HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-13 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Public Works will be held on Monday, February 4, 2013, at 4:45 p.m.
in Common Council Chambers — Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New
York.
Agenda
1. Additions or Deletions to Agenda (Items 1 -5: 20 min.)
2. Mayor's Communications
3. Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board
4. Response to the Public
5. Administration and Communications (5 min.)
5.1 Leadership Tompkins Update on a New Mobile Vending Program
6. Reports
Special Committees of the Board
Council Liaison
Board Liaisons
Superintendent and Staff
Other Department Heads
7. Approval of Minutes
8. VOTING ITEMS
8.1 Buildings, Properties, Refuse and Transit
A. Award of Contract for Professional Services for the Commons Repair &
Upgrade Project — Resolution
8.2 Hi-ghways. Streets and Sidewalks
A. East State Street/Martin Luther King Jr. Street at Mitchell Street
Intersection Reconfiguration — Resolution
8.3 Parking and Traffic
A. Resolution to Recommend the Elimination of Parking Minimums
8.4 Creeks. Bridnes and Parks
8.5 Water and Sewer
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
9.1 Parking Benefit Districts Discussion — Possible Resolution
10. New Business
11. Adjournment
If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully
participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 607- 274 -6570 at least 48 hours before the
meeting.
The Board of Public Works meets on the second, third and fourth Wednesdays of the months at 4:45 p.m. All meetings are voting
meetings, opening with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are created from prior public input, Department operating, planning
issues, and requests made to the Superintendent. The Board reserves the right to limit verbal comments to three minutes and to request
written comments on lengthy or complex issues. This information may then be used to create committee agendas, with the speaker or
author invited to attend.
Notes for BPW Agenda, February 4, 2013
5.1 Leadership Tompkins Update on a New Mobile Vending Program
Per the Board's request, the Community Action Project Group from Leadership Tompkins that
is working on the Mobile Vending Program for the city will present a preliminary status report
on where they are with their research and development of a possible new policy. Handouts
will be provided during the meeting.
8.1A. Award of Contract for Professional Services for the Commons Repair & Upgrade
Project — Resolution
The City has hired a new Project Manager for the Commons Reconstruction Project. The
contract needs to be awarded.
8.2A East State Street/Martin Luther King Jr Street at Mitchell Street Intersection
Reconfiguration — Resolution
Public comments have been received and options have been considered. The Board now has
a chance to make a final decision on the design of this intersection and the placement of the
traffic signals. Please see Tim Logue's memo for more information.
8.3A Resolution to Recommend the Elimination of Parking Minimums
Rob Morache supplied this recommendation for the removal of minimum parking requirements for the
reasons the Board discussed at the last meeting. The material about the Parking Director position
and the issues he /she will be dealing with from the most recent City Administration Committee
Agenda is included for your review.
9.1 _Parking Benefit Districts Discussion — Possible Resolution
Rob also provided a second proposed resolution to recommend parking benefit districts
(PBDs), which may fill a desperate need for more infrastructure funding and have been
discussed in other committees. Parking benefit districts are strengthened by removing parking
minimums, and can be a significant piece in a larger system. A discussion of PBDs and how
BPW can help create a holistic parking management system may be appropriate at this time.
Eliminating parking minimums is a crucial first step, but we need to consider other pieces of a
system that we will have some responsibility over. This is an article offering a brief overview of
PBDs: http://www.uctc.neVaccess/23/ Access %2023 %20 - %2002 %20 -
% 20Small %2OChange %20into %2OBig %2OChange pdf
Kathy �je�lr%viG�, EKe- ovtive AS.SLstavLt
For RLlU geviiawi.%w
Aot�we) Superiwtevudewt of pubUr, Worl2s
JCivLUarU so, 2013
Page 2
8.1A. Award of Contract for Professional Services for the Commons Repair & Upgrade
Project — Resolution
WHEREAS, Common Council has established Capital Project 724 to reconstruct the
Commons in the amount of $9,000,000, and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Office, in conjunction with the Department of Planning and
Development, is recommending that the City contract for professional project management
services for this project due to existing staff work load, and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Office, in conjunction with the Department of Planning and
Development, solicited qualifications publicly, received three responses, interviewed
candidates, and recommended PTR Management Consulting, LLC, 122 Pine Tree Road,
Ithaca, NY, and
WHEREAS, after developing and agreeing to a scope of work, staff recommends a contract
with PTR Management Consulting, LLC, not to exceed $200,000 and
WHEREAS, funds for the professional services are available from Capital Project 724, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works authorizes the Superintendent of Public Works to
enter into contract with PTR Management Consulting, LLC for professional services related to
overall project management for the Commons Repair & Upgrade Project at a total contract
cost not to exceed $200,000.
Page 3
8.2A _Resolution to Approve Preliminary Desian for the East State /Martin Luther Kina
Jr. Street and Mitchell Street Traffic Sianal and Street Widenina Project
WHEREAS, Common Council has established Capital Project 775 to widen a portion of East
State /Martin Luther King Jr. Street and install a traffic signal at the intersection with Mitchell
Street, and
WHEREAS, in January meetings of the Board of Public Works, the Board was presented
preliminary design alternatives and also met the requirements for environmental review in
accordance with Section 176 of the Ithaca City Code (CEQR) and in accordance with Article 8
of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (SEAR), and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Office held a public meeting on January 15, 2015, in order to
further present the alternatives and to solicit public input on the project, and
WHEREAS, the Board has received written comments from the public and a recommendation
for preliminary design concept "2.B" from the City Transportation Engineer, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby approves preliminary design alternative
"2.B" and directs the Engineering Office to proceed into detailed design and construction
documents for bidding based on this alternative, recognizing that the exact layout of the traffic
signal poles and mast arms may differ from the drawing based on a range of factors, including
staff judgment, standards or requirements, or underground utilities.
Page 4
CITY OF I'fHACA
108 East Green Street. Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607,"274 -6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer
Date: January 30, 2013
Re: Preliminary Design Approval for the East State /MLK Jr Street and
Mitchell Street Traffic Signal and Street Widening
Please find enclosed the following items relating to approving the preliminary
design for the proposed traffic signal at East State /MLK Jr Street and Mitchell
Street intersection and the Mitchell Street widening:
• The written public comment submitted at and after the public meeting,
which was held on January 15, 2013.
A resolution approving the preliminary design based primarily on
Alternative 2.B (if you would like to review the preliminary alternatives,
the drawings are available in the BPW agenda packet from January 14th ,
which is available on the City's website). This alternative eliminates the
traffic island in the intersection, relocating the curb on the north side of
the intersection, uses poles and mast arms to support the traffic signals,
and accommodates bicyclists either in the travel lanes or with a bicycle
"jug handle" for the eastbound left turn.
My recommendation for Alternative 2.B is based on the following factors and
includes decisions about three major topics: removing the traffic island, deciding
between mast arms or span wires for supporting the traffic signal heads, and
choosing a special accommodation for bicyclists trying to continue up the
Mitchell Street bike lane from the East State /MLK Jr Street bike lane. I feel
confident that any other issues can be dealt with during detailed design.
Removing the island has a number of benefits for motorists and pedestrians. It
allows for considerably better sight lines for motorists coming down Mitchell
Street and preparing to make the right turn onto East State Street. Making sure
the signal is very visible is both imperative from a traffic safety perspective, but
was also highlighted in the public comment. Removing the island will also make
for a single movement for pedestrians crossing the western leg of the intersection
(as opposed to making two separate movements to and from the island, which
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification -" c
may include waiting times for a second walk signal). It squares up the
intersection a bit, which makes it more typical and understandable to everyone,
including new residents and visitors, both motorists and pedestrians. Lastly,
removing the island eliminates any right -of -way impacts or takings on the north
side of the intersection by providing additional space for traffic signal or
pedestrian poles and foundations. It also provides for a larger standing area for
pedestrians who might be waiting for a walk signal.
I prefer poles and mast arms for traffic signals in the City. I think they are more
visible to motorists and tend to reflect a more urban street design. The poles for
mast arms are shorter than those for span wires and usually provide for fewer
conflicts with overhead utilities. Mast arm poles will be on the order of 20 feet
tall, whereas span wire poles will be more like 34 feet tall. Mast arms also
provide for a little more flexibility for vehicle detection. Though there are
advantages and disadvantages to each design, in this case, I think the mast arms
provide the greater benefits and fewer disadvantages.
For bike accommodations for the uphill left turn, I think the jug handle concept is
preferable to either the bike box concept or the idea of running a left turn bicycle
lane between the two motor vehicle lanes. The bike box does not serve bicyclists
at all if the signal is green and provides some benefit if the person arrives on a
red indication. It does not pose any complication for through cyclists. The idea of
putting a left turn bicycle lane between the two other travel lanes was raised by
BPAC. For cyclists turning left, this would mean a separate space, but it would
be between two lanes for a fair stretch (the road widens between Eddy and
Mitchell), which may be uncomfortable for some and does require through
motorists to weave over the bike lane. Through bicyclists would have to share
this through lane with motorists in what would likely by a 12 foot lane (not wide
enough to share side -by- side). The jug handle concept seems to serve the most
people the best. The bike lane would continue up to the intersection, so it would
not require any weaving or lane changing. Left turning bicyclists who did not
want to "take" the left turn lane, would be able to pull over to the right and use
the signal to make a left turn without conflict. Through bicyclists, who want to
continue straight on East State /MLK Jr Street would not be hindered at all by
this arrangement. The point was raised that if the bicyclist was delayed by two
red signals (one at the stop bar and one in the jug handle), it would be
burdensome and this is something we should address in detailed design, but
overall, I think the jug handle concept is the best way to provide for a range of
cyclist skill level, comfort and route/ destination choice.
