HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-16 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaDATE: February 8, 2016
BPW Meeting TIME: 4:45 pm
LOCATION: 3rd Floor,
1 Board of Public Works City Hall, Council Chambers
108 E. Green St.. Ithaca
AGENDA
Time
Topic Voting? Presenter(s) Allowed
1. Call to Order /Agenda Review No Mayor Myrick 5 min.
2. Mayor's Communications
3. Communications and Hearings from Persons
Before the Board
4. Response to the Public
5. Administration & Communications
6. New Project Presentation
7. Reports
A. Special Committees of the Board
B. Council Liaison
C. Board Liaisons
D. Superintendent and Staff
8. Buildings, Properties, Refuse & Transit
9. Highways, Streets & Sidewalks
10. Parking & Traffic
11. Creeks, Bridges & Parks
12. Water & Sewer
No Mayor Myrick
No Public 5 -15
min.
No Commissioners
No Various 20 min.
A. Appeal of Water Bill for 113 Dryden Road — No Supt. Thorne 10 min.
Resolution
The property owner has indicated that he would like to present additional information related to
the water bill.
13. Discussion Items
A. Six Mile Creek Watershed Protection Project — No Supt. Thorne 10 min.
Proposed Resolution
Finger Lakes Land Trust has an opportunity to purchase a parcel of land to expand the protected
natural area bordering Six Mile Creek and is requesting partial funding from the City for the
purchase, through the Watershed Protection Fund the City already has.
B. Request for an Encroachment Agreement from No Supt. Thorne 10 min.
Rulloff's in Collegetown at 411 College Avenue
A request has been submitted for Rulloff's manager to install two benches on the sidewalk
outside of the restaurant.
C. Cascadilla Creekway Project No Bridge Sys. Eng. 15 min.
Gebre
Public input has been received regarding this project. A memo and copies of the statements are
enclosed for the Board's information.
Time
Topic Voting? Presenter(s) Allowed
D. Tioga Street and the Bicycle Boulevard Plan No Dir. of Eng. Logue 15 min.
Staff would like the Board's direction on some questions related to repaving the 300 -400 Blocks
of North Toga Street as it relates to the Bicycle Boulevard. See the enclosed memo for more
information.
E. Request for Street Name Change for Sisson Place No Dir. of Eng. Logue 15 min.
Cornell University and the Village of Cayuga Heights are requesting that Sisson Place, in the
City of Ithaca, be renamed to Northcross Road.
14. New Business No
15. Adjournment Yes
Page 2
12A. Authorization to Resend the Water Bill for the Correct Amount for 113 Dryden Road
Water Billing — Resolution
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2008 the City replaced a manual -read Badger 4 -inch dual body
compound water meter (Badger) with a new radio -read capable Master Meter 4 -inch dual body
compound water meter (Master Meter), and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015 City Water Meter Technicians replaced the Master Meter due to
consistent readings well below the historical range for this account, and upon examination of
the Master Meter, it was discovered that the radio reading transmitted from the high flow
register was incorrect by a factor of 10 (i.e. meter head mechanical register read 97,857 -HCF,
radio read picked up 9, 785 -HCF), and
WHEREAS, based on the actual reads from the mechanical registers (less the previous
billings) a bill for an additional 13,020 -HCF {$120,695.40} was prepared and sent 7/2/2015,
and
WHEREAS, upon request by the Owner of 113 Dryden Road, the account history was
reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent of Public Works for Water and Sewer, the
Superintendent of Public Works, and a member of the Board of Public Works, and upon
review, it was discovered that in addition to the decimal point error on the high flow readings,
the high flow register stopped working in the 31d or 4th quarter of 2012, and .
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works has prepared an adjusted consumption and
billing schedule which accounts for the decimal point error on the high flow register, and
assumes a minimum quarterly consumption for the billing periods for which the high flow
register was not working, and
WHEREAS, the prior bill sent on 7/2/2015 in the amount of $120,695.40 is incorrect because it
did not account for the period of time that the high flow register was not working and also
included billing periods prior to the 6 -year statute of limitation, and
WHEREAS, the adjusted consumption and billing analysis properly accounts for the non-
functioning meter and 6 -year statute of limitations, and the revised billing amount is
$154,817.96, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca expunges the $120,695.40 billed on 7/2/2015, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca issue a new bill for the quarter ending 1/5/2010 through
the quarter ending 4/3/2015 in the amount of $154,817.96.
