Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPWC Agenda 2023-04-18 and packet AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE April 18, 2023, 9:00 a.m. ZOOM Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81695207215 1. Approval of Minutes a. March 21, 2023 2. Member Comments/Concerns a. Consider Modifications to Agenda 3. Forest Home Vehicle Restrictions Update/Discussion – Slater 4. West Hill Park - Presentations & Next Steps – Howe 5. Review of a Draft Streetlight Policy – DePaolo 6. Project Updates Future Agenda Items: • Snow Removal Policy • Long-Term Stormwater Maintenance TOWN OF ITHACA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 21, 2023, 9:00 a.m. Board and Staff Present: Rod Howe, Rich DePaolo, Rob Rosen, Joe Slater, Dan Thaete, Joe Talbut, Mike Beach, Travis Mills, Dave O’Shea, Donna Shaw, Mike Smith, Ben Coakley, Marty Moseley, Paulette Rosa, CJ Randall Guests: Representing NYS 13A Traffic Mitigation Petition – Lisa Strayer, Liz Bageant, Kelda 1. Approval of Minutes: Minutes were approved with minor changes from 1/17/23. Clarifying verbiage and minor changes were made by Mr. DePaolo #3 and #4. The minutes were moved by Mr. DePaolo, seconded by Mr. Rosen. Carried. 2. Member Comments / Concerns: None a. Consider Modifications to the Agenda: None 3. Inlet Valley Way/Calkins Road Intersection Safety Mitigation – Mr. Slater Mr. Slater recapped safety concerns that led to submission of a Notice of Defect by a resident that lives on Calkins Road. He shared a map and proposed mitigation steps that would improve the area for safety, which include moving the mailboxes to Inlet Valley Way property, centerline striping on the Calkins Road curve, adding an Inlet Valley Way street sign, adding a yield, arrow, and “private road” sign for Inlet Valley Way residents exiting, contour and stabilization to redefine the 20’ entryway to Inlet Valley Way, and signage to better illustrate the curved intersection. He showed modeling of an approximately 46’ fire truck navigating the turning radiuses entering and exiting Inlet Valley Way, which demonstrated no issues. He has received permission from the Postmaster to move the mailboxes onto Inlet Valley Way property on the same side of the road. Removal of a bush on Calkins Road for better sight distance has been completed. Addition of the yield sign will need to be approved through the Town Board. Mr. Slater will draft a resolution to amend the Local Law. He will also reach out the Inlet Valley Way Homeowner’s Association to get approval to move the mailboxes and to communicate the proposed mitigation steps. Mr. Rosen asked about the cost of the mitigation, which was determined to be approximately $5,000. 4. NYS Rt 13A Traffic Mitigation Petition – Mr. Howe Mr. Howe explained that many residents of the City and the Town have submitted a petition regarding traffic safety concerns along NYS Rt 13A/Five Mile Drive/Floral Avenue related to excessive speed and large truck use. He reported that the City has contracted with Toole Design to get ideas for mitigating traffic safety concerns in the City portion. Currently, the speed is 45mph and it is being requested that is be lowered to 30mph. Mr. Howe reported that the City is requesting a speed reduction to 25mph. Mr. DePaolo asked what the design speed is for the area to which Mr. Thaete replied that it has not been evaluated by the Town’s Engineering Department. Discussion was held regarding the route being designated as a truck route and that there may be complications to the request to limit truck traffic. Mr. Rosen added that the construction of that route was specifically designed as a truck bypass to divert truck traffic from the business district. Lisa Strayer reported that there is excessive speeding from the City leading into the Town’s portion of the route. She stated that they have asked the City, as well as the Town, to petition the State to decommission the route as a truck route and move the truck traffic back to NYS Rt 13. It has become primarily residential and is a danger to residents. She has been hit by a vehicle entering her driveway and someone was killed on a bicycle late last year. She stated that the Bostwick Road intersection is also dangerous. Mr. Thaete stated that the intersection is askew and is something that the County and State should evaluate, since the two entities own the intersecting roads. Mr. Howe reported that he will reach out the City’s Transportation Engineer to see when they expect initial reports from Toole Design and will incorporate that information with the State’s response to the City regarding the truck route. Outreach will be made to verify if the County has knowledge of the requests and the possibility of realigning the intersection. Discussion was held regarding exempting municipal/school vehicles from decommissioning of the truck route. Mr. Howe asked for a recommendation to submit to the Town Board for a speed reduction. The Committee was in favor. Mr. Howe reported that the Town is planning to update the Transportation Plan, which will include sidewalks. Chat Notes: 09:28:39 From Liz Bageant to Everyone: I’m sorry I can’t speak right now but let me put my comments in the chat. Thanks for talking through this today. I live near the corner of Bostwick and observe dangerous driver behavior at that intersection every day. I’m wondering whether the town has considered any updates to that intersection to make it safer. 