If you have any questions about the project at anytime, please feel free to contact
me at 274 -6535 or timlo@cityofithaca.ors.
MEMORANDUM Creighton
Manning
Date: January 25, 2013 ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
To: Tim Logue - City of Ithaca SURVEYORS
From: Ken Wersted, P.E.
cc: Frank Santelli, P.E. -TG Miller
Re: Public Comments on Conceptual Improvement Alternatives
E. State Street /Mitchell Street, CM Project 112 -203
Below is a brief summary of my notes collected from the Public Meeting on the project, held in the City on
January 15, 2013.
Bikes: Bike detection was discussed and the public (or at least the bicyclists) were in favor of having bike
detection. Some members (avid cyclists) thought the bike lane next to the left turn lane was best, while others
(casual cyclists) like the jug handle option. Some voiced a concern that the jug handle would promote some
riders to use the sidewalk to continue east on E. State Street. Some drivers were concerned with having bikes
adjacent to the turn lane. One member discussed the option of having bike detection and a special left turn
phase for bikes from the bike lane adjacent to the curb. If it detected a bike sitting there for an amount of
time, it would assume that the bike wanted to turn left and would turn off the eastbound /westbound through
traffic and allow the bike to turn up Mitchell St. Additional research is needed to see if the Vehicle and Traffic
laws allow a left turn from the right most lane (across a through movement).
Operations: There is a concern that Mitchell St right turn traffic will now back up past College Ave and block
driveways on Mitchell St. A visual simulation was briefly discussed and some expressed the desire to see that
simulation. Blair St operations were discussed but Tim noted that this is outside the scope of this project but
could be a separate matter for the City to look into. Signal operations and timings were briefly discussed and
noted that the detection will allow the signal to operate very responsively to traffic to minimize inefficiencies.
Geometry and Signal Design: There was a comment about the visual impact of the signal, namely looking
down Mitchell St at the Collegetown Terrace project and a desire to minimize that impact. Other concerns
included the visibility of the heads from the approaches, the potential for flashing operations and the visual
impact on neighbors, and special snow settings. The public voiced a concern about the visibility of the right
turn signal heads on Mitchell Street under the Option 1 alternatives (island remains). Overall, there was no
strong opinion on mast arms or span wire. Prior to the meeting, the Collegetown Terrace representatives
emailed a preference for the span wire and removal of the island, with a bike jug handle. There was a desire to
maintain the island to keep the green space but that comment seemed to be addressed once the commenter
learned of the additional space added near the sidewalk under Option 2.
F: \Projects \2012 \112 -203 Ithaca Signal \documents \Public Mtg 20120115.doc
2 Winners Circle Page 1 of 1 518.446.0396
Albany, NY 12205 www.cmellp.com
J of, fAC
EAST STATE/MITCHELL STREET
Tuesday, January 15, 2012
5:00pm to WOOpm
'%\A
Public Meeting
..,i ti-
Sep.
Address ,I rK
City/Town :r, h State ZipCode
At veir c�reo. ve mo,p an
Return to: Mr. Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
City Hall
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, IVY 14850
timloOcitvofithaca.oro
274 -8535
Comment=
This form is provided to you for the purpose of making your concerns known to the City of Ithaca. Please
indicate the date, your name and address, and state your concerns on this form.
The completed Comment Form may be returned this evening to a project representative or mailed to Mr.
Logue at the address below. It may be returned by folding the form so that the retum address is clearly
visible and affixing a stamp. Please staple or tape the form closed. PLEASE FORWARD YOUR
COMMENTS TO THE CITY BY FRIDAY, JANUARY 18TH.
Thank you for expressing your concerns.
FOLD
From
FOLD
Mr. Tim Logue, City 'transportation Engineer
City Hall
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Stamp
Fmr -►e Hes 110&1 bY-1J
At. Qv%r
IyAr
O>ip- C ssfs
014 4n?- ~t/+ ' D o F Ae-
Wherc e cr�wa
W14ON&Y.
s k• rn�rc✓1 ��
r.
0
EAST STATE/MITCHELL STREET
Tuesday, January 15, 2012
5:00pm to 6:00pm
Public Meeting
Name OA RA C , r-- E11ES Date_ 61 //S 62.943
Address O S7-
Cft own = ?H!9-G f7l State & ZipCode
We wish to comment about the following aspects of the project:
Return to: Mr. Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
City Hall
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
tiimlo(Mcitvofithaca.ong
274 -6535
EAST STATE/MITCHELL STREET
Tuesday, January 15, 2012
5:00pm to 6:00pm
Public Meeting
ara A. re;f- hu z.�
! �s o 13
Clty/Town L state ZipCode
I/We wish to comment about the following aspects of the project:
s ,lueuu 1 0 r A. 960 S for1c s e✓ 1`1 e�'3 � r�ny�d � G�•�
� Dh w der 1( ked L rd; e.. �.. i S l LLta W O's PiA • 1-
a-
Retum to: Mr. Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
City Hall
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
timIo0aityofdhaca.ora
274 -6555
EAST STATEIMITCHELL STREET
Tuesday, January 15, 2012
5 :00pm to 6 :00pm
Public Meeting
Name TDB _pate_ tf,> I -15 ! 1-5
Address
CitylTown State `t i ZipCodee
UWe wish to comment about the following aspects of thggppro.@ct: �°
-��G �'C G a@w vvW4% s 4"t4'ICIIG1.P� ffikzd Of-Pi �.t PvW , Wiku `Jill'') LOM f-h,
d W % %il +d Inns l� , OWL41 A �rn , offs n ` ,n' +
=t�i�T � G�►d- �,r It1 i Y1 4n '4J � � �f^ s r d aQ
SS , 0.k G� �
�uhvi- �►► "i a
S 50—U&9 4-U& —9f 5awi v Tqlvvt o af-
(itl!1 CUB �usS [ �l %i11 i�11Qi (/�l 1'i
� i1 GlJt�1,D1�(9il•P,d� �� � �7.ii`vYtii4J f
WrtAV-51kZfk 4
pAW-kLAk w6pfzvrt jv aviA ,,WW 107f L -
Return to: Mr. Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
City Hall
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
timlobcitvofithaca org
274 -6535
East State /Martin Luther King Jr. Street and Mitchell Street
Traffic Signal and Street Widening
Public Comments received by email
I've driven these roads for years and can not I imagine why a stop light would be even
considered at that intersection! I really believe that would really slow up /back up the traffic on
both roads!!
Why not consider a traffic circle instead? I've driven to Elmira several times over the last few
weeks on Rt 13 and both of them seem to work quite well where the traffic lights were located. I
truly believe this would be a much better solution or leave it like it currently is.
The only times there are lines of traffic is primarily when people are going to and from work.
Then you have to wait a few minutes for your turn to go thru the intersection!
Edie Spaulding
Dear Tim,
Because of a previous commitment I will not be able to attend the meeting on Tuesday evening,
January 15, regarding the State and Mitchell intersection. However, I do want to make a
continent as the administrator of room tax funds for Beautification, Signage and Public Art that
come through the county's Strategic Tourism Program.
The intersection of State and Mitchell Streets serves as an entrance to the community for
travelers using Route 79. Though the actual city boundary is about 4 blocks east and the county
border almost 10 miles to the East, this intersection is the first place in the city of Ithaca where
the road widens and visitors get a real sense of the hills and a sense of place. The stop sign
makes everyone pause and look. For many years the traffic island was planted and cared for
by the Beautification Program at Cooperative Extension. In 2012 because of nearby construction
the plants were removed.
I very much hope that there will be consideration of either a traffic island, which would be
designed to include low- growing plants and soil suitable to this location, or some way to bring
colorful plants to this area. Because of the soil condition and the lack of a water pipe in the
intersection it has been difficult to keep this planting looking as good as we want it to look. If
there is a traffic island or another suitable planting space, it is critically important to include a
water standpipe or stanchion (I'm not sure of the technical term) so that watering can be done
efficiently and frequently.
Please let me know if I need to submit this comment in another format or if you can bring this to
the committee as it is. Thanks again,
Jean McPheeters, IOM, President, Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce
Page 1 of 10
You have thus far good [obvious] options about the intersection of Mitchell and E. State.
However, that intersection can be greatly improved, indirectly, by improving routes of
transportation near by. Give people other arteries to their destination, rather than everyone
having to be funneled through that singular busy neighborhood and over - burdened
intersection.
note: #1 is really a reasonable solution. Please consider it. #2 I suspect won't have any traction,
but its something worth consideration.
1) For the love of God please fix Stewart Ave. Yes, the brick would look nice if it were to remain,
but that's likely way more headache than it is worth. So please repave Stewart Ave and make
that road drivable again. Its god -damn atrocious and destroying the underside and suspension
of vehicles. If Stewart Ave were to be a useable and attractive roadway, then traffic pressure on
the Mitchell intersection (and thus into the Mitchell/ Ithaca Rd neighborhoods) would be partly
relieved because people could travel Stewart Ave to get to the North part of our area (Cornell,
Cayuga Heights, the mall). As it is, Stewart is so awful to drive, that people (like ME) honestly
go out of their way to drive up Michell/Ithaca Rd and through the East part of campus just to
get to Cayuga Heights or on their way to the mall. There is no reason why much of that traffic
couldn't go down Stewart, a more direct route, if Stewart Ave could be a passable roadway.
