HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-12 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, September 24, 2012, 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 -5:15 min.)
2. Mayor's Communications
3. Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board
4. Response to the Public
5. Reports
Parks Commission
Special Committees of the Board
Council Liaison
Board Liaisons
Superintendent and Staff
Other Department Heads
6. Approval of Minutes
6.1 September 10, 2012, Regular Meeting Minutes
7. Administration and Communications
8. VOTING ITEMS
8.1 Buildings Properties Refuse and Transit
A. Access Road Easement Agreement with NYSDOT — Resolution
B. Call for Public Comment Regarding Public Works Use of Several City
Properties — Resolution
C. Encroachment Request for Ithaca Marriott at 120 South Aurora Street —
Resolution
D. Award of Contract for Ithaca Youth Bureau Roof Replacement Project —
Resolution
8.2 Highways Streets and Sidewalks
A. Environmental Review for an Action to Adopt and to Implement the Bicycle
Boulevard Plan — Resolution
B. Adoption of the City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan — Resolution
8.3 Parking and Traffic
8.4 Creeks Bridges and Parks
8.5 Water and Sewer
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
9.1 2013 Rates and Fees
A. Newman Golf Course Membership Rates
B. Parking Rates
C. Water and Sewer Rates
D. Trash and Yard Waste Tag Rates
9.2 Skate Park - Update
9.3 Opportunity to Bring the Federally Recognized NHS System in Close Alignment
with Our NHS+ System
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 Pudic Works meets on the second, third and fourth Wednesdays of the months at 4:45 p.m. Al 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
vAtten 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 September 24, 2012
8.1A Access Road Easement Agreement with NYSDOT -Resolution
This resolution follows the Board's review of the driveway on September 10th.
8.1B Call for Public Comment Regarding Public Works Use of Several City Properties -
Resolurbon
This is an attempt to restart the effort to sell some excess property and to meet the city budget
assumption concerning income from the sale of property in the 2012 budget. We started this
effort late winter or early spring.
8.1C Encroachment Reguest for nnacamarnottat ,wauuur�+ur•nn•+.=�•-
Resolution
Staff will introduce the request for encroachments on three sides of the proposed building. If
the Board approves the request, a recommendation will need to go to Council for a long -term
lease or permanent easement. More information and materials will be provided under
separate cover or at the meeting.
8.113 Award of Contract Tor gnaca ■ ouur ourvua �...., ,.`r,�- ••..• -••- - --
Resolution
Bids were received on September 14, 2012 for the replacement of the Ithaca Youth Bureau
Roof. There are concerns with the lowest submitted bid that will be presented to the Board at
the meeting. A recommendation letter will be distributed as well. The resolution included here
is simply a placeholder.
8.2A
The staff has developed and presented to the Board a Bicycle Boulevard Plan which they
believe is a logical extension of the city's bicycle plan and the city's census data showing we
Page 2
have a commuting population of bicycles that is twice the national average. I suggest that if
the Board agrees and adopts the plan in concept, there should be an understanding that
implementation of the plan would require its own meetings with the street's residents to explain
what the plan calls for and give them a chance to read or provide input. It has taken years to
implement the bicycle plan which called for removing parking and installing bicycle lanes in
several areas. It took time for this to gain a level of acceptance that has allowed us to
proceed. I also believe that the emergency services will read in a manner similar their
discomfort at our initial installation of traffic calming devices on city streets. I believe the
streets are a public utility and should provide for city wide plans, but I have seen the localized
reaction of a neighborhood when a plan is being implemented, a plan many have never seen
before.
9.1 2013 Rates and Fees
A. Newman Golf Course Membership Rates
B. Parking Rates
C. Water and Sewer Rates
D. Trash and Yard Waste Tag Rates
We need to review several rates that the Board sets, the available data, and then coordinate
with the Mayor and Controller, so that we can set rates as early as possible. The Mayor and
Controller are always seeking retirement and health care cost data, even after the Mayor
publishes the proposed budget. At the moment, we have data from the golf course with
recommendations from the Friends of Newman. We should start there and I will set out to
collect the data required to start the review and set other rates. You can get a glance at the
first half of 2012 parking data.
9.2 Skate Park — Update
I have asked Kathy to copy some of the sketch plans for the proposed skate park in Wood
Street Park. The original idea was to remove the existing park and install a new (smaller)
facility. The current idea is to expand the existing facility with the addition of the new features.
This will give a wider range of skills and ages to operate in close proximity, and hopefully
reduce the cost (no demolition) while providing more space. It has the disadvantage of taking
up more space in the park. While it looks reasonable to staff, we would appreciate your
thoughts.
9.3 Opportunity to Brina the Federally Recognized NHS System in Close Ailonment
with Our NHS+ System
We got a "rush" request to provide input to a NYSDOT proposal to update the local principal
arterial designations. You can see a portion of the correspondence that I have attached. I get
nervous when we, staff, make quick decisions that would /should require more discussion, as
well as Board and public input. The state did not give us time, and our review is that we
cannot be forced to do something we don't want to do because of the designations. The state
is interested because the federal funding is dependent on the state's participation in the
National Highway System and they want to compare favorably with other states. We enjoy the
federal funds used to repair bridges and build projects like the waterfront trail. It is an
interesting balancing act.
Will.i.aw.j. Graff, P.E.
superiwte.ottnt of Public Woro2
septeruber:tz 2012
Page 3
8.1A Access Road Easement Agreement with NYSDOT — Resolution
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has reviewed material from the city's consulting
engineer for the water plant, O'Brien and Gere, showing the relocation of the driveway off
Route 79 (Slaterville Road) which is designed to improve access to the city's water intake
structure, and
WHEREAS, that driveway relocation will intercept one of the New York State Department of
Transportation's ( NYSDOT) highway drainage structures for Route 79 in a drainage easement,
causing it to be extended out beyond the driveway, and has resulted in the NYSDOT
requesting an extended easement on the city's watershed property for their drainage structure
prior to their agreeing to the proposed change in their drainage structure, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works directs Department of Public Works staff and the
City Attorney to work with the consultant and the NYSDOT to obtain the necessary forms,
drawings and agreements for the driveway relocation, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board requests the Common Council grant the permanent drainage
easement extension requested by the NYSDOT so that the city may improve the driveway to
the city's raw water intake.
8.1B Call for Public Comment Regarding Public Works Use of Several City Properties —
Resolution
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is considering the sale of several city -owned
properties; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby calls a public meeting on October 22,
2012, to accept comments regarding the public works use and possible sale of the following
city -owned properties:
700 East Seneca Street Parcel
• Elmira Road Right -of -Way Parcels
• 1105 Giles Street Parcel
and be it further
RESOLVED, That staff be directed to publicize this meeting as set forth in the City Code.
Page 4
8.1C Encroachment Request for Ithaca Marriott at 120 South Aurora Street —
Resolution
WHEREAS, 4250 Vets Highway, LLC, the owner of the property at 130 South Aurora Street,
holding an option for the property at 120 South Aurora Street, which is currently owned by the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (Tax Map Parcels No. 70 -4.4.4 and 70.- 4-4.3, respectively), in
the City of Ithaca, has requested an encroachment agreemenUlong -term lease /permanent
easement for a proposed, new hotel that would extend into the City's right-of-way for South
Aurora Street, into a City-owned parcel of land at 100 South Aurora Street (Tax Map Parcel
No. 70.-4-4.1) and the City-owned parking garage known as the Green Street Parking Garage
as summarized below:
• North lot boundary: Ground floor door swing covering an area of approximately 5' by 8',
and a second floor meeting room and upper level canopy that encroaches from 0' to
12' -5" in a diagonal edge set to 20.220 degrees from the northern lot line for a total
length of 35' -85"
• West lot boundary: An encroachment of approximately 35' into both levels of the Green
Street parking garage for a distance of 115' and Level 5 and up encroaches 11' -7.25"
toward west of the eastern lot line for a total length of 147'- 11.375"
• East lot boundary: Ground floor revolving door, Second floor meeting room and upper
level canopy encroaches from 3" to 3' -10" since the eastern lot line varies along Aurora
Street for a length of 100' and the main entrance glass canopy encroaches 8' -8" to 10'-
3.5" since the eastern lot line varies along Aurora Street for a length of 25' -9" and the
terraced street planters encroach 3' -8" for a length of 31'; and
WHEREAS, the total area of the proposed encroachments appear to be approximately
square feet; and
WHEREAS, these encroachments will be a permanent part of the proposed building and
therefore should be treated as a long -term lease or a permanent easement, and therefore
require Common Council approval according to Section 170, Use of City Property, of the City
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Public Works has reviewed the request and does not
anticipate any conflicts due to the proposed encroachment at this location, in the foreseeable
future; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby recommends that Common Council
approve the requested encroachment, containing the usual terms and conditions; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the grant of this lease or easement for a new encroachment shall be subject
to an annual use fee, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 170 of the City Code, as
amended in May 2009, which fee (in accordance with the schedule of fees adopted by the
Board on December 22, 2011) shall be $_ 00, initially, based on an estimated
encroachment of square feet and a maximum fair market rental value of $_ per
square foot per year for land of this type ( "Ithaca Commons, primary or secondary'), according
to the preliminary Fair Market Rent Study received by the City in January 2010, from Pomeroy
Appraisal Associates.