Page 3
:Q
iz
i?
su•f
� =s
�<ts
°
s"
f_
14z,m
g �
z
°
35m
'° e6�' 8rvamom °vm`�4i:Ba$nrv"'memimm$f,`& 8 nrvmmo8"rIS�n��°mOa,°8 $ $�S,°.ry m�mm
m 'r �: o '1226 msmsm
o��saso
o3�8SlSt8$S�m $ 8$$���� e�$$>R$ R RRRgpgp$;
am Sa
rZ.6 'd BS3mB P"SmpH8m
�rvry mamseSffiSSry "iizt a p p ;QfdpfJBNmm$ R A, .. m8$$
gp a
LLec g 2 mS�Aeg� �"'�����r N n
c J4�ISaSI^°o d'w"��F"B�T°d SvBn^maml"^dm"�d�4"mR 689t°�c�"3iai83�8tiGA.e S 0000° on
A
se��C "semem8a' "s� ss s °s§
ZZ
`S^aa��a�eo��aa� "��5�m5eSc a
peey Januew -mpiv Upelaa punodWo AM Rea q—vj.1tpeg !aa %a[EmPeay�aaeN —H aPna ua—a ianw Jawnoa "I OR fuonawnd-uoN
Peal olPat- PiAl+eaenl Panodwq Mofl Jana 4aul -e eaiayry aeuey9
1�
m
E
i
r
a
a
z
a�
C
Y
-FF
C
a E
3
E c
E
E
E
E
E
E s
E
E
x `
E :1
u° 8
8S8t�8°8� 8 °8°88°88H8A8S8t�8�8n838,w 8«8�88°88S8�$8
R
S'RB88.IxO$$ir
^
$ 8Y� n�mAamY��qRi�°d$
RK
N4 �^�g�flgauN ylg$a Ma
uy,
KNl8N NN 14
'° e6�' 8rvamom °vm`�4i:Ba$nrv"'memimm$f,`& 8 nrvmmo8"rIS�n��°mOa,°8 $ $�S,°.ry m�mm
m 'r �: o '1226 msmsm
o��saso
o3�8SlSt8$S�m $ 8$$���� e�$$>R$ R RRRgpgp$;
am Sa
rZ.6 'd BS3mB P"SmpH8m
�rvry mamseSffiSSry "iizt a p p ;QfdpfJBNmm$ R A, .. m8$$
gp a
LLec g 2 mS�Aeg� �"'�����r N n
c J4�ISaSI^°o d'w"��F"B�T°d SvBn^maml"^dm"�d�4"mR 689t°�c�"3iai83�8tiGA.e S 0000° on
A
se��C "semem8a' "s� ss s °s§
ZZ
`S^aa��a�eo��aa� "��5�m5eSc a
peey Januew -mpiv Upelaa punodWo AM Rea q—vj.1tpeg !aa %a[EmPeay�aaeN —H aPna ua—a ianw Jawnoa "I OR fuonawnd-uoN
Peal olPat- PiAl+eaenl Panodwq Mofl Jana 4aul -e eaiayry aeuey9
1�
m
E
i
� a � � � � �
LYMAN AND LYMAN, LLC
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS
TOLL FREE: 1966-350-5623
❑ 51 NORTH MAIN STREET
ALBION. NEW YORK 14411-1296
TEL: (585) 589.5623
FAX: (585) 589.7292
NATHAN M. LYMAN
Ernst nnft n.bm&- 4ymaw*m @n•aam
December 9, 2015
Katherin D. Servoss, Ex. Ass.
City of Ithaca Dept of Public Works
108 E. Green St., Room 203
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: revised water bill for $163,621.17 dated 12/3/15
Account 903558200
Dear Ms. Servoss:
REPLY r0
Q 1322 E. STATE STREET
ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850
TEL: (607) 319-5314
FAX: 607- 272 -5765
GURnS L LYMAN, SR (1926-1882)
RECEIVED
Dept. of Publk Works
DEC 09 2015
Wa of the suwntendent
and thelneerin! DWMI*n
Relative to the above - captioned matter, I met with Mr. Thorne in early November, regarding
the disputed water bill. He provided me a spreadsheet, which I stated I needed to study, and
that I would respond to.
Apparently between that time and my response of December 4, 2015 (copy enclosed), Mr.
Thorne revised his spreadsheet, provided a copy to the BPW but not to me, and requested a
significant upward movement of the bill. There was no notice to me of this modified analysis,
or that this was going to be put on the agenda at the November 23, 2015 meeting. It was my
understanding that I was to be given the opportunity to respond, and Mr. Thorne and I would
continue to try to resolve this matter before it was brought back to the PBW, and that did not
happen.
I first object to the procedural failure of the City to provide me with an "updated" spreadsheet,
and being denied the opportunity to review the calculations in that spreadsheet, and secondly
being denied the opportunity to complete my conversation with the Department of Public
Works before it was brought back to the BPW. In doing this, the City has denied procedural
due process to the tax payer, and proceeded without notice.