And thus the Mitchell/State St intersection would be more functional with fewer vehicles.
2) Turn the commercial district section of College Ave into a one way street, but with barriers
that open for buses (via a radio transponder) and is open in the mornings (before lam ?) for
deliveries. If College Ave were not an artery for traffic speeding through the campus and the
neighborhood simply as a route from Ithaca to the mall/ Cayuga Heights/ dorms then there
would be very significantly less traffic on the Mitchell /State intersection. These cars would
make more use of multiple other routes to their destinations (like I hope the Stewart Ave option
I mention above).
Summary: do smart things to improve traffic flow in the city, and you'll then indirectly
significantly improve traffic at the Mitchell /State intersection.
Torn Thumb
Tim:
Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on the concept alternatives for the traffic
control devices at the intersection of Mitchell and East State Streets. As you know from our
previous meeting Mitchell Plaza and the Pavilion behind it forms the gateway to the
Collegetown Terrace project. It will be the focal point of Collegetown Terrace and the point
from which most of the pedestrian traffic generated by the project will originate. Our review of
these alternatives is based on the ease with which pedestrians will be able to cross the street and
Page 2 of 10
the potential visual impact the traffic control device poles and support masts may have on the
Plaza and Pavilion.
Of the four alternatives we think Concept 2A is the better design option. The span wire
approach minimizes the amount 'structure' located in front of the Plaza. The location of the
pole on the south side of East State Street is sufficiently off set from Mitchell Plaza so as to not
block the view of the Plaza and Pavilion. We would prefer it if the support pole could be
moved a bit further to the east so that it is completely away from the front of the Plaza but
recognize that there may be distance limitations to how far this can be moved.
Concept 2A also creates a more direct pedestrian crossing of East State Street. While
eliminating the existing traffic island may increase the crossing distance at Mitchell Street on the
north side of East State, it appears to reduce the crossing distance of East State Street at both
locations. This is likely to be the most heavily travelled pedestrian path from residents walking
from the south side of East State Street, Ferris Street, South Quarry Street, etc. to Collegetown.
Furthermore, this design creates a much more direct path for crossing the street than Concepts
1A and B which still utilize the island.
If the desire is not to use span wire to support the traffic control devices and use poles and mast
arms as shown in Concept 213, we ask that you consider an alternate location to the pole and
mast arm that are directly in front of Mitchell Plaza and the Pavilion. This concept has in our
opinion the greatest visual impact on these elements of the Collegetown Terrace design.
Finally, we agree with the comments in the Creighton - Manning commentary on the plan
alternatives regarding the "jughandle" design for the bike lane. This feature will create a safer,
more accommodating approach for bicyclists crossing East State Street. The Collegetown
Terrace project would be pleased to work with the City in realizing this design if this option is
selected.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Herman Sieverding
Tim,
I personally feel that the option 1B is the best for pedestrians, bikes, and motorist traffic. I have
the following comments to add:
1. I would suggest keeping a curb for the jug handle to discourage bikers from riding on the
sidewalk and prevent pedestrians from being in the bike lane. Also the bike lane should
continue alone state street through the intersection before ending and then merging back with
the motorists traffic. It is pictured in Creighton Manning documentation as well as here:
http: / /greenlaneproject.org /blog /view /san- francisco- welcomes -first bicycle -bay
Page 3 of 10
2. After a quick call to a family member in Washington DC who works in the bike advocacy, I
found out that bike signal lights are also an experimental treatment like the bike box. I
personally feel that the bike jug handle will work just fine.
3. Keep the island to create shorter cross walks, a direction for unfamiliar motorists, and a
buffer in the winter for sliding cars.
4. Mast arms for signal are a much better look and allow for shorter poles.
Thanks for you time and hard work.
Jonathan Billing
6 Pheasant Ln
Dear Tim,
Someone wrote in to the FLCC email list recently, asking for ideas about how to best handle the
upcoming new intersection at the junction of Mitchell Street and State /MLK Street from a
cyclist's perspective, if the cyclist was coming up the hill and turning left.
A FEW people wrote about that, but I then wrote with my perspective:
I know that many people want to turn left onto Mitchell because of where they want to end up,
but personally given my car - comfort level and ease of hill climbing, I continue on State to
Honness Lane. It's an easier left turn and a much easier uphill, and you can turn left on the the
East Hill Recway from Honness and then make your way over to Belle Sherman or Cornell, if
that's the goal. (My goal is to get into the Ellis Hollow area, usually — so I can take the Recway
through Belle Sherman and then across Maple Avenue and over to Game Farm. Or I can just
bike on the roads.)
When I say car- comfort level, I mostly don't mean the proximity to traffic. I mostly mean that
traffic smells bad. But, on a hot day if I'm tired, going up the steeper parts of Mitchell, I would
be paying careful attention to not swerve too far into the traffic area of the road, unless the bike
lane ends up being rather wide.
THIS CAUSED a few more people to write, saying that they, too find Mitchell Street to steep or
too intense, traffic -wise, so they turn left on Dunmore (apparently not legal as one -way the
wrong way) or on Valley.
So, all of us folks who do go straight are hoping that the bike lane will continue up State /MLK
or at least that something won't happen to make that route more difficult or dangerous.
Someone else on the FLCC list said that I should please make sure to contact you with this
information.
As for folks turning left, some said that they thought they would "take the lane" and turn left as
a vehicle anyway, or if traffic was light. Others thought whatever the current proposal is -
Page 4 of 10
something about pulling over to the right and waiting for an appropriate, light-mediated time
in a safe location - would work well for them because they didn't feel like taking the lane in
traffic. Personally, if I wanted to turn left, I would take the lane since I find that this is usually
the safest option for an experienced biker who is aware of the cars around and giving off the
appropriate look-at-me body language - that's because cars won't try to slide by. However, it if
was really hot and I was tired or there was a lot of traffic, it would be nice to have an
alternative... taking the lane might not really be possible/ realistic at all times, except for the
most agile and experienced cyclists. I think that signage about cyclists is also a helpful reminder
to drivers.
cheers, - Tonya
(Long -time Ellis Hollow resident, Mom, experienced cyclist but not speedy)
Tonya Engst, TidBITS /Take Control Ebooks
Vear Tim
Although I made these points verbally at the Jan. 15 meeting, it would probably be useful to
state them again in writing.
My concern is about downhill traffic on Mitchell Street and the side effects of stopping it at a
light at State Street. Currently, traffic can travel nonstop from the light at Ithaca Road &
Dryden Road to the light at Stewart Ave and State. Ken stated at the meeting that a peak traffic
flow of 500 cars per hour is expected in the evening rush travelling downhill on Mitchell Street.
That corresponds to more than 8 cars per minute on average, so even a 1- minute delay at the
light at State Street will cause traffic to back up well beyond College Ave. The backup is likely
to be persistent. There are several consequences.
1) Downhill traffic from College Ave. will be unable to merge into Mitchell St. and so will
back up behind the intersection. Blair St. will of course be hopeless.
2) Uphill traffic (especially busses) from State/ Mitchell wishing to turn left into College Ave.
will be unable to get past the queued downhill Mitchell St. traffic, or will have trouble
navigating the narrowed College Ave. once they negotiate the turn. The City may be forced to
forbid parking on one side of College Ave.
3) Many of my neighbors have short, narrow driveways without the ability to turn around
and are therefore forced to back into traffic to get out of their driveways. The neighborhood
considered the situation so dangerous a year ago that they petitioned the DPW to disallow
parking on the 200 -300 block of Mitchell St. even though this means we can't park in front of our
own houses. With downhill Mitchell St. traffic queued up behind the traffic light at State, and
with platooned uphill traffic, it will once again become very difficult to get out of driveways on
this stretch of Mitchell St. The same will happen to traffic trying to exit Brandon Place to
Mitchell St.
Please consider ways to mitigate these difficulties when planning the light at State and Mitchell.
Sincerely,
David L. Kreinick
305 Mitchell St.
Page 5 of 10
Tim, Donna:
FYI, This is what I just sent out to the neighborhood listsery
Ellen
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ellen McCollister <emccollister@cityofithaca.org>
Date: January 17, 2013 3:50:06 PM EST
To: bsbp- discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Mitchell /State St intersection project update
Dear Third Ward Neighbors,
On Tuesday Alderperson Donna Fleming and I attended an informational meeting organized
by Tim Logue, the City's Transportation engineer, about the Mitchell /State St intersection
project. Here's a quick update:
As most of you know, the City hopes to improve this busy and confusing intersection with a
turning lane, bike lanes, pedestrian crosswalks, and a traffic light. There are four scenarios
under consideration: two that include a landscaped island, and two without. The project is
being funded by the City, Cornell, and Collegetown Terrace.
