall give notice thereof by certified mail addressed to each such owner at the owners’ address as it appears on the assessment roll of the Town or, in the alternative, by publication of a notice thereof in the official paper at least twice, the first publication of which shall be at least 15 days before the time specified for the completion of the work. B. If, within the time prescribed in the order and notice, the sidewalks required to be built, re-laid or repaired, shall not have been so built, re-laid or repaired, then the Town Board may cause the same to be done and audit and pay the expense of doing the same and assess the expense thereof against the property benefit as a whole. C. Such assessment shall be in five or fewer annual installments and shall be levied and collected from the several lots and parcels in the same manner and at the same time as other Town charges. D. The assessment against the property owners shall be in the same manner as street improvements constructed pursuant to §200 of the Town Law. E. If such expenses be assessed in installments, there shall be assessed as part of each installment, except the first, as interest, an amount not exceeding 6% of such installment, such rate to be fixed by the Town Board in the order providing for the assessment. F. The provisions of law applicable to the sale of tax liens shall apply to any unpaid assessed installment with the interest thereon in the same manner as though such installment and interest had been assessed as an assessment payable as a whole. Unassessed installments shall be payable at any time with interest computed thereon at the aforesaid rate from the date of assessment of the first installment to the date of payment of the particular installment. G. If such expense be assessed as a whole and the Town Board resolution assessing such expenses against a particular piece of property shall so provide, the assessment against such property may be paid in five or fewer annual installments on the dates fixed by such resolution with interest, not exceeding 6% of each such installment, fixed by such resolution. 66 H. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the Town Board may adopt a local law apportioning the expense of building, relaying or repairing any sidewalk within such Town between the Town and owners of the respective lots and parcels of land abutting any street or county or state highway within the Town along which it is desired that sidewalks be built, re-laid or repaired. § 230-9. Applicability This article shall apply to all property in the Town of Ithaca outside the limits of the incorporated Village of Cayuga Heights. § 230-10. When effective This article shall take effect 10 days after its publication as required by law, except that the same shall take effect from the date of its service (if earlier than 10 days after its publication) as against any person served personally with a copy hereof certified by the Town Clerk under the Corporate Seal of the Town and showing the date of its passage and entry in the minutes of the Town Board. Exhibit A Sidewalk Specifications for the Town of Ithaca Asphalt Concrete Sidewalks Materials and composition shall consist of Type 7 Top Course as listed under section 401.2.02 Table 401-1, Composition of Bituminous Plant Mixtures, of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications. Sidewalks shall be constructed with a six-foot width and two-inch thickness of Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Pavement, placed on a compacted base. The asphalt concrete shall be placed and compacted according to the requirements of Section 403 of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Town Board designated a particular street or road as a residential street for sidewalk purposes, the width of the sidewalk may be reduced from six feet to four feet. Sidewalk Base shall consist of a six-inch-thick compacted fine crusher run limestone, or with the special approval of the Town Engineer the base may be constructed of crushed bank run gravel. Sidewalks shall be constructed so that the finished surface is flush with the adjacent grades. Maximum cross slope shall be 1/8 inch per foot. Maximum sidewalk grade shall be 8%. 67 Sidewalk Policy for the Town of IthacaSidewalk Policy for the Town of IthacaSidewalk Policy for the Town of IthacaSidewalk Policy for the Town of Ithaca Adopted 10/23/03 [Note: Upon adoption of the Transportation Plan, this Interim Sidewalk Policy would be superseded by “Appendix VI: Identifying and Prioritizing Bike and Pedestrian Improvements.”] NEWLY DEVELOPED AREAS Subdivisions with internal roads Considerations: • Children walk to school • Current or likely future presence of numerous children in an environment where, in the absence of a sidewalk, many children can be expected to be present on the road shoulder • Bus stop within convenient walking distance • Connected to other sidewalks • Provide access to trail system or public park • Safety for pedestrians If any item applies, then the Planning Board at its discretion may require the developer to include sidewalks with the development. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners, or the resident association unless other arrangements are made. On existing roads If a new sidewalk would result in a connection to existing sidewalks or sidewalk system planned by the Town of Ithaca, the Planning Board may require sidewalks as part of the development. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks unless other arrangements are made. PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED AREAS Petition for establishment of a sidewalk benefit district On a positive vote of the owners of at least one half of the assessed valuation of all the taxable real property in the proposed benefit district. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks unless other arrangements are made. At Town expense On recommendation of the Planning Board and approval of the Town Board if at least three of the following conditions apply: • Within convenient walking distance to school, church or other place of regular public use, • Links existing or probable future sidewalks, • Existing or planned road shoulders inadequate for bicycles and pedestrians, • Proximate access to public transportation, • Right of way is sufficient for existing/planned roadway plus sidewalk, or an easement can be reasonably obtained from adjacent landowner(s). • Planned sidewalk does not dead end without reasonable expectation of extension/connection in foreseeable future, • Peak hour traffic volume is at least moderate, defined as 350- 500 vehicles per hour, and • Shown as part of a town wide pedestrian circulation system in Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks, unless other arrangements are made. 68 Examples of Town and County roads with that volume of peak hour traffic include Five Mile Drive, Ellis Hollow Rd., Coddington Rd. (west of Juniper), Judd Falls Rd., Pine Tree Rd., and Forest Home Drive. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS Unless other arrangements are approved by the Planning Department, standard sidewalk construction shall consist of concrete four (4) feet wide. Where conditions apply, and if supported by owners of at least half the assessed value of real property in the benefit district, a walkway may be substituted for a sidewalk. Compared with a sidewalk, a walkway will typically be set further from the road edge and will be more curvy, often being constructed of asphalt. 69 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX VI:VI:VI:VI: IIIIDENTIFYING DENTIFYING DENTIFYING DENTIFYING &&&& PPPPRIORITIZING RIORITIZING RIORITIZING RIORITIZING BBBBICYCLE AND ICYCLE AND ICYCLE AND ICYCLE AND PPPPEDESTRIAN EDESTRIAN EDESTRIAN EDESTRIAN IIIIMPROVEMENTSMPROVEMENTSMPROVEMENTSMPROVEMENTS PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS: SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION The Interim Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Policy of 2003 distinguishes between existing development and newly developed areas when outlining criteria that indicate the need for a sidewalk or walkway. A sidewalk is owned and maintained by property owners or neighborhood association, while a walkway is owned and maintained by the Town. The considerations that determine whether new developmentnew developmentnew developmentnew development warrants sidewalks or walkways are as follows: children walk to school; current or likely future presence of numerous children in an environment where, in the absence of a sidewalk or walkway, many children can be expected to be present on the road shoulder; bus stop within convenient walking distance; connected to other sidewalks or walkways; provide access to trail system or public park; and safety for pedestrians. The Planning Board can recommend that a walkway be constructed at Town expense on an existing road existing road existing road existing road corridorcorridorcorridorcorridor if at least three of the following criteria are met: an existing road must: be within convenient walking distance to school, church or other place of regular public use; link existing or probable future sidewalks or walkways; have existing or planned road shoulders which are inadequate for bicycles and pedestrians; have proximate access to public transportation; have sufficient right of way for existing/planned roadway and sidewalk or walkway, or an easement can be reasonably obtained from adjacent landowner(s). In addition the planned sidewalk or walkway will not dead end without reasonable expectation of extension/connection in foreseeable future; the peak hour traffic volume on the existing roadway is at least moderate, defined as 350- 500 vehicles per hour; and that the area is shown as part of a town wide pedestrian circulation system in Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan. The Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee identified additional criteria that indicate whether a location may need a sidewalk or walkway. They are: • Higher density/ intensity of land use (medium and high density residential, neighborhood/ office park commercial, etc) • Located along the route of a bus1 • Within ½ mile of an elementary school, assisted living facility, or employment/ activity center for the disabled • Within ½ mile of other pedestrian generators (like middle schools, high schools or universities, commercial centers, employment centers, major transit stops, parks or other recreational facilities (like playgrounds), places of worship, post offices, municipal buildings or community centers, restaurants, or other locations that would generate pedestrian traffic) • High 85th percentile speed; speed limit greater than 25 mph • Roadway of high volume and classification (arterials or collectors; > 4,000 vpd) • Outside funding is available; hence, cost to Town is low OR roadway is currently being or soon to be reconstructed (include sidewalks or walkways as part of project) • Links into existing or planned pedestrian network (as shown in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan) • Current infrastructure is insufficient: a paved shoulder less than four feet wide, or a deteriorated pavement or gravel shoulder less than five feet wide Considerations that counter-indicate sidewalk or walkway provision include: • With reasonable effort, the design, construction, and maintenance of the sidewalk or walkway cannot mitigate detrimental effects on environmental resources, including natural, historic, and scenic resources • Outside funding is not available; high cost burden for the Town • Adjacent land use is rural; improved shoulders are a better investment • An existing or planned off-road, multi-use path offers a more direct or safer route than a sidewalk or walkway adjacent to a road 1 "Location along a bus route" is more accurate than "location within ½ mile of a bus stop" because TCAT allows riders to "flag" the bus for pick-up at locations other than a stop. Thus, pedestrians/ commuters can potentially wait along the length of the bus route. "Location along a bus route" is more logical than "within ½ mile of a bus route" because the latter is an unreasonably large buffer that includes all of the roads within ½ mile of the bus route. 70 • The main benefit is for a small, localized area, and the sidewalk is unlikely to attract a broader segment of pedestrians. In this case, the sidewalk should be provided by the developer (in a new development) or the residents When the benefits outweigh the costs, a sidewalk or walkway is warranted. The magnitude of the balance between benefits and costs determines the relative priority of identified segments. The “Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs Map” shows the locations and priorities of segments in the Town. The list below describes each segment and how it fulfills the Town’s Interim Sidewalk Policy guidelines and the other considerations outlined above. The “Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox” of the Design Guidelines outlines what type of facilities are appropriate for different types of locations. High Priority, Essential Corridors: Ten year horizonHigh Priority, Essential Corridors: Ten year horizonHigh Priority, Essential Corridors: Ten year horizonHigh Priority, Essential Corridors: Ten year horizon Danby Road (Rt. 96B) City line to Ithaca College: This segment is a student commuter route between Downtown and Ithaca College. It could potentially extend south along Route 96B, toward Danby, and connect to a walkway on East King Road. The portion in the Town will link into the City’s sidewalk network. Given the vehicular traffic volume and speed profile of the road, the existing road shoulders are inadequate and unsafe for pedestrian traffic. Evidence of pedestrian volume is shown in the informal off-road path beaten into the ground. This corridor is served by transit. Hanshaw Road: This walkway will serve the parks, trails, and medium density residential development in the area. Hanshaw Road is a student commuter route for both university and primary school students. This walkway will link to the sidewalks in Cayuga Heights and Community Corners in the west and to the potential trail into Dryden (Monkey Run trail) in the east. The existing shoulders on Hanshaw Road are inadequate and unsafe for pedestrian traffic, given the peak hour volume of ~550 vph. This corridor is served by transit. Finally, the right-of-way is in the process of redesign; pedestrian infrastructure is anticipated. Coddington Road, Ithaca College to City line: This corridor is also a student commuter route that connects Ithaca College to the sidewalk system in the City of Ithaca. This walkway will connect to recreational amenities