Second, the bill is wrong and not supported by fact. The city has made no explanation of why
their second revised computation was changed, or the basis upon which it was changed. The
methodology of the second revised bill was based on erroneous assumptions, as outlined in
my letter of December 4, 2015.
We hereby appeal to the PBW from this revised Wiling
In addition, there was a bill received by my client for $5,015.50. I have reviewed the
documentation given to me by the City in this matter, and believe that the City was
overcharged by their contractor, and failed to properly review the bill. For instance, there was
one hole, but 6.5 hours charged for two excavators and two operators. There was not room to
operate two excavators in that area, and my understanding is that two were not operating at
the same time. Secondly, there is 19.5 hours for a truck. All the other hours are 6.5; there is
no explanation of how all the other workers worked for only 6.5 hours, and the truck was
there for 19.5. This bill is also being appealed, and I would like to address it at the same time
as the water bill.
Please confirm that this matter will be put on the 12/14 /15 agenda so that I may plan
accordingly.
NML/bhs
cc: client
RE: 113 Dryden Water Bill Page 1 of 2
RE: 113 Dryden Water Bill
Michael Thorne
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 3:26 PM
To: Nathan M. Lyman [ nathan.lyman @lymanandlyman.com]
Cc: Kathy (Gehring) Servoss
If you would like to appeal, please send your request to Kathy Servoss by Wednesday, December 9th at noon.
This will ensure it will be on the Dec 14 meeting agenda.
Michael Thorne, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 - 274 -6527
From: Nathan M. Lyman [nathan.lyman @lymanandlyman.com]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 3:22 PM
To: Michael Thorne
Subject: Re: 113 Dryden Water Bill
I want to appeal their determination, or a request reconsideration by the BPW. If that is not available to
me, we will commence an article 78.
Nathan M. Lyman iPhone6+
On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:06 PM, Michael Thorne <MThorne(a)cityofithaca.org> wrote:
Dear Mr. Lyman,
The water bill was included as an agenda item at the November 23rd BPW meeting. The BPW
passed a resolution based on a revised spreadsheet included in the agenda package. The water bill
was revised upward to $154,817.96. The prior spreadsheet that you reviewed and commented on
in your letter was incorrect on the low side. Attached is the BPW agenda and supporting materials
from the November 23rd meeting.
http:// www. citvofithaca .org /AgendaCenter /ViewFile /Agenda/ 11232015 -934
Regarding the sewer bill, I understand that the property manager had requested a sewer lateral
installation. The trench was excavated for the work, and it was later discovered that the sewer
connection inside the building was not what the property manager had thought. We were told by
the property manager to cancel the sewer lateral installation, and our contractor backfilled and
compacted the trench. The City was billed $5015.50 from the contractor for this work.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Michael Thorne, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 - 274 -6527
From: Nathan M. Lyman fnathan .lyman @lvmanandlyman.com]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 12:24 PM
https: / /mail.cityofithaca.org /owa/ ?ae= Item &t = IPM .Note &id= RgAAAAAVxghO 15IdToo... 12/17/2015
iW- 11-, Lly u%,n YY 0.Lw iiin
To: Michael Thorne
Subject: 113 Dryden Water Bill
Dear Mr. Thorne: Attached please find our proposal relative to the disputed water bill.
bill. Please advise.
In addition, I am working on the response to the sewer bill, and should have that to you
next week.
Nathan M. Lyman
NATHAN M. LYMAN, ESQ.
LYMAN & LYMAN LLC
TOLL FREE 866- 350.5623
1 322 E. SPATE STREET
ITHACA, NY 14850
(607) 319 -5314
(607) 272 -5765 [FAX]
51 N. MAIN STREET
ALBION, NY 1441 1
(585) 589 -5623
(565) 589 -7292 [FAXI
rage /_ 0i/_
This e-mail message is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you
have received this electronic mail transmission in error, do not read it. Please delete it from your
system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail
at nathan.lymanM- Ymanandlyman com or by calling 866 - 350 -5623, so that our address record can
be corrected. www.lymanandlyman.com
Pursuant to certain federal tax regulations, we must inform you that, unless expressly stated
otherwise, any advice contained in this correspondence or any attachment relating to federal taxes
is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding
any federal tax penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters
addressed herein.
https: / /mail. cityofithaca.org /owa/ ?ae= Item &t = IPM .Note &id= RgAAAAAVx(IhO 15IdToo... 12/17/2015
L,YMAN AND L.YMAN, LLC
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS
TOLL FREE: 866 - 350.5623
❑ 51 NORTH MAIN STREET
ALBION, NEW YORK 14411-1296
TEL: (585) 589 -5623
FAX: (585) 589.7292
NATHAN M.LYMAN
Email: nathan.lyman @lymanandlyman.com
REPLY TO
Q 1 322 E. STATE STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TEL: (607) 319-5314
FAX: 607- 272 -5765
December 4, 2015
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Email only: mthorne @cityofithaca.org
Michael J. Thorne, Superintendent
City of Ithaca Dept of Public Works
108 E. Green St., Room 203
Ithaca, NY 14850
re: Water Bill, 113 Dryden Rd.