Tim and an engineer from the firm of Creighton Manning walked us through the details and
differences in the four scenarios. Rather than my trying to describe the details in this email, I'd
suggest you check out the link below from the Board of Public Works agenda.
http://www.egovlink.com/pubhc-documents300/ithaca/pubhshed - documents /Agendas /Bo
ard_of Public Works /2013/01- 2013/01- 14- 13_BPW Agenda.pdf
Several people from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) attended and
asked detailed questions pertaining to the bike lanes. A number of 3rd Ward residents who
attended made the point that our neighborhood is filled with walkers, and we should focus on
pedestrian safety. Finally, several important questions were raised about how a new traffic
light would impact the "stacking" or backing up of traffic, particularly up Mitchell Street, and
whether it would even be possible for the frequent buses to make the left turn onto College Ave,
and whether people would be able to get out of their driveways.
The Board of Public Works will be making a decision on which alternative to pursue at its
Monday, January 28 meeting, 4:45 p.m in City Hall. Please try to attend if you want to make
your opinion known.
Ellen
Ellen McCollister, Alderperson
City of Ithaca Third Ward
Page 6 of 10
Hello Tim,
The public meeting on January 15, 2013 provided useful information regarding the proposed
State/ Mitchell traffic signals. It was helpful to keep attendees in one group so that we could
hear everyone's questions and the answers to them.
While pedestrian movement at the intersection will be enhanced, I am very concerned about
whether the signal lights will worsen the situation for residents on Mitchell and State Streets
and for overall traffic circulation in the area. Attendees at the meeting raised some concerns
and questions about the following.
Potential difficulties if traffic is queued up Mitchell Street when lights at State Street are
red include problems for: 1) Mitchell Street residents to exit driveways to go downhill, 2)
cars and buses trying to enter Mitchell Street from College Avenue, 3) cars and buses
making left turns from Mitchell onto College if downhill Mitchell Street traffic blocks the
intersection 4) cars trying to make left turns from Brandon Place and similarly, 5) Blair
Street.
• The potential for cars to speed up State Street since they will be less hindered by cars
currently slowing down to make the left turn onto Mitchell. This dynamic is similar to
what occurred prior to the installation of the bump -out at Mitchell Street and Ithaca
Road when cars would race up Mitchell Street after the left turn at State Street.
• Possible difficulties for bicyclists: 1) experienced bicyclists might choose to cross two
lanes of uphill traffic even with the bike box and jug handle, a dangerous situation, and
2) less experienced riders will have to rebalance and get going on a slope from a dead
stop to head up Mitchell Street.
My impression is that there were no traffic simulations done as part of the consultant's contract,
which is disappointing given the complexity of the intersection and the potential drawbacks of
the proposed solutions. Additionally, it was reported that the number of options that could be
considered by the consultants was limited by the funds allocated by the city for study of
alternative ideas. I think this is penny -wise and pound - foolish given that that this is the third -
most heavily traveled street in the city and that a more balanced solution might be available.
I'm also disappointed with the process that was undertaken to get to this point. Private
conversations were held by city staff with the developer of the Collegetown Terrace Apartments
three years ago to discuss intersection improvements. Now it is less than a month before the
Board of Public Works is scheduled to make a final decision on the design when a meeting is
convened to include the public.
BPW members might be interested in reviewing a document entitled "Public Works
Participation Committee Final Report" prepared by the Public Works Procedures Committee in
1991. The report outlines recommendations for including public participation in public works
projects. Key items in this regard are early communication with and involvement of
Page 7 of 10
neighborhood residents. Employment of some of the ideas in the report serve to avoid the kind
of top -down planning used in the State /Mitchell intersection project currently under review.
Lastly, I hope you will consider a couple points as the project evolves and takes shape. 1) While
a preference for retaining the signal cycles during inclement weather was discussed at the
meeting, my preference is for the signals to turn yellow since it is difficult to make the left turn
onto Mitchell from a complete stop when the roadway is snowy and slippery and 2) I prefer
black poles over the metal colored poles and hope the design of the poles will be compatible
and in keeping with a residential neighborhood.
I would appreciate if this message could be passed on to the Board of Public Works for the
board's next discussion of the intersection.
Thank you.
Susan Blumenthal
305 Mitchell St.
Dear Tim,
I read about the intersection project and want to provide a few comments about it. I am glad
that this intersection is being addressed. It's been a danger point for a long time because it is so
confusing. I've been a resident of Belle Sherman since 1997 and have seen quite a few close calls.
I use this intersection nearly every day, and often several trips within one day. That being said, I
have some criticisms of the project.
The plan to make extensive concessions to bicyclists is unnecessary. There are very few
bicyclists who use this route, for obvious reasons. It's extremely steep and only the most
powerful bicyclists attempt to use pedal power to navigate the hill. It's much more common to
see bicycles carried on the front of TCAT buses. I think we should avoid experimenting with
bike boxes at intersections. Our community cannot afford it. We don't know if bike boxes work,
and our city finances are so poor that we should not spend money on unproven methodologies.
I notice that the Creighton Manning illustrations are on level ground. It would be more
descriptive to show the actual intersections with the grade element. I can't imagine how poorly
traffic would move if a bicyclist is allowed to "lead" traffic up Mitchell Street. Especially if you
consider the heavy trucks, TCAT buses, and other heavy vehicles that can barely climb the hill
as it is. I don't think all city residents should be forced to make accommodations according to
that lifestyle.
I also have to question the removal of on- street parking to accommodate bicycle lanes. Again,
there are very few bicyclists who use this route. I don't believe that many of the bicyclists are
City of Ithaca residents, so I question the use of city funding and personnel time to benefit non-
City residents. Also, as we learned with the Ithaca Road bicycle lane fiasco, city residents need
the on-street parking to allow for deliveries and for parking by contractors and guests. I think it
is unwise to eliminate on-street parking to benefit a very limited number of bicyclists. The last
point that should be made is that there appears to be a conflict of interest in the accelerating
elimination of on-street parking. Jennifer Dotson is a city council member but is also a principal
Page 8 of 10
for a private non-profit corporation, Ithaca Carshare. Ithaca Carshare has received gifts of free
on- street storage of their vehicles. The city government, of which Dotson is a member,
eliminates public on- street parking. Thus Ithaca Carshare benefits from the government's
elimination of on -street parking. It really gives the appearance of a conflict of interest and crony
capitalism.
I don't like to have to bring up that ugly topic, but this is my city government and I am
concerned about what I am seeing. Thank you for hearing my comments.
Chris Milner
To the BPW, Mayor, and Tim Logue,
Thank you, Tim, for providing clear documentation of the alternative scenarios for the
intersection of State and Mitchell Streets and for facilitating an informative and civil public
information session last week.
I am going away for the weekend and am scheduled to arrive back in Ithaca, by air, at 4:39 on
Monday. Of course I am skeptical that the flight will be on time, but even inthe best case I'll be
late for the BPW meeting. Therefore, I want to pass along these comments in advance.
It seems to me that option 2B is best suited for this intersection for the following reasons:
• The mast arms, rather than the span wires, are more attractive and offer a cleaner, more
contemporary, and more village or urban appearance. They are consistent with the
masts at the bottom of State Street. It is the span wire light at Stewart Ave and State that
is out of keeping with the set.
The island is not an attractive green space and should be eliminated. Doing so will
reduce the size of the intersection altogether and seems to me will make everything flow
more smoothly. Pedestrians and some cyclists will face one long trip rather than two
short trips, but the overall distance will be less. Waiting on the island has never been a
pleasant experience.
• The "'jug handle" for cyclists seems like a reasonable option, allows alternatives for both
experienced and inexperienced cyclists, and would not require special federal
dispensation
I share some of the concerns raised at the public information session, including these questions
and comments:
• During peak times, will traffic back up Mitchell Street such that it will block cars coming
in and out of Blair Street, Brandon Avenue, and College Avenue?
• Similarly, will residents along Mitchell Street be blocked in and face difficulty getting
into traffic from their driveways?
Page 9 of 10
• It is already a bit scary to try to cross Mitchell Street at College Avenue in the morning
on foot. If traffic is backed up, will it be even worse? Can anything be done to make
thecrosswalk more obvious?
• Will drivers coming out of Valentine Place be more tempted by traffic patterns to cut up
my street, Valley Road, to avoid the intersection entirely?
• In general, I think that more pedestrians than cyclists will want to cross this intersection,
and ensuring pedestrian safety and convenience is critical
• I also hope that everyone remembers that though this is a busy intersection, it borders
neighborhoods where people live, children play, gardens grow, pets romp, etc.
Therefore, we should also take measures to reduce automobile traffic,divert traffic (fix
Stewart Avenue in the rich and distant future), and keep traffic slow and calm.
Donna Fleming
Alderperson, Third Ward
Page 10 of 10
East State /Martin Luther King Jr. Street and Mitchell Street
Traffic Signal and Street Widening
Public Comments received from BPAC
Tim,
Thank -you for having a public meeting about the State & Mitchell intersection project. It
would have been preferable had you been able to present to the BPAC or if BPW had
allowed time after the public meeting for BPAC's meeting instead of only 3 days, so that
BPAC could have official input before BPW's decision. Nonetheless, these are my
comments.
General:
City officials should recognize that there may not be time saved for drivers by the
proposed traffic signal. Drivers who now proceed without pause through this
intersection, continuing east on 79 from downtown or going either direction between
Mitchell Street and downtown, will have to stop sometimes. Drivers who now have stop
signs may see little time savings because of the inefficiency of traffic signals - waiting for
phases to cycle through, along with their yellow lights, and limits to phases. I see no
time savings for climbing bike riders.
