HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-10 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
Wednesday, January 6, 2009
*Common Council Chambers*
1. Power to Act - Approval of Minutes — Resolution — 5 minutes
November 18, 2009, Board of Public Works Voting Minutes
4. Green Street Garage Exit Sight Distance — Discussion — 10 minutes
This item was originally placed on the agenda for November 4, and December 2,
its but was not discussed. Attached are the materials already distributed with the
November 4, 2009, agenda.
6. Trash Facility Agreement with Center Ithaca — Update — 10 minutes
As a continuation of the discussion the Board held on September 16, 2009, City
Attorney Hoffman will provide an update regarding the development of a request for
proposals for privatizing the trash and recycling facility under the Green Street Garage.
For your information:
Water Plant Design and Construction — Update — A meeting was held on Wednesday,
December 23, 2009, between representatives • O'Brien & Gere, the Mayor, City
Attorney, Controller, and the Superintendent. A positive exchange of information,
questions, and concerns occurred. Some additional information is being collected, but is
Page 1
largely stalled by the holidays. I expect to be able to update the Board during the
meetings in January.
Encroachment for 934 Stewart Avenue — Update — This has been • several agendas. A
field visit was recommended. At this point, I expect to put it • the voting meeting
agenda, January 13, 2010.
Use of City Owned Property — Update — The Board needs to become familiar with the
appraisal process and be ready to adopt valuations for use of property in January. Please
expect a presentation by the appraiser on January 13, 2010.
MGP Investigation at IAWWTP Site — Attached is the most recent Fact Sheet from
NYSDEC on the Ithaca-based Manufactured Gas Process (MGP) Cleanup Program,
which announces the start up of their investigation of the "First Street Site." That site is
now largely within the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant site, having been cut off
from First Street in the intervening years by the railroad and the "new" Route 13.
WJ. Gray
December 30, 2009
Page 2
M"INEFff. =-FIIl[;:]l :: I�li��Iilijjiijjiil��111� 1 1111111
s t- Ar
WHEREAS, sidewalk defect notice was sent on June 29, 2007 to the owner, and
WHEREAS, Ann Erlich
• behalf • the MDLD Family Ltd. Partnership sent a letter dated
February 25, 2009, spoke at the public hearing held on March 4, 2009 and sent a follow-up
email to appeal the assessment; and
WHEREAS, a subcommittee of the Board of Public Works has met with staN and reviewed
information provided by staff and by Ann Erlich • behalf • the owner regarding the appeal;
•
RESOLVED, That the Board recognizes that city's contractor completed the sidewalk
replacement work, and determines that the owner is responsible for payment; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Board hereby denies the request to expunge the sidewalk assessment
for 122-124 Linn Street and be it forther
RESOLVED, That the total sidewalk assessment including the 25% penalty shall remain at
$2,147.81.
Page 3
tANNIM, a =Or*71 tly--T-� 11=-11[
WHEREAS, James W Carroll, owner of 128 Linn Street, received a 2008 sidewalk
assessment for sidewalk work completed adjacent to his property, and
WHEREAS, James W Carroll filed a written assessment appeal dated February 9, 2009 or
the basis that he was charged for a partial slab of sidewalk adjacent to an adjoining parcel,
and
1111 IN go A f; I (Lei on M tolvi N 1.116 0 41INKSAY"MIMIN WIMIM11:10rulujifigmil 0 q - - 0 0 11r.311MOMAS -
RESOLVED, That the Board recognizes that city's sidewalk crew completed the sidewalk
replacement work, and determines that the owner was incorrectly charged for a small area
sidewalk adjacent to an adjoining parcel and be it further I
RESOLVED, That the Board hereby adjusts the assessment to correct the error in
measurement at 128 Linn Street resulting in a final assessment including the 25%
administrative fee required by City Code of $ 1,211.81.