Dear Mr. Thorne:
CURTIS L. LYMAN, SR. (1926 -1992)
Since our last meeting, I have had a chance to review the spreadsheet you sent to me and
confer with my client.
My client has paid the bills sent by the City during the disputed time period, as you
know. In reviewing your trending for 2002 — 2008, there is a noticeable trend downward
after 2006. The methodology you have suggested to resolve this matter (lowest quarter
between 2002 and 2008) uses the original meter, which might, or might not, have been
accurate. We won't know because as I understand it, you never had it re- calibrated or
tested after removal.
In your 1/6/09 line, you say that the meter flow went from zero to 3,245 units. It looks to
me like this must be a data entry error, or that the first replacement meter was completely
compromised, because that is over double the maximum flows recorded previously.
The attempt to analyze between 2009 — 2015 using an average of 2002 — 2008 flows is
not appropriate for two reasons:
1) Your red chart, "Total Meter Read (HCF)" shows that starting in 2007 going
through 2008 there is a distinct reduction in the quarterly flow. This was due
to water conservation measures started in the spring of 2007 by putting
restrictors in the showers, and the commencement of regular plumbing
inspections in the units to look for leaks. Those measures remained in place
in 2009 — 2015, so using flows before the spring of 2007 improperly skews
upward the "average" you assert.
2) In 2010, the owner replaced all the toilets in the building with low flow units.
This would have resulted in additional savings, but because you allege that
your meter in that time period was defective, it is impossible to gauge the
impact of those additional conservation measures, and reliance on older
historical measures fails to consider or account for these additional
conservation measures.
Using the second methodology ( "minimum quarterly consumption 2002 2008 "), the
impact of #1 is reduced, but there is no offset for #2 conservation measures.
As such, we disagree with the suggested values of $221,131 based on average and
$137,184 based on minimum quarterly consumption, as they are speculative at best and
fail to account for conservation measures taken by the Owner.
I would suggest a good indicator of the impact of conservation measures can be seen in
the meter read of 1015115, 731 Units with your new, high tech meter. Your minimum
consumption number for the October billing period is 857 Units. That is about a 15%
difference from the 10/5/15 meter read.
If we take your $137,184 value, and discount it by 15 %, it works out to $116,606. I have
reviewed this at length with the Owner, and am authorized to resolve this dispute for the
sum of $116,000. The offer in compromise is for settlement purposes and without
prejudice to the Owner asserting any and all defenses in the event it is not accepted. The
offer will remain open until the day after the next BPW meeting, and if not accepted at
that time, is withdrawn.
Very truly yours,
LLC
Y. an
NML/bhs
cc: client
13A. Six Mile Creek Watershed Protection Project — Proposed Resolution
WHEREAS, a conservation easement is a set of legal restrictions that a property owner can
voluntarily place on her or his own land, limiting use and development of the land forevermore,
and;
WHEREAS, the City is currently constructing at substantial expense a new water filtration plant
which is fed by a creek, and;
WHEREAS, the quality of the water fed by said creek is substantially dependent on the quality
of water provided upstream of the plant by the creek's watershed, predominantly outside City
limits, and;
WHEREAS, overdevelopment of the watershed in the long term would increase the risk of
water quality issues that could prove costly to remedy at the plant itself, and;
WHEREAS, the Common Council favors natural conservation efforts [anybody have a more
specific reference, maybe to an existing City policy on environmental conservation, that
we might reference here ?];
WHEREAS, the Common Council included in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget $20,000 in support
of the initiative detailed in this resolution, and;
WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to establish via this resolution more specific
procedures and guidelines for the disbursement of these funds and any future funds similarly
budgeted for the purpose of watershed conservation easements; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That as part of the annual budget proposal of the Department of Public Works for
the Water and Sewer Division, the Superintendent of Public Works, on consultation with the
Director of Planning and Development, make a recommendation as to what amount, if any, is
recommended for inclusion in their annual budget for purposes of this program; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That any funds so budgeted be evaluated for expenditure on transaction costs
necessary to the creation of conservation easements according to the procedures and
requirements set out in this resolution, and such other procedures and requirements not in
conflict with this resolution established by the Director of Planning and Development and the
Superintendent of Public Works; and be it further
RESOLVED, That applications for expenditure of these funds on particular conservation
easement projects may be submitted by any member of the public, though most commonly by
the Finger Lakes Land Trust, to the Director of Planning and Development or her /his designee;
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Director of Planning and Development or her /his designee shall
evaluate each application according to the minimum criteria specified in this resolution, among
others, and if said minimum criteria are satisfied, shall circulate the application to the
Superintendent of Public Works or his /her designee (expected generally to include either or
Page 4
both of the City Watershed Coordinator and the City Environmental Engineer), who in turn
shall:
• add the application to an upcoming agenda of the Board of Public Works occurring not
sooner than 30 days in the future, and
• email or mail notice of the application to all members of the City's Common Council and
to the Clerk of the Town or Village in which the contemplated conservation easement
would be created;
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Director of Planning and Development, the Superintendent of Public
Works, and /or each of their designees make a recommendation to the Board of Public Works
as to their recommended action on the application under consideration; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works deliberate upon, and thereafter approve or deny,
each application for funding of transaction costs of a conservation easement, and if approved
specify the dollar amount, not to exceed $15,000 per application, authorized for use on the
application- specific project to be drawn from the Council- budgeted funds available to this
program at that time, abiding the following minimum criteria, all of which must be satisfied in
support of any approved application:
1. The property owner(s) of the property impacted by the pending application is /are willing
participant(s) in the project.