09:30:01 From Liz Bageant to Everyone: I would also like to note that the State DOT’s process for studying speeds seems to rely on the driver experience and I wanted to say that the experience as a resident is very different. 09:30:46 From Liz Bageant to Everyone: Issues at Bostwick are related to excessive speeds on 13A and people who began passing in the segment in front of the cemetery (and my house) are still passing when they reach Bostwick. 09:32:17 From Kelda to Everyone: 2-3 months 09:33:01 From Liz Bageant to Everyone: I would support an exemption for municipal vehicles. Thank you! 09:37:28 From Lisa Strayer to Everyone: I second the support for an exemption and would ask that you consider asking the state to decommission the roadway as a truck route, rather than waiting to see outcome of city’s petition. I believe that having both the city and town make the request simultaneously adds credence to the need for the change. Thank you! 5. Discussion of Cemetery Water and Sewer Benefit Units – Mr. Thaete Mr. Thaete reported that every property in the Town of Ithaca is charged a benefit unit in some form. The benefit unit for water and sewer is generally used for capital improvement. There are eight cemeteries throughout the Town. He shared a map and summary referencing historical designations of water and sewer benefit units and explained that the majority of parcels around Town are now being reevaluated on an annual basis, though reevaluation had not been done in the past on some parcels. As a result, cemeteries were reevaluated as “institutional” use which affected their water and sewer units, therefore, increasing their fees. Some cemeteries expressed disagreement with the reevaluation and stated that they would allow the cemeteries to be taken over by the Town if benefit fees cannot be reduced. As a compromise, the Town did not charge benefit fees for the upcoming billing period and agreed to reexamine the results. There are two cemeteries that currently serve a residential structure on the premises. Other parcels do not have water and sewer available. Others have the utilities available but, are not connected. Dan is asking for input. Mr. DePaolo asked if the cemeteries are all structured and categorized the same as corporations, (i.e., not-for-profit, for profit) and if not, how can they all be categorized the same way in the reevaluation? He also asked if exemptions could be made for sewer units since sewer is not being generated from the residential structures. Discussion was held regarding sewer benefit exemptions, meters, sewer benefit assessment formula, cemetery categorization based on types of connections, assessed value, creating a new category for cemeteries and applying ad valorem fees, etc. Mr. Thaete will pull information together and bring it back to the Committee for review. 6. Update on Event at Tutelo Park to Celebrate the Area’s Indigenous History – Mr. Howe Mr. Howe explained that the event on May 6th is being held to show reverence to the land of the Gayogo̱hó꞉nǫ' People and to talk about events that could take place at Tutelo Park in the future (ethnobotanic trail, sculptures, sign updates). He stated that part of the intent is to add layers of meaning to Tutelo Park. He is expecting around 200 people to attend. There will be demonstrations, artwork, food, etc. 7. Project Updates a. Nearing substantial completion with the streetlight project. The contractor will be returning in April to work on gateway connection issues. They will also be working on punch list items. Transitioning into the NYPA Maintenance Agreement. b. There were two bid openings on March 16th. Forest Home Pump Station #1 received one bid which was approximately $500,000 over budget. The project will be retooled to attempt to lower the cost. The PWF Fueling Station project received two bids and the low bid came in under budget by $100,000. The project will begin this spring. c. Proposals for the Northeast I&I Study were reviewed and contracts are in the process of being signed with Larsen Design Group. Metering will start in April. d. The Town Hall Weatherization Project contractor, Bell & Spina Architects, has been doing testing and researching the building. Preliminary results are anticipated around April 10th. e. Six Mile Creek Project will be re-kicked off with the Consultant and CWIO. Barton & Loguidice is going out into the field to do surveying. Anticipate having draft designs in June. f. Public Works Facility Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing Analysis proposals have been received and awarded to Labella Associates. g. Looking to kick off the Judd Falls Road Project from Tower Road to Forest Home Drive. Will be reaching out to the community for input. h. 2022 Inlet Valley Rehabilitation Project will continue once the ground dries out. i. Ridgecrest Watermain Project will be starting in April/May. The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 a.m. Our next meeting is scheduled for 4/18/23. lvp Page 