• s s' 4t � 1 s s - -• !t
WHEREAS, a sidewalk defect notice for 407 North Aurora Street was sent to the owner in
2007, and
Carlson WHEREAS, Patricia protested - dated February It•
• by •- • at the Public • held on it• and
I Is Ito] 9 a I bl� I I Lela 0 Ofteikyj I* tZ10 &*JAI mr-Kolvivi 2 rgdrv., I@ Lit In t.; I IN 11 1 w*e -
RESOLVED, :t. • recognizes that City's sidewalk s s -:• the sidewalk
replacement work at 405 and 407 North Aurora Street, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board hereby denies the request to expunge the sidewalk assessmenI
for 40 • Aurora Street and reduces the assessment for • • and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the new assessments including the 25% administrative fee required by City
Code are:
Page 5
Tax Parcel #w
Assessment
405 N. Aurora St
Patricia Ca Ison
407 N. Aurora St
Patricia Carlson
Page 5
CITE' OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 -6590
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/274 -6587
TO: Board of Public Works
FROM: Addisu Gebre
DATE: 12/11/2009
RE: East Clinton St. Bridge Rehabilitation and Prospect St. Reconstruction Project
Project Achievements
1. At this time, the consultant is still waiting for the Geotechnical Report. But what they have determined
through their series of meetings with the City is:
(a) The `No Build' option is not a feasible alternative. It does not address the structural deficiencies
of the bridge, nor is the bridge currently wide enough to accommodate shared lanes or an uphill
bicycle lane.
(b) The Rehabilitation option is not feasible. Based on the non - redundancy of the bridge and history
of red / yellow flags, replacement is justified. Additionally, rehabilitation would not allow for
accommodation of shared lanes or a bicycle lane.
(c) Superstructure replacement is not feasible due to the fact that the new superstructure would be
heavier than the existing superstructure and there is little to no information on the geometry of, or
structural reinforcement within, the existing abutments. Therefore, they cannot ensure that the
existing substructure has the ability to support a new superstructure.
Based on the above summary, a new superstructure and substructure will be required to satisfy the project
objectives. What still needs to be determined (after receiving the geotechnical report) is if the new
substructure will be constructed in the same location as the existing substructure, or if a new substructure
can be built behind the existing substructure.
2. The Consultant has progressed the Draft Design Report as far as possible without the Geotechnical
Report being submitted to them.
3. The consultant has coordinated with Ravi Engineering (The Sub - Consultant) and provided them
required information necessary for them to:
a. Prepare the Environmental portion of the Design Report
b. Update the survey mapping (will require additional field survey) to reflect the
underground utility locations provided to them in the form of record plans from the
utility companies at the Stakeholders Meetings, field survey the boring locations, and
additional mapping at the S. Aurora Street intersection (necessary to investigate the
removal /modification of the island).
.Schedule .Statement
Project is currently on schedule for a beginning construction date of March 1, 2011.
Budget Statement
It is anticipated that the project will be completed within the current budget, with the exception of
previously noted out —of —scope items and additional project meetings that were not anticipated.
Amendments are being prepared.
® Continue development of the draft Design report.
® Coordinate and obtain borings and Geotechnical design Parameters.
® Prepare for and attend Project and Board Meetings (Tentatively scheduled for January b,
2009) to discuss and obtain approval of the roadway alignment and bridge replacement
alternative and conceptual cost estimates.
2
wto �� Page 1 of 4
A dd i su Gebre - East Clinton Cl
street Bridge a 2�1c)
From: "Mark A. Hugaboom" <mhugaboom @DELTAENGINEERS.COM>
To: Addisu Gebre <agebre @cityofithaca.org>
Date: 12/16/2009 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: East Clinton street Bridge
CC: Jeremiah Shaw <jshaw @DELTAENGINEERS.COM>
10 am on Friday would work for me, if it is still a good time for you and Bill. Should we call your phone
or Bill's when we have the conference call?