2. An outside funding match to City's contribution to the application- specific project is
preferred, but not required.
3. Another party will be responsible for property management and stewardship of any
conservation easement created under this program.
4. The project is located in the City watershed and the conservation of the project is
deemed by the Board of Public Works, on the advice of relevant City staff, to be
beneficial to long -term water quality for the City's water supply.
and be it further
RESOLVED, That applications may be submitted seeking funding support of this program for
fee -title purchases (rather than easements) in support of conservation of the City watershed,
but that such applications shall, after being considered by the Board of Public Works as
specified in this resolution, require a vote of the Common Council before any approval of the
application shall be effective.
Page 5
FW: six mile creek watershed protection project https: / /mail.cityofithaca.org /owa/ ?ae= Item &t= 1PM.Note &id= RgA...
FW: six mile creek watershed protection project
Michael Thorne
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 12:34 PM
To: Kathy Servoss
Cc: Aaron Lavine; John Cornish; Erik Whitney; Scott Gibson; Josephine Martell; Joseph Murtagh
Attachments:Watershed Conservations E- i.docx (21 KB) ; petkov_dryden_potential_ac -1.PDF (1 MB) ;
petkov_dryden--potential_ac -2.pdf (2 MB)
Hi Kathy,
Please include the following on the 2/8 BPW agenda as a discussion item.
Thanks
Michael Thorne, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 - 274 -6527
From: Aaron Lavine
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:14 PM
To: JoAnn Cornish; Michael Thorne
Cc: Erik Whitney; Scott Gibson; Joseph Murtagh; Josephine Martell
Subject: RE: six mile creek watershed protection project
JoAnn and Mike: I know you've only had a week in which to review the below, but I wanted to check in on your
departments' views and status for this application, both in an effort to support FLLT's transaction timeline (if we
approve the application) and because Seph and Josephine tell me that they are wondering whether this will be
included in the PEDC agenda that will be released in a couple days. Will it? JoAnn, do you support it? Mike, is
there an opportunity for this to go to BPW this coming Monday?
Thanks.
Aaron (Ari) O. Lavine
City Attorney, City of Ithaca
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Tel: (607) 274 -6504
Fax: (607) 274 -6507
This e-mail contains information that may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
please delete this e-mail and notify us immediately by reply email, or at (607) 274 -6504.
From: Andrew Zepp [mailto:andrewzepp @fllt.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 8:28 PM
To: Aaron Lavine <ALavine @cityofithaca.org >; JoAnn Cornish <J Cornish @cityofithaca.org>
Cc: Michael Thorne <MThorne @cityofithaca.org >; Erik Whitney <EWhitney @cityofithaca.org >; Scott Gibson
<SGibson @ cityofithaca.org>
1 of 4 2/3/2016 1:33 PM
FW: six mile creek watershed protection project https: // mail. cityofithaca. org/ owa / ?ae= Item&t= IPM.Note &id= RgA...
Subject: RE: six mile creek watershed protection project
Thanks Ari. We are indeed seeking $40k and are pursuing the same amount from the County's capital reserve
fund. We're anticipating that the remaining $220k for the project will be raised from private sources. Both dates
(for the BPW and the planning committee) work for me and would fit into our timeline – I'm presenting to the
county's Planning Advisory Board this Wednesday.