1 of 6 Town of Ithaca - Forest Home Truck Traffic Sign Comments and Recommendation Package To: Joe Slater Director of Public Works 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-1656 Ext. 226 From: Highway Safety & Traffic Operations Bureau New York State Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232 Date: July 18, 2022 Page 2 of 6 Summary of Problem A local law has been passed to restrict truck traffic in parts of Forest Home, in the Town of Ithaca. The Town of Ithaca ordinance of a 5-ton weight limit is specifically in place in areas of Forest Home Drive (from Plantations Road to Caldwell Road), on Judd Falls Road (north of the jug handle), and on McIntyre Place. This is illustrated in the map below (Figure 1). Ensuring truck drivers are aware of the restriction is the priority. Map of Location Figure 1: Map of Restricted Truck Zone NYSDOT Comments For some background, all traffic control devices used in New York State must conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which is a federal regulation, as well as the NYS Supplement to the MUTCD. In this situation, the signing needs to be updated to effectively deter trucks from accessing these roads and entering the restricted zone, while staying in compliance with the MUTCD. According to the proposal by the resident, it is stated that, “when the law was enacted, weight-limit signs were erected at the edges of the restricted zone, and advance warnings were posted for each of the community’s six entrances.” The MUTCD states that regulatory signs are used to inform road users of selected traffic laws or regulations and shall be installed at or near where the regulation applies. Therefore, these signs cannot be used as an advance warning sign (Section 2B.01 Application of Forest Home Drive Page 3 of 6 Regulatory Signs). Advanced warning signs may help the truck drivers plan or even revise their route, but the signs proposed shall not be used. Additionally, the suggested action of adding the REGISTERED WEIGHT word message, supplemented with the X MILES AHEAD word message does not comply with the MUTCD. The REGISTERED WEIGHT word message and the NO-TRUCK symbol (R5-2) is not necessary. Furthermore, a regulatory sign, and a warning sign shall not supplement one another. Uniformity and motorist expectations are fundamental principles for all traffic control devices and to be effective, uniformity is essential is all sign assemblies, including the shape and color of the signs used (Section 2A.06 Design of Signs). The signs that may be kept from the proposal are the WEIGHT LIMIT X TONS (R12-1) and EXCEPT LOCAL DELIVERY (NYR7-3P), but only be placed at the limits of the restricted zone. Finally, the use of the NO TRUCKS (R5-2) coupled with the WEIGHT LIMIT X TONS (R12-1) is also an inappropriate assembly because the term “truck,” as defined in NYS law, means “Every motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.” Under this definition, any truck with commercial plates would be prohibited by the R5-2 sign. The existing and proposed sign assemblies, illustrated in Figure 2 and 3, are non-compliant and therefore, shall not be used. Figure 2: Existing Sign Page 4 of 6 Figure 3: Proposed Signs by Resident in Proposal NYSDOT Recommendation Based on the information gathered and provided, the New York State Department of Transportation agrees with the use of the WEIGHT LIMIT X TONS (R12-1) and EXCEPT LOCAL DELIVERY (NYR7-3P) to inform truck traffic of the weight restriction, but the assembly shall not be installed on any roads where the prohibition is not enforced (i.e., intersecting roads). The NO-TRUCK symbol (R5-2) may be kept at locations where there is an outright prohibition on trucks rather than the weight restriction, but prohibition signing must be consistent. We also recommend replacing the signs that are in poor condition or may be missing at the limits of the restricted weight zone. Additionally, if the prohibition warrants the use of the NO TRUCKS (R5-2) sign, an option may be to modify the ALL TRAFFIC sign (NYR3-14) to say ALL TRUCKS with the appropriate arrow designation (Figure 4 and 5). This sign may be used on intersecting roads, just prior to an intersection where trucks need to turn to effectively help truck drivers navigate around the restricted area, with the arrow pointed in the intended direction of travel. The arrow may be vertical, horizontal (left or right), or slant diagonally upward (left or right), according to the NYS Supplement Section 2B.102 Supplemental Intersection Signs (NYR3-14, NYR3-19, NYR3-20). If needed, enhanced conspicuity for the signs can be used through methods illustrated in Section 2A.15 of the MUTCD. Finally, as per the Vehicle & Traffic Law, Section 1660, the town may designate a truck route, which would limit the roads that trucks are allowed to use. To sign a truck route, the TRUCKS OVER 5 TONS USE TRUCK ROUTES (NYR5-15) sign is required at the municipal boundary and the TRUCK ROUTE (R14-1) sign with the appropriate supplemental arrow panel is necessary to direct trucks along the route. Page 5 of 6 Figure 4: Sign Face Layout of Modified NYR3-14 Drawing Page 6 of 6 Figure 5: Sign Face Layout of Modified NYR3-14 Other Direction Options