The topics we would like to discuss include:
(1) Board Meeting Presentation. It is my understanding through our discussions that the
content of the presentation should be similar to that of the Public information Meeting, with
the following exceptions:
a. Provide a more detailed explanation of the bridge options. Based on the below
summary of options, is it correct to assume that a verbal explanation of why each
alternative with the exception of full bridge replacement is not acceptable without
cost estimates? Are we correct to assume that the shoulder break cost estimate for
the proposed bridge is appropriate for the meeting?
i. No Build - The `No Build' option is not a feasible alternative. It does not
address the structural deficiencies of the bridge, nor is the bridge wide
enough to accommodate a shared lane and a bicycle lane.
ii. Rehabilitation — The rehabilitation option is not feasible. Based on the
non - redundancy of the bridge and history of red / yellow flags ,
replacement is justified. Additionally, rehabilitation would not allow for
accommodation of a shared lane and a bicycle lane.
iii. Superstructure Replacement — Superstructure replacement is not
feasible due to the fact that the new superstructure would be heavier than
the existing superstructure and there is no information on the geometry of,
or structural reinforcement within, the existing abutments. Therefore, we
cannot ensure that the existing substructure has the ability to support a
new superstructure.
iv. Complete Bridge Replacement - A new superstructure and substructure
will be required to satisfy the project objectives.
b. Develop display drawings illustrating the proposed detour routes.
(2) Proposed Abutment Locations. We previously mentioned that it may be possible to
`cut down' the existing abutments and construct new abutments behind the existing
abutments, with the existing abutments serving as a retaining wall between the new
file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \agebre \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4B28FF36coim... 12/17/2009
Page 2 of 4
abutments and the waterway. Prior to investigating this option further (including obtaining
input from the State) , we would like to obtain the City's input regarding its feasibility
based on the following concerns:
i. There is no information on the geometry of, or structural
reinforcement within, the existing abutments. Therefore, we could not
provide any engineering proof that the existing abutments would be stable
when acting as a retaining structure.
ii. The existing abutments, which would require repair as part of the
project if retained, would need to be maintained in the future.
iii. The existing abutments would need to be removed to an elevation
which would provide adequate access to the new abutments and
bearings for inspection and future maintenance activities. By lowering the
top elevation of the existing abutments, the height of the new abutments
would also increase.
iv. Additional utility impacts would result from increasing the span of the
bridge.
v. By placing the bridge bearing behind the existing abutment, this would
place the bearing in a "pocket" between the adjacent retaining walls.
Please call if you would like us to be prepared to discuss any other topics during the conference
call.
Mark A. Hugaboo , PE
Project Manager
Delta Engineers, Architects, & band Surveyors, P.C.
184 Court Street
Binghamton, blew Voris 13901 -3515
Tel: 607.231.6602 Fax: 607.231.6650
Web: www.deltaenginecrs.com
We are a seamless extension of our clients' organizations
From: Addisu Gebre [ mailto:agebre @cityofrthaca.org]
Seat: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:37 PM
To: Mark A. Hugaboom
Subject: RE: East Clinton street Bridge
2M
file://C:\Documents and Settings \agebre\Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4B28FF36coim... 12/17/2009
CITY O 4 [
"{8 East Green Street 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, City Transportation Engineer
Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer i(d�
Date: October 29, 2009
Re: Green Street Garage Exit Sight Distance and
East Green Street Cycling Study
Initiation of Study
During the September 9, 2009 BPW meeting, the Board asked staff to conduct a
study of sight lines at the entrance /exit to the Green Street Parking Garage,
concerned that sightlines might be obscured by vehicles parked along the curb.
Additionally, the Board asked staff to look at bicycling conditions along East
Green Street in the vicinity of the garage, particularly on the left side of the street.
Study Contents
This study includes the following sections: 1) Description of Existing Conditions,
2) Driveway Data and Observations, 3) Bicycling Conditions, 4) Possible Actions,
and 5) Recommendations.
Description of Existing Conditions
East Green Street is an urban minor arterial
owned by the New York State Department of
Transportation. The segment between South
Cayuga Street and East State Street carries
approximately 9,000 vehicles per day,
including a relatively high percentage of
heavy vehicles such as trucks and buses.