Page 5
8.10 Award of Contract for Ithaca Youth Bureau Roof Replacement Project —
Resolution
WHEREAS, bids were received on September 14, 2012, for the installation of a new Roof
System on the Ithaca Youth Bureau Building located at 1 James L. Gibbs Drive, Ithaca, New
York. 14850, and
WHEREAS, Capital Project 722 includes funding to replace the existing roof system, to
complete Alternate 1: Main Skylight Sealant Replacement, and Alternate 2: Main Skylight Shelf
Modification, and
WHEREAS, , located at
has submitted the apparent low base bid of $ for General Construction work,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, The Board of Public Works hereby awards the contract for General Construction
work related to the Youth Bureau Roof Replacement to , located at
. and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works be hereby authorized to enter into and
administer this contract.
Page 6
8.2A Environmental Review for an Action to Adopt and to Implement the Bicycle
Boulevard Plan
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has declared itself to be the lead agency for the
environmental review for adopting and implementing a Bicycle Boulevard Plan (the "Plan ") 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 Plan recommends a suite of pavement marking, sign, and traffic calming
measures to a network of City-owned streets to improve conditions for bicycle users, and
WHERAS, the Plan, and implementation of the plan, are Unlisted Actions according to CEQR
and Unlisted Actions according to SEQR, and
WHERAS, a Short Environmental Assessment form was prepared by staff for CEQR and for
SEQR, and
WHERAS, on August 6, 2012, the Board of Public Works declared itself lead agency for an
uncoordinated environmental review for CEQRISEQR, and
WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council has received a copy of the CEQR/SEQR short
forms and a copy of the Plan, and
WHERAS, the Board of Public Works, acting as lead agency, has, on , 2012,
reviewed and accepted as complete Short Environmental Assessment Forms Part I and Part II
prepared by staff, and Project plans prepared by staff, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Works determines that the adoption and implementation
of the Bicycle Boulevard Plan will result in no significant negative environmental impact and
that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Conservation
Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Section 176 of the City Code be
filed in accordance with the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance.
Page 7
a°ci*ua�n
`'a7/' �f�
i r
s.9a� o
�pq�� �tT
CITY OF ITHACA,
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 tthaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607274-6530 Fu: 607/274-6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
Date: September 13, 2012
Re: Bicycle Boulevard Plan Adoption
At your meeting on August 6'h, Kent Johnson and I presented the draft Bicycle
Boulevard plan and the Board declared themselves Lead Agency for
environmental review. Our schedule was to allow for an approximately 30 day
comment period and then prepare to adopt the plan. In that time we got a little
media coverage, including an article in the Ithaca Times, the Ithaca Journal and
the City Newsletter, and we sent the plan to all Common Council members by
email. Since then, I have received only a few comments, all of which have been
positive, happy to see anything the City can do to encourage calmer, more bike
friendly streets.
The next step is to have the Board of Public Works make an environmental
determination on adoption of the plan (staff is recommending a negative
determination of significant environmental impact) and then to adopt the plan
by resolution.
As far as implementation, we have been working on a Safe Routes to School
grant application that would fund parts, but not all, of the bicycle boulevard
routes, including signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming. The focus is
on the streets that make connections to Beverly J. Martin Elementary School, Fall
Creek Elementary School and Boynton Middle School (high schools are not
eligible for the Safe Routes to School program, but the location of the middle
school will benefit the high school, too). The Safe Routes to School application
will also include a number of education, encouragement and evaluation
components to be administered by the Ithaca City School District.
If you have any questions before the meeting, feel free to contact me at 274 -6535
or timlo@cityofithaca.org.
'M Equal OppoMu ly Employer wish a mmmltmem m workforte dire.ifi d..' 0
CITY SNORT ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT FORM
Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor.
Date: &&Whiz
L Applicant/Sponsm:
2. Project Name:
CITY OF ITHACA•
SICYeeB S.."VA1150
3. Project Location:
VARtavS eery
SrfeasTS
4. Is Proposed Action:
W.New o Expansion
o Modification/Altcmlion
5. Describe pmject briefly:
I0ST411M1 rt of rM"Nw Iw400M 1
s,sicn5,ANe Ts4PAL CAw. .. Cy
6. Precise Location (Road Intema;lions, Prominent Landmarks, etc. or provide
map)
SEE MAP
7. Amount of Land Affected:
Initial) 3.9 iI Ultimate) 1.4 -&S Acres or 5 . Ft.
S. Will proposed action comply with existing inning or other existing land use
restrictions?
ILYCS o No If No, describe briefly:
9. What is present land use in vicinity of project:
K Residential o Industrial o Agricultural o Parkland/Open Space
tLCommemial o other
Describe:
10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from
governmental agency (Federal, Stale or Local):1(Yes o No Ike w ts+I.s ACe "A
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Meet 84r .• oet ^A *aW
Se Ilfao fa.. DPW Ai .R oC *10/, Ot VP- 4M0 160L '*wra t PEO.
11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval?
o Yes KNo
If Yes, List Agency Name and Pemnit/Approval Type:
12. As a result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification?
o Yes vLNo
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: w. q_,- i DATE: S IL
PREPARER'S TITLE: T eA. TRAwsf a CVO Jain
REPRESENTING: CIT 41
y \fame\city sraf fm A.
SHORT ENVFRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
parr II
To Be Completed By Staff
In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Asxetwmenl Form (SERF), the prepmer is to use
curtrnd available tnlMmadon concerning the ro' et and the likely impacts of the action .
ame of Pto'ect: Bicycle Boulevard
If any question has been answered YES, a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is
necessary.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: !-4 A 9.P -- DATE: —02-5017-
PREPARER'S TITLE: "a wave
REPRESENTING: oiTV &F 1TMAC*
l:\Bicycles \Bike Blvds\cmv rev\Bike Blvd City SERF Pan Il.doc
Ya No
1.
Will project mull in a large physical change to the pmjm( site or physically alter
❑ to
more than one acre of land?
2.
Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any
I I 1)(
rile designated a unique nmuml area or critical mvimnmental area by a local or state
agency
3.
Will the project alter or have any cITcd on an existing waterway?
K
4.
Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality?
a
5.
Will the project anal drainage now on adjacent sites?
tt
6.
Will the project afTecl any threatened or endangered plant or animal species?
P"
7.
Will the projecl anall in an adverse effect on air quality'?
K
S.
Will the projecl have an effect on visual character of the cornmunily or scenic views
Gl
or vistas known to be important to the community:
9.
Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pm- historic, mr
a
paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark
district?
10.
Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities?
L pQ
11.
Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing
IA
transportation systems?
12.
Will the project cause objectionable odors, anise, glare, vibration, or electrical
disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after
completion?
13.
Will the project have any impact on public health or safety?
14.
Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in
)r
permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one -year period OR have a
negative effect on the chameter of the community or neighborhood?
15.
Is there public controversy concerning the project?
❑ 10
If any question has been answered YES, a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is
necessary.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: !-4 A 9.P -- DATE: —02-5017-
PREPARER'S TITLE: "a wave
REPRESENTING: oiTV &F 1TMAC*
l:\Bicycles \Bike Blvds\cmv rev\Bike Blvd City SERF Pan Il.doc
Proposed Bike Boulevard /Neighborhood Greenways
D Lead A
ART S - IMPACT ASSF -�M�T o 6e CDRL 11 neen,ailo ate review Pry %s antl usa the FULLEAF.
1 DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESNOLDIN a NYCRR. PANT fi1T.4T YM
�yw y❑No
B. VALI ACTION RECEIVE COORO lo�InrRiE,,EW agency pOED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 6tT Bo 11 No. a negmHa
odarino may bo ouparmetlaE by
❑Ym ❑✓ N
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITHTNE FDLLDWING.lgmwars maY ba IumRtwnpmt.Il kp1Me)
cl. East.nR ai avnNM, sadxa or gmagwela quaiN a vaa^eh. tw�eab+eb, eam11ng1tertwpalAlR, N*Iwa51e grDpuclNn ut mspos>!t,
pdeneal yx erpsmn. eramage of RooMRB teI>nFalsv Tsl>INnbre%
No
C2. Aostrelc, agnwlWml. ei .Aaeobpicnl hishoo. or olhar neNml or aLwal raeourwa; or commuNry or neWhibwAOOtl chamclM Explain took
No.
Ca. Vagelmlon or h rr e. thin, s1alNfih or wtrate, swr as, alpmllwnl luew , or Ihroalened or ond.rcoo e s nowev E :palm bear,
No.
G. A ah m nlFCplly adevIeL ur a dan vi In ux w Nuns ihl of — n1 N d. nue, n.,.w m.., Exnmm erefN
No.
C5. Growth, subrotba It dewlopnwru, w inlaWJ x wilwn IAely to ire eabwJ M be en,maetl acilony Explain briefly
No.
Ce. Lwg tarn, ~ b , wmuWa . w ofha Dilate not IdanlRSd in Cl�7 E lain brMly
No
CT. Dlber impacts unaudM plain as in uw of either u.M, ar Ada of 9wI ,,)9 Fxyfaln bdeey.
No.
D. WILL T IF PROJECT IIAVE AN IMPACT ON TI IE ENVIRONMENTAL Cl WtACTERISTICS PAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CFA)?
Yaa ❑ No H Yes, copier, boat
E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LWELY TO RE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL AOVERSF FNVIRONMFNTAI IMPACTSp
Yn a No R Y., explain brcey
PART N - DETERMINATION OF SJGWICANGE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRMTIONS: For each adverse epecl ldenRbed abieve,datemenewhether Rissubslanhal, large. lmportantot otheryowsignRCant. Each
olled shoutol tm assessed m eannechr n.1h Its (a) selling (i.e, urban or neap; (b) pmbadldy of orcurrinR. (c) duration; (d1 InenersAllily, (e)
gnngrapha: ,o W., aol (p magniWJe. It necessary, adf attachments or relorence supper ing oe lonals. Ensure that explanala ns contain
sulht:nent eMlall forum Thal all relevant adverse Impacts have been Identified real adequately addressed. II questieal D al Pad II was checked
1-1 ClaxY l6io lxn R yw layo xlunlitilrJ Unn w more lxnluntiatly ladle w snlnRSanlolvex raaltx whch MAY lxxa. Itin.. ... oa iduan byw the f-Ul
FAF cwVor pmpmo a xsew UeGaation.
MDT rlsu war, nicandhliarsen,ronmllniMpacbi ADprm ty5onarewhome, as nemmi Uatuereasos IuamengIW0adbnWN
MDT resat m arty sgnlfrml odvaae ermrrrnm,waal ImpasLS AND nrlwide. rm aNChmoms as nxassary. the reasons sWlarling Ihls deIBII11ireIgl
6125/1?
Nemao Load Agorx.Y Dom
Print or T,aa Maine of Reoonsiblis Officer in I ead Agency Rea of
Signature of Raepo shlo OIRwr In Lood Apocy Slgnohno of Propamr (R different M1am meponaWlo egicer)
City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan
A plan for a network of low- traffic & traffic- calmed bicycling routes
Approved by the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works on
prepared by:
City of Ithaca Engineering Office
September 12, 2012
Introduction
In recent years, the City of Ithaca has made a concerted effort to improve
conditions for bicycle users; new bike lanes have been painted, new mufti-use trails have
been built, and many new bike racks have been installed. However, little progress has
been made in creating a City -wide network of on- street bicycling facilities suitable for
new riders, families, children, and others who prefer routes with lower motor vehicle
traffic volumes/speeds that conveniently connect to key Ithaca destinations. To provide
for these users, the Engineering Office, the Ithaca- Tompkins County Transportation
Council, and volunteers have been researching the feasibility of creating a "Bicycle
Boulevard" network in Ithaca. Cities such as Portland, OR, Berkeley, CA, Tucson, AZ,
Minneapolis, MN, and Madison, WI have successfully created such networks.
Bike Boulevards are not bike lanes, rather, they are low- traffic and/or traffic -
calmed routes where bicyclists and motorists share the travel lanes and where bicycle
travel is generally prioritized and
encouraged over motor vehicle travel. In
most cases, the routes do not impact on-
street parking. Network designs differ from
city to city but they all share similar
attributes such as:
Traffic calming
Signs and pavement markings
Convenient routes
Prioritize bicycle use
What this plan is, and isn't
This plan has been developed at the request of the City of Ithaca Board of Public
Works (BPW) to facilitate their review of the concept, route selection, and infrastructure
improvements being recommended by the Engineering Office. This plan outlines the
recommended physical design of the proposed Bike Blvd. network including an initial
route selection, and a description of signs, pavement markings and traffic calming
2
devices. This plan also includes a planning -level cost estimate. These are the key items
necessary for the BPW's review, and subsequent approval.
In an effort to keep this plan as clear and to- the -point as possible, it does not
discuss possible future expansions of the initial Bike Blvd. network and it does not
discuss in detail how other existing and planned bicycling improvements tie into the Bike
Blvd. network. The proposed Bike Blvd. network is just one component in the larger
effort of improving bicycling conditions throughout the City of Ithaca. Other efforts
include the installation of bike lanes and bike racks, and continued progress on the
Cayuga Waterfront Trail. Also, there are certain routes that were initially planned to be
part of the Bike Blvd. network (like an east /west connection between The Commons and
the West End) that were removed because standard bike lanes were deemed more
appropriate due to the higher traffic volumes, or were removed because they are planned
to be part of a separate effort (like a Thus Ave. spur, which will be part of an upcoming
effort to form a route up to South Hill).
Goals
The primary goal of this initiative is to increase the level of bicycle use within the
City of Ithaca, particularly in "The Flats" area Though some people currently do travel
via bicycle in Ithaca, bicycles are not utilized to the level they could be. Improving
bicycling facilities will encourage existing bicyclists to ride more often and will
encourage those hesitant of bicycling to give it a try. To achieve the goal of increasing
bicycle use, two factors are addressed:
I. Safety — First and foremost, a reasonably safe bicycling environment is
necessary. Bicycle users face two key hazards: Colliding with a fixed object or
falling (most common types of crashes, but generally result in little injury), and
collisions with motor vehicles (which seldom occur, but can result in more
severe injuries). Even if certain streets pose little risk to inexperienced cyclists
or young riders, increasing the perception of safety or further reducing the
possibility of negative interactions would be important to increase ridership. To
maximize safety (and the perception of safety), routes with lower motor vehicle
3
speeds and volumes have been selected, and, where speeds and /or volumes may
be too high, traffic calming measures could be used.
2. Convenience — Bicyclists (like motorists and pedestrians) benefit from easy -to-
fillow, direct routes that make good connections to popular destinations. Clear
and informative way - finding signage will guide bicycle users to and along the
Bike Blvd. routes, and will connect them to key destinations as well as to other
bicycling facilities, such as nearby bike lanes and the Cayuga Waterfront Trail.
Convenience will also be improved by formally allowing two -way bicycle
travel on a 3 -block section along Cascadilla Creek that currently only allows for
one -way traffic, and by re- orienting four stop signs to decrease delays for
bicyclists.
A secondary, related goal is to install traffic calming devices to reduce the
negative impacts of motor vehicles on residents and pedestrians, as well as bicyclists.
These traffic calming measures will coordinate with, and increase the effectiveness of
existing traffic calming devices throughout the City. Over the past decade various traffic
calming devices have been installed in the City, and numerous citizen requests have been
made for traffic calming in additional locations. Traffic calming adds to the overall
quality of life in neighborhoods and makes the streets more livable and more bicycle and
pedestrian friendly.
Overview of Plan
The recommended Bike Blvd. network is composed of two primary north/south
routes (Tioga St. & Park/Com/Plain St.) and a few low-traffic/traffic-calmed connectors
in the Northside Neighborhood area and in the South -of -the -Creek Neighborhood area.
The network is located in `The Flats" area of Ithaca; the hilly areas were not deemed
suitable for Bike Blvd. treatments (due in part to the steep grades and in part because of
the traffic characteristics ofthe streets). The map on page 6 illustrates the locations of the
recommended routes. (Note: additional Bike Blvd. segments may be added in the future.)
CI
This implementation plan can be broken down into two basic components:
physical infrastructure elements, and non - infrastructure actions. See pages 7 to 12 for
more detailed descriptions of individual measures.
Infrastructure elements:
1. Way - finding signs and pavement markings
2. Speed limit lowered to 25mph
3. Traffic calming measures (primarily speed humps/tables)
4. Revised stop sign orientations
5. Conversion of the 100 block of Lake Av. and the 100 block of S. Cascadilla Av.
to allow two -way bicycle travel
Non - infrastructure actions:
The Engineering Office intends to:
1. Collaborate with the general public, emergency service providers, and other
stakeholders to ensure appropriate initial Bike Blvd. designs.
2. Work with City decision - makers to secure policy support and a funding
mechanism for initial construction and ongoing maintenance of the Bike Blvd.
system
3. Provide limited initial and ongoing general information to the public about Bike
Blvds. and how to behave as bicyclists and motorists on them.
4. Make connections with organizations (such as Way2Go and RIBs), events (such
as bike rodeos), and City departments (such as IPD) to facilitate education and
encouragement activities that relate to bicycle use, particularly along the Bike
Blvd. network.
E
m
Proposed Bike Boulevard /Neighborhood Greenways
Ciholllheca NY
0
w�ti
IY
pp
4. ,
�F
n
LL
,
ie
1 5
2
14c
P.opoW Reuln
r`
I F'
Gelb BeA"N
_ �i `
- G�e.Miweex lrtl`
N
o w tmow
merP.�paeev a.rn
.W� �apaibw°�w�•wwPM�a M �
m
Description of Measures — Infrastructure elements
1. Way - finding signs and pavement markings — Though 'The
Flats' area of Ithaca is relatively small, the roadway network
can be confusing for bicyclists to navigate, particularly for
those new to Ithaca, because of the diversions caused by one-
way streets, the diagonal block layout in the Northside
Neighborhood, and the dense tree canopy that can hinder
one's sense of direction. Additionally, those familiar with
using motor vehicles may not be aware of the lower -traffic
routes that are quite suitable for bicycle use. Way- finding
signs are intended to serve two purposes: to identify the
locations of the Bike Blvd. routes and to identify key
destinations proximate to the routes.