and medium density residential development when extended south on Coddington Road in the future. In this area, Coddington Road has a peak hour volume of ~400 vph. Like Hanshaw Road, the right-of-way is in the process of redesign, and preliminary designs show pedestrian infrastructure from the City to Juniper Drive. Pine Tree Road: Pine Tree Road is unsafe for pedestrian traffic. The peak hour volumes range from ~800 to ~1000 vph and the 85th percentile speeds significantly exceed the speed limit. While the road shoulders are generally sufficiently wide, especially at the northern and southern ends of the road, some sections consist of a narrow strip of pavement plus gravel on the outside; other sections are nearly completely gravel. Other paved sections are clogged with gravel and debris. This corridor is served by public transit. The Pine Tree Road walkway will serve pedestrians associated with medium density residential development, various trails (East Ithaca Recreation Way and existing walkways on Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane), parks, churches in the area, and East Hill Plaza (a major pedestrian generator). This walkway will connect into other existing and planned walkways. Honness Lane, Slaterville Road to existing Town walkway: Churches, existing and planned walkways, medium density development, and trails are in the vicinity of this link. One end of the corridor connects to Slaterville Road; the other connects to the existing Honness Lane walkway and the East Ithaca Recreation Way, and beyond that, Pine Tree Road. This corridor is served by transit, and it has been noted that children wait for the school bus. This walkway is listed in the high-priority tier because residents have petitioned for an extension of the Town walkway and the provision of such a walkway is not expected to be costly or difficult. Forest Home neighborhood, as shown in the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan: The historic Forest Home neighborhood is comprised of medium-density residential development. A chapel, which also serves as the neighborhood’s community center, is located in the neighborhood. The residential development, chapel, community center, bus stops, and proximity to Cornell generate significant pedestrian traffic. Pedestrian facilities in this historical, medium-density residential neighborhood range from four foot wide walkways to narrow, unpaved beaten paths. In some locations, there are no facilities at all. The Town of Ithaca’s Forest 71 Home Walkway connects Warren Road to Forest Home Drive. Peak hour vehicular volumes range from ~500 vph on Judd Falls Road to ~600 vph on Forest Home Drive. Forest Home is surrounded by university-related development, including the Cornell campus to the south, Plantations to the east, and the North Campus residential development and the Cornel golf course to the north. Sidewalks through this neighborhood will link to sidewalks in the City, Cornell’s campus and the trails through the Cornell Plantations, as well as to a planned trail leading to the Northeast (shown in the Town’s Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan). Trumansburg Road (Rt. 96), City to Hospital: Trumansburg Road, is a high-volume, high speed State commuter route. Peak hour traffic volumes are among the highest in the Town of Ithaca (>1100 vph). Route 96 also has the highest development potential in the Town. A pedestrian corridor will connect the hospital, senior housing/ nursing care, medium density residential development, and the Overlook development to City of Ithaca sidewalks. This corridor is served by transit. This corridor is also included in the upper tier on the recommendation of the Town Board because of the existing development (such as the Overlook residential development) and the potential for further development on Trumansburg Road. Maple Ave. Connection: The existing Maple Ave. walkway begins at Pine Tree Road and terminates just inside the City of Ithaca city limit, where it connects to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. At this connection, pedestrians must cross the entrance drive to a parking lot and traverse a bus pull-off. This location would benefit from improvements to the connection, including a cross walk. Since the location is in the City, improvements would require cooperation with the City and Cornell. Recommended CorridorsRecommended CorridorsRecommended CorridorsRecommended Corridors: Twenty year horizon: Twenty year horizon: Twenty year horizon: Twenty year horizon Slaterville Road (Rt. 79), Pine Tree Road to City: Slaterville Road (a State route) has shoulders that may be adequate in width to accommodate pedestrians, but a separate pedestrian walkway is needed for safety reasons due to high motor vehicle speeds and volumes (peak hour traffic is ~400-600 vph) and to close a gap in the pedestrian system. This corridor will serve community parks, medium density residential development, churches, Collegetown, and Cornell. On one end, it will connect to the City (although there is a section of Rt. 79 in the City that does not have sidewalks); on the other end, it will connect to the Pine Tree Road walkway. This corridor is served by transit. Coddington Road, Ithaca College to Troy Road: From Ithaca College’s entrance to Troy Road, Coddington Road travels through an area of medium density residential development. There are several small subdivisions off the road, as well as a few neighborhood parks. To the north, this segment connects into the high priority northern Coddington walkway section; to the south, it connects to recommended corridors on Troy and East King Roads. Although the South Hill Recreation Way runs nearly parallel to this corridor, there are no access points to the trail, making it difficult for residents living along Coddington Road to utilize it for transportation purposes. This corridor is served by transit. The peak hour traffic volume is ~400 vph. The right-of-way is currently in the process of redesign, although there may be insufficient funding for sidewalks from Juniper Drive to Troy Road. This plan encourages the County to design the roadway so as not to preclude the provision of sidewalks in the future, and to provide adequate shoulder width where sidewalks are not provided. Danby Road (Route 96B), Ithaca College to East/ West King Road: This segment will link the walkway ending at Ithaca College to the proposed walkway on East King Road. Although the existing road shoulders are fairly wide and smooth, the speeds and high traffic volumes (exact peak hour data are unavailable; ADT is 7,000-10,000) present a safety hazard for pedestrians. Because this segment has a lower pedestrian volume than the northern section from the City to Ithaca College, it is listed in the lower tier (similar to the Coddington Road segment described above). This corridor is served by transit. Muriel Street: Muriel Street runs through an area of medium density residential development located in the Northeast of the Town. On one end, Muriel Street links to Hanshaw Road (east of Warren Road); the other links to the trail leading to DeWitt Middle School and Northeast Elementary School. Muriel Street is also within walking distance to parks, trails, and to Community Corners and the Monkey Run Trail via Hanshaw Road. Currently, there are no any striped shoulders. The Muriel Street segment is listed as a “Recommended Corridor” tier because a few residents have indicated an interest in sidewalks and because it can serve as an alternative route to Warren Road, a road of far higher traffic volumes on which pedestrians travel on the shoulder with 72 bicyclists. If this corridor is shown to serve the Town as a whole, and not only Muriel Street residents, the Town could potentially construct and maintain the corridor. Warren Road, south of Hanshaw Road: This segment connects the Forest Home sidewalks with Hanshaw Road and the northern section of Warren Road. This corridor is served by transit. It has a peak hour vehicular volume of ~400-500 vph. The road is relatively flat and smooth. The shoulder width appears to be sufficient, but the shoulder consists of a relatively narrow strip of pavement with gravel to the outside of the pavement. Troy Road: The Troy Road segment is within walking distance to two neighborhood parks and a trail system. It completes the “South Hill Loop” from Coddington Road to East King Road. Troy Road’s shoulders are inadequate for a road with a 45 mph speed limit. East King Road, east and west of trail proposed in the “Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan”: This is the middle section of the “South Hill Loop,” between Coddington and Troy Roads and Route 96B. It is the only direct east-west corridor on the Town’s South Hill. This corridor serves the Montessori School, Chase Lane, Deer Run, and Southwoods subdivisions (which are all medium density residential development). The existing shoulders vary from narrow to wide and consist of deteriorated pavement or gravel. Overlook Development: This development fits the criteria for “new development” in the Interim Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Policy of 2003. First, this is an environment in which children are likely to be present on road shoulders. Also, there is a bus stop within convenient walking distance. The sidewalks in Overlook will connect into the Town’s planned pedestrian network, and they will provide a link to the Town’s trail system and public parks. Miscellaneous:Miscellaneous:Miscellaneous:Miscellaneous: Various West Hill connectors: These connectors are on Mecklenburg Road (Rt. 79) and Elm Street, Coy Glen Road with two trail spurs, the Inlet Valley Trail to Black Diamond spur, and the two Rt. 96 to Black Diamond Trail spurs. The purpose of these miscellaneous segments is to close gaps in the existing and planned pedestrian network. Especially on sections of Coy Glen and Elm Street, the road shoulders are inadequate for safe pedestrian travel. Some of these corridors, particularly the ones that do not follow the road right-of-way, could be multi-use trails instead of walkways. These corridors should be constructed piece by piece, as opportunities arise. Southwoods Connection: This is a very small connection that links the entrance of the Southwoods development to the trail system on South Hill. This segment is a low priority that should be pursued when the opportunity arises. Snyder Hill Road to Dove Drive: Snyder Hill Road is within convenient walking distance of East Hill Plaza, parks, churches, and trails. Snyder Hill Road runs parallel to the Pew Trail, which connects Pine Tree Road to the southwestern portion of the Eastern Heights neighborhood. There are no Pew Trail access points on Snyder Hill Road. A walkway or sidewalk along this corridor would link into Dryden, bypassing the detour into the neighborhood. Like the Southwoods connection above, this is a low priority that should be pursued when an opportunity is presented. 73 BICYCLE CORRIDORS: SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION The Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs Map (map 14 in Appendix I) shows locations and priorities developed in a manner similar to the sidewalk/ walkway procedure outlined above: criteria were developed, locations identified, and priorities ranked. Like the sidewalk/ walkway location identification criteria, the bicycle location considerations are neither absolute nor directly quantifiable. The Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) is an emerging standard that judges bicyclists’ comfort level when riding on a road corridor. The following are basic considerations when calculating the BCI of a road: • Geometric and roadside data: number of through lanes in one direction; curb lane width; bicycle lane or paved shoulder width; type of roadside development (residential or non-residential); • Traffic operations data: posted speed limit; 85th percentile speed; ADT (average daily traffic); percentage of vehicle stream that can be defined as “large vehicles” (i.e. trucks, buses, etc); percentage of vehicle stream turning right onto driveways or other road corridors. • Parking data (if applicable): presence or absence of a parking lane; percentage of spaces usually occupied; parking time limit. (All of the parking factors describe the likely potential of bicyclist/ car door conflict.) There are several other factors that affect the need for bike infrastructure. They include:2 • Existing bicycle patterns (How many bicyclists currently use the road, and how do they use the road? For what purposes?); • Anticipated bicycle demand (Is there new residential or commercial development that could potentially increase the number of bicyclists? Are there any recent demographic changes in the area that could alter bicycle demand?); • Constraints affecting bicycling (Are there steep grades? Are there existing bottlenecks in traffic? Are there other constraints?); • Safety concerns (Have safety issues been identified along the corridor? Does crash data indicate a problem? Is the corridor in a school zone?); • Existing opportunities (Are there plans to rebuild or repave the road? Has funding for bike lanes or other bike infrastructure become available?); • Origin/ route/ destination information (Does the route connect bike traffic generators or existing bike infrastructure? How many destinations does it serve, especially residential areas, schools, parks, employment centers, and transit stops? How direct are the routes?). There are several other unquantifiable factors that affect the optimal location of bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure should be directly accessible from the traffic generator or attractor. Formal or informal bike routes should take a direct path between destinations, balanced with the need to choose a safe, attractive route. A safe route limits the conflict between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists (for example, at intersections). Continuity in the system is very important. If gaps in the system exist, they should not force a bicyclist to traverse an unsafe or unpleasant environment. Finally, cost and the ease of implementation are always factors. Balancing these considerations against each other in each specific situation involves trade-offs, but it ensures that each situation receives the best possible treatment. The Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs Map shows locations in the Town that need improved bicycle accommodations sooner than their scheduled repair or reconstruction. It is based upon the criteria identified above and is intended to complement the draft ITCTC bicycle suitability map. (In 2006, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) completed