The main benefits to drivers will be reduced confusion and stress by elimination of the
current unusual and awkward stop and yield configuration, plus, one hopes therefore,
fewer crashes, and a more welcoming entrance to Ithaca, Collegetown, and Cornell. The
impetus and opportunity to change this intersection came from the adjacent
Collegetown Terrace development, which will add 600 students for a total of 1200
students living on the opposite side of this intersection from Cornell, so pedestrian and
bicycle safety and connectivity must be the priorities of this project. I urge BPW not to
sacrifice pedestrian or bicycle benefits to try to save time for motor vehicle drivers.
Eliminate island:
In order to make the intersection work well for pedestrians, the island should be
eliminated and the north curb line should be extended southwards. There are many
reasons:
* In two of the three crossing paths the island would be a place pedestrians must stop,
push a second button and wait a second time for lights to change in their favor. The
island would not only increase the total distance pedestrians travel from curb to curb, it
would increase the trouble to pedestrians, and it would greatly increase the time it takes
pedestrians to cross using the signals. With such an annoying, 2- stage, island- hopping
system, pedestrians would be more apt to ignore the buttons and jaywalk instead,
increasing the confusion and danger of the intersection. Note that the consultant said the
pedestrian crossing would be shorter, but this only refers to the distance and time on
Page 1 of 7
one side of the island, not the total distance and time for the pedestrian to cross the
intersection.
• At busy pedestrian times the island could get crowded and confusing.
• Should a driver lose control, pedestrians waiting on the island would be more
vulnerable than waiting on the sidewalk. The island is not a good place for an out of
control driver to crash if there are pedestrians waiting on it.
* With the island, drivers coming down Mitchell street will be aimed at pedestrians they
cannot see in advance. Without the island they will stop not oriented directly at
pedestrians in the major crosswalk.
* Eliminating the island will allow drivers coming down Mitchell to better see the traffic
signal in advance.
* Eliminating the island will make the intersection more standard, making clear that
traffic from Mitchell to State does have to stop sometimes in contrast to the current
practice.
* Eliminating the island and extending the north curb southward will make the
intersection more compact.
* Extending the north curb southward will give more room between pedestrians and the
street, or a busy times more room for groups of pedestrians to wait for a signal or to
walk away from the crosswalk after crossing.
* Extending the north curb southward will make more room for the pedestrian signal
pole.
Bike options:
This intersection appears to me to be an inappropriate place to use a bike box. The bike
box assumes that eastbound through traffic will be stopped at the same time as bike
riders and motorists awaiting a green light to turn left. However, in order to prevent
long queues, eastbound through traffic will likely be allowed to proceed when
westbound 79 traffic goes and left-turning 79- to- Mitchell traffic must stop. Therefore
bike riders would not be safe moving or waiting in the bike box in front of the
eastbound through lane during this phase when riders and motor vehicles waiting to
turn left onto Mitchell Street must stop.
The only times eastbound through traffic must stop are pedestrian crossing times and
the relatively rare left turn from Mitchell to eastbound 79 (Note: once the left turn from
Mitchell to eastbound State is facilitated by the traffic signal it may become more
common). If eastbound through traffic is in fact programmed independently of left turns
from 79 to Mitchell, then the bike box will not work, because it suggests a bike rider
should slowly and perpendicularly cross in front of a lane of potentially moving traffic
or wait for the uncommon time that through eastbound traffic is forced to stop. If there
is a bike box, perhaps it should only be marked in front of the left turn lane, to show that
riders are not necessarily safe passing or waiting in front of the through lane.
The consultant and transportation engineers have stated that strong riders have the
option to merge left out of the climbing bike lane on 79 to get to the climbing bike lane
on Mitchell and avoid the detour and detainment of waiting in the jug handle. Where
and how do they advise this? Was this suggestion that riders occupy the somewhat less
Page 2 of 7
busy eastbound through lane in order to turn left alongside left turning motor vehicles,
or was the suggestion that riders occupy the busier left turn lane which drivers use,
either by crossing the eastbound through lane at some point or by merging left from the
bike lane where the through lane starts instead of veering right to follow the bike lane
toward the curb? Despite assurances from consultants and engineers, drivers and police
may not recognize any of these as legitimate bike maneuvers, even though NYS -V &T
Article 34 Section 1234(a) allows bike riders to move left out of a bike lane when
preparing to turn left. This option sounds dubious if tried for very far, considering that
even strong climbing riders will be going far slower (about 10mph maximum, more
likely 5mph) than most motor vehicles (over 25mph), so motor vehicles could quickly
catch up to a rider who started in a gap, or get annoyed with a rider who started at the
beginning of the through lane. Therefore, expect riders to swerve left into the through
lane close to the intersection or across the through lane within the intersection when
there is any gap in that traffic. Misjudgments may be catastrophic. In order to make the
jug handle a more appealing option, it should be as little of a detour and delay as
possible.
The bike lane from the jug handle should not be so far east. Riders are not aiming at the
closest point of sidewalk as pedestrians are, but they are aiming at the bike lane on
Mitchell beyond the curve of the curb at the corner, so they should not have to double
back west around the corner as they cross the intersection. The bike button should be on
the pole for the span wire or mast arm instead of the pole which pedestrians use. Bike
riders should not ride up to waiting pedestrians to wait or push the button, and riders
should not be asked to ride so close to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
The jug handle provides a potentially slow, inconvenient, and conflicted bike signal for
the left turn onto Mitchell. To use the jug handle, riders must potentially wait for a green
light at the eastbound stop line, then enter the jug handle, then push a button and wait
an undetermined amount of time for the pedestrian and bike signal. The consultant said
that there would only be a certain time in the cycle that this walk /bike phase would
happen.
If the phase for riders from the jug handle to go up Mitchell is the same as an all-way
pedestrian phase, this presents a conflict between pedestrians going east or west across
Mitchell and riders ascending Mitchell. Since riders will be uncommon and slow, and
pedestrians relatively uncommon across this leg, is it safe to assume that they can just
work it out and cross paths despite the conflict?
If a rider in the bike lane gets a red light because of an all-way pedestrian phase which is
the same as a bike phase, can the bike rider just go? The crosswalk in front of that stop
line is apt to be the busiest, so the bike rider v pedestrian conflict would be greatest, but
not riding then would mean the maximum waiting time for the bike rider to wait, first
for an eastbound green light, in order go to the jug handle, and then wait an entire cycle
for the same all-way pedestrian phase to recur. These conflicts and inconveniences argue
for a separate bike phase which occurs shortly after the pedestrian phase, or for a bike
box which is only in front of the left -turn lane, not in front of the eastbound through
lane.
Page 3 of 7
A better bike option might be to have a bike lane continue along the right edge of the left
turn lane, such that the through lane forms to the right of the left turn bike lane.
Meanwhile a bike lane for eastbound riders and users of the jug-handle could veer to the
right, outside of the through lane, and hug the curb. It would be unfortunate if the best
option were precluded because the road width was determined before the issue was
considered.
Other issues:
Pedestrian and bike signals must be prompt and useful, or they will not be used, and
instead pedestrians and riders will disobey the law, creating confusion and danger.
Because the bike lane ends on eastbound State at this intersection, bike riders will use
the jug handle to ride illegally onto the sidewalk to continue east.
The main benefit to colored bike lanes is where drivers tend to abuse and drive on them,
such as where there is a bend in the bike lane and drivers cut the corner, or where there
is a crossing of bike and motor vehicle paths.
For efficiency all traffic signals are to change on demand and all legs will be "fully
detected ". In order for bike riders to legally go in all directions through this intersection,
there must also be bike detection in ALL lanes, including the left turn lane from State to
Mitchell.
This traffic signal, because it will change on demand, will not change to blinking yellow
or red during off hours, nor is it planned to do so for snow storms. This is good because
traffic won't be inclined to speed at night, and pedestrians can always get a protected
crossing phase.
Pedestrian lights should stop all traffic across the requested crosswalk with no right turn
on red. There was a strong call at the public meeting for a pedestrian-only phase at all
signals in the City, which the speaker said was the case in all other college towns he was
familiar with. Tim said this would slow motor traffic, and it was a policy decision, not
his call, but a decision with which he would be comfortable.
Anticipate that bike riders who use the jug handle may cut through the queues on
Mitchell in order to turn left onto Blair and later climb to College the wrong way on
Cook, rather than turning left on College just as backed up traffic on Mitchell begins
moving and left turning motor vehicles onto Mitchell catch up from behind.
There should be a contraflow bike lane on one -way Dunmoor (24' wide with parking on
the right) to allow bike riders to wait to access College from Brandon, which is fairly
level and aligned with College, and avoid having to turn left from Mitchell in potentially
heavy traffic while traveling or stopped facing uphill.
Page 4 of 7
Queue space for the left turn from Mitchell to eastbound 79 doesn't anticipate more than
2 vehicles waiting, but demand may increase when the signal makes this turn easier.
There should be street lights over the entire intersection, especially the crosswalks and
pedestrian and bike rider waiting areas.
—Dave Nutter
Additional comment:
It would be good if the bike phase is followed by the phase allowing westbound
traffic from 79 and continuing to block traffic down Mitchell and the major
source of traffic up Mitchell from eastbound 79. This might allow sufficient time
for a bike rider from the jug handle to cross the intersection, climb Mitchell, and
turn left onto College before being inundated by traffic from Mitchell from
behind and before the traffic going down Mitchell starts moving again.
- -Dave Nutter
I would also like to add some comments, many of which will be in agreement
with what Dave has said.
I, too, prefer the idea of removing the island. Doing so will compact the
intersection and make it easier for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as motorists,
to navigate it.
The jug handle option seems to make more sense here. The bike box idea seems
more appropriate for a 4 -way intersection for the reasons Dave has already
stated, primarily that red lights for EB traffic will likely be very infrequent.
However, the jug handle has drawn currently has many flaws. First, the entrance
should be extended so that cyclists do not potentially have to stop at the light
and wait before being able to enter the handle and then wait again. Also, as Dave
said, the bike lane does not need to parallel the N-S ped crossing. It should
follow the angle of Mitchell St (essentially on a diagonal). All traffic will be
stopped at the phase so this should not pose a hazard. That would then move the
entire "jug" westward and make implementing my first recommendation easier
as well.
Dave brings up a good point regarding ped /bike conflicts re: cyclists crossing
MLK heading N up Mitchell and pedestrians moving E-W across Mitchell.
Page 5 of 7
Separate phases for bikes and pedestrians seems to be the only solution but that
also means longer traffic delays for motorists. I think this issue needs more
thought.
Thanks to everyone for considering these comments.
-Garin Danner
Pedestrians:
> I have concerns for pedestrians crossing:
> waiting for more than one phase of the light is unreasonable AND unsafe, i.e.
many pedestrians, in a hurry to get to class and other places will simply choose
to NOT to wait for two phases of the light, putting into effect a policy that
encourages jaywalking.
> please make the distance the pedestrians have to cross the shortest possible
> since the island was already acknowledged by Tim Logue as being a crash
barrier for out of control automobiles, it makes it an unsafe refuge for
pedestrians as a place to wait for a second phase of the light. Perhaps curb bump -
outs could be used as long as they do not interfere with the bicycle lane
> I'm fully in favor of pushing for City policy to change to remove the confusing
green light for turns while there is a pedestrian walk signal and pedestrians who
*also* have the right of way --- drivers are not likely looking at a pedestrian
symbol, they are looking at the green light and *hopefully* pedestrians. This old
policy needs to change for this intersection and others.
> Pedestrians looking to cross at Quarry and at Eddy St with fast - moving traffic
coming down Mitchell St.
Bicycles
> I have concerns for people on bicycles
> Especially those &bound on E MLK/ E State St choosing to turn Left onto
Mitchell St. For those choosing to take the L -turn lane and continue with their
momentum, they will need to cross over one full lane and into another, while
biking uphill at a speed likely to be much lower than motor - vehicle speed.
Currently the cyclist making the same turn can move from the bike lane into the
adjacent travel lane to turn left, which is less complicated and a much lower
distance
> The jug - handle may be a good option for those who are uncomfortable with
getting into and occupying the Left Turn lane, potentially with motor vehicles
around them. The proposal for this plan where there is a possibility that a cyclist
may be forced to wait through two cycles of the light isn't reasonable. Please
Page 6 of 7
allow the design of this detainment area to be moved farther west, accessible,
prior to the stop line for the traffic light so the cyclist could stop just once at most
there. Keeping the cyclist away from people in the crosswalk keeps everyone
happy.
Thank you for keeping the project in line with achievements of the City where
we have been ranked #1 in the country by the US Census Bureau for being most
walkable. Changing a major intersection like this, especially with large numbers
of potential pedestrians across the street, will certainly have an impact on all
modes of travel. I hope that while keeping things safe for all, the priorities of
keeping the most vulnerable people, those walking and biking moving through
this area safely AND efficiently is a goal of the project and is seen as a way to
further promote the walkability and bikeability of Ithaca.
Daniel Keough
City of Ithaca Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council
Page 7 of 7
s
0
0
L
O
N
O
w
0
a
LL
ISLAND REMOVED
AND GREEN SPACE
ADDED
PEDESTRIAN
SIGNAL
HEADS
Fl
of
a
J, EAST STATE STREET
FXIUING CURB -'
ui
20 0 20 40 60 80'
I" = 40'
WIDEN ROADWAY
BY 9 FEET
/n
��
ENCROACHMENT
FEE OR P.E.
NEEDED
OT
2 MAST ARM �
SIGNALS
ti v
BICYCLE
"JUG HANDLE"
9
APPR0I�9rE
I tl
OT
II
r
\J
C,-
01 0
STREET A
TT i PROJECT: 112 -203
e
Creighton
G f
� Manning T. . NIIJER, P.C. DATE: 1l9113
FIGURE: 2.13
EAST STATE ST /MITCHELL ST
CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS
8.3A Resolution to Recommend the Elimination of Parking Minimums
WHEREAS, Common Council approved as part of the 2013 Budget, the hiring of a Director of
Parking to oversee Ithaca's public parking resources, including on- street parking, parking lots
and public garages, at a projected cost of $104,000 annually to the taxpayers, and
WHEREAS, the parking resources of the City of Ithaca operate at a loss to the taxpayers of
approximately $1,000,000 per year, and
WHEREAS, the Director of Parking will be hired on a conditional basis and be evaluated based
on their ability to generate revenue from the City's parking resources, ostensibly covering the
cost of the Director of Parking's salary, and
WHEREAS, the off - street parking required by the zoning ordinance creates a parking supply
that competes with public parking, and
WHEREAS, the proliferation of curb cuts for off - street parking and private driveways reduces
the amount of parking available to the public by effectively privatizing public street
infrastructure for exclusive use without compensation to the City, and
WHEREAS, this competing private parking supply and reduced public parking supply will
undermine the effectiveness of the new Director of Parking and reduce the parking revenue
potential for the City, and
WHEREAS, in the long term, allowing the market to provide only that parking it deems
necessary will likely tighten overall supply, thus increasing the value and revenue potential of
City -owned parking resources, and
WHEREAS, it is unfair to expect the Director of Parking to be evaluated based on performance
when the zoning policies of the City work against his /her success, and
WHEREAS, it is unfair to the taxpayers to expect them to bear an extra salary burden while
simultaneously undermining their investment with the current zoning policy, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends to Common Council that they
eliminate parking minimums City -wide in all zoning districts, so as to support the success of
the Director of Parking and maximize potential revenue from the City's parking resources.
Page 5
3.5 Creation of Director of Parking
WHERESAS, as part of the 2013 approved budget, the position of Director of Parking was
established, and
RESOLVED, That the Personnel Roster of the Department of Public Works shall be amended as
follows:
Add: Director of Parking (40 hours)
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the position of Director of Parking shall be assigned to the Managerial
Compensation Plan at salary Grade 3, and be it further
RESOLVED, That for the sole purpose of determining days worked reportable to the New York
State and Local Employees' Retirement System, the standard workday for this position shall be
established at eight (8) hours per day (forty (40) hours per week).
J:1DRedsickerlAGENDAS1City Admin Comm\201311 -23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
CA Item 3.5
City of Ithaca
Office of the Chamberlain
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Ph: 607 274 -6580 Fax: 607 272 -7348
To: City Administration Committee
From: Debra Parsons, City Chamberlain
Re: Director of Parking
Date: January 10, 2013
The Ad Hoc Parking Committee requests the creation of a Director of Parking, to report to the
Superintendent of Public Works.
I have included here a list of issues whose resolution might best be addressed by the Parking Director, a job
description, current and proposed organizational structure, and the original analysis.
RESOLVED, that the Personnel Roster of the Department of Public Works shall be amended as follows:
Add: Director of Parking (40 hours)
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the position of Director of Parking shall be assigned to the Managerial Compensation
Plan at salary grade 3, and be it further
RESOLVED, that for the sole purpose of determining days worked reportable to the New York
State and Local Employees' Retirement System, the standard workday for this position shall be
established at eight (8) hours per day (forty (40) hours per week).
Issues for the Parking Director
CA Item 3.5
Installation of Paystations
The City authorized $50,000 in 2012 and $200,000 in 2013 for the purchase of paystations to
replace and/or supplement the current single space parking meters. No purchases were made in 2012.
Installation of paystations requires thought, expertise, and follow -up. Where should the stations be located
to be the most effective? Small surface lots, such as the West State Street lot by Family Medicine?
Heavily parked streets such as Cayuga Street? Collegetown, where dynamic pricing has been
recommended to manage the utilization of on- street parking, not just during the regular daytime hours, but
hours extended into the evening? Who will work with users and merchants to make sure the paystations
are marketed correctly? Where should signs be placed? Who is going to service the machines and collect
money? While certainly there is current staff that could direct the installation and make these decisions,
those with the greatest knowledge of the factors that go into making these decisions do not supervise the
parking lot attendants, DPW work crews or the CSO's.
In 2011 we installed paystations in the Green Street surface lot. Prior to their installation, we were
collecting $186.07 per month per space. After their installation, we were collecting $280.10 per month per
space. In 2012 we collected $357.47 per month per space. In comparison, in 2010 we isolated the parking
meter collections for Collegetown for the month of October. We collected $72.97 per month per space.