The design of the way - finding signs should be
consistent with the ones detailed in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), such as the design used in
Portland, OR (see Figure 2); however, some communities use
other sign designs (see Figure 3). Small Bike Blvd. tags are
proposed for installation on street signs along the routes
Figurr, '
(similar to the arrangement shown in Figure 4).
Most communities that have Bike Blvd. networks 1
install painted bicycle and/or text markings onto the roadways Fgure 4
to highlight the presence of the route (the design shown to the
right (Figure 5) is used in San Luis Obispo, CA). To keep
costs down, it is recommended that pavement markings be
limited (at least initially) to a small number ( -60) of high -
priority locations and rely mostly on the way - finding signs to
identify the routes. If this approach is found to be insufficient
in practice, then the City can pursue an expanded installation
of pavement markings as necessary. The design of the symbol
is recommended to be a bicycle icon with the text "BLVD" Figures
7
placed above, similar to the one shown in Figure 5 (see appendix A). Alternately, or in
addition to the painted markings, concrete icons /markers could be placed in the streets
along the Bike Blvd. routes (similar to the red concrete dot in the Albany /Court St.
intersection). Though more expensive initially, long- lasting concrete may be less
expensive overall than regularly re- painting symbols.
2. Speed limit lowered to 25mph — Though municipalities in New York cannot have
area -wide speed limits less than 30mph, municipalities can post speed limits as low as
25mph along designated streets'. It is recommended that the speed limits along each of
the routes be lowered to 25mph for the following reasons:
- To improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians — Statistically, if a person is hit
by a vehicle travelling 40mph, death will result in about 80% of cases, at 30mph,
there is about a 40% likelihood that the person will be killed, and at 20mph,
pedestrians will die in about 5% of collisions'. Therefore, even though a 5mph
change seems small, in this range (30mph to 25mph) the safety improvement
could be quite substantial. The reduced speed will also decrease stopping
distances necessary for motor vehicles (about 150' rather than about 200'0, which
will reduce the likelihood of collisions in the first place.
- To improve comfort for bicyclists — The speed of the motor vehicles would be 5-
IOmph greater than bicycling speeds rather than 10 -15mph over bicycling speeds
which will encourage motorists to pass bicyclists at a more comfortable speed.
- To increase awareness of Bike Blvd. routes — the 25mph signs (in addition to the
way - finding signs and pavement markings) will alert road users to the fact that
special conditions exist along these routes.
5 1643 of the NYS Vehicle & Traffic Law states that, "... No such speed limit applicable throughout such
city or village or within designated areas ... shall be established at less than thirty miles per hour. No such
speed limit applicable on or along designated highways within such city or village shall be established at
less than twenty five miles per hour ..."
r National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1999. Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and
Pedestrian Injuries. Available at: hdp: / /www.nhtsa.gov /people /injury/mse ch/pub/bs809Ol2.htm]
'A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
8
3. Traffic calming measures — Along most of the recommended Bike Blvd. network the
motor vehicle speeds and volumes are currently low enough to be considered conducive
to a safe and comfortable bicycling environment for the targeted demographic of children
1 I years old and up, families bicycling with children ages 8 and up, and for those new to
bicycling in traffic. In other locations, higher traffic speeds and /or volumes demand some
level of traffic calming to pull the speeds and/or volumes back to levels that are more
supportive of bicycling. The types of situations that are most applicable for traffic
calming include intersections with busier streets (such as where Plain St. crosses Clinton
St.) and locations along a Bike Blvd. route (such as the 500 and 800 blocks of Tioga St.).
In regard to the extent of the traffic calming measures being considered, it is
recommended that minimal measures be installed initially (primarily to keep costs
manageable but also to avoid changing traffic patterns too much, which might concern
some residents) and then observe conditions to see if additional interventions are
necessary after the Bike Blvd. network is completed and people have had some time to
adjust to the new conditions. Below are listed the recommended initial measures.
- Install a series of speed humps /tables along the Bike Blvd. routes. Higher priority
locations for these devices are:
• 500 & 800 blocks Tioga St.
200 block Madison St.
100 block Cleveland Av.
• 400 block Willow Av.
Other locations may be considered as well based on traffic speeds, volumes, and
citizen requests.
Install a small island or curb bump -out on the north side of the Tioga/Court
intersection to prevent northbound motor vehicle traffic, but not bicycling traffic,
and upon which to install Bike Blvd. signs (similar to the one shown in Figure 6).
The traffic volume in this section of Tioga St. is around 2,500 vehicles per day,
which is near the upper threshold of what can be considered appropriate for a
Bike Blvd.
Install curb bump -outs or an in- street median on Clinton St. at the Plain St.
intersection so that pedestrians and bicyclists can more safely cross Clinton Street.
M
Clinton St. can be time - consuming to cross
at this location because it can often take
some time to find a suitable gap in traffic
in which to cross both lanes at the same
time. (Note: a more detailed analysis is
required at this intersection to determine
whether a traffic signal or all -way stop is
warranted; which may be more appropriate
out and signage used to prevent motorists (but
than traffic calming measures.) not bicyclists) from entering the street.
Install a large center median at the end of Wood St. at the Meadow St.
intersection. This median would slow motorists making a turn from Meadow St.
onto Wood St. and would be a convenient location for Bike Blvd. signage.
Install a small center median at the end of Plain St. at the Elmira Rd. intersection.
This median would slow turning motorists and would be a convenient location for
Bike Blvd. signage.
Similar to the Tioga/Court intersection above, install an island /curb bump -out at
Seneca/Corn (northbound) and Green/Conn (southbound) to prevent northbound
traffic north of Seneca and to prevent southbound traffic south of Green. This
measure will reduce cut -thru traffic along Corn St. to levels more conducive to
bicycling. (Note: some additional traffic calming along Plain St. may be
warranted to mitigate traffic diverted from Corn St.)
4 Revised stop sign orientations — Bike Blvd. networks generally re- orient stop signs to
reduce bicycling delays where feasible and appropriate. In Ithaca there are four such
intersections that make sense to reorient the stop signs: Lewis /Auburn/Adams,
Lewis /Utica (4-way stop to 2 -way stop), Madison/First, and Madison/Second, It is not
anticipated that these changes would increase motor vehicle volumes or speeds.
5. Conversion of the 100 block of Lake Av. and the 100 block of S. Cascadilla Av. to
allow two -way bicycle travel — These blocks are currently designated as one -way,
presumably for the purpose of limiting cut -thru motor vehicle traffic. However, these
10
streets carry very low levels of traffic and would make a good two -way bicycling route.
In fact, observations by staff indicate that bicyclists are currently traveling in both
directions along these segments and no significant
problems have arisen from such use. Therefore, it is y, �A
recommended that these streets continue to be signed to
prohibit motor vehicle access in the southeast direction,
but new signs be added to allow legal bicycle access
(see Figure 7). The recommended way to achieve this
condition is to make the street segments two -way, but to � 1 lr.�
Figure 7: This image shows the
prohibit entry by motorists at the intersections of signs used on a street in
Massachusetts that permits one -way
Lake/Monroe, Cascadilla/Cayuga, and Cascadilla/Sears. travel for motor vehicles and two-
It is recommended that the north side of Cascadilla Ave. way travel for bicyclists
remain one -way for all traffic. Along the south side of the street it is recommended that a
I Omph advisory speed limit be established (such an advisory speed is already posted
along the north side of the street).
Description of Measures — Non - infrastructure elements
The Engineering Office plans to engage in the following types of non-
infrastructure activities:
I. Collaborate with the general public, emergency service providers, and other
stakeholders to ensure optimal initial Bike Blvd. designs.
2. Work with City decision- makers to secure policy support and a funding
mechanism for initial construction and for ongoing maintenance of the Bike Blvd.
system.
3. Provide limited initial and ongoing general information to the public about Bike
Blvds., and how to behave as bicyclists and motorists when traveling along them
4. Make connections with organizations (such as Way2Go and RIBs), events (such
as bike rodeos), and City departments (such as IPD) to support education and
encouragement activities that relate to bicycle use, particularly along the Bike
Blvd. routes.
I1
Other, related items
It is recommended that standard bike lanes be installed in the 200 & 300 blocks of
N. Tioga St. to connect the Bike Blvd. network to The Commons. Due to the more
significant traffic volumes in this location, it has been deemed not suitable for Bike
Blvd. -type treatments. The installation of these bike lanes will necessitate the removal of
approximately 13 on- street puking spaces. Two bike lane designs are feasible; one
design would remove on- street parking from the east side of the street, a second design
would `chicane' the travel lanes so that some on- street parking could be retained on each
side of the street. With the chicane design, on -street parking could remain in front of the
County Court House and in front of Town Hall/Post Office.
Additionally, it is recommended that standard bike lanes be installed in the 200,
300 & 400 blocks of Third St. to connect the Bike Blvd. network to the Farmers Market
(which will have a minimal impact to on- street parking; though it will require changing
the DMV's driver test parking location). As with the Tioga St. location mentioned above,
this segment carries too great a volume of vehicles to be appropriate for a Bike Blvd.
treatment.
Along both of the street segments mentioned above, it is recommended that the
speed limit be reduced to 25mph and that way - finding signage is included.
Cost Estimates — initial and ongoing costs
It is estimated that the construction of the entire initial Bike Blvd. network will
likely cost around $90,000 to $100,000 if constructed entirely by City crews, if the signs
and pavement markings are modest, and if the traffic calming measures are simple in
design. However, the cost might total up to around $200,000 or more if larger, higher
quality traffic calming measures are built, if any unanticipated complications arise, and /or
if a portion of the work will be performed by private contractors. A planning -level cost
estimate is provided below. Once a funding source is identified (such as a City Capital
Project, or a state or federal grant), a more detailed cost estimate can be developed.
In addition to the initial costs, there will be ongoing maintenance costs —
primarily, repainting worn pavement markings. The ongoing costs will depend in large
12
part on what types of measures are initially installed. It is estimated that annual average
costs will be in the mid- hundreds of dollars to a few thousand dollars.
Plannino -level cost estimate
Item
Quantity
Est. cost
Unit
Total
Bike Blvd. pavement markings
62
$200
each
$12,400
Route signs
85
$200
each
$17,000
Traffic calming devices
9
$4,000
each
$36,000
Install 25 mph signs
25
$200
each
$5,000
Install bike lanes
4400
$2
linear ft.
$8,800
Misc. sign adjustments
$4,000
Sub total
Contingency (15 %)
Overall project totall
$83,200
$12,480
$95,680
Project implementation options
A variety of implementation options can be considered; below are the three most
promising options:
1. Establish a City Capital Project. Pros: The Bike Blvd. network could be built over
a short period of time (1 -3 years). Cons: Need to use 100% City funding.
2. Seek state or federal grant funding. Pros: The City would only need to pay a small
portion ( -20 %) of the total project costs, and, because outside funding would be
used, higher - quality traffic calming measures, signs, and pavement markings
could be used. Cons: Low chance that the City would be awarded the funding.
3. Incrementally build network during other street work proiects. Pros: Lower costs
if Bike Blvd. measures are installed in conjunction with other street work. Cons:
Very slow implementation rate, and discontinuous Bike Blvd. parts would not
function as a system until most of the work was completed. This option is not
recommended on its own, but could be used to supplement option I or 2; for
example, N. Tioga St, will be undergoing major rehabilitation work in the next
few years and Bike Blvd. elements (e.g. traffic calming) could be added to the
project for a lower cost than if the elements were added later.
13
Appendix A — Recommended Bicycle Boulevard pavement marking design (not drawn
to scale). The marking design to be either 4' wide and 17' tall on narrower streets and 6'
wide and 26' tall on standard width streets.
72" or 108"
64" or 96"
72 "or 108"
or
72"
14
8.2B Adoption of the City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan - Resolution
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2011, the Board of Public Works watched a video entitled
"Portland's Bike Boulevards Become Neighborhood Greenways," produced by StreetFilms.org
and discussed the concept of a bicycle boulevard plan for Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works directed staff to produce a plan for bicycle boulevards
in the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, staff drafted a proposed planning process to develop the plan, including outreach
to neighborhood groups, elected officials, other City departments, and
WHEREAS, staff presented a draft Bicycle Boulevard Plan to the Board on August 6, 2012,
when the Board declared themselves Lead Agency for environmental review, and
WHEREAS, the September 24, 2012, the Board of Public Works declared that adoption and
implementation will not have a significant negative environmental impact; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works hereby adopts the City of Ithaca
Bicycle Boulevard Plan dated September 12, 2012, and prepared by the Office of the City
Engineer.
Page 8
NEWMAN GOLF COURSE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
SUMMARY: YEAR AMOUNT
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 2011 ($114,1551
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 2010 ($72609)
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 2009 ($50,538)
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 2008 (569,898)
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPEND(TURES) 2007 ($53,292)
EXCESS OF REVE NUES(EXPENDITURES) 2006 ($56,7241
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 2005 (556,930)
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 2004 ($68,731)
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 2003 ($20,947)
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 2002 ($41,1221
EXCESS OF REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 2001 $15,272
TOTAL (5589,6741
2011 ACTIVITY
REVENUES:
CART RENTAL
BUDGET
$45,000
ACTUAL
$27,900
DIFFERENCE
($17,100)
PRO SHOP
$11,000
55,818
155,1821
CONCESSIONS
5500
$1,363
$863
OPERATING REVENUES
5191,000
$109,515
($81,485)
TOTAL REVENUES
5247,500
5144,596
($102,904)
EXPENDITURES:
OGET
ACTUAL
DIFFERENCE
A7250
110-STAFF
$62,133
50
$62,133
115- HOURLY F/T
$46,868
549,301
($2,4331
120 - HOURLY P?
$50,000
$66,578
($16,578)
125-OVERTIME
511000
$559
$441
225 -OTHER EQUIP
$1,000
S997
$3
405 - TELEPHONE
$1,100
S1,534
($434)
410 - UTILITIES
S12,000
$15,019
($3,019)
415 - CLOTHING
5425
$425
$0
420 -GAS & OIL
$8,600
S8,048
S552
425 -0FFICE EXPENSE
51,300
51,507
($207)
435LONTRACfS
$16,300
$15,450
$850
437 - MERCHANT SVC CHO
53,200
$3,461
($261)
465-MNCESSION
$11,000
$3,406
$7,594
475 -PROP MAIM
$4,000
$2,840
$1,160
476-EQUIP MAIM
$900
$349
$551
477 - EGUIP PARTS
511,000
$7,628
53,172
480 -BLDG SUPPLIES
$9D0
$1,144
($244)
481- SMALLTOOLS
$400
$552
($152)
483 -CONST SUPPLIES
$19,000
520,734
(51,734)
TOTALS
5251-M
5199732
551 304
FRINGE
STATE RETIREMENT
$18,436
$18,184
$252
SOCIAL SECURITY
$12,240
$8,749
53,491
WORKERS COMP
$2,391
$941
51,450
HEALTHINS
$23,257
$25,003
($1,7461
DENTAL
S1 620
51.142
5478
TOTAL
557 944
554.01@
S3 M
TOTAL 0 & M
Item q I A
COMMENT
Note: Yearly differences are dependent
on many factors (i.e. weather, economy, etc.)
$ (53,606.70) Average subsidy
Note: Revenue amounts in ( ) are under
budget (not good) and revenue amounts in the
positive are over budget (good).
Vote: No pro for all of 2011.
Vote: Expenditure amounts in O are over
ludget (trot good) and expenditure amounts in the
xrsitive are under budget (good).
Note: Equipment depreciation is an estimate.
tote: EqulpmeM depreciation is an estimate.
EST
$0
So
So
IPAL
SO
$0
50
MENTIDEPREC)
$5,000
55,000
$0
TOTAL
SSRDQ
55,000
$0
D TOTAL
NET TOTAL
EEXPECAINTALCOM
ACTIVITY
NUES:
RENTAL
BUDGET
S45,000
ACTUAL
$48,448
DIFFERENCE
S3,448
HOP
$11,500
$7,979
153,521)
ESSIONS
5500
$60
154401
TING REVENUES
$190,000
5165,913
1$24,0871
L REVENUES
$247,000
5222,400
($24,600)
NOrrURES:
NDITURES:
BUDGET
ACTUAL
DITAFF
$62,267
559 ,743
52,524
115- HOURLY FR
$45,288
$47,311
(52,023)
T26-HOURLY P/T
$49,324
$50,945
($1,621)
125-OVERTIME
$1,000
5853
$147
225 -OTHER EQUIP
50
$0
$0
405 - TELEPHONE
51,100
$1,182
($821
410 - UTILITIES
$14,000
59,233
$4,767
415-CLOTHING
$400
$574
($174)
420-GAS & OIL
$7,600
54,329
$3,271
425 -OFRCE EXPENSE
$1,300
$786
$514
435- MNTRACTS
S16,300
$15,846
$454
437 - MERCHANT SVC CHG
$3,000
$4,048
($1,0481
440-STAFF DEVEL
$500
$0
$Soo
455 - INSURANCE
$500
$0
$Soo
465-CONCESSION
$10,000
511,351
($1,351)
475 -PROP MAINT
$6,000
53,949
$2,051
476 - EQUIP MAINT
$900
$418
5482
477 -EQUIP PARTS
$11,000
$8,844
S2,156
480-BLDG SUPPLIES
$755
$549
S206
481 -SMALL TOOLS
$500
$201
$299
483{ONST SUPPLIES
$20,000
$21,856
1$1,856)
TOTALS
S251734
$242.018
S9 716
FRINGE
STATE RETIREMENT
$12,073 1
$11,937
$136
SOCIAL SECURITY
S12,0781
511,791
$287
WORKERS COMP
$2,218
$787
$1,431
HEALTHINS
$20,745
$22,577
1$1,8321
DENTAL
51.642
Sm
S793
TOTAL
548756
547991
5265
TOTAL O & M
5300.490
CAPITAL C0575
INTEREST
$0
$0
50
PRINCIPAL
$0
$0
So
EQUIPMEN DEPRECI _l
$5,000
$5,000
$0 I
TOTAL 1
S5,000 I
SO
GRAND TOTAL
Note: Equipment depreciation is an estimate.
tote: EqulpmeM depreciation is an estimate.
Sale of E4uipmeal
NET TOTAL
BUDGET
$40,000
2909 ACT!VRY
REVENUES:
CART RENTAL
ACTUAL
$43,597
DIFFERENCE
$3,597
PRO SHOP
$11,500
$10,057
($1,443)
CONCESSIONS
$800
$280
(5520)
OPERATING REVENUES
$175,000
$183,066
$8,086
MISC REVENUE
$0
SSq
$r,4
TOTAL REVENUES
$227,300
$237,074
$9,774
EXPENDITURES:
BUDGET
ACTUAL
DIFFERENCE
A7250
11D-STAFF
$57,584
$57,584
$D
115 - HOURLY F?
543,500
$45,692
($2,192)
120 - HOURLY P/T
$49,324
$50,077
($753)
125�OVEWPME
$1,000
$798
5202
225-OTHER EQUIP
$1,400
$1,245
$155
405 - TELEPHONE
$1,400
$1,007
$393
410-UTILITIES
$12,000
$10,082
$1,918
415- CLOTHINC
$400
5350
$50
420-CAS & OIL
$7,600
$8,923
(51,323)
425-OFFICE EXPENSE
$1,300
$1,078
$222
430 -FEES
$0
$0
$0
435 - CONTRACTS
$16,300
$15,740
$560
437 - MERCHANT SVC CHO
$3,000
$3,205
($205)
440STAFFDEVEL
$500
$0
$500
455- INSURANCE
$SOD
$0
$500
465 -CONCESSIONS
$10,000
$12,300
($2,300)
475 -PROP MAINT
56000
$2,613
$3,387
476 -EQUIP MAIM
$900
$0
$9DO
477 -EQUIP PARTS
$9,000
$9,841
($841)
480-BLDG SUPPLIES
$755
$875
($120)
481SMALLTOOLS
$500
$388
$112
482SIGNS & BLANKS
$0
$D
$0
483-CONST SUPPLIES
$20,000
$18,551
$1,449
485 -TREES
$0
$0
$D
TOTALS
5242.963
c n0 a4o
S2 614
ERINM
STATE RETIREMENT
$7,717
$7,736
($19)
SOCIAL SECURITY
$11,583
$11,793
(5210))
WORKERS COMP
$1,899
$1,008
$891
HEALTH INS
$20,222
$20,981
($759)
DENTAL
51.599
5745
SB54
TOTAL
MUM
542263
5757
TOTAL O&M
CAPITAL COSTS
INTEREST
$0
$0
$0
PRINCIPAL
$O
$0
$0
EQUIPMENT(DEPREO
$5,000
$5,000
$0
TOTAL
55,000
$5,000
$0
GRAND TOTAL
NET TOTAL
LS
Sale of E4uipmeal
29oe Ac 1wrY
REVENUES:
CART RENTAL
BUDGET
535,000
ACTUAL
$48,855
DIFFERENCE
$13,855
PROSHOP
$10,000
$11,767
$1,767
CONCESSIONS
$1,500
$307
($1,193)
OPERATING REVENUES
$172,000
5188,664
$16,664
MISC REVENUE
SO
$5,625
55,625
TOTAL REVENUES
5218,500
5255,218
$36,718
EXPENDITURES:
BURG
ACTUAL
DIFFERENCE
A7250
1%STAFF
$53,497
$57,316
($3,819)
115 - HOURLY FIT
541,211
$45,039
($3,828)
12OHOURLY PIT
$49,324
$51,464
($2,140)
125 -OVERTIME
$1,000
$1,510
($510)
225 -OTHER EOUIP
$19,000
$18,910
$90
405 - TELEPHONE
51,400
$972
5428
41OUTILITIES
$12,000
$13,662
($1,662)
415CLOTHING
5400
5333
$67
420-OAS & OIL
56,000
$14,100
(58,100)
425-OFFICE EXPENSE
51,300
$1,327
($27)
430 -FEES
50
SO
SO
435CONTRACTS
$16,300
I 516,254
$46
437 - MERCHANT SVC CHO
SO
52,931
($2,931)
44G-STAFF DEVEL
$500
$0
$500
455- INSURANCE
5500
SO
5500
465 - CONCESSIONS
$10,000
$13,344
($3,344)
475 -PROP MAINT
$6,000
$5,522
5478
476-EOUIP MAINT
$900
$940
($40)
477 -EQUIP PARTS
$9,000
$10,879
(51,879)
480 -BLDG SUPPLIES
$755
5633
$122
481- SMALLTOOLS
$500
$798
152981
483CONST SUPPLIES
$20,000
523,163
(53,163))
TOTALS
SZ49M i
S279097
(529.5101
SURGE
STATE RETIREMENT
$9,430
58,643
5587
SOCIAL SECURITY
$11,095
$11,883
($788)
WORKERS COMP
$1,730
$836
5894
HEALTHINS
$17,900
$18,731
1$831)
DENTAL
Sim
5726
5749
TOTAL
591 s30
S41019
3611
TOTAL O &M
Saj.21,7
S320.116
(528.899(
CAPITAL COSTS
INTEREST
Sol
$0
$0
PRINCIPAL
SO
$0
$0
EQUIPMENT(DEPREC)
$5,000
$5,000
$0
TOTAL
5=
55.000
$0
GRAND TOTAL
3296217
5325.116
15288991
NET TOTAL
5577.7171
(569.898)
1578191
Sale of Equipment
2007 ACTIVRY
REVENUES:
CART RENTAL
BUDGET
$35,000
ACTUAL
$43,212
DIFFERENCE
$8,212
PRO SHOP
$10,000
511,240
$1,240
CONCESSIONS
$2,000
$425
1$1,575)
OPERATING REVENUES
$170,000
$170,943
$943
TOTAL REVENUES
$217,000
$225,820
$8,820
EXPENDNURES:
BUDGET
ACTUAL
DIFFERENCE
A7250
110 -STAFF
553,626
$51,813
$1,813
115 - HOURLY F?
$34,524
$49,203
614,6791
120 - HOURLY PIT
$42,089
$47,998
f55,909)
125-OVERTIME
$1,000
$786
$214
225-OTHER EQUIP
$0
$0
$0
405- TELEPHONE
$1,400
$998
$402
4%UTILITIES
$16,000
$9,548
$6,452
415CLOTHING
$400
$619
62191
42D -GAS & OIL
$6,000
$5,874
$126
42510FFICE EXPENSE
$1,300
$1,261
$39
430 -FEES
50
$0
$0
435CONTRACTS
$16,300
$15,950
$350
437 - MERCHANT SVC CHO
$0
51,300
151,300)
44D -STAFF DEVEL
$500
$169
$311
455 - INSURANCE
$500
$0
$500
465CONCESSIONS
510,000
$13,613
($3,613)
475 -PROP MAIM
$2,500
$2,483
$17
476 - EQUIP MAINT
$900
$554
$346
477-EQUIP PARTS
$9,000
511,371
($2,3711
480 -BLDG SUPPLIES
$750
$385
$365
481 - SMALLTOOLS
S5001
$467
$33
483CONST SUPPLIES
$20,000
I $18,282
$1,718
TDTALS
S2172891
5232.694
1515 QM
FRNGE
STATE RETIREMENT
$10,800
$10,484
$316
SOCIAL SECURITY
$10,040
$11,460
61,4201
WORKERS COMP
$1,825
$973
$852
HEALTHINS
$17,900
$18,004
($104)
DENTAL
31 u75
5492
5978
TOTAL
$92,040.
S41418
$622
TOTAL O&M
S274 112
CAPITAL COSTS
INTEREST
$D
$0
$0
PRINCIPAL
50
$0
$0
EOUIPMENT(DEPREO
$5,000
$5,000
$0
TOTAL
55900
S50001
$0
GRAND TGTAL
S264.322
501M I
1514.783)
NET TOTAL
First year (credit card fees)
10 i:*`12
NEWMAN MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
THE SWING-10 THREE-YEAR PLAN
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012
In recent years, working with Golf Course staff and DPW administration, Friends of Newman has helped
develop annual recommendations to this board for the membership rates and the greens and cart fees. In the
fall of 2011, following the disastrous spring rains and floods, BPW approved 2012 rates, including a plan to
allow for early membership sign -ups at a 10% discount. We're here to report on the outcome of that plan and
to introduce our proposal for 2013 and beyond.
Under the city code, BPW has responsibility for approving all rates and fees, including promotions and
discounts. Board members have sometimes asked if that general authority could be delegated to staff.
Friends of Newman has been exploring the issue and has provided the Superintendent's office with proposed
changes in the city code that we hope will come to your attention, perhaps at your next meeting.
Today we bring a plan for rates and fees based on recent years' experience. In the Membership Rate
Proposal, we are recommending a 5% early sign -up discount off of the current year's rates effective through
February 28. We will work hard to market this rate in an attempt to win back old members and recruit new
members. After February 28, the regular rates will increase 5% over the current rates. We recommend this
plan continue each year through the 2015 season, with an annual review by this board.
We included a brief report on Newman 2011 -2012. The three most important findings in our report are that
(1) the resident /non- resident fee structure is depressing memberships from individuals and families who live
outside city limits. Our golf course can easily accommodate more members, and that is why we recommend a
single rate structure.; and (2) the early sign -up discount last year helped us recover membership; and (3) the
2012 season is on track to show significant recovery in overall revenues.
The third page of our report is our proposal for Carts and Greens Fees. Staff and Friends have noticed high
player counts every day of the week except (a) on days with no league play and (b) afternoons after 2pm. We
are therefore recommending adding special discount for golfing after 2pm except for league play.
The fourth page of our report shows Member Rates in 2012 with an option for retaining the Resident /Non-
Resident rate structure. That page is marked in RED because we think it will inhibit revenue growth and
continue to prevent potential members from outside the city from joining. You will also note here as on the 3-
year proposal that we are striving to attract more young golfers and senior couples through our membership
rate setting.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Hanna & Mark Babbage
Friends of Newman
N
c1�
Q
N
O
N
�
�
_
Q y
H
N D
N
Ifl If1 N N CO Yf
'i H
°1
01
N
�
m
N
O
tmD
ub1
W
aN0
N
Obi
N
NNNNN
NNNNN
V
f/1
01
d
ry
N
�„�
NNVINNNNNNNN
6'
N
y
C
a C
O N
N
N
a
N
d
0
O
N
O n N n N ty
O OI
n
N
n
M tp n) N T tp
N O
O
N
0
0
o
t° y1 a0 O) N Of
Q tp
VI
ty
o
m
C
0
N N VIN VI VI
VIN
N
VT
VI
o
_
ro
Q
ry
m
o0
0o
�
V
d
�,
�+ C
bm�nNmm�n
Vl
•'1
N
N
{A
H
Vl
N
Qiom
N
N
Vl
U d
n
N
T N
M M
d
O
lrv0
I° lNp �Q-1
b VI 01 O) N O
ay 1°
fmY1
N
°N1
ID
{O
AI
0 N
O d
O:.
N
Q
N K
K
0
N
N
O
N
�
�
_
Q y
H
N D
d
K
O O O W O O O O M O O
O Q Q W Q N Of O) a0 T M
tO tl1 W n N 01 m vI Q �O T
NNNhNhut V)V•H {A
T
N np
O n N n N l0 O °pp1
�
m
O
tmD
ub1
W
aN0
N
Obi
O
{D
Go
N
V
f/1
01
d
ry
N
NNVINNNNNNNN
y
C
a C
O N
N
a
N
d
0
0
o
m
o
0
0
o
m
o
0
o
Q
ro
Q
ry
m
o0
0o
m
m
�,
�+ C
bm�nNmm�n
Vl
H
V•
N
{A
H
Vl
N
Qiom
N
N
Vl
U d
0 N
O d
N
N K
K
o
inT
nn.yromul
QIy
m
N
L
T
N
N
h
V I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
IA
K H
N
W
7
A
N
N
J
�
r
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
_
a
E
u
V
L
0=
Z
M
d
00
L
d
E
a
P.
n
m
H
g
5i
o
y
v=
c
c
z
CL
Co
w
Q
w
e
v
c
E
c
E
v
a
d
d
a
z
a1%0,?:333u°
O
°
f
¥
ƒ
f)
f
§S4U
|
® ~�-
&
;..,;;
G
■
|®!!!zz2
¥
`
�
°a■4
MOHT
N.
-
!
;{
\
�
'
•
;I
/)�
{ {,/
|.,,�>��
§
■
?Z
®!!$
#|
§ § >4
&
■��
;�_:::
j
■�
&
;��
«!,«
\2444/}\
k
!
2
2!44|0
§N
@
1k
{
■P¥
„ §;P k;8
m
!
!a■
§r
# ■ §
;
;c
;
§
|
■_�
:��
}
;_;
,
`
�wk4
■ak�<
/2:i
:k�:j°
/
■
&
¥2
2
:;;
\
!!
„
;lr�
@■
��7�
§
§
§ §:w
■
;
»;
$
Pig
!
|■oa2
{
E
U
0
s
0
N
w
a
ww
w
N
pp
pp
pp
88
p
°
R.S.
°
3
pm
q
p!
W
$ysom
0�m
s
N
fl
0
w
O
N
;8808868
_
_
o
=
U
ry
u+ow�ww!g�
n
�
N
N
d
W
a
O
C
•
T
i
i{
S
S
S
S
o
g
S
g
r�
w
3
m
y
6
•
6
N
n
w
H
M
N
�
9
C
w
N
O
S
N
y_
A
W
ys
O
p
t7
lmV
Q��
a
O
DO
�-
`�mm3�3
m
J
a
ym'mm
f
sa
y
c
(V
y
W
w::ppAAwww
w
@@
8
pp
0�
r
w
r
N�
�
•
•
g
K
m_
m
nin
n
O1
n
�
E
V
c�orc
N
o =
�
Q
�uw.f
a
Q�-
Q
�i�Qg02G
E
U
0
s
0
N
w
a
)
§4■
;
;
,kk&;!
\�
�ll;;;#�@...
»
■
;!§r»
'
(
|22��
;,
&■
!
.
92
■...,
,
3
31
31
�:r¥;7$4
0
0i
9
■#
°
.
§;:■w...,
!�@
■!
§,
|;
!-
�;
�§■m
![
#§K
■#
«
;a•#....
-
!
®2■¥
§w@§
"
"
�!r
■B
�
})§(
|
}¢
{($
(
•
-
,�-
;--r;
«
|888888)§
§
.
.
.
|
f....
®w|l4eNI
[
)
!
, !
!
■!;4
„
;
«
§!
-
�
!
§
§[!!!!§!!
#
�■
e
..........,
�
!!r!
+!
#,
«
;
■r
.
2
■
»
!;
%2�
/)
§)
/|)
�
;.!
/:u
®!
«
®
■
«w
§
Lq
!§
:.
!
,
....
4
■
■.��;!■
■
■.
�
§§n
/$KlN,
;
«■
k
�,
|
............
.
�.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4}
\\\.
I
�
\2
-----
_!
.
•
�■,,.�
«
-,
`
............
\
:
;r
■
;
:
;
;!„
;!
�
$�&�
■rk
#@#K!
$
............
!
§■mMI-
DDIR
■
!
Itern 9. -;,,
To: BPW
From: Tom West
Date: September 19, 2012
Re: Skate Park Update, 9/13/12
On Thursday evening, September 13, about 30 members of the skating
community attended a presentation and discussion hosted by our lead designer,
Micah Shapiro of Grindline Skate Parks. Other participants included City staff
from the Youth Bureau and Public Works, Dan Krell of the Parks Commission
and Cynthia Brock, Councilperson from the First Ward.
The primary goal of the project is to provide an improved and contemporary
facility for skaters at Wood Street Park. Micah presented the details of a 5200
square foot facility. The focus of the presentation was on the "skate -able"
elements of the facility. A constructive discussion followed covering the mix of
"street' elements and "transition" elements at the facility. Almost every attendee
contributed comments; all attendees worked towards consensus on the design
elements.
General consensus was that the existing facility should not be demolished.
Retaining the existing facility will provide a safer and more accessible space for
the mix of bikers and skaters as well as provide ample opportunities for users of
all skill levels. Retaining the existing facility will also avoid the significant costs of
demolition and disposal or recycling. And of course, keeping the existing facility
will provide a place to skate and bike while the new facility is under construction.
Micah will re- design some of the elements recommended by the users. In
addition, Micah will provide construction drawings for an additional "transition"
feature. These drawings will be available for soliciting additional funding for
future construction at the site.
Landscape design needs to be developed for the site. The preliminary project
will be presented to the Parks Commission in October and it will eventually go
through site plan review. We look forward to construction in the spring of 2013.
tww 9/19/12
(9/18/2012) Bill Gray - Re: PA reclassification - proposed alignments update Page 1
I +em 9.3
From: 'Fernando Dearagon ' <fdearagon@tanpdnsco.org>
To < BILLG@ ciWdhaca. ory>,< timlo@ citohtmed ,.agq<dank @dryden.ny.us>....
CC: <Jdm.Rdchert@ dot .ny.gw >,<JcmM.FHm @dot.ny.gow, Qmank @lanpkins -c
Date: 9/18/20124:21 PM
Subject: Re: PA reclassRCalion- Proposed alignments update
Attachments: Proquad_Arterids_918_12.pdf
HI all,
Here's an update on the proposed prircipal arterials (PA)
redassRCatior5 project.
Thanks to all w o responded in such short notice to my request for
carnments. Most of the concerns eVrsssed relate] to the inclusion of the
follomg roads in the pmposel reclassifications:
- Ithaca Rd.Mlilchell St as part of RUN- Incompatible land uses,
limbatiens to truck turning movements off of Rt.79
-Rt.WB from IC to RL13 - incomcalible land uses, steep road, freight
restrictions, corridor does not correct to another PA as required
-RL89 from Bullelo St. to Cass Park. - corridor does not connect to
another PA as required.
Thee was also interest by the county to add Pine Tree Rd. ban RI.79
to RL366 M the list of PA recla55RCalions. This emitter to be
considered a replacement for the Ithaca Rd./Mitchell St. alignment, it
connects two PAS and is a major access route to a major
anploye/actioty, generator (Cornell.
As a result Region 3 has asked that the changes above he made to the
anginal proposed list of roads to be reclassitial. It nav goes to main
office In Albany for consideration before reaching FHW A.
Attached Is a map showing the currently eusling PA (Rt.13) in blue.
proposed! PA reclassifications in red and the alignments to be removed
from consideration in ydlow. This represents the prtgosal sect to
Albany.
Al sane time this fall the ITCTC will be presented wM a resolution of
support fa the PA reclassifications. M stated previously, the
rescldlon offers an opportunity for the ITCTC to include language that
assures the application of context scref ive solutions in the design of
projects crossed by the newly classified roads.
Thanks again for your help. I will keep you Informed err further
derelopmers,
Fernando
» Fernando Dearagon 9113/2012 2:06 PM >>>
ITCTC Administrative Oversight Committee and other affected parties:
This is a idlav up email regarding the FHW AMYSDOT initiative to do an
accelerated reclassification of selected roads In Tompkins County to
principal arterials (PA). Please read the email below and attachments to
got background information.
Please torte that this initiative affects County made (Warren and
Brain) and Important City connectors (Ithaca Rd., Mitchell St., Clinton
St.) - see below. Therefore city and county slab are included in this
email.
NYSDOT Region 3 has prwided a list of mods proposed for upgrade to PA
class cation. The roads are listed in the attached spreadsheet along
wigs a description and justification, and shown in the pdf map. They
Include:
Rt. 34/96 -soul of the city of Ithaca past West Denby and on to
Toga County.
Rt. 34 -north of the City to Cayuga County
RL 96 - mM of the City to Seneca County
Rt. 79 -from Me City southezW to county line In Caroline
Rt. 366 -from Rt. 13 sou h to RI. 79 - included Ithaca Rtl. ant
(9/18/2012) Bill Gray - Re: PA reclassification - proposed alignments update Page 2
aeclim of Mitchell St.
Link to the airport from RL13— W amen Rd. to Brown Rd. to Culligan
Dr.
R1. 96B from the Ithaca College entrance to Clinton St. to Meadow
SL(RL13)
The one that stands cut to me as questionable Is RLgBB from IC to
Rt.13. I'm not sure it fits well In a countywide system of PA roads.
My main cencem overall remains the potential design impacts of PA
classification in made Ihal cross villages and hamlets (i.e. R gill in
Tmmansburg). In its follow, up resolution the RCTC may considar
Inserting language that assures the application of cmtext sensitive
solutions in these areas.
I am interested in hearing back from you as seen as possible. As I
explained in the previous email this process is being accelerated and I
need to respond to Region 3 by Monday.
Thanks for your help.
Fernando
Fernando Dearagon N /13/12 8:27 AM —
ITCTC Administrative Oversight Committee,
I Who to let you knew of some developments taking place in the last
couple of days. FHW A has initiated an accelerated process to update the
antis identKed as pat of the National Highway System. This polar, Is
in Mitch. to provisions in the MAP -21 federal transportation
legislation. As described in an mail from NYSDOT;
"MAP -21 expands IM National Highway System (NHS) to include all
Principal Arterials (PA) effective 1 Oli/12 and in advance of that data
FHW A has provided Stales with an opportunity to identify any functional
classification charges named to their PA system . Those highways
upgrade to PA in this inttlalive would be automatically included In the
expanded NHS system..... In effect it provides an opportunity to elevate
eligible roads to PA level via an expedtted process. Despite the very
short timme nes provided, we have determined that it is in the
Department's interest to undertake a review, of potential PAS to
capture matlmum PA mileage on our NHS. This provides for additional
eligibility in MAP -21 fund sources and this will likely have important
benefits In secudig future federal highway fulling. Accordingly, we are
asking each region to assign a lap prienty to this task"
In shat, the expedited process mentioned! above requires that Region 3
present its list of resarnmerlded roads for upgrade to PA by next Monday,
Sept.17. This review of road classfficatieas is taking place statewide:
actually nationwide I learned today at the conference.
I've been asked, as ITCTC director, to comment and represent the MPO
position. I have several concerts with this process:
1. it circumvents the established metropolitan planning process by not
allowing enough time for adequate analysis and to go Were committees.
Apparently the FHW A Is willing to proceed with provisional approvals for
urban areas With format MPO acllol, such as a resolution, to follow at a
late ate.
2. Its net clear what are the Impacts of PA designation. Yes, those
roads may have access to new sources at funding. but what type of design
requirements Will be included in a PA deugnelon. W hat would be the
impact of rebuilding a PA read cutting through a village or hamlet?
That said it seems like the'expediled process' is happening and
cant be changed right now. There is more information in the attached
snail and documents.
NYSDOT Region 3 is preparing a list of roads W upgrade to PA
(9118/2012) Bill Gray -Re! PA reclassification -proposed alignments update Page 3
classification. The justificadion fa classifying a two as PA is
included belay. I will share the Reg.3list as soon as I receive it
(which should be today at the latest). Fran discussion with NYSDOT staff
I expect the list will Include no mcm than 5 read come. w links in
Tompkins County. but we'll see...
Please carted me with any questions a comments.
Fernando
JUSTIFICATION FOR A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
The justification for classifying a road as a Principal Arterial should
be based on the descriptions below. Traffic volumes should net be a
determinant of whoher a facility should be a Principal Arterial
although it is an important Item for considerallon relalive to roadways
in the same area. Some very law volume roadways may be properly
identified as Principal Arterials due to their role in connecting
isolated population canters. Presence of trucks as a reflected of
commercial activity may also impact whether a roadway Is considered a
Principal Arterial.
Rural Principal Arterials typically create a connected rural network of
continuous routes serving as connections between population centers a
very significant traffic genemlars. Taps on M. are typical of
greater length saving regional. statewide, a interstate travel as
opposed to movement within a locallued area. Principal Ancess provide
an Interconnected! nisi without stub connections except in unusual
cimumslances such as international boundary connections.
Urban Principal Arterials serve major centers of Whaty Within an
urban area or as continuations of Rural Principal Arterials. They
typically carry the highest traffic volumes Mauve M other roads in
Me Immediate vicinity as well as the major potion of trips entering
and leaving the urban area.
All IntersMtes add almost all fully and partially controlled access
facilities are classified as Principal Arterials.
Page 1 of 4
Bill Gray - Re: PA reclassification - proposed alignments
From: Tim Logue
To: Bill Gray; Ed Manc; Fernando Dearagon; Jeffrey Smith; John Lampman; cford @dot.state.ny.us;
dank @dryden.ny.us; hengman @town.itham.ny.us
Date: 9/14/2012 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: PA reclassification - proposed alignments
CC: John.Reichert@dot.ny.gov; Imeph.Rint @dotny.gov; tmank @tompkins -co.or
Hi Fernando and all,
Thank you for the email and the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Generally, the proposed changes to
upgrade minor arterials to principle arterials seems to be beyond the FHWA/AASHTO concept of function
dassification. I understand the interest to be eligible for funding, but many of the streets (I focused mostly on
the City, but did look county wide) seem to meet the definition of minor arterials, not principle arterials. Broadly,
thinking about the whole county, it makes sense to have Rt 13 classed as a PA and it is. The only other two
roadways that seems to rise to that level would be 1) Rt 79 east of the City, connecting through the City to Rt
96, north of the City and beyond and 2) Rt 34/96 from Rt 13 to county line and beyond - I suppose this could
include Rt 34 north of the City, too. The first makes sense as a major way to travel across the county and to
major metro areas and interstates, such as Rochester, Binghamton, NYC, thruway and I -88. The latter makes
some sense because it makes the connection north /south through the county and because there's a 9 ton limit
on South Aurora Street (Rt 96B) in the City due to the grade. Heavy traffic is therefore directed to use Rt 34/96
to Spencer and then to Candor to get back on Rt 96B and vice versa.
Within the City, it is hard to see Ithaca Rd as a principle arterial. Minor arterial, yes. But there is still lots of
access provided along Ithaca Rd and it's main purpose is not simply mobility. Likewise, Rt 96B in the City seems
to function as a minor arterial, but not a principle arterial. There is lots of access with many cross streets and
tons of driveways as it is really a residential street for much of its length outside the CBD (both on the hill and in
the Bats). Also, it's weight restriction on the hill decreases its utility for many vehicles. Rt 89 is a jump from an
urban collector currently to PA, which doesn't seem to meet FHWA guidance. I don't think we need to include a
very short segment of West State Street (between Seneca St and Rt 13A) as it doesn't carry through to a PA. It
seems fine as a minor arterial.
If the Rt 79 to Rt 96 connection is upgraded to a PA, it should be made for both westbound traffic and
eastbound traffic. Maybe it was just an oversight, but Green Street (Rt 79 EB) was not included. For eastbound
traffic it would be Rt 96 (Cliff Street) to Rt 13 SB (Fulton) to Rt 79 EB (Green St), then Rt 79 (East State /MLK Jr.
Street). For westhound traffic, it should be Rt 79 (East State /MLK Jr. Street), to Rt 79 WB (Seneca Way, then
Seneca Street), to Rt 13 NB (Meadow Street), to Rt 96 (Buffalo Street, then Cliff Street). I know, our one way
streets drive people crazy, but there it is.
I hope that is helpful,
Tim
Tim Logue
City Transportation Engineer
Office of the City Engineer
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 274 -6535
file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \billg\Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \50532291 coimain... 9/18/2012
1 -• 3pcuo tee.
�f