Traffic is controlled by traffic signals at both
ends of this approximately 1,400 foot long
block, as well as by a mid -block signal at the
pedestrian crossing near the garage elevator
and stairs. There are seven driveways in this
segment (City Hall parking lot, the Green
Street surface lot, Green Street garage, service
alley for Center Ithaca, old Tioga Street,
Tompkins County Mental Health, and the
service driveway for the Rothchild's
building). Along the curbline on the north
Figure 1: The segment of East Green
Street under study.
Page 1 of 10
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." $ ®�®
side of the street are: 1) about seven 15- minute parking spaces in front of City
Hall, 2) a truck loading zone and Ithaca Carshare spot just west of the mid -block
signal, and 3) four metered parking spaces between the mid -block signal and the
garage driveway. Along the southern curbline are: 1) approximately four 15-
minute parking spaces in front of the library, 2) TCAT bus loading zones on both
sides of the mid -block signal, and 3) a short pull -off in front of the Mental Health
building. From the north curb to the south curb line, there are: an 8 -foot wide
parking lane, two 12 -foot wide travel lanes, a 5.5 -foot wide bicycle lane, and an
8.5 -foot wide bus/ parking lane.
Driveway Data and Observations
This study considers three factors about the driveway to the Green Street Parking
Garage, namely stopping sight distance, intersection sight triangles, collision
history and parking utilization.
1. Stopping sight distance considerations. Based on the posted 30 mph speed
limit, AASHTO's (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets recommendations a stopping sight distance of 200 feet. (Vehicles
traveling at 25 mph, 35 mph or 40 mph would require around 155 ft, 250 ft or
305 ft, respectively). If a car is traveling along Green Street at 30 mph, the
driver would need about 200 feet to recognize an obstruction, decide to apply
the brakes, and bring the car to a stop.
Currently, the stopping sight distance for East Green Street is at least 250 feet.
As one can see in Figure 2, a motorist can see the garage driveway or an
object in the road at this location. Thus, this stretch of East Green Street has
adequate stopping sight distance.
Figure 2: Approximately 200 feet from the garage driveway.
Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10
2. Intersection Sight Triangles. As the abovementioned AASHTO book notes,
"Driveways are, in effect, intersections and should be designed consistent
with their intended use." If we are to treat the Green St garage driveway as an
intersection, we can then look at the sight distance for traffic exiting the
garage, looking upstream toward approaching traffic on East Green Street.
Based on the discussion of sight triangles in Chapter 9 of the AASHTO book,
it is recommended to have an open sight triangle for approximately 335 feet
along Green Street (using a 35 mph design speed and a time gap of 6.5 sec for
a turn into a near lane) and extending back into the driveway from at least 14
feet up to where the stop sign is, approximately 26 feet back from the curb.
This sight triangle does not exist for this
location. On the driveway approach,
there is a portion of the parking garage
in the triangle, especially from the stop
sign location (see Figure 5).
If the vehicle pulls up to the end of the
driveway, the leg of the triangle
extending into the driveway is about 14
feet long, but the length along Green
Street remains the same. At least three
of the four metered parking spaces
would be in this triangle.
Figure 5: View from garage exit when
stopped at stop sign.
The AASHTO design guidance suggests that that if the intersection sight
triangle is free from obstructions, then "most major -road drivers should not
need to reduce speed to less than 70 percent of their initial speed." Thus, this
triangle is meant to minimize the impacts of driveway departures on the
operations of the major street (East Green Street in this case). If the sight
triangle is not available, one would expect the driveway to have a greater
impact on the operations of the major street, meaning if motorists nose out of
the driveway, motorists on Green Street are likely to slow down and
anticipate some movement. As Green Street motorists slow, their stopping
sight distance would be reduced as well.
It is important to point out that such AASHTO intersection sight distances are
not always present in the City of Ithaca, and, for that matter, many other
urban areas. Buildings may be built out to the corner, much valued on- street
parking, or quality of life enhancing landscaping may diminish desired sight
lines. Section 325 -17(B) and (C) of the City Code addresses visibility at
Page 4 of 10
intersections and obstructions that may be dangerous to traffic; though these
seem to relate more to smaller, residential streets. According to the Code's
guidance, there should be at least 30 feet of sight distance in both directions at
intersections. In some cases, not having the desired sight lines can pose a
problem, but in many cases it does not. Drivers likely slow down and pay
more attention to the roadway and to other drivers.
3. Collision History. The parking garage was opened to limited use in August
2008 and was substantially complete by December 2008. Restoration of the
pavement on East Green Street was complete in October 2008, however
permanent pavement markings and the mid -block traffic signal were not
completed until May 2009. It is difficult to provide much analysis of collision
history or patterns in such a limited time frame. With that caveat, a survey of
reported collisions over the past two years in the vicinity of the Green Garage
entrance is summarized as follows:
a. In the 100 and 200 blocks of E. Green St. (exclusive of the intersection
areas near Cayuga St. and State St.) approximately 20 collisions were
reported during the past two years.
b. In none of the reported cases were vehicles exiting the parking garage
involved.
c. The most common types of crashes were: 1) sideswipe crashes where a
motorist in the right -hand lane merged into a vehicle in the left -hand
lane (in about 4 cases, this type of crash occurred just prior to the
garage entrance); 2) motorists running into parked cars in the garage (a
few cases); and 3) in a couple cases, crashes seemed to be related to
various road work activities that were occurring during the garage
reconstruction project.
Though the limited stopping sight distances discussed above seem to suggest
that conditions may be less than desirable, in actuality, it seems that the
current situation is not leading to collisions. Perhaps motorists exiting the
garage intuitively perceive a dangerous situation and then act more
cautiously to compensate. It may also be that due to the fact that there are two
up- stream traffic signals that, at times, stop the flow of traffic past the
driveway entrance, that motorists exiting the garage are finding adequate
gaps in Green Street traffic flow and are not experiencing great difficulties in
entering the main roadway.
Page of 10
4. Usage of On- Street Parking Spaces Along the Green Garage Frontage.
Because of the staff time required to collect parking utilization data during
evening and weekend times, this work has not been performed to date.
However, certain observations have been made relating to the usage of
parking along the frontage of the Green Garage during weekdays.
Four metered parking spaces (see Figure 6) are located between the mid -block
pedestrian crossing and the main garage entrance. These meters are in effect
from 9am -6pm Mon -Fri (except for holidays), have a two -hour parking limit,
and cost $1.00 per hour. During hours of operation, these spaces have been
observed to be occupied approximately 50% of the time.
Figure 6: Above is a photo of the four on- street parking spaces under consideration.
It is estimated that between $4,000 - $7,000 in revenue is generated per year
by these four meters. If the BPW were to remove one or more meters, each
metered space would add approximately 30 feet of intersection sight distance
and would reduce revenue by $1,000 - $1,500 per year.
To the west of the mid -block pedestrian crossing is one Ithaca Carshare
reserved space followed by a truck loading zone. These spaces do not fall
Page 6 of 10
within the recommended intersection sight distance triangle as discussed
above so they are not being considered further.
Bicycling Conditions
Bicyclists traveling along East Green Street are responsible for exercising their
judgment as to lane positioning based on traffic, roadway conditions, and travel
destination. In most cases, bicyclists should be expected in the bicycle lane on the
right side of the street or in the left travel lane.
For the purpose of this study, five bicycle travel scenarios have been considered:
1. Travel in the bike lane with traffic flow. The NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law,
Section 1234(a) states:
Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in -line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle
or in -line skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in -line skate lane has not been provided,
near the right -hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right -hand shoulder in
such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when
preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would
make it unsafe to continue along near the right -hand curb or edge. Conditions to be taken
into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles,
bicycles, in -line skates, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow
for a bicycle or person on in -line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side -by -side within
the lane.
It seems reasonable then to expect a bicyclist who is on the south side of the
street starting at Cayuga Street and riding up the East State Street hill, to be in
the bicycle lane for the entire length of the 100 block of East Green Street. If
the cyclist is coming from or heading toward some other location along the
street, the cyclist may be out of the bicycle lane for some distance, but may
weave into or out of the bicycle lane as his or her desired travel path, traffic
flow, and other conditions allow or dictate.
As with any bicycle lane, the cyclist must be aware of the traffic environment
and cannot expect that the painted lines of the bicycle lane provide a safe
haven in and of themselves. Many buses cross over the bicycle lane as they
approach and depart the Green Street bus stop and motorists may be turning
across the bicycle lane to enter or exit a driveway on the south side of the
street. Nonetheless, considering the volume of traffic on the street and the
relatively high percentage of heavy vehicles, the bicycle lane certainly adds a
higher level of service and better experience for many of the bicycle trips
along this section of East Green Street.
2. Travel in the left side of the leftmost lane with traffic flow. As stated above,
cyclists are not required to ride in the bicycle lane if they are preparing for a
Page 7 of 10
left turn or to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along
the right hand side of the street. Though the law does not explicitly address
the case of a two -lane, one -way street with a bicycle lane on the right and two
popular left hand turns at either end (from Cayuga onto East Green and from
East Green through the wraparound or onto East Martin Luther King, Jr.
Street), it seems reasonable to expect that cyclists may ride in the left lane for
some or all of the 100 block of East Green Street, if it serves the origin or
destination of the bicycle trip.
When the bicycle lane was installed, the other two travel lanes were shifted
over and were narrowed a bit to a standard width of 12 feet (they were both
about 15 feet wide previously). This does mean that if a cyclist wants to ride
in the left lane, there is no longer a wide enough lane for a bicycle to travel
safely side -by -side within the lane. Due to this condition, it is recommended
that a bicyclist "take the lane" in order to avoid hazards such as parked cars,
loading trucks, or being overtaken by vehicles in the same lane. Even if a
cyclists is riding at a lower speed that motorists, this will not always lead to
undue interference with the flow of traffic because: 1) a motorist also has the
right lane to use to get around a slower cyclist, 2) the mid -block pedestrian
signal often brings traffic to a stop, and 3) the traffic signal at the intersection
of Green and Cayuga streets has an all -ped /all -red phase, meaning that all
traffic is brought to a stop. The two signals regularly provide long gaps in
traffic.
Cyclists riding in the left lane should use extra caution, however, because
motorists may not expect to find a bicyclist in such a position. Some motorists
traveling along Green Street may expect to find bicyclists only in the bicycle
lane. Motorists pulling into or out of a driveway on the north side of the
street may not expect bicyclists to be in their travel path. Also, there are more
parking spaces along the left side of the street and cyclists should be aware of
opening doors or moving vehicles.
3. Travel eastward and/or westward along the sidewalk across the garage
entrance /exit. In accord with §137 -1 of the City Code, only persons age 10
and under are permitted to ride on the sidewalk and persons having a
physical and/or mental disability may ride on the sidewalk if for
transportation or mobility purposes. The vicinity under study poses similar
or possibly greater challenges to riding on the sidewalk as other streets in the
city.
Generally, it is inadvisable to operate a bicycle on a sidewalk because it may
pose a nuisance or a hazard to pedestrians and because motorists may be
surprised by a "bicyclist that came out of nowhere." Additionally, sidewalks
Page 8 of 10
are not designed to accommodate bicycle use, so the geometric design is
generally not adequate to permit safe travel at typical bicycling speeds.
However, it is sometimes argued that bicyclists can travel safely on sidewalks
provided that they travel slowly and cautiously, pass pedestrians safely, and
yield to all traffic that may be crossing the sidewalk.
The 100 block of East Green Street has very busy sidewalks what with City
Hall, the library, the bus stop and the parking garage nearby. There are also a
number of rather busy driveways for the parking garage, and two parking
lots. The sidewalks are not wide enough for bicyclists to share comfortably
with pedestrians. Bicyclists should not be encouraged to ride on sidewalks in
this area.
4. Weaving and /or turning across lanes, with traffic flow. It should be noted
that bicyclists may not stay in one lane for the entire length of this section of
East Green Street, but rather may move across any of the lanes on the street,
depending on where they are going and where they are coming from. As
with motorists, bicyclists need to be responsible, exercise caution, and signal
their maneuvers.
5. Travel anywhere in the roadway gainst the traffic flow. It has been observed
that a limited number of bicycle users do travel the wrong way in this
vicinity, generally in the provided bike lane. This type of behavior can be
expected on one -way streets because bicyclists (like pedestrians) will
generally seek the most direct routes so as to reduce their level of physical
exertion and reduce their travel time. However, this travel is illegal and can
be very unsafe. In an effort to reduce the incidence of wrong way riding,
supplementary directional arrows were stenciled with each bike lane
marking.
Possible Actions
A number of possible actions seem reasonable for consideration by the Board of
Public Works, particularly in regard to the driveway for the Green Street parking
garage.
1. Do nothing.
2. Monitor the situation, but make no physical changes.
3. Remove all four on- street, metered parking spaces to allow for the greatest
possible intersection sight distance
4. Remove one, two or three on- street, metered parking spaces to improve the
driveway's sight distance
5. Reduce the usage of the parking spaces by increasing the price, reducing the
time limit, prohibiting parking during certain hours, etc.
Page 9 of 10
Recommendation
The current situation for the driveway is not ideal, but it is reasonable and
typical for an urban environment, and it does not appear to be contributing to
collisions. If the Board of Public Works feels strongly about meeting the design
guidelines of AASHTO's book, this could have serious implications for on- street
parking across the city. There are many, many places where desired sight -lines
are not present. Other design guidelines (such as the desire to site urban
buildings out to the corner of property lines) may even contradict the desire to
have long, clear sight lines for motorists.
Based on this study, I would recommend that we continue to monitor the
situation, but otherwise make no physical changes at this time. If the Board feels
strongly about improving the sight lines for motorists exiting the garage, I would
suggest removing one metered parking space.
I would not recommend making any changes to design of the street in regard to
bicycling. I think the bicycle lane is a significant improvement and though the
left lane has been narrowed, I do not think it presents a significant problem for
most cyclists. Working within the constraints of the existing curblines and
NYSDOT ownership, I think the existing lane configurations are more than
satisfactory for our downtown environment. If a cyclist is not comfortable riding
in the left lane, he or she may choose to do something to increase the level of
comfort, such as additional maneuvers to get into and out of the bicycle lane or,
if one is starting from the mid -block signal, one could even press the pedestrian
crossing button and have an approximately 20 second head start down Green
Street before traffic starts up again.
Page 10 of 10
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street 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: November 10, 2009
Re: New Sidewalk Construction Priorities
Over the past year or more, a subcommittee of the Board of Public Works has
met roughly every month to discuss how to get new sidewalk segments
constructed in the City of Ithaca. The subcommittee included Ron Chapman, Jill
Tripp, Cynthia Brock, Maria Coles, Mary Tomlan, Lynne Yost, Kent Johnson, and
me. Our basic methodology was to first create a list of missing sidewalk
segments, based mostly on a city -wide survey of sidewalks conducted in 2000,
and then to prioritize them on a cost - benefit basis. Once sidewalk segments were
prioritized, we could then work with greater confidence on implementation
strategies. This effort in part came out of a grant application process wherein the
question was posed as to why pursue the occasional grant opportunity on one
desired new sidewalk instead of another one. Whereas we might prefer to have
sidewalks on both sides of every street, we agreed that it was important to have a
set of priorities to guide future efforts.
We discussed many different ways to measure the benefits of new sidewalks.
The factors that we considered including in our analysis included: traffic
volumes, number of households within a certain distance, links to destinations,
whether the segment would fill a gap, whether a footpath already existed,
whether it was within a certain distance of a school, whether it was in an
underserved or low - income neighborhood, neighborhood support or petitions,
proximity to a bus stop, lack of a road shoulder, number of driveways in the
segment, whether it was on a school bus route, and whether it was in a Census
block with strong pedestrian journey to work rates. We understood that not
every factor could be included in analyzing the benefits of a new sidewalk
segment and that we had somewhat limited resources of staff time to devote to
this, so we decided to use the following factors to assess the benefits of a new
sidewalk segment: annual average daily traffic (AADT), whether a sidewalk
exists on the opposite side of the street, and the population density of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Page 1 of 3
`An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." iP a
Annual average daily traffic numbers where either readily available from recent
traffic counts or fairly easy to estimate. If there was no sidewalk on either side,
then the benefit of building a sidewalk on one side would be double the benefit
compared to building a sidewalk where one already existed on the opposite side
of the street. For population density, we used U.S. Census data and made 5
categories, ranging from low density (a multiplier of 1) to high density (a
multiplier of 2).
For cost, we used a low, medium and high cost judgment. Low cost sidewalks
assumed simple construction and were assigned a $100 /linear foot or
$20/ square foot cost. High cost was based on recent cost estimates for
complicated new sidewalk construction wherein work items might include
enclosing drainage systems, building retaining walls, relocating utilities or
significant earthwork. A high cost sidewalk was assigned a $450 /linear foot cost.
Medium cost sidewalks were given an average cost of $275 /linear foot.
The benefit/ cost ratio thus equals the AADT multiplied by the density factor
multiplied by 2 if there is no sidewalk, all divided by the estimated cost. This
ratio is shown in the "B /C" column on the attached spreadsheet.
B/C = AADT * Density Factor (1, 1.25,1.5,1.75, or 2) * 2 (if no sidewalk)
Construction Cost Estimate
After ranking the sidewalk segments, we reviewed the prioritized list (including
looking at only the benefits (the "Just 'B"" column), that is, regardless of cost) to
see if any segments seemed out of order for any reason. We did reprioritize a few
segments that didn't rank based on the benefit /cost ratio; reasons for such a
reprioritization were based on factors such as ease of implementation, or a
known popular pedestrian way that didn't have high traffic or high surrounding
density. We also decided to breakup the sidewalk segments into five
geographical areas: Downtown (the flats), West Hill, South Hill, and two areas
on East Hill. Our recommended priorities by district are shown on the
spreadsheet as highlighted rows in gray.
We are now forwarding that list on to you for your information, feedback, and
direction. I am also sending you a map showing areas of no sidewalk (based on
data from 2000, with a few circles showing sidewalk that has been constructed
since). An initially list of possible sidewalk funding sources is shown below.
What I would like is direction from the Board as to the top three priorities for
each district in the City. The Board may want to forward this information to
other groups in the City for further input, for example, Common Council, the
Planning & Development Board, the Disability Advisory Council, and the
Page 2 of 3
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Advisory Council. Once the Board has either concurred with
our work or reprioritized it, I would like to reconstitute our subcommittee and
work on implementation strategies for the top 15 sidewalk segments in the City
(three in each district). I think the intent of this priority list should be to give staff
direction as to which sidewalk segments should be pursued by the Department
of Public Works, but it should not be to preclude other sidewalk segments from
being built as opportunities arise or as the Board may otherwise direct as per the
City Code and City Charter.
Please feel free to contact me at 274 -6535 or timlo @citvofithaca.org if you have
any questions or if you would like the spreadsheet electronically or reformatted.
I know it is a bit difficult to read, but I was trying to get it all on one page and
keep all the information on the sheet.
Possible Funding Sources for New Sidewalks
City's Capital Fund
City's Operating Fund
Property Owner Assessments
Transportation Enhancement Program (Federal -Aid)
Transportation Improvement Program (Federal -Aid)
Cornell /Community Transportation Investment Fund
NYS Multi -Modal Funding
Benefit Assessment District
Environmental Protection Fund (NYS)
Development/ Site Plan Review
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Safe Routes to School (Federal -Aid)
Expanded City Street Paving project - e.g., Brandon Place in 2008
Page 3 of 3