First, we would expect a parking manager to look at these numbers on a routine and regular basis. (The
isolation of the revenues collected from the various areas was done at the direction of the City Chamberlain
in preparation for the Rich study.) Second, why is there such a great discrepancy in the per space revenues
between the Green Street surface lot and Collegetown? Third, if we used the industry average increase in
revenues after installation of paystations of 20 %, we could expect an increase of $26,280 per year for the
meters in Collegetown. If we use our experience and the difference between 2010 and 2011 for the Green
Street surface lot, we could expect an increase of $67,000 per year. If the City were to collect $280.10 per
month per space in Collegetown, the increase in annual revenue would be $372,000. This is just on- street
parking in Collegetown.
It has pretty much become the consensus of city staff that parking pay stations should replace on-
street meters and meters in parking lots throughout the City. They provide flexibility for payment, revenue
control, reporting, and pricing. The pay back period on these machines seems to be a year or two and so
there is little reason not to roll them out across the City, not just for enhanced parking revenue, but also to
provide a greater convenience to the public (credit card or cash purchase instead of quarters). The
flexibility to set prices based on demand by different seasons, days of the week or even times of day make
them the future of on- street paid parking. However, as noted above, there are a host of questions to answer
as we roll out the machines. Without the leadership of dedicated staff, the effort is likely to have significant
setbacks.
Coordination of Enforcement
The Community Service Officers (CSO's) report to the Police Department, as shown on the
attached current organizational chart. If the enforcement personnel reported to the same person as the other
parking personnel, greater coordination of efforts would occur. For instance, looking at the current and
proposed organizational charts, there are eight parking lot attendants and five Community Service Officers.
Four lot attendants might not be needed if automated equipment were to be installed in the Dryden Road
Garage. Two of those positions could then be dedicated to enforcement of extended on -street hours in
Collegetown, with a net savings of two positions for the City. This type of coordination will never happen
unless all parking related personnel report to one person.
Recently, it was discovered by the Parking Operations Supervisor that an individual was routinely
parking in the Green Street surface lot without paying the appropriate fees. He spoke to the Sr. Community
Service Officer, who told him that ten tickets need to be issued to the vehicle in order to boot it, and there
was nothing he could do. There was no discussion about how often the vehicle could be ticketed, how
many tickets had been issued to the vehicle, or even if the pay receipts that were present in the vehicle were
valid (they often are not, according to the Parking Operations Supervisor). This is a perfect example of
how a better outcome would occur if both individuals reported to the same person.
CA Item 3.5
Coordination of On- Street and Off - Street Public Parking
On- street parking is for the most part controlled by the Engineering Office, with Streets &
Facilities support for implementation. Off - street parking is for the most part controlled by Streets and
Facilities, except for capital projects for repair or construction, which are run out of the Engineering Office.
Neither division of Public Works is particularly trained or focused on managing parking as a business, but
rather as a part of our infrastructure. There is no coordination of pricing or staffing for the two related
parking activities, except as it occurs through a committee that meets once a month.
Parking management theory says that on- street parking should be priced such that 15% of spaces
are available at any given time, reducing congestion caused by vehicles circling to find a space, and off -
street parking should be priced in such a way as to remove long term parkers from the equation.
Anecdotally, we believe that parkers in Collegetown move their vehicles from off - street parking spaces
utilized during the day to on- street parking spaces in the evening. On- street parking is consequently
underutilized during the day hours, and unavailable in the evening hours. Why? What could be done so
that the asset is managed in such a way as to provide 15% of the spaces available during the day and
evening, increasing revenues during the day and increasing spaces (again, thereby decreasing traffic
congestion) in the evening? Who is currently on staff that has the time, the knowledge, and the authority to
make the changes to implement a corrective policy?
Staff was tasked with making recommendations to the Board of Public Works for parking prices
for 2013. We discussed the permit pricing in the Dryden Road Garage in light of recent downward trends
in permit sales for the garage. We believed we might have priced ourselves out of the market, but if so, by
how much? Or are potential permit holders using free on- street parking instead? Have our patrons found a
method to get around paying for parking in the garage but still parking there? These are questions that
Public Works as it is structured is not particularly well positioned to answer. A Parking Director would be
able to work directly to answer them.
Elimination of Parking Requirements
As Common Council considers the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance to eliminate
minimum parking requirements, one concern raised already is about the possibility of spillover parking in
nearby neighborhoods or other unintended consequences. A Parking Director would be well positioned to
track impacts, complaints, and collect data about the impacts of eliminating parking requirements.
Additionally, where paid parking is proximate, the parking director can make adjustments to pricing of
City -owned parking to react to changes in on- street parking dynamics. Without a Parking Director, there
will be no one person focused on parking patterns, data collection, and pricing and the City will have a
weaker capacity to track changes related to parking requirements and the impacts on streets, garages, and
neighborhoods.
Parking Equipment Purchases
In addition to the pay stations noted above, the City of Ithaca must occasionally make large scale
purchases on parking access and revenue control equipment (PARC), including gates, spitter ticket
machines, prox card readers, credit card machines, cash registers, and software packages and
communications equipment for DPW and the Finance Office. The last time the City purchased equipment,
we did not spend much effort on developing a set of goals and objectives for the purchase and from that
information developing a set of specifications for what we wanted the equipment to do. Due to staff
inexperience and the lack of a coordinated approach, we have been struggling now for years to make our
equipment do what it should. The Seneca St garage and Dryden Rd garage equipment is about 8 years old
and the Green St garage equipment is about 5 years old. We can expect that PARC equipment will not last
more than 10 years before needing replacement at a cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The
Cayuga St garage is right now going through the process of buying new PARC equipment. It would be very
CA Item 3.5
wise of the City to have a dedicated person to focus on procuring the best equipment for the City and avoid
the problems of the past decade.
Though no real direction has formed, there has also been some discussion in City Hall about the
possibility of running our garages without parking attendants. Garage users would pull a ticket upon
entering and carry their ticket with them. When preparing the leave, the person would stop by a machine
located conveniently near the pedestrian entrance to the garage, pay by cash or charge, and then have a set
amount of time (15 min, say) to drive out of the garage. This arrangement for attendant -less garages is
becoming more and more common in cities. In Ithaca, it may allow us to reduce our workforce a bit, but
also, perhaps, to reassign attendants into other roles, whether it is routine garage maintenance or into
additional enforcement for extended hours at pay stations. A Parking Director would be critical to lead
changes such as these.
Parldng Agreements with Businesses
The City has numerous agreements with businesses and governmental agencies downtown. Some
of the agreements are very complicated and not necessarily beneficial from an operational perspective.
Staff expects that as downtown construction continues, more parking agreements will be requested and
made with new hotels, businesses, apartments, and others. In order to get functional agreements that protect
the interests of the City of Ithaca and its taxpayers, it would be wise to have a Parking Director to propose
or review such agreements (or to take the lead on proposing modifications to existing agreements). As it
stands, there is not a coordinated leadership position in the City to focus on the terms and details of parking
agreements.
Parking Management in the City of Ithaca
The Business Case
CA Item 3.5
In 2011, the City of Ithaca parking system (including all parking garages and meters) generated over $2 million
in revenue, with greater expenses. Parking is a business in the City. We manage it as infrastructure. At least
four departments are regularly involved in the management of parking leading to duplication of effort and no
clear path to reach desired outcomes. Each involved department approaches parking from a different
perspective, with different goals: those that maintain the parking meters aim for consistency in pricing across
the City for efficiency's sake, while other departments explore and advocate for dynamic pricing; a payment to
a vendor was withheld by the Chamberlain's office for perceived poor performance after another department
had negotiated a resolution; an agreement to provide the Hilton Hotel patrons with parking paid by the Hotel,
without careful consideration of the operational issues, has caused problems of putting the agreement into action
for the City and for the Hotel.
There is a disconnect between construction and operational issues, such as the City's ongoing management of
the trash receptacles under the Green Street garage, taken over during the reconstruction but never transferred to
private management as was originally intended, or the failure to fix the cable barriers in Green Street garage, a
product of poor design during construction but an operational headache now.
Parking is a field of expertise. Managing parking as infrastructure ignores issues of pricing, promotion, and the
relationship of on- street to off - street parking. The office that is most concerned with revenue control doesn't
supervise those that collect the money, and since appropriate revenue control often conflicts with operational
ease, enforcement of the controls is problematic. The police department enforces parking regulations, but often
enforcement doesn't follow parking policy, such as 24 hour enforcement of the Green Street surface lot.
The Ad -Hoc Parking Committee believes the City needs to improve the way it manages parking, to maximize
revenues and further the City's transportation and land -use goals.
The Options
Status Quo- make some variation of the Ad Hoc Committee permanent
Mayor Peterson appointed an Ad Hoc Parking Committee in 2010. As has been previously reported, the
committee looked at developing a parking mission statement, developed a checklist to use when making
changes to parking regulations or rates, and researched and reviewed methods of parking management. The
committee expects it will continue, at least until or unless another method of parking management is put in
place.
PROS
No increase to current cost of operations, other than the time cost of meeting
Path of least resistance
CA Item 3.5
• Avoids the uncertainty of change
CONS
• Parking remains the "eighth priority" for the five departments most involved in parking operations
(Public Works, Planning, Controller, Chamberlain, and Police)
• No additional revenues (the City can change rates or hours of operation, but no one is fully
responsible for understanding the business dynamics of parking)
• Continued loss of revenues due to outdated or broken hardware
• No improvements to the City's interface with the parking public (customer service, appearance, etc.)
• Continued deferment of routine maintenance (sweeping, washing, etc.)
• Duplication of effort, such as the work of DPW installing pay stations as Planning investigates their
use
• Work at cross purposes, such as the recent efforts to manage the Ber- National contract
• No one management level person to make and implement decisions, such as expanding enforcement
of Green Street surface lot
City contracts for private management of parking operations
The committee asked All -Pro Parking, the operator of the Cayuga Garage, to provide the committee with a draft
proposal for management of the City's parking garages and parking meters. We asked them to show us what
the City might expect to spend and to realize in revenues if we contracted with an outside firm to manage our
parking resources.
All -Pro provided three different scenarios to manage parking garages; management using current City staff,
management using All -Pro staff, and management as an agent of the City, which allows us to keep off -street
parking sales tax exempt but requires that the City to grant the operator authority to legally commit the credit of
the City in order to make exempt purchases on the City's behalf. They did provide an estimated monthly fee to
manage parking meters, although the document did not detail what the fee would cover. In all three cases, they
estimated an increase in revenues of 8 %, or approximately $95,000 per year using 2010 revenues. Using City
staff, they estimated a decrease in annual garage losses of $22,000. Using All -Pro staff, the decrease in annual
losses was $122,000, and using All -Pro staff, operating as an agent of the City, the estimated decrease in losses
was $183,000, the difference being the projected avoided sales -tax on revenues when All -Pro is acting as an
agent of the City. All -Pro estimates non - supervisory salaries at half the City's actual, and health insurance at a
tenth of the City's apportioned cost. Supervisory salaries are estimated at about one -third more than the City
attributes to the parking garages. Management fees ranged from about $45,000 per year to $80,000.
PROS
• Hiring expertise, with prior training and track record; "professionals" in the parking business
• Depending on construct, may be outside of City benefit and wage constraints, retirement
liabilities
• Parking doesn't end up sacrificed as the lowest priority in multiple departments' work schedule
and budget
CONS
CA Item 3.5
• Framework for promotion of parking already in place
• Framework for customer service training already in place
• If All -Pro is chosen from RFP or bid documents, may see financial efficiencies for all garages
• Professionals may have more credibility when recommending changes to pricing, hours, etc.
• More clout with hardware vendors
• Cost. Expenses at Cayuga Garage are proportionally more
• Since much of the savings is the cost of health insurance, effect of Health Care Reform Act on future
expenses unknown
• Reluctance to privatize, process of transferring management of City personnel to private company,
or negotiation to privatize
• Still need someone to manage contract, audit operations
City contracts with consultant to train our staff to manage garages
All -Pro also drafted a proposal to provide City staff with training to better manage its off - street parking assets.
For about $80,000, they would provide 40 hours of on -site consulting per month for the first year, and 10 hours
per month for year two and year three. They would assess the City's current status, recommend improvements
and train City staff in relation to general operations, financial and administrative considerations, marketing,
human resources, repair and maintenance, and long -term planning.
PROS
CONS
• Hiring expertise, with prior training and track record; "professionals" in the parking business
• Train City staff to perpetuate improvements
• Framework for promotion of parking already in place
• Framework for customer service training already in place
• More clout with hardware vendors
• Similar opportunity of increased revenues to other provided scenarios
• Short-term cost, without major changes to City staffing structure. Easy to change direction
• Cost
• Parking still ends up sacrificed as the lowest priority in multiple departments' work schedule and
budget
• Serving in advisory capacity. In order to get maximum benefit, City personnel must act on and
retain training; buy -in
• Consultant would be training us to be their competitors in parking management
CA Item 3.5
Create Division of Parking in DPW; hire a Director of Parking
Under this option, existing City staff, including those in the garages, parking meter maintenance staff, and
enforcement personnel would be consolidated into one division, under the supervision of a new Director of
Parking or Assistant Superintendent. The intent would be to hire a parking professional to manage on and off
street parking.
PROS
• Four departments reduce their time commitment to parking, freeing time for other activities and to
strengthen their roll as advisors to as opposed to participant in parking management
• Manage regular maintenance schedule
• Manage vendor contracts related to parking garages and lots
• Manage parking attendants
• Manage on- street parking systems and enforcement, to align goals
• Greater focus on appearance of garages, booths and grounds
• More efficient management of garages could produce more revenues; using All -Pro's numbers,
$95,000 in garage revenues, $57,000 in meter revenues
• Hiring expertise; manage parking as a business
• May be able to avoid ongoing consultant expenses, such as the City's current Rich and Associates
$50,000 contract
CONS
• Cost of additional staff— Assistant Superintendent or step below
• Possible need for support staff
• Additional budget lines for office expenses, contracts, etc.
• Office space — City Hall, a garage
• Enlarging government - long term impact on retirement, insurance liabilities
• Success depends on finding good applicants; making good candidate choice
The Committee's recommendation
The committee recommends the creation of a Division of Parking within the Department of Public Works, to be
hired for a conditional period. If, as we believe, the reorganization and change to management improves
revenues to the extent the committee believes is possible, the position will pay for itself. If it does not, we can
revert to the current organizational structure, with the exception that enforcement personnel would remain
within Public Works, and re- evaluate our options at that time.
CA Item 3.5
Hiring a parking director will solve many of our ongoing issues. It will make parking the 1' priority of a
manager level position. We can hire expertise in the business of parking. By consolidating parking operations
within one division, it allows us to align goals and expected outcomes by using resources in one department.
We can expect improvement in the public face of our parking, so that customer service becomes a priority. We
expect an increase in revenues. And the Superintendent will be supervising a City employee, with easier
recourse if performance does not meet expectations.
The financial implications of this move are expected to be positive for the City. Based on feedback from a
private sector parking management company, it is expected that the City could increase revenues from its
parking structures on the order of $100,000 per year. With additional focus on the on- street parking systems
(meters and, soon, pay stations), it is expected that an additional $60,000, approximately, could be raised.
Lastly, the City does spend money on consultants and parking studies; most of these are capital expenses, so the
annualized cost of this work is probably not more than a few thousand dollars per year.
On the cost side, it is expected than a Director of Parking type title would command a salary in the $60,000 to
$80,000 range. Benefit packages for such an employee would cost about an additional 40 %. There would also
be a normal, additional office cost, say $2,000 per year. Lastly, because the City wants this person to stay on top
of current technologies and management practices, it would be very wise to allow for a travel/training budget, at
least for the first few years, on the order of $4,000 per year. There may be some one -time costs to furnish an
office space or for reorganizing existing work areas as other working groups (namely, garage attendants and
Community Service Officers) are moved around.
With these expected costs and benefits, it is expected that the City of Ithaca would see an annual net positive
revenue of approximately $59,000. This is shown below.
Cost Type
Cost
Benefit Type
Benefit
Parking Director Sal
$70,000
Additional Garage Revenue
$100,000
Benefits
$28,000
Add'l On- street Revenue
$60,000
Office & Training
$6,000
Capitalized studies forgone
$3,000
TOTAL
$104,000
TOTAL 1
$163,000
Next steps
If the Board and Common Council agree, we will need to:
• Assign a staff person to "own" the process of setting up this department
• Write job specs and set a salary
• Determine an organizational structure
• Determine which employees would be moved to the new division
• Determine which job duties within other departments will be transferred to the new division
• Complete the hiring process
ai
Ei
v
d
U
a
i
L
i
U
C
a
L
c
N
M
N
i
W
N
L_
U
i
Cl)
CL
O
CLL.
C
CL
0
0
aUi
D
L
L
0 O
0
O
U
c
CD o
c
a�
c �
�L
m- n
co o
c
CD
c
C
W
c
Y
L
co
a
0
L
0
c�
m
0
U-
ca
L
CD W �y
Q
VJ
CO) O
E
U
P �Y
0
y
cc .0
d
o
o
.�
m
O
C
aN
Q
Cl)
�_ 3
c
=
i
0
CL
-F
O
�
LS
L� cm
r
L
U
n.
CO) O
X
U
O
COO)
U
9.1 Parkins Benefit Districts Discussion — Possible Resolution
Resolution recommending the establishment of Parking Benefit Districts
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works has been underfunded for at least a decade due
to fiscal constraints, resulting in deferred maintenance on key infrastructure components,
including roads, bridges, stormwater structures, sidewalks and equipment, and
WHEREAS, the property tax cap and unfunded State mandates have limited Common
Council's ability to allocate taxpayer funding for public works, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works is already confronting the mounting burden of
deferred maintenance and the need to expand and improve certain infrastructure due to
development, climate change and to maintain neighborhood quality of life, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works will be considering public funding of sidewalks, which
will add a significant expense if approved by the electorate, and
WHEREAS, existing public on and off street parking infrastructure offers a potential source of
public revenue which is currently underutilized, and
WHEREAS, Parking Benefit Districts, where streets are metered wherever there is parking
demand, and revenue from meters is spent within the neighborhood in which it is collected,
have proven successful at supplementing infrastructure funding in other cities, and
WHEREAS, on- street parking is in high demand, either by commuters or student renters, in a
number of Ithaca neighborhoods, be it therefore
RESOLVED, That The Board of Public Works recommends Common Council consider the use
of Parking Benefit Districts in neighborhoods which have high parking demand, as a means of
funding much needed infrastructure improvements, including sidewalks, public open space,
and bike and transit infrastructure.
Page 6