Andy Z
From: Aaron Lavine [ mailto :ALavineOcityofithaca.org]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 6:25 PM
To: JoAnn Cornish
Cc: Michael Thorne; Erik Whitney; Scott Gibson; Andrew Zepp
Subject: FW: six mile creek watershed protection project
JoAnn and all (copying Andy):
Please find below an application for use of the $40,000 (correct ?) that the City has so far budgeted for watershed
conservation easements (Council resolution governing the program is attached as a refresher on purpose and
relatively detailed procedures to be followed). Andy, my apologies that it has taken me a couple weeks to pass
this along; I am unfortunately swamped.
It sounds like it could be a well - leveraged project that directly addresses our goals for this funding, though that is
of course for all of you to judge. JoAnn, per the attached resolution, the application (which so far is this email) is
to be made to you in the first instance, and for those on this email to weigh in on, before proceeding to BPW
and —in this case, because the application is for a fee title purchase rather than just a conservation easement
— ultimately to Council for approval.
If Planning and W &S are supportive of this application, I would like to help you explore how to expedite the
process so that we would be able to give Andy a response in time to actually facilitate this project, as I
understand your timeline is tight, Andy. Realistically, we couldn't possibly have a final and binding decision for
you before the first week of March insofar as we would have to go to BPW (on 2/8) and Planning Committee (on
2/10) first; is that plausible for your project timeline, Andy?
Thanks to all, and have a good weekend.
Ari
Aaron (Ari) O. Lavine
City Attorney, City of Ithaca
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Tel: (607) 274 -6504
Fax: (607) 274 -6507
This e-mail contains information that may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
please delete this e-mail and notify us immediately by reply email, or at (607) 274 -6504.
From: Andrew Zepp [mailto:andrewzeppPfllt.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 20161:33 PM
2 of 4 2/3/2016 1:33 PM
FW: six mile creek watershed protection project https:/ /mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/ ?ae= Item &t= IPM.Note &id= RgA...
To: Aaron Lavine <ALavinePcityofithaca.org>
Subject: FW: six mile creek watershed protection project
Hi Ari,
We're pursuing the Six Mile Creek acquisition and the timeline is tight since the sellers are moving away in
mid - April. I would welcome the opportunity to brief you and others on the project and to submit a proposal.
Just let me know how you'd like to proceed.
Andy Z
From: Andrew Zepp
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 10:56 AM
To: 'Aaron Lavine'
Subject: RE: six mile creek watershed protection project
Hi Ari,
For the combination of total acreage, wetlands, uplands, and 2.5 miles of creek frontage this is truly a unique
opportunity. Given the degree of development and subdivision in the watershed, many of the prospective
easements we're looking at are on the order of 20 -40 acres with only a modest amount of frontage — whether
we're talking about Six Mile Creek itself or a small tributary. Each easement involves approximately $20k in
transaction and stewardship expense. Because of the geography of this parcel — encompassing a small valley
with frontage on both sides of the tributary, this project really does provide the most bang for the buck in terms
of watershed protection.
Z
From: Aaron Lavine fmailto:ALavine @ cityofithaca.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 10:09 AM
To: Andrew Zepp
Subject: Re: six mile creek watershed protection project
Thanks Andy. Sounds exciting! I will review this opportunity with relevant city stakeholders, but before I do, one
question:
Can you give me some sense of how many "run of the mill" conservation easements are represented in this one
project — particularly with respect to the amount of Creek frontage protected? As you can imagine, I will need to
demonstrate to city stakeholders that we are getting a similar bang for buck (in terms of watershed
protection) from this capital outlay as we would have from funding only transaction costs on conservation
easement projects in the watershed.
Thanks again for your help.
Ari
Aaron (Ari) O. Lavine
City Attorney, City of Ithaca
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
3 of 4 2/3/2016 1:33 PM
FW: six mile creek watershed protection project https: / /mail.cityofithaca.org /owa/ ?ae= Item &t= IPM.Note &id= RgA..-
Tel: (607) 274 -6504
Fax: (607) 274 -6507
On Jan 6, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Andrew Zepp <andrewzepp(&fllt.orga wrote:
Hi Ari,
I'm writing with some exciting news for Six Mile Creek. We're right now finalizing a contract to
purchase a key tract bordering the creek that has been identified by the county planning
department as one of the highest priority parcels for protection. The 125 -acre Petkov parcel
borders existing protected land and encompasses more than 900 feet of frontage on Six Mile Creek,
more than two miles of frontage on tributaries to the creek, 12 acres of wetland, a county -
designated Unique Natural Area, and more than 100 acres of mature forest.
The Land Trust intends to purchase the property for its estimated value of $2,000 per acre and to
manage the site in perpetuity as a nature preserve, in conjunction with our nearby Roy H. Park
Preserve (separated from this tract by only one parcel). We anticipate launching a $3Q0,000
fundraising campaign for the project and we're hoping that the City would consider allocating the
existing balance of watershed protection funding ($40,000 ?) toward the project. We'll also be
pursuing a grant of $40,000 from the county's capital reserve fund for open space as well as
$220,000 in additional private funding.