a bicycle suitability survey for Tompkins County, evaluating roads based on criteria similar to the above.) The following is a list of priority locations that show a need for bicycle infrastructure. The priorities are classified as “high,” “medium,” and “low.” Recurring themes throughout the list are the presence of high volume, high speed State routes and uphill climbs. The “Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox” of the Design Guidelines outlines what type of facilities are appropriate for various types of locations. Unless otherwise noted, these segments will 2 These factors are based on those found in the Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization’s 2002 Knoxville Regional Bicycle Plan. 74 likely benefit most from improved road shoulders, which would be shared with pedestrians and motor vehicles. Road shoulder improvements are appropriate for most rural roads (arterial, collector, or local) and some urban roads (collectors and local roads). Road shoulder improvements could include shoulder widening, paving or repaving, striping or re-striping, signage (such as “Share the Road” signs), or improved, regular maintenance (such as sweeping or plowing). High Priority Segments: Five High Priority Segments: Five High Priority Segments: Five High Priority Segments: Five ---- ten year horizon ten year horizon ten year horizon ten year horizon Mecklenburg Road (Route 79), City – Town municipal line to West Haven Road: The section of Mecklenburg Road (Route 79) in the City travels up a steep, curving hill with insufficient shoulder. The speed of the bicyclist traveling uphill is far lower than the speed of passing motorists. The roadway and shoulders widen in the Town, but motorists traveling downhill into the City regularly exceed the speed limit. Route 79 in the City, or Hector Street, is shown on the ITCTC’s draft bicycle suitability map as “poor,” the lowest rating. This is an excellent opportunity for the Town to work with the City to improve non-motorized transportation conditions at a Town – City municipal boundary. Danby Road (Route 96B), City – Town line to Ithaca College Entrance: Danby Road is a high volume, high speed road along its entire length. On the northbound side of Route 96B near the City, there is no shoulder at all. The shoulder on the southbound side appears to be adequate, although it should be evaluated for an uphill climbing lane or uphill off-road path. The pedestrian and bicyclist volumes on Route 96B are relatively high compared to other State routes running through similar development intensities because of bicycle and pedestrian traffic associated with Ithaca College. Pedestrian and bicyclist volumes appear to drop off south of Ithaca College. For this reason, the segment from Ithaca College to the City is rated as a high priority and the southern segment is rated as a low, long term priority. Coddington Road, City – Town line to Troy Road: The shoulders on Coddington Road in the Town are all gravel or deteriorated pavement, and none are wide enough for bicycle travel. Traveling toward Danby, the speed limit rises from 30 mph to 40 mph at Juniper Drive. Speeding on Coddington Road, especially near the City, is a problem. At Juniper Drive, the 85th percentile speed is 147% of the speed limit, or approximately 45 mph. The segment from Troy Road to the City runs through medium density residential development. This segment has the potential for a formally designated bicycle route or bicycle lane. The ITCTC’s bicycle suitability map rates Coddington Road from the City – Town line to the entrance to Ithaca College as “poor,” the lowest rating. Pine Tree Road: Pine Tree Road is an important north-south corridor on Ithaca’s East Hill. The southern-most section of Pine Tree Road has a wide uphill climbing lane, but the pavement is deteriorated and usually clogged with gravel and debris. The central section of Pine Tree Road just south of Honness Lane has sufficient shoulder room, but the space is either a small strip of pavement plus gravel on the outside or only gravel. This is where the Honness Lane Walkway will extend across Pine Tree Road to join the Pew Trail; these trails will attract bicyclists. The northern portion of Pine Tree Road (near Route 366) has paved shoulders that vary in width. The uphill climbing lane in this section may be inadequate due to insufficient width for maneuvering. Volumes on Pine Tree Road are consistently high. Both the northern and southern segments (as shown on the “Prioritized Bicycle Corridor” map) will benefit from road shoulder improvements, and formal bicycle lanes may be appropriate for most of the road. Hanshaw Road: Hanshaw Road is an important east-west corridor in the Northeast that carries moderately high volumes of commuter and local traffic from Dryden to Cayuga Heights and Cornell. The shoulders along the road are approximately four to five feet wide, ranging in material from deteriorated pavement to gravel. In some areas, the gravel or pavement has deteriorated at the edges (effectively narrowing the shoulder). Hanshaw Road will be reconstructed by the County in 2007. As of late 2006, the design includes four foot wide paved shoulders. Medium Priority Segments: Ten Medium Priority Segments: Ten Medium Priority Segments: Ten Medium Priority Segments: Ten –––– fifteen year horizon fifteen year horizon fifteen year horizon fifteen year horizon Trumansburg Road (Route 96), Town – City line to Hospital: There is a sidewalk on the steep uphill side of Route 96 in the City. The sidewalk removes pedestrians from the travel lane, but bicyclists remain in the road. There are inadequate shoulders on Route 96 in the City. The ITCTC’s bicycle suitability map rates this section as “poor,” the lowest rating. At the municipal line, the sidewalk ends and opens into a wide, paved shoulder, typical 75 of the State Routes within the Town. Speed limits on Route 96 in the Town range from 45 to 55 mph; motorists regularly exceed these speeds. Vehicular traffic volumes on Route 96 are high. This corridor is a major commuter route with an existing major residential development (the Overlook development) and anticipated residential and commercial development in the future. This route has the potential to capture bicyclist commuters, especially on the downhill side (in conjunction with the opportunity to ride TCAT up the hill). The segment from the City to Cayuga Medical Center is rated as a higher priority than the segment north of the Medical Center because of development density and the location of destinations (such as the Museum of the Earth, the Paleontological Research Center (PRI), the Finger Lakes School of Massage, the medical center, the Overlook residential development, and so on). Five Mile Drive (Route 13A): Five Mile Drive in the City, or Floral Ave, has a speed limit of 30 mph. It has curbs, but no shoulders, leaving no “escape” room for a bicyclist when a motorist passes too closely. The ITCTC’s bicycle suitability map rates Floral Ave as “fair,” the second from lowest rating. Five Mile Drive in the Town has a speed limit of 45 mph and has gravel or deteriorated pavement shoulders. Five Mile Drive runs approximately parallel to Route 13, and makes a good alternate route to it. Route 13 is a very high volume road with a very large number of curb cuts, two conditions that make it unsafe for bicycle travel. Five Mile Drive connects the areas north and south of the City, bypassing the development on the east side of the inlet. Pleasant Grove Road: Like Hanshaw Road, Pleasant Grove Road has fairly wide shoulders, but the pavement is deteriorating in some places. Volumes and speeds are both moderate. There are vertical curves that moderately decrease sight distances. Bicycle traffic on this road is higher than other sections of the Town due to the proximity to Cornell, including the residential North Campus and the commuter “A” parking lot; for this reason, Pleasant Grove Road is rated as a medium priority. Because of its proximity to Cornell’s North Campus, Pleasant Grove Road may benefit from a bicycle facility that is somewhat more formal than a road shoulder. Mecklenburg Road (Route 79), Westhaven Road to Ecovillage: The road shoulder of this section of roadway is wide and paved. This section is rated as a lower priority than the segment to the east and a higher priority than the segment to the west. The segment to the east likely will carry more bicycle traffic than this segment because of bicycle traffic generated by Ecovillage and the Conifer development. Mitchell Street, City – Town line to Pine Tree Road: This section of roadway has a speed limit of 35 mph, with moderate to high traffic volumes. There is adequate shoulder width, but the shoulder condition in some locations is poor. This segment is rated overall as “poor,” or the lowest rating, on the ITCTC’s bicycle suitability map. This segment could use bicycle improvements because it is the primary corridor from the west to East Hill Plaza, a major destination on East Hill. In addition, a graduate housing development is off Mitchell Street on Veteran’s Place. Honness Lane, end of walkway to Slaterville Road (Rt. 79): Honness Lane is in an area of medium-density residential development, within biking distance of trails, a church, shopping center, and other destinations. This short connection, from the end of the walkway on Honness Lane to Slaterville Road (Rt. 79), could be addressed by extending the walkway down to Slaterville Road. Coddington Road, Troy Road to Town of Ithaca – Town of Danby line: This segment travels through low density residential development. The speed limit on this section is 45 mph. The shoulders are gravel or deteriorated pavement, and they are not wide enough for safe bicycle or pedestrian travel. The ITCTC’s bicycle suitability map rates Coddington Road from Ithaca College to the Town of Ithaca – Town of Danby line as “fair,” the second lowest rating. With improvements, Coddington Road could offer a more attractive route for bicyclists than Danby Road (Rt. 96B). Low Priority Segments: Fifteen Low Priority Segments: Fifteen Low Priority Segments: Fifteen Low Priority Segments: Fifteen –––– twenty year horizon twenty year horizon twenty year horizon twenty year horizon Warren Road: North of Hanshaw Road, Warren Road has wide, paved shoulders that are striped and signed as a shared bicycle-pedestrian lane. South of Hanshaw Road, the paved part of the shoulders is narrower, but there is gravel to the outside of the shoulders. Hanshaw Road will have bicycle accommodations after its reconstruction, and Pleasant Grove Road is recommended for improved bicycle infrastructure in this plan element. Besides its role as a connection in the Town’s emerging bicycle network, Warren Road is close to many traffic generators, including Cornell’s North Campus and A-lot, the middle and elementary schools north of 76 Hanshaw Road, a golf course, the Convenient Care Center and medical offices in the Village of Lansing, and Community Corners in the Village of Cayuga Heights. For these reasons, Warren Road, like East King Road, is listed at the “top” of the low priority list. It is not on the medium priority list because the shoulder condition is acceptable and there are no sight distance problems. This section of Warren Road could potentially have either improved road shoulders or a more formal bicycle facility designation, like a bike lane. Trumansburg Road (Route 96), Hospital to Town of Ithaca – Town of Ulysses line: On this section of roadway, there is a wide, paved shoulder, typical of the State Routes within the Town. Speed limits on Route 96 in the Town range from 45 to 55 mph; motorists regularly exceed these speeds. Vehicular traffic volumes on Route 96 are high. This corridor is a major commuter route with an existing major residential development (the Overlook development) and anticipated residential and commercial development in the future. This route has the potential to capture bicyclist commuters, especially on the downhill side (in conjunction with the opportunity to ride TCAT up the hill). This segment is rated as a lower priority than the segment to the south because the segment to the south has a greater development density and many destinations (such as the Museum of the Earth, the Paleontological Research Center (PRI), the Finger Lakes School of Massage, the medical center, the Overlook residential development, and so on). Danby Road (Route 96B), Ithaca College Entrance to Town of Ithaca – Town of Danby line: This section of Danby Road has high traffic volumes and speed limits ranging from 40-55 mph. Danby Road is a major commuter road that has the potential to carry bicycle traffic to Ithaca College and the City of Ithaca on its wide, paved shoulders. This section of Danby Road is less likely to carry as much bicycle and pedestrian traffic as the northern section; for this reason, the segment from Ithaca College to the City is rated as a high priority and this segment is rated as a low, long term priority. Taughannock Boulevard (Route 89): Taughannock Boulevard, or Route 89, has paved shoulders of moderate width. Because of steep grades to either side of the road with guardrails in some places, bicyclists may feel “squeezed” between the guardrail or steep grade and passing motor vehicles. Nevertheless, Taughannock Boulevard is signed as a bicycle route. Because of limited right of way and challenging topography, this segment is rated as a low priority. East King Road: The speed limit for East King Road is 45 mph, except in the Montessori School zone, where it drops to 30 mph. Speed data show the extent and severity of speeding to be similar to Bostwick Road (the 85th percentile speed is 140% of the limit, or 63 mph). There is a slope at the eastern portion of the road, although it is not as steep as other areas of the Town. The gravel or deteriorated pavement shoulders of East King Road alternate between narrow and wide. The ITCTC’s bicycle suitability map rates East King Road as “fair,” the second from lowest rating. East King Road is a low priority, although it is a higher than Bostwick or Sandbank Roads because it serves a more important function (connecting Coddington Road and Rt. 96B) and is likely to carry more bicycle traffic. Mecklenburg Road (Route 79), west of Ecovillage: This section of road has adequate shoulders to accommodate bicycle traffic. Horizontal sight distances are adequate, although the rolling hills present some vertical sight distance issues. With a few improvements, Mecklenburg Road could serve as an adequate bicycle corridor between Enfield and Ithaca. Bostwick Road: Nearly all of Bostwick Road is on a long hill. Bostwick Road’s speed limit is 45 mph, although speed data show that the 85th percentile speed is 140% of the limit (or 63 mph). The shoulders are narrow and gravel, and due to the lateral and vertical curves of the road, sight distances are limited in many areas. The safety issues are more significant here than on other roads, but because Bostwick Road is likely to see less bicycle traffic than other areas, it currently is rated as a low priority. Sandbank Road: Sandbank Road is a Town-owned road that has approximately four foot wide shoulders. Sandbank Road climbs steeply uphill to exit Inlet Valley into Danby; the uphill climbing lane shoulder for bicyclists is inadequate. The speed limit on Sandbank Road is 30 mph, although the “Speed Issues” section of this Transportation Plan notes that the 85th percentile speed for the road is closer to 40 mph. The ITCTC’s bicycle suitability map rates Sandbank Road as “fair,” the second from lowest rating. Sandbank Road is rated as a low priority instead of a medium priority for the same reasons as Bostwick Road. 77 Park Lane, Slaterville Road, and Burns Road: This corridor is an important link in a county-wide network; it connects Eastern Heights to South Hill. The end of the Pew Trail will connect to Park Lane, which leads to Slaterville Road and then to Burns Road. Because Park Lane is a low-volume residential street, bike lanes and improved shoulders may be unsuitable; a multi-use trail in the Park Lane area may be more appropriate. Slaterville Road is a high volume State road with a speed limit of 45 mph. The wide shoulders are paved, but there is often debris (such as sticks or gravel) on the shoulder. Burns Road is the best way for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Six Mile Creek outside the City. Burns Road has no striped shoulders and no posted speed limit. The ITCTC’s bicycle suitability map rates Burns Road as “fair,” the second from lowest rating. There appears to be adequate pavement available to stripe paved shoulders, requiring little investment. Caldwell Road: Caldwell Road is a low-speed, moderate volume Town Road. The shoulders are adequately paved, although they are too narrow to safely support bicycle traffic. The road has both horizontal and vertical curves. Because of its proximity to the Cornell Vet School, Plantations, and other traffic generators, it is included on the low priority list. NOTE: Route 13 south of the City (Elmira Road) is not a limited access highway like the section north of the City, but it is just as unfriendly to bicycle traffic. The volumes are the highest traffic volumes in the Town (~18,000 vpd), and the speed limits are 50 and 55 mph. The presence of two State Parks indicate the potential need for recreational bicycle facilities. The eventual completion of the Black Diamond Trail may serve the recreational and transportation needs of this corridor, as long as there are adequate access points to the trail. In summary, the segments listed above are prioritized based on need, as evaluated by measures such as the Bicycle Compatibility Index. Much of the need may be fulfilled by improving road shoulders, although certain locations may need additional facilities, such as bike lanes, designation as a bike route, or an off-road, multi-use trail. These locations include, but are not limited to: Coddington Road (Troy Road to City); sections of Pine Tree Road; Hanshaw Road (planned); Pleasant Grove Road; and sections of Warren Road (Forest Home Drive to Hanshaw Road). 78 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX VII:VII:VII:VII: PPPPUBLIC UBLIC UBLIC UBLIC PPPPARTICIPATIONARTICIPATIONARTICIPATIONARTICIPATION FIRST PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING The first public information meeting took place on Thursday, June 10, 2004. In addition to staff, eleven people attended the meeting. Comments at the MeetingComments at the MeetingComments at the MeetingComments at the Meeting Comments based on Draft One Goals and Objectives: Access and Mobility • Include the Town Sidewalk Policy on the Town website Livability • The introduction to this section states, “Balance the need for an accessible and efficient transportation system with the desire to maintain healthy and safe neighborhoods.” In a balancing act between needs and desires, needs always win. Strengthen the wording of “maintain healthy and safe neighborhoods.” Coordination • The Town must coordinate with the NYSDOT to create a limited access beltway circling the City to funnel away traffic not intended for Ithaca. This will help with congestion, neighborhood livability, and mobility issues. • The need to preserve right-of-ways is never realized until development has already occurred. A bypass within the Town limits would go through people’s homes and neighborhoods (a bypass outside the Town limits would likely do the same). • “We are cooperating with DOT—perhaps we should get DOT cooperate with us?” Safety • Instead of “providing” safe access, change wording to “ensure” safe access. Thus, the Town’s role goes from active provision to passive assurance. System Preservation/ Maintenance • See above—coordination with NYSDOT to create a bypass requires the preservation of right-of-ways. Comments for inclusion in Future Drafts of Goals and Objectives: General Comments on Goals • What is the purpose of the plan? To take what’s going on anyway and solidify it, to make it the status quo? Or is this an instrument for shaping change? o Response: The plan is pragmatic: it recognizes that “things are the way they are,” that is, that the automobile is the primary mode of transportation in the Town of Ithaca. The plan asks what can reasonably be done, given the current situation, to improve the transportation system and the quality of life in the Town. It also recognizes that there are areas of the Town where increasing motorized vehicle access is not a possibility; alternatives must be explored and implemented in these areas to continue to facilitate access and mobility. • Urban design: The House Analogy. If you must go through a bedroom to get to another bedroom, then the house is designed poorly. The same holds true of cities—if you must travel through someone else’s neighborhood to get to your own, then the city is poorly designed. In a well designed city, it is possible to remove traffic from a residential area without pushing it into another residential area. Thus, we should step back and realize that we are living in a poorly designed house. o Response: The purpose of the transportation plan is to assist the Town in making the best of the current situation (there is no way to turn back the clock fifty years). • The missing piece of this discussion is the need to build a relationship with other agencies, specifically the county. o Response: The door is beginning to open to greater Town/ County cooperation. The Town now has representatives on many County boards. Some recognition is already been happening indirectly, as agencies outside the Town recognize its resources. Specific Comments on Objectives 79 • Car-pooling: If there are already 1.81 cars per household, perhaps they could be put to better use. The Town should facilitate ride share boards, phone numbers to call to find a ride, etc. • Park-and-Ride: Cornell provides incentives for people to car share, could there be a same incentive (provided by the Town or employers) for commuters to Park-and-Ride to keep the cars out all together? o Response: For Park-and-Ride lots to be successful, they must be close enough to commuters’ homes that the commuter will not think, “Well, I’ve driven ten miles to the Park-and-Ride lot, it’s only another two to work, I might as well just drive the whole way.” Thus, a system of smaller, more localized lots would work best. Perhaps there is a way to utilize existing underused parking lots during daytime hours. • Is there a way to control the size of the trucks that enter the Town? • Road use/ employment coordination: there is enough road capacity, the problem is that road use is not spread evenly throughout the day. Road use should be coordinated to avoid rush hour peaks and midday emptiness. • Could school buses be used for others besides school children? Inversely, could TCAT buses be used to get older school children to school (they would, of course, ride for free)? This is how to build long-term change—teach younger generations the right habits while they are young. • The buses are huge and underused. It’s a waste of tax money. Is there a way to build on the Gadabout system, in which a patron can request a ride for a certain time and place? • It’s actually the driver that’s the most expensive part of the TCAT system—not the large, empty buses. Because the fixed costs of operating a route are so high, TCAT can’t open new routes unless they know that the number of riders will justify the expense. • The buses are not always underused—during peak travel hours, the buses are often standing room only. Perhaps a car-sharing organization could provide the type of “on demand” service that patrons seem to want. Is car-sharing feasible for Ithaca? • TCAT should look at the feasibility of the new stops it creates. On the West Hill, it is difficult if not impossible to walk up a very steep hill to the stop, especially as the hill has no sidewalks. • Seven-person van: people like transit and would use it more if the vehicles were smaller and quieter, like a van. what are the legal/ licensing requirements? Will it undermine current TCAT salaries? Would it really be a possibility? Comments Submitted After the MeetingComments Submitted After the MeetingComments Submitted After the MeetingComments Submitted After the Meeting One comment was submitted after the meeting: “Planners should walk the roads commuters have to walk when dumped from buses. Maps are flat, roads have hills.” SECOND PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING The second public information meeting took place on June 9, 2005. Approximately 20-25 people attended (including Committee members and staff). Comments at the MeetingComments at the MeetingComments at the MeetingComments at the Meeting • Volumes in neighborhoods v. congestion in neighborhoods • Environmental degradation and pollution due to reliance on automobiles • Speeding in the City and Town (need to lower acceptable speed limits) • Need for safe shoulders for bikes • Speed enforcement • Traffic on Route 96 (existing problems near hospital). Hayts Road should be reevaluated as exit for Overlook project; the Hayts Road and Rt 96 intersection is poorly designed. • Need to look at financial resources • TCAT: Youth and after-school transit (collaboration between the Town and TCAT) • Inventory should also include taxi service, airport limo, and other forms of paratransit not geared exclusively toward the disabled. • Park-and-Ride lots should be far enough out to capture traffic before entering Town. • Glad to see focus on pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 80 • Changes to Gadabout: may need to put money into in order to run the system. Currently the system functions with volunteer drivers, which may not be adequate to meet growing demand. • Park-and-Ride: Make sure that Park-and-Ride lots are far out enough that they don’t turn into Cornell’s outer parking lots. • Honness Road: A resident notes that Honness Lane isn’t “just” a neighborhood road, as motorists use it as a shortcut between Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road (Rt. 79). • Mailboxes only on one side of the street in rural areas force residents to cross high-speed roads to get their mail. This is a safety issue. Could we ask the post office to allow people to put them on both sides? (Cathy: have already asked, and the answer is no.) • What are our solutions? It seems like we don’t really have control over much. Is there political will to do something? What relationships do we have? What relationships do we wish that we had? Fred: the plan is a collaborative effort because we’re all doing it together. It’s a vehicle for communication. Nicole: The MPO is the agency that deals with transportation issues in the Town of Ithaca and surrounding municipalities. Cathy: we’re very active with the MPO, the association of towns, and we lobby Albany to give us more authority to manage our own “destinies” like to set our own speed limits. The Town is also part of the “intermunicipal sharing group,” which is a forum for coordination. • A good way to get cooperation is to do something really well, and lead by example. The obvious example in the Town is the Forest Home neighborhood. • One resident was dismayed by the large emphasis on the status quo in the draft Inventory and Analysis. The Town really needs to do something different. Is it a coincidence that all the accidents are on roads that are designed via AASHTO? If we just continue to follow AASHTO’s guidelines, then we’re just reinforcing the status quo. Speaking to speeding problems: “If you need enforcement, it’s a sign that you’re doing something wrong.” In other words, drivers will obey the speed limit/ design speed of a well- designed road. Comments Submitted After the MeetingComments Submitted After the MeetingComments Submitted After the MeetingComments Submitted After the Meeting A resident of EcoVillage called on Tuesday, June 21 and left a message stating that he would like to see a sidewalk or multi-use trail on Mecklenburg from West Haven Road into the City. A former resident of the Town of Ithaca who is a member of several transportation-related organizations in the area submitted the following. As a former landowner/resident and landlord in the Town of Ithaca and a current member of the Cornell Local Roads program staff, as their specialist in bicycle and pedestrian facilities, I take great interest in your transportation plan. As I work with other municipalities throughout the state, it's my hopes that Ithaca's words will serve as a model for other communities to follow. It's refreshing to see so many references to the necessity of planning for a more walkable and bikeable community. Your goal to reduce the need for and use automobiles and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation is commendable. Please note that there is a fourth main type of non-motorized transportation infrastructure not listed in the inventory of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It is that of the public roadways; they are, in fact, the most cost-effective means of providing for bicycle transportation. You are to be commended for acknowledging and supporting the needs of the child and beginner bicyclists; however, many bicyclists who are experienced will seek out and prefer to ride on the roadways. The Town's commitment to providing adequate roadway and shoulder (where deemed appropriate) will go a long way to supporting and encouraging bicycle traffic. As noted in the inventory section, mention of some "state routes having sufficient shoulder to permit bicycle use…" implies that other roads are not legal for bicyclists to ride. Perhaps replacing the word "permit" with "encourage" would be more appropriate. NYS law allows bicyclists on all roadways in the Town of Ithaca. On-road accommodations for bicyclists are not limited to bike lanes. In fact, many times a bike lane is not warranted or possible and the good road surfaces and shoulders (aka space) will serve the need. 81 In the paragraph just after the NYSDOT criteria for the installation of sidewalks - there is inaccurate information regarding the potential for conflict between bicyclists and motorists. In fact, shoulders and high speed are NOT a cause for potential conflict. Conflicts are more likely the result of poor design that result in poor sight distances and bad intersections. Let me also point out that bicyclists sharing the lanes with motorists is NOT necessarily an undesirable arrangement for bicyclists and motorists. In fact, there are times when sharing the road is the safest arrangement. For it is when the bicyclist is visible and following the traffic law that he/she is the safest. The greatest risk is when there is not adequate space (whether it be shoulders or adequate lane width). The objective in Goal #3 should not strive to physically separate bikes from roads where ever possible. If you're talking about a section of bicycle path that runs parallel to the roadway, you are likely creating more hazards than you are preventing. The AASHTO addresses this concern and recommends against parallel paths. Such paths create additional, unnecessary and unexpected points of conflict when they inevitably cross the roadway. Pertaining to pedestrians, one word was conspicuous by its absence - "Crosswalks." Is there any place where crossing the roadway is addressed? This is one of the biggest safety issues to be addressed regarding pedestrians and motorists. Isn't there something that should be noted? How about policy that would address commercial development? Every time I go to the East Hill Plaza, I am horrified at the lack of facility for pedestrians who live in the residential area who walk to the plaza. The current configuration is shameful. On the other extreme, the grocery store has done an excellent job in marking a pedestrian crosswalk. What about a requirement for installation of bike racks at commercial locations? How can policy bring good practices into play? Regarding the proposed sidewalk policies, I have more questions and am curious as to what you will arrive at that will genuinely support a more walkable community. Is owner maintenance the most cost effective and fairest way to approach the goal of developing more facilities for walking? If it's a community-wide benefit, should it be financed by the town or individuals? Are there ways to address exceptions? What if someone lives on a corner and is faced with the responsibility of sidewalks on both road fronts? The Town of Whitestown has recently bonded for the development of sidewalks. The Town Councilman who spearheaded the project has been thrilled with the response from the public. Many naysayers came forth to acknowledge that the town sponsored sidewalk system that's being installed is a community benefit. Residents are walking and real estate values are on the increase. In the section called "newly developed areas" mention was made about children walking. Is there any value in noting the senior citizen population as a consideration? And lastly, those of us in the injury prevention business prefer to use the word "crash" and not "accident." As most "accidents" are predictable and preventable, "crash" is a more accurate term. Making it easy to do the right thing results in a healthier community for all involved. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am available as a resource. 82 THIRD PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING May 18, 2006 Summary of Comments: The third public information meeting took place on May 18, 2006. Approximately 25 people, including staff, attended. Comments at the Meeting and Submitted After the MeetingComments at the Meeting and Submitted After the MeetingComments at the Meeting and Submitted After the MeetingComments at the Meeting and Submitted After the Meeting • The Traffic Calming Toolbox calls for the use of “temporary” traffic calming measures before the installation of permanent measures. Temporary installations are often ugly and abrupt, and may give residents the wrong impression of traffic calming and making it likely that they will want the traffic calming removed. [Bruce Brittain] ResponseResponseResponseResponse: There are two reasons that the Toolbox recommends temporary measures. First, temporary measures are less expensive than permanent measures, and second, some temporary measures can be moved to various parts of the Town (decreasing their “per location” cost). The Toolbox will frame the discussion in terms of “reversible” and permanent measures, instead of “temporary” and permanent measures. • Noise pollution from trucks, especially trucks traveling downhill, should be included as an environmental effect. • The emphasis on sight distances may be misplaced. Improvements to sight distance often involve removing obstacles, such as trees and vegetation, from the roadway. Instead, the speed along the roadway should be addressed. Slower traffic on the through road allows more time for a vehicle to turn onto the through road with the same sight distance. [Bruce Brittain] • It appears that the goals of traffic calming and good pavement maintenance are in conflict. [Peter Stein] • Response:Response:Response:Response: Well-designed traffic calming uses well-maintained pavement as a livability “bonus.” Also, see comments 5 & 6 below. It is important to remember, however, that transportation planning almost always requires balancing trade-offs. • While potholes make great traffic calming, they are hazardous for bicyclists. [Lois Chaplin] • Traffic calming only affects those who are going too fast, whereas poor pavement maintenance affects everyone. [Doug Brittain] • Including dedicated bike and pedestrian facilities where they are not warranted is another form of “over designing” the roadway. [Bruce Brittain] • Light pollution from parking lots should be included as a negative environmental effect. In order to make parking lots more environmentally-sound, the Plan should suggest the use of porous surfaces to deal with run-off and frost heaves. Bicycle parking is also important. Underground parking is also a possibility. Add trees & landscaping. [Kent Johnson & Doug Brittain] • Response:Response:Response:Response: Duly noted for sentences one, two, and three. Underground parking is not cost effective, except where land values are so high as to discourage surface parking (city centers). The money would be better spent making the parking lot aesthetically acceptable and safe for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Bike corridors should be prioritized by traffic volumes. Traffic volumes indicate where people are traveling. • Response:Response:Response:Response: Traffic volumes are one of the criteria used to identify corridors in need of improvements. • Children’s travel patterns should influence the selection and prioritization of bike and pedestrian corridors. • RespRespRespResponse:onse:onse:onse: Proximity to school, residential development, and commercial development are already addressed. It is unclear if there are any other ways to identify child locations. • The Plan should address tourism as a rationale for bike and pedestrian developments and as an economic development strategy. One example of transportation tourism is the Scenic Byway that circles Cayuga Lake. • TCAT should extend service from Linderman Creek to EcoVillage or the Town should work with EcoVillage, Linderman Creek, and NYSDOT to create a path from EcoVillage to Linderman Creek in order to serve more patrons. • Residents at Overlook are already taking cars and taxis to get into downtown. It is so important to provide a connection (bike, pedestrian, or transit) down Route 96. • Route 79 in the City really needs bicycle improvements, including a wide, striped uphill climbing lane. 83 • Cliff Street isn’t that steep, while the eventual connection down to the Black Diamond Trail is very steep. Therefore, along Rt. 96 may be a better bicycle and pedestrian corridor. • In addition to Park & Ride that brings transit riders into the Town, transit needs to serve circulation needs within the Town. • There needs to be a better, safer connection between EcoVillage and Linderman Creek, so EcoVillagers will have access to more transit routes. Additionally, TCAT should extend the Linderman Creek routes to Eco Village. Finally, TCAT should increase the number of times during the day that buses travel between EcoVillage and downtown. [Petra Hepburn, EcoVillage, written submission] • The Town should prioritize better bike and ped accommodations on Hanshaw Road. [Emmy Koponen, written submission] • The Town should use concrete instead of asphalt, and shade is very important for pedestrian comfort. [Emmy Koponen, written submission] • The Plan should recommend extending the South Hill Recreation Way, providing bike lanes, and pedestrian comfort (in shade, out of exhaust). [Emmy Koponen, written submission] • A great “pie in the sky” idea is a trolley, and to design Ithaca like a Finnish town with beautiful, comfortable facilities for exercise, biking, baby carriages, etc. [Emmy Koponen, written submission] • The Town should prioritize traffic calming and off-road path facilities. [Doug Brittain] • Recommendations the Town should add to the Plan include: narrowing roads that are wider than necessary (essentially a modest form of traffic calming); new developments should be assessed on their impacts to existing neighborhoods (with regards to increased traffic), not merely the impacts on other traffic; non-asphalt parking lots. [Doug Brittain] • In terms of “outside the box” ideas, the Town should spend money on “new modest-sized roads to carry traffic around residential areas (use tunnels where appropriate); traffic calming in residential areas.” [Doug Brittain] • Cell-phone driving laws need to be enforced. [Fay Gougakis] • Speed limits in the City should be lowered. In addition, as soon as cars go past speed bumps in the City, they speed up. [Fay Gougakis] • There are health implications from a lack of sidewalks. Sidewalks can encourage sedentary people to walk around their neighborhoods. • [The speaker] grew up with sidewalks. It’s shocking to see a subdivision in the Town of Ithaca without sidewalks. They are important. Seven Mile Drive is an example of a growing residential area that may need sidewalks. • The Town of Whitestown (outside Utica) wanted to put in sidewalks, and there was much opposition from residents. Now, residents love the sidewalks. [Lois Chaplin] • With transportation planning, the devil is in the details. The connections between things can make or break a system. [Lois Chaplin] 84 COMMENTS FROM FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS The points are summarized from the public hearings on November 21, 2006 and January 8, 2007. • “The Forest Home Improvement Association strongly endorses the Town of Ithaca’s Transportation [Plan’s] emphasis on preserving and enhancing the livability of neighborhoods and encouraging biking, walking, and public transportation. We also very much appreciate that the Plan addresses our community’s need for traffic calming and pedestrian improvements…” • Map 12 should show the Finger Lakes Trail in the southwestern corner of the Town of Ithaca. “Though the FLT is surely a recreational trail rather than a transportation corridor, it does connect two State Parks in our Town, and is part of the North Country National Scenic Trail… It can be seen as an important… connection from our Town of Ithaca to not just the rest of the FLT in NY, but to the NCT in North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Since the Town Plan recognizes the importance of healthy walking for Ithacans getting around, incorporating this beautiful little section of the FLT in Plan maps is really important.” • While the full Plan emphasizes the need for improved road shoulders, this point does not come across in the Executive Summary. The Executive Summary should state the need for wider and safer shoulders for bicyclists and pedestrians. [While adequate space and w[While adequate space and w[While adequate space and w[While adequate space and wellellellell----maintained pavement for bicycle traffic maintained pavement for bicycle traffic maintained pavement for bicycle traffic maintained pavement for bicycle traffic is important on many roadways, unnecessarily increasing pavement width can contribute to speeding, is important on many roadways, unnecessarily increasing pavement width can contribute to speeding, is important on many roadways, unnecessarily increasing pavement width can contribute to speeding, is important on many roadways, unnecessarily increasing pavement width can contribute to speeding, increased stormwater runincreased stormwater runincreased stormwater runincreased stormwater run----off, and other negative effects. The following sentence was added to 3.C.3: off, and other negative effects. The following sentence was added to 3.C.3: off, and other negative effects. The following sentence was added to 3.C.3: off, and other negative effects. The following sentence was added to 3.C.3: For most rFor most rFor most rFor most roads that have moderate to high traffic volumes and speeds, walkways are the most oads that have moderate to high traffic volumes and speeds, walkways are the most oads that have moderate to high traffic volumes and speeds, walkways are the most oads 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.].appropriate facility for pedestrians and paved shoulders are the most appropriate facility for bicyclists.].appropriate facility for pedestrians and paved shoulders are the most appropriate facility for bicyclists.].appropriate facility for pedestrians and paved shoulders are the most appropriate facility for bicyclists.]. • In response to a comment made at the first Public Hearing by a member of the public, it should be noted that “the 45% increase in terms of households near community facilities (93% of all new units under the Plan Scenario vs. 64% [in]the Trend Scenario) and 72% improvement in terms of households near bus stops (62% of all new units under the Plan Scenario vs. 36% [in] the Trend Scenario) show the potential significance of the Plan Scenario in allowing communities to adapt to alternative transportation modes.” [This concept has been emphasized in the “Regional Developmen[This concept has been emphasized in the “Regional Developmen[This concept has been emphasized in the “Regional Developmen[This concept has been emphasized in the “Regional Development and the Transportation System” t and the Transportation System” t and the Transportation System” t and the Transportation System” section]section]section]section]. • In the section on “Equity and Social Well-Being,” the Plan states that “the Town should ‘ensure that all roadway and off-road non-motorized facilities are designed to minimize safety hazards.’ It should be recognized that this may at times conflict with some of the neighborhood goals. To be safe, shoulders and lanes need to be of sufficient, though not excessive, width. Designing a road that allows sight distances that improve safety for all users may involve trade-offs with other design elements. Also, it should be further recognized that the cost of retrofitting roads is not insignificant and often increases as designs are altered to be more context-sensitive.” [Duly noted. The sentence now states, “In order[Duly noted. The sentence now states, “In order[Duly noted. The sentence now states, “In order[Duly noted. The sentence now states, “In order to to to to protect bicyclist and pedestrian users of the transportation system, the Town should promote protect bicyclist and pedestrian users of the transportation system, the Town should promote protect bicyclist and pedestrian users of the transportation system, the Town should promote protect bicyclist and pedestrian users of the transportation system, the Town should promote roadway roadway roadway roadway and offand offand offand off----road nonroad nonroad nonroad non----motorized facilities designs that minimize safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, motorized facilities designs that minimize safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, motorized facilities designs that minimize safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, motorized facilities designs that minimize safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, residents, and other roadway userspedestrians, residents, and other roadway userspedestrians, residents, and other roadway userspedestrians, residents, and other roadway users.”.”.”.” The trade The trade The trade The trade----offs associated with pavement width and offs associated with pavement width and offs associated with pavement width and offs associated with pavement width and retrofitting costs are discussed in the “Alternatives Chapter.”]retrofitting costs are discussed in the “Alternatives Chapter.”]retrofitting costs are discussed in the “Alternatives Chapter.”]retrofitting costs are discussed in the “Alternatives Chapter.”] • In Table 18, “traffic Calming is identified as a strategy for dealing with speeding. However, many traffic calming methods are not appropriate (not allowed by NYSDOT) on collector or arterial roads with speed limits above 35 mph.” [Duly noted. This has been added to Table 18][Duly noted. This has been added to Table 18][Duly noted. This has been added to Table 18][Duly noted. This has been added to Table 18]. • Table 18 should “acknowledge that most roads listed with large amounts of traffic are arterial or major collector roads that are expected to carry heavier traffic volumes. Also, land use solutions should be identified as an option to mitigate traffic issues.” [Duly noted for the first point. Alternative land use [Duly noted for the first point. Alternative land use [Duly noted for the first point. Alternative land use [Duly noted for the first point. Alternative land use patterns are already identified as a potential mitigapatterns are already identified as a potential mitigapatterns are already identified as a potential mitigapatterns are already identified as a potential mitigation strategy for high traffic volumes and tion strategy for high traffic volumes and tion strategy for high traffic volumes and tion strategy for high traffic volumes and congestion]congestion]congestion]congestion]. • “New deer mitigation techniques are being developed such as roadside reflectors. The NYSDOT should be consulted as to the effectiveness of trails of these methods.” [This concept has been added to t[This concept has been added to t[This concept has been added to t[This concept has been added to the he he he Alternatives and Recommendations Chapters]Alternatives and Recommendations Chapters]Alternatives and Recommendations Chapters]Alternatives and Recommendations Chapters]. • In the Recommendations Chapter, Recommendation 2.B.6 should use the phrase “should require in all cases” instead of “encourage.” [It is unclear to which sentence this comment refers.][It is unclear to which sentence this comment refers.][It is unclear to which sentence this comment refers.][It is unclear to which sentence this comment refers.] • In the Recommendations Chapter, Recommendation 2.C.4.1 “should acknowledge that occasionally vegetation might need to be cleared to enhance scenic views.” [The Recommendation currently states, [The Recommendation currently states, [The Recommendation currently states, [The Recommendation currently states, “The Public Works Department should limit clearing of roadside vegetation to that whic“The Public Works Department should limit clearing of roadside vegetation to that whic“The Public Works Department should limit clearing of roadside vegetation to that whic“The Public Works Department should limit clearing of roadside vegetation to that which fulfills safety & h fulfills safety & h fulfills safety & h fulfills safety & 85 drainage objectives. The Town should consider roadside vegetation an asset, not a liability.” This drainage objectives. The Town should consider roadside vegetation an asset, not a liability.” This drainage objectives. The Town should consider roadside vegetation an asset, not a liability.” This drainage objectives. The Town should consider roadside vegetation an asset, not a liability.” This acknowledges the fact that, on occasion, roadside vegetation must be cleared for legitimate purposes.]acknowledges the fact that, on occasion, roadside vegetation must be cleared for legitimate purposes.]acknowledges the fact that, on occasion, roadside vegetation must be cleared for legitimate purposes.]acknowledges the fact that, on occasion, roadside vegetation must be cleared for legitimate purposes.] • In the Recommendations Chapter, Recommendation 2.D “should recognize the limitations of traffic calming, especially for rural/ suburban collector or arterial roads.” [The broad concept of traffic calming [The broad concept of traffic calming [The broad concept of traffic calming [The broad concept of traffic calming can also include design elements such as street trees or pedestrian enhancements. can also include design elements such as street trees or pedestrian enhancements. can also include design elements such as street trees or pedestrian enhancements. can also include design elements such as street trees or pedestrian enhancements. Thus, while traffic Thus, while traffic Thus, while traffic Thus, while traffic calming options are limited, some are still feasible.]calming options are limited, some are still feasible.]calming options are limited, some are still feasible.]calming options are limited, some are still feasible.] • In Recommendation 7.A, “multi-family housing should be added to the zoning recommendation to increase density to support transit and other infrastructure for transportation. • Volume III: The Design Guidelines show a “prototypical design for rural/suburban collectors with 10 foot travel lanes and 4-5 foot shoulders. Based on recent project design experience, 30 feet of pavement is the minimum that is acceptable on most collectors and this should be reflected in the plan. In commercial areas at least 32-36 feet is likely to be required. This is reflected in the designs on pages 28 and 29 for collector or minor arterial roads with a bicycle lane.” [There are some collector roads in [There are some collector roads in [There are some collector roads in [There are some collector roads in ththththe Town in sensitive residential areas, such as Forest Home Drive, where pavement width should be e Town in sensitive residential areas, such as Forest Home Drive, where pavement width should be e Town in sensitive residential areas, such as Forest Home Drive, where pavement width should be e Town in sensitive residential areas, such as Forest Home Drive, where pavement width should be balanced against neighborhood livability. balanced against neighborhood livability. balanced against neighborhood livability. balanced against neighborhood livability. Volume IIIVolume IIIVolume IIIVolume III is meant to serve as a guide for development; the is meant to serve as a guide for development; the is meant to serve as a guide for development; the is meant to serve as a guide for development; the Town would like to emphasize the need for narrower roadTown would like to emphasize the need for narrower roadTown would like to emphasize the need for narrower roadTown would like to emphasize the need for narrower roads where possible.]s where possible.]s where possible.]s where possible.] • The Transportation Plan doesn’t really address the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Attachment D deals with how the Transportation Plan supposedly fulfills the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations. The sections to which Attachment D refers, however, often don’t actually address issues raised by the Comprehensive Plan. The vision of the Comprehensive Plan shouldn’t be lost due to the desire to wrap up the Transportation Plan and be done with it. [Attachment D was written before other [Attachment D was written before other [Attachment D was written before other [Attachment D was written before other sections of the sections of the sections of the sections of the Plan were finished. Consequently, in earlier drafts of the Plan, the references in Attachment D were Plan were finished. Consequently, in earlier drafts of the Plan, the references in Attachment D were Plan were finished. Consequently, in earlier drafts of the Plan, the references in Attachment D were Plan were finished. Consequently, in earlier drafts of the Plan, the references in Attachment D were incorrect. In more recent versions, the sections to which Attachment D refers are complete and incorrect. In more recent versions, the sections to which Attachment D refers are complete and incorrect. In more recent versions, the sections to which Attachment D refers are complete and incorrect. In more recent versions, the sections to which Attachment D refers are complete and referenced correctly.]referenced correctly.]referenced correctly.]referenced correctly.] • Truck traffic, especially for residents of Rt. 89 (Taughannock Blvd.), is a serious problem. There is a conflict between parking, bicyclists, and trucks, and visibility when exiting driveways is very poor. The “jake brakes” on the trucks are loud and very disruptive. In addition to having many people live along it, Rt. 89 is a scenic byway, a bike route, a residential area, and home to many wineries. Furthermore, the truck issue is driven by the landfill in Waterloo, which can accommodate up to 500 trucks per day. Dump trucks use Rt. 89 to avoid the weight stations and safety checks on Interstate 81 and the tolls on the New York Thruway. [In response to this issue, about which two members of the public spoke, the [In response to this issue, about which two members of the public spoke, the [In response to this issue, about which two members of the public spoke, the [In response to this issue, about which two members of the public spoke, the section on freight and truck traffic has been greatly expansection on freight and truck traffic has been greatly expansection on freight and truck traffic has been greatly expansection on freight and truck traffic has been greatly expanded. Unfortunately, the trucks using Rt. 89 ded. Unfortunately, the trucks using Rt. 89 ded. Unfortunately, the trucks using Rt. 89 ded. Unfortunately, the trucks using Rt. 89 are acting within the law, as all State routes permit truck traffic. In addition, this Plan emphasizes the are acting within the law, as all State routes permit truck traffic. In addition, this Plan emphasizes the are acting within the law, as all State routes permit truck traffic. In addition, this Plan emphasizes the are acting within the law, as all State routes permit truck traffic. In addition, this Plan emphasizes the point that transportation problems do not stop at municipal boundaries. It is highly unlikely that thepoint that transportation problems do not stop at municipal boundaries. It is highly unlikely that thepoint that transportation problems do not stop at municipal boundaries. It is highly unlikely that thepoint that transportation problems do not stop at municipal boundaries. It is highly unlikely that the Town can do much to affect truck traffic on its own, but the Town is committed to working with the City, Town can do much to affect truck traffic on its own, but the Town is committed to working with the City, Town can do much to affect truck traffic on its own, but the Town is committed to working with the City, Town can do much to affect truck traffic on its own, but the Town is committed to working with the City, County, ITCTC, and other regional entities in order to protect quality of life in the Town.]County, ITCTC, and other regional entities in order to protect quality of life in the Town.]County, ITCTC, and other regional entities in order to protect quality of life in the Town.]County, ITCTC, and other regional entities in order to protect quality of life in the Town.] • It seems that cars are stopped all the time for speeding, but it’s rare to see a truck stopped for speeding. Route 89, for example, already has a 45 mph speed limit. If the speed limit was strictly enforced, speeding would decrease. [This Plan strongly supports enforcement of traffic laws.][This Plan strongly supports enforcement of traffic laws.][This Plan strongly supports enforcement of traffic laws.][This Plan strongly supports enforcement of traffic laws.] • Transportation affects quality of life, and quality of life is what attracts people to the area. South Hill, especially around College Crossings, is becoming a destination. The Town should think about pedestrian traffic on East King Road, as the existing shoulders aren’t very good. On East King Road, however, there aren’t many residences, and the walkways would be used by people beyond the immediate neighborhoods (like college students). The Town should look into ways to fairly distribute the costs of walkway or sidewalk improvements. [East King Road is shown on the “Prioritized Pedestrian [East King Road is shown on the “Prioritized Pedestrian [East King Road is shown on the “Prioritized Pedestrian [East King Road is shown on the “Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs Map” as needing pedestrian improvements. The Town’s current policy is to own and Corridor Needs Map” as needing pedestrian improvements. The Town’s current policy is to own and Corridor Needs Map” as needing pedestrian improvements. The Town’s current policy is to own and Corridor Needs Map” as needing pedestrian improvements. The Town’s current policy is to own and maintain sidewalks that serve a broad circulation role, i.e. by serving pedestrians beymaintain sidewalks that serve a broad circulation role, i.e. by serving pedestrians beymaintain sidewalks that serve a broad circulation role, i.e. by serving pedestrians beymaintain sidewalks that serve a broad circulation role, i.e. by serving pedestrians beyond those who live ond those who live ond those who live ond those who live in the immediate vicinity.]in the immediate vicinity.]in the immediate vicinity.]in the immediate vicinity.] • “It is possible to meet all of the criteria on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Site Plan Checklist and still have an unbikeable and unwalkable development if the ‘bigger picture’ is not examined. Therefore, we suggest that an introductory paragraph be added that explains that the goal of the checklist is to promote walking and biking, and that the items in the checklist exemplify how this can be accomplished… Also, we think that adding references to specific sections of Volume III: The Design Guidelines to items within the checklist will make it easier to use.” • One area for intermunicipal and inter-agency cooperation is to improve the connection for biking and walking between Ithaca College and downtown. Currently, Ithaca College students must walk or bike on unsafe roads, take an inconvenient bus, or drive. We support the County’s efforts to consider bicyclists 86 and pedestrians on their Coddington Road project.” [Duly noted. Recommendation 3.B.5 was added to [Duly noted. Recommendation 3.B.5 was added to [Duly noted. Recommendation 3.B.5 was added to [Duly noted. Recommendation 3.B.5 was added to VolVolVolVolume I: The Planume I: The Planume I: The Planume I: The Plan. The Recommendation states, “Currently, the walking and biking connections . The Recommendation states, “Currently, the walking and biking connections . The Recommendation states, “Currently, the walking and biking connections . The Recommendation states, “Currently, the walking and biking connections between Ithaca College and the City of Ithaca’s downtown business district are very poor. The Town between Ithaca College and the City of Ithaca’s downtown business district are very poor. The Town between Ithaca College and the City of Ithaca’s downtown business district are very poor. The Town 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 Coshould work with Ithaca College, the City of Ithaca, Tompkins Coshould work with Ithaca College, the City of Ithaca, Tompkins Coshould work with Ithaca College, the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NYSDOT, and other stakeholders unty, NYSDOT, and other stakeholders unty, NYSDOT, and other stakeholders unty, NYSDOT, and other stakeholders to improve the safety, aesthetics, and convenience of this link.to improve the safety, aesthetics, and convenience of this link.to improve the safety, aesthetics, and convenience of this link.to improve the safety, aesthetics, and convenience of this link.”] • The residents of Eco-Village would love to see a sidewalk (not an off-road path) down Route 79. They would also love to see more frequent transit service. • There is a certain architecture of streets and roads that let people know they are in an urbanized area and that provide cues that they should slow down and be careful, like curbs, street trees, and sidewalks on both sides of the road. When drivers reach a street with that type of architecture, they know that they’re in an urbanized area, and that they should slow down and be careful. It is my opinion that there are areas in the Town of Ithaca that have become sufficiently urbanized where that is the appropriate street architecture, like the area of Coddington Road closest to the City as well as Mecklenburg Road from Eco-Village and Linderman Creek down to the City. [[[[Volume III: The Design GuidelinesVolume III: The Design GuidelinesVolume III: The Design GuidelinesVolume III: The Design Guidelines addresses addresses addresses addresses exactly this issue.]exactly this issue.]exactly this issue.]exactly this issue.] • Speeding on East Shore Drive is very dangerous. The Town should work with the City and the State to address that. • It’s great to do lots of trails, but it’s also important for the regular roads to be safe, not only for motorists but also for pedestrians and bicyclists. • The section that talks about scenic areas says, “effective transportation planning involves balancing trade-offs” and then later says that we should minimize the impact of roads on scenic area. I don’t want to settle for balancing trade-offs or minimizing impacts. I think we can go beyond that. We can build beautiful roads. We can build roads that look like parks that enhance the beauty. Instead of just saying well roads are ugly and therefore we have to balance, I think we can go beyond that. • Design speed is based on driver comfort and the original calculations were performed back in the 1930s. Thus, violating the roadway specifications in AASHTO does not necessarily result in an unsafe road. • All of the development in the Southwest area of the City is causing a lot of traffic on roads like Stone Quarry Road and Sandbank Road. This has safety implications, as people are speeding down the hill, and this makes it difficult for people to even get their mail. In addition to the comments made to the Planning Board and Town Board at the public hearings and the numerous informal calls placed to the Planning Department during the general public comment period, many stakeholders submitted formal written comments, which are included at the end of this Appendix. 87 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX VIII:VIII:VIII:VIII: WWWWORKS ORKS ORKS ORKS CCCCITED AND ITED AND ITED AND ITED AND FFFFURTHER URTHER URTHER URTHER IIIINFORMATION NFORMATION NFORMATION NFORMATION The following are sources cited in the Transportation Plan, Volume I. AFP (Agence France-Presse). “Bicycle Sales Boom in U.S. Amid Rising Gas Prices.” October 1, 2005. <http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20051002084651339> June 28, 2006. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Second printing, fourth edition. Washington, D.C: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001. American Planning Association. “Legislative Priority: TEA-21.” Undated. <http://www.planning.org/priorities/TEA-21.htm>. September 1, 2004. Bannerman, Roger; Owens, D.W.; Dodds, R. B.; Hornewer, N.J. “Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater” Water Science Technology. Vol. 28 No.3-5 Pages 241-259. 1993 Beimborn, Edward A. “A Transportation Modeling Primer.” Inside the Black Box: Making Transportation Models Work for Livable Communities. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Center for Urban Transportation Studies at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, May 1995. Beamguard, Jim. Images published July 18, 1999. Tampa Tribune. Cited by Points, Rich and Evan Ravitz. Bike for Peace. <http://bikeforpeace.org/packing_pavement.html>. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council. “Shared Lane Pavement Markers.” Undated. <http://bpac.rockwren.us/wiki/index.php?title=Shared_lane_pavement_markings> June 26, 2006 Bishop, Lauren. “Continental Cancels Tompkins Service: After August 12, Air Travelers Down to One Option.” Ithaca Journal. Wednesday, July 11, 2001. Booth, Gordon, Carlson, and Hamilton. “Waging war on modern chronic diseases: primary prevention through exercise biology.” Journal of Applied Physiology 88: 774-787. 2000. Center for GIS. “Natural Resources: Comprehensive Water Resources Planning.” Towson University. Undated. <http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landscape/impervious/all_compwater.asp>. September 15, 2005. Colditz, G.A. “Economic costs of obesity and inactivity.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 31(11), Supplement. pp. S663-S3667. November 1999. Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). “Public and Community Transportation Glossary.” Undated. <http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/glossary.asp?printview=yes>. September 13, 2005. Daley, J. “Caroline Pushes for Increased Patrols.” The Ithaca Journal. Local News: Wednesday, 26 January 2005. De Aragon, Fernando. “About ITCTC.” Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council. Undated. <http://owasco.co.tompkins.ny.us/itctc/about.html>. September 13, 2005. Ducimetiere, Simon, Wagner et al. “Leisure-time physical activity and regular walking or cycling to work are associated with adiposity and 5y weight gain in middle-aged men: The PRIME Study.” International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 2, (2001): 940-948. Dupuis, Robert II. “Three-way Split a Problem for TCAT.” The Ithaca Journal. April 8, 2004. Also at <http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20040408/localnews/191564.html>. 88 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), United States Department of Energy. “Transportation Topics.” September 13, 2005. <http://www.eere.energy.gov/EE/transportation.html>. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Energy, September 15, 2005. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation. “Context Sensitive Solutions/ Thinking Beyond Pavement.” January 24, 2005. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/>. September 12, 2005. ---. “Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation.” Fall 2005. <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/univcourse/swtoc.htm> March 2006. ---. “Flexibility in Highway Design.” 1997. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/index.htm> September 5, 2006. ---. “FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines.” United States Department of Transportation. 1989. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fctoc.htm> September 6, 2006. ---. “Highway Traffic Noise in the United States: Problem & Response.” United States Department of Transportation. April 2006. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/probresp.htm> June 19, 2006. ---. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. Publication FHWA-SA-04-003. September 2004. PEDSAFE’s countermeasure selection system is also available as a web-based application at <http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/>. Filiberto, Heather. “Local Governments and Climate Change.” Tompkins County Planning Department. June 12, 2004. <http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/emc/docs/3_climate_change_and_ccp_presentation.pdf>. August 30, 2006 Frank, Andresen, and Schmid. (2004). “Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 18 (2004): 47-57. Hale, Terry, Hal Rogers, & Norm Schips. Highway Design Manual. Albany, N.Y: New York State Department of Transportation, February 1999. Hanson, Susan ed. The Geography of Urban Transportation. New York, New York: The Guilford Press, 1995. Henderson Associates. Road Surface Management System (RSMS 2003). Silver Spring, Maryland: USDOT, FHWA, May 2003. Distributed by Cornell Local Roads Program, Ithaca, N.Y. Hu, Patricia and Tim Reuscher. 2001 National Household Travel Survey: Ithaca MPO. Oakridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May 2004. Hu, Patricia and Jennifer Young. 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey, New York Add-On. Oakridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, February 1998. Humstone and Campoli. “Access Management: An Overview & Guide for Roadway Corridors.” Planning Commissioners Journal, #29 Winter 1998. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). “Fatality Facts 2003: Bicycles.” Available online at <http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/pdf/bicycles.pdf> Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). “2003-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).” Undated. <http://owasco.co.tompkins.ny.us/itctc/tip/index.html>. September 1, 2004. ---. 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (Updated). Ithaca, N.Y: Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, December 2004. 89 Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport. “Airport Facts.” Undated. <http://www.ithaca-airport.com/facts/>. September 1, 2004. Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization. 2002 Knoxville Regional Bicycle Plan. <http://www.knoxtrans.org/plans/bikeplan/index.htm>. March 19, 2006 Jackson and Kochtitzky. “Creating a Healthy Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health.” Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph Series, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Undated. Litman, Todd. “Congestion Reduction Strategies: Identifying and Evaluating Strategies To Reduce Traffic Congestion.” Traffic Demand Management Encyclopedia. Victoria, British Colombia: Victoria Transport Policy Institute, May 2005. <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm96.htm>. September 15, 2005. ---. “Context Sensitive Design: Roadway Design that is Responsive to Local Community Values.” Traffic Demand Management Encyclopedia. Victoria, British Colombia: Victoria Transport Policy Institute, May 2005. <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm57.htm> June 23, 2006. ---. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. “Generated Traffic and Induced Travel: Implications for Transport Planning.” ITE Journal, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 38-47. Institute of Transportation Engineers. April 2001. <http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf>. September 6, 2006. Maryland Energy Administration. “Energy Efficiency for Transportation.” 2005. <http://www.energy.state.md.us/energysources/energyefficiency/transportation/>. September 15, 2005. Mengel, Dwight and Sara Rakaczky. “The Ithaca Intercity Bus Schedule.” Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Ithaca Downtown Transportation Center Working Paper #1. <http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/transit/Intercitybusschedule8-2-2001dem.htm>. September 1, 2004. Michigan Department of Transportation. “National Functional Classification: How It’s Used in Michigan.” April 3, 2002. <http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_- _MDOT_National_Functional_Classification_18759_7.pdf>. September 1, 2004. Milwaukee River Basin Partnership. “Protecting Our Waters: Streets and Roads.” September 11, 2003. <http://clean-water.uwex.edu/plan/streetsroads.htm>. September 15, 2005. NESTS Working Group. North East Subarea Transportation Study: Transportation Plan. Prepared for the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council by Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP, facilitated by the Community Dispute Resolution Center. July 19, 1999. New York State Department of Transportation. “What is TEA-21?” May 14, 1999. <http://www.dot.state.ny.us/progs/tea21/whattea.html>. September 1, 2004. ---. “CHIPS: Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program.” Undated. <http://www.dot.state.ny.us/chips/index.html>. September 1, 2004. ---. “Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.” January 6, 2004. <http://www.dot.state.ny.us/progs/stip.html>. September 13, 2004. ---. “Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP): General Information.” November 2002. <http://www.dot.state.ny.us/progs/tepgen.html>. September 1, 2004. Noise Center of the League for the Hard of Hearing. “Noise Levels in Our Environment Fact Sheet.” Undated. <http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm> August 30, 2006. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “Mobile Source Emissions – Past, Present, and Future.” Washington, D.C: United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 11, 2005. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutants/index.htm>. September 15, 2005. 90 Pedestrian and Bicycling Information Center (PBIC). “Bicycling Crashes: Crash Types.” Undated. <http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/types.htm>. August 29, 2006. Planning/ Environmental Research Consultants and Kennedy-Yager Associates. “Transportation Trail/ Corridor Study.” Ithaca, N.Y. and Vergennes, Vermont: ITCTC, March 1996. Reeves, Thomas G. “Timeline.” Converge: Where Transportation and the Environment Meet. 2002. <http://www.converge.ncsu.edu/>. September 13, 2005. Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Inland Waterway Navigation Value to the Nation.” 2004. Rock Island, Illinois: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. <www.mvr.usace.army.mil/Brochures/ InlandWaterwayNavigation.asp>. September 15, 2004 Rodriguez, Dr. Jean-Paul. “Chapter 8: Transport and Environment.” The Geography of Transportation Systems. Hempstead, New York: Hofstra University, Department of Economics & Geography, 2005. Rudy, Tony, AAE. Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport. Telephone interview by Nicole Tedesco. Ithaca, New York. September 5, 2006. Rural Roads Design Standards Advisory Committee. “Design Standards: Review and Recommendations for Rural Road Design.” Road Work, December 2000. Clallam County, Washington. <http://www.saferuralroads.com/road_work-design_standards.pdf> September 6, 2006 Sear-Brown. “Final Report: Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study.” Rochester, N.Y: ITCTC, April 2002. Sterling, George, Planning Board Chairman. “Chapter 6: Traffic & Transportation.” Master Plan Update. Town of Peterborough, New Hampshire: Office of Community Development, November 2003. McCann, Barbara and Bianca DeLille. “Mean Streets 2000: A Transportation and Quality of Life Campaign Report.” Surface Transportation Policy Project. 2000. <http://www.transact.org/PDFs/ms2000/ms2000.pdf> August 30, 2006. Szudzik, Christine. “Gadabout Gets Seniors Out and About.” The Front Page. Undated. Ithaca College Student Journalism Publication. t-GEIS Project Team. “Final Scope, t-GEIS.” February 7, 2006. <http://www.transportation.cornell.edu/TGEIS/TGEIS_Home-1.htm> Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Undated. <http://www.tcatbus.com/faq.shtml>. September 15, 2005. Tompkins County Planning Department. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan: Planning for Our Future. December 2004. <http://www.tompkins-co.org/planning/compplan/index.html> August 30, 2006. Town of Ithaca. Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Executive Summary. Ithaca, N.Y: Town of Ithaca, December, 1997. ---. Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Ithaca, NY. September 1993. Transportation Choices Coalition. “The Environmental Threat: Sprawl, Air and Water Pollution, Global Warming.” Washington, D.C: Transportation Choices Coalition, 2003. <http://www.transportationchoices.org/facts- environmental.asp>. September 15, 2005. Transportation Research Board. “Highway Capacity Manual.” Washington D.C: National Research Council, 2000. 91 United States Congress. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). H.R. 2950/ Public Law 102- 240. Available from the Library of Congress at <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:HR02950>. August 28, 2006. United States Department of Agriculture. “Steps to a Healthier You.” Mypyramid.gov. Undated. <http://www.mypyramid.gov/> June 28, 2006. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures. Transmittal 155, Volume 20, Appendix 12. July 1974. (Also: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcsec1_1.htm>. September 13, 2005.) United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Heat Island Effect Information Center.” June 9, 2006 <http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/> June 19, 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation: Highway, Rail, Aviation, and Maritime Transport.” Washington, D.C: Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (2126), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication 230-R-96-009, Government Printing Office, October 1996. Varricchione, Brian J. “Enhancing Pedestrian Access in Tompkins County: A Guidebook on Sidewalk Improvements.” A Professional Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University. May 2003. The following are resources consulted in the development of the Design Guidelines, Volume III. Right-of-Way Design Chellman, C. Rick. “The Design of New Urbanist Streets.” Urban Land Institute. Orlando, F.L: April 2000. City of Ottawa. “Regional Road Corridor Design Guidelines.” Ottawa, Canada: date unknown. Institute of Transportation Engineers. “Improving the Pedestrian Environment Through Innovative Design.” Washington, D.C: 2005. Transportation Department, City of Bellevue. “Design Manual.” Bellevue, W.A: date unknown. Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. “Bicycle Parking Guidelines.” Undated. Available online at <http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bikepark.pdf>. October 13, 2006. Bicycle Advisory Committee, Charlotte-Mecklenburg area. “Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bicycle Transportation Plan.” Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C: July 1999. Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: An Element of the Oregon Transportation Plan. Salem, O.R: June 14, 1995. Brunswick Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. “Brunswick Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan.” Brunswick, M.E: October 13, 1998, updated September 15, 2004. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Georgetown Pike, McLean, V.A: date unknown. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. Implementing Pedestrian Improvements at the Local Level. Publication No. FHWA-98-138. Georgetown Pike, McLean, V.A: 1999. 92 Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. “Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines.” Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-075. Georgetown Pike, McLean, V.A: February 2002. Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization. “2002 Knoxville Regional Bicycle Plan.” Knoxville, K.Y: 2002. Local Government Commission, Center for Livable Communities. “Why People Don’t Walk and What City Planners Can Do About It.” Sacramento, C.A: date unknown. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center and Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Publication No. FHWA-SA-05-12, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: February 2006. Pedestrian Transportation Program, Office of Engineering and Development, City of Portland. “Portland Pedestrian Design Guide.” Element of the Pedestrian Master Plan for the City of Portland, Oregon. Portland, O.R: 1998. Traffic Calming Burden, Dan. “Twenty-Two Benefits of Urban Street Trees.” Glatting Jackson and Walkable Communities, Inc: May 2006. City of Sarasota Engineering Department. “Traffic Calming Manual.” Sarasota, F.L: September 2003. DOWL Engineers. “Traffic Calming Protocol Manual.” Prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage. Anchorage, A.K: March 2001. Ewing, Reid. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Institute for Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration. 1999. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. “Program Development and Pilot Project for the City of Ithaca Citywide Traffic Calming Program.” Working Paper #1, prepared for the City of Ithaca. Ithaca, N.Y: April 14, 2000. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. “Traffic Calming: Roadway Design to Reduce Traffic Speeds and Volumes.” TDM Encyclopedia. June 4, 2004. <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm4.htm> The following are sources that were consulted as general references throughout the development of The Transportation Plan. Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. North Point Press, New York, New York. 2000. Hanson, Susan, Ed. The Geography of Urban Transportation. Second Edition. The Guilford Press, New York, New York. 1995. 93 AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX IX:IX:IX:IX: AAAACRONYMSCRONYMSCRONYMSCRONYMS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act Requires transit operators to offer the same services to the disabled as to the able-bodied; also resulted in recommendations to make the pedestrian system (such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and so on) accessible to the disabled. ADT/ AADT Average Daily Traffic/ Average Annual Daily Traffic Average number of vehicles per day, which varies by day of week and month of year/ average number of vehicles per day, adjusted for seasonal factors to be an average over the whole year. ATR Automatic Traffic Recorder The device that takes traffic counts. It usually consists of two tubes that are placed perpendicular to the road, plus a counter machine. CHIPS Consolidated (Local Street) Highway Improvement Program 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.”3 CSD Context Sensitive Design A transportation planning approach “that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist.”4 DOT Department of Transportation Department of Transportation for various jurisdictions: USDOT is United States Department of Transportation; NYSDOT is New York State Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration A major division of USDOT that is in charge of America’s roads and highways. Two main programs are Federal-Aid Highway Program and Federal-Land Highway Program. FTA Federal Transit Administration Helps fund transit programs by giving funds to a State Department of Transportation (DOT), which, in turn, allocates the funds to MPOs within the state. HCM Highway Capacity Manual A manual of standards that predict the typical or expected carrying capacity of various types of road and intersections. ISTEA Intermodal Surface Tranportation Equity Act (1991) Renewal of federal legislation that placed more emphasis on intermodal facilities, context sensitive design, and regional planning oversight than in the past. ITCTC Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council The MPO for the Ithaca-Tompkins County urbanized area. LOS Level of Service A measure of how well a road or intersection is carrying traffic. LOS A indicates a free flow of traffic or a minimal wait at an intersection. LOS F indicates very bad congestion or very long waits at an intersection. LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan A plan, with a 20-year planning horizon, which takes a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive approach to transportation 3 NYSDOT, “Chips…” 4 FHWA, 2005 94 planning at the regional level. NHS National Highway System Roadways eligible for federal funding. Arterials, urban collectors, and principal rural collectors. NPTS/ NHTS National Personal Transportation Survey/ National Household Travel Survey Surveys administered by USDOT to gauge the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” of Americans’ travel habits. Available for all urbanized areas. MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization Governmental agency charged with transportation planning (and sometimes land-use planning) for an urbanized area of greater than 50,000 residents. The ITCTC is MPO for Ithaca and Tompkins County. SAFE- TEA Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (2003) Most recent renewal of legislation governing the distribution of federal transportation funds; signed into law on August 20, 2005. SEQR State Environmental Quality Review Legislation that established a process to examines the impact that certain actions could have on the natural and built environments; permits municipalities to require mitigation of negative environmental consequences. STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Coordinates the projects receiving federal funding to develop the statewide surface transportation network STP Surface Transportation Program Established with ISTEA; allocates funding for road projects AND pedestrian, bicycle, and “transportation enhancement” projects. TCAT Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit The public transit not-for-profit providing service to Tompkins County. TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) Renewal of federal legislation that guaranteed a minimum level of transportation funding. TEP Transportation Enhancement Programs Federal funding authorized by ISTEA that applies to scenic byways, beautification, pedestrian walks, recreation opportunities, and other transportation-related issues. UPWP Unified Planning Work Program The annual report/ program that details the MPO’s activities. VOC Vehicle Over Capacity (ratio) The ratio of traffic volume (or flow rate) to capacity for a traffic facility. VPH/ VPD Vehicles per hour/ vehicles per day Vehicles per hour is often used to describe peak hour volumes/ vehicles per day. This unit is also used for describing AADT.