While I realize that we'd discussed using conservation easements as the primary tool for watershed
protection, we believe that outright acquisition is merited in this case because of the significance of
the site's natural resources, their pristine character, and the higher level of protection that outright
acquisition will provide.
I've attached two maps of the proposed acquisition for your review. We hope to have the property
under contract within the next week or two. Since the owners are leaving the state, they're
pushing for a quick sale. It looks like we'll close on the property in April with a payment of
$125,000 and complete the project with a second payment of $125,000 in December.
Assuming that the contract is finalized within the next two weeks, would you like me to come in
and first present to you and other staff? Or should I plan on going straight to one of your
committees?
Andy Z
< petkov_ dryden _potential_acquis_CONTEXT.pdf>
< petkov dryden _potential_acquis.pdf>
4 of 4 2/3/2016 1:33 PM
Property of Marilyn and Theodore Petkov
Conservation context
471 Midline Rd
Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, NY
ss,
Y
0 1 2 Mlles Map prepared by Karen Edelstein,
0 Finger Lakes Land Trust
I i i i I 15 December 2015
N
r
O
NI
N
C
Y
Q.
E
O
Property of Marilyn and Theodore Petkov
Portion of parcel #76. -1- 24.114, 126 acres
471 Midline Rd
Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, NY
April 2012 natural color aerial orthoimagery
f ..k 135'{ � " . f •. .r ♦ ��� •r "._ �•, ,'i7 .:�
I
�, � � ` � y��y , yr Y�♦ 1% sib^ �, . " - ��
V
4_
f -.It
Ak
n
Petkov, potential acquisition
Petkov properly, excluded
Streams
Cornell Natural Area
FLLT preserves
0 500 1,000 Feet
I i I I
t�5
lip
f
,fit, Hay)
y,66 L
�J` �ryO4
Cq
^..
N
A
OL
O
0
Map prepared by Karen Edelstein,
Finger Lakes Land Trust
15 December 2015
CITY OF ITHACA — Superintendent of Public Works kgehring @cityofithaca.org
108 East Green Street, Suite 202, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Phone: (607) 274 -6527 Fax: (607) 274 -6587
APPLICATION FOR USE OF CITY PROPERTY
(see §170 of the City Code for additional requirements, restrictions, and procedures)
APPLICANT NAME f,�,etez L
NAME OF ORGANIZATION / BUSINESS t1(LCJ%� t� 1 .A
MAILING ADDRESS
E42
PHONE NUMBER GO-1 00 DATE OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION
EMAIL ADDRESS U-0 15 - C a s
All of the following documentation MUST be submitted to the Superintendent's Office, along with this application
form, and $100 non - refundable fee, in order for application to be considered complete.
**** Incomplete Apalications will not be accented ** **
❑ Provide a typed explanation of your request clearly indicating the location of the property under consideration,
your intended use(s) of that property, and intended duration of use. Also, include a description of any physical
changes that you wish to make to the City property and any other information you feel is relevant, such as
paving, drainage improvements, signs, structures, etc.
RT $100 non - refundable application fee. Checks payable to the City of Ithaca.
Q- Property survey produced by a licensed land surveyor showing the City property and adjacent private property
A drawing, such as submitted or approved site plan, clearly illustrating the boundaries of the City property
proposed for private use, including physical changes proposed and the affected area (in square feet or acres)
6 Insurance coverage consistent with the terms stated in §170 -9D(1) of the City Code
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application Fee of $100 paid on I a. v fa (date) by cash or check # L-7 q (circle one)
Application accepted by: �- �,� Date: I ��
r-,%4,. Michael J. borne, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works
The Superintendent of Public Works has determined that this request should be properly treated as (check one):
El Temporary easement El Permanent easement El ® Lease License ❑ Other
The Superintendent has determined that this request ❑ does ❑ does not involve the use of public parkland.
The Superintendent has determined that this request ❑ does ❑ does not require environmental review.
The Superintendent shall determine whether the requested encroachment or use interferes with any public works
functions or needs, and whether any conditions should be attached to any granting of an easement, license or lease.
The Superintendent has determined that additional review /action is necessary from the following (check all that apply):
❑ Mayor ❑ City Attorney ❑ Fire Chief Board of Public Works
❑ City Clerk Common Council ❑ Other
This application been ❑ approved ❑ with conditions ❑ denied
by: I Date:
Michael J. Thorne, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works
and a written response ❑ has ❑ has n. of been provided.
JAFront Office Files\Forms\Use of City Property Application.doc
P
411 College Ave.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 277 -1700
todd @rulloffs.com
To City of Ithaca,
February 2, 2016
The location of the property is in front of 411 College Ave. The intended use is for our guests to be able
to sit out front and enjoy the weather. There was in fact a bench on this same location previously that
was removed when the wood became rotten and the steel legs rusted through.
We know understand that the benches must be at least 2' from the curb. We will shorten the benches to
5' long which will bring the benches over 2' from the curb. The total area covered by the revised
benches including the space between the benches will be 5'X 8'.
Please see 2 photographs provided of the benches in question.
We believe in recycling and re -use and were intrigued by the current trend in reusing pallets for
furniture. Our benches were made from discarded pallets that would have ended up in a landfill.
have also included an article on pallet furniture which can be found at:
http:H www. huffingtonpost .com /supercompressor /7 -cool- pieces -of- furnitur b 7848798.html
The duration would be as long as we are in business.
We will replace and maintain benches as necessary or choose to remove them.
We DO NOT allow alcoholic beverages out front.
Please let me know if I can provide more information.
Sincerely,
Todd Nau
General Manager RullofYs LLC
?.. 0.Y
Y
WN
a
Ilk 16 Nib.
aM
SAP
V ■A i
{
+
5.0
o-r n Rf f
P
! yF�I
h "°�
_ r
,i
L.
0.4-15 N o. 4 1 3 wn�IVw $ILL.
I SILL 60.q.
iO.q -FIILST FLooR= 5q.2.
rrF-
cQ
hN
f
f
PSASEMELIT FLOOP, ELEY, I!
VAXIES So.-(_ So.q +'
FWZT FLOOR u .sq.t
No. 4.11 m6'
I I 5U1LVIUG Fp- c),m-r5
WATEX vALv� -ass
Soo l `
57. r u I
STvfl1wr
A4E ACIEg
ALoNr. ST
cC`0mr- iZET 5
WATE8
VALVF 4
13.2, 51
I Voppmp- e�+ t I 57.5
1 PLvG6ED Attu SAPPED IKA EISSEitVI J �Alv I C17A44nt C 0 Z
c5 F-WES LATF-pAL ( 113 C 0121
+ZIM 58.0 b
v (UV. ST1 APPIZOx. 1..00ATtoLI (G" 5Tota/I 5EWE8 III
- s l i ST
W.
I -*-
APPZOX. LOCA -Cto14 IV WATEf2, MAIIJ
1 (OF-PTH - 4' ± PE2 erry)
11i s 4 "SEhKER
NI
I .... {{
I,.1rY. RtM= 57.6
I
I 5 APPROX. LoCATIOIJ ell 5AIStTA.1zy g�tIVEQ, :
G
APPP -OX, LOCATIOW Co" GAS MAIIJ
LE ET L.I 1.16 J'
bas W A L tG
VALVES
COLLEGE
:P- 14,1964 To 9"cw
Slot,15
l4$ TC 5
T 4ow I�Q.OPOSEA
Warnin
ALTERATIONrT JIS 14AP
v4es.
NOT
CONFORMING TO SECTION 7209,
SUBDIVISION 2, ii.Y, STATE
EDUCATION LAW, ARE PROHIBITED
Br'LAW. ALL CERTIFICATIONS
:oMpAt�l` — M suc I
HEREON LID FOR THIS THEREOFONLY
GRACH g Wit-CO)( �; -.L.P.
IF SAID
MAP OP COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSION
C E Ix z0%SMAAI I DUWW AE�s
� --k OF THE LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR
: SIGNATURE APPEARS
f- �:CsIA PROPERTlES�Ii.lC,
HEREON.
eyor, New York State License
p correctly delineates an actual
e•or under my direct supervision;
��tien+�aq ,�vee+•em,r
pFRFrMr
ante with the current code of
•,���1 p
`'-`
S adopted by the New York State
•' •�'� • .`• ��'i�''' ,'
nd Surveyors; and. that I found no
ay across property lines except
,. °= �'�':Y. <<•
.= DATED:f�,o� 9� 7
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 -6590
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Michael J. Thorne, P.E. Superintendent
Telephone: 607/274 -6527 Fax: 607/274 -6587
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Public Works
FROM: Addisu Gebre, Bridge Systems Engineer
DATE: February 1, 2016
RE: Cascadilla Creekway Project, CP #802
I have attached inputs I received from Common Council members, the Bicycle Pedestrian
Advisory Council, and the public to select a design alternative from four alternatives the Board
currently considering for Cascadilla Creekway Project.
For your additional information, I have also attached two memos circulated to Common Council
members, Planning & Development Board, Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council, and the public.
If you have any questions, please call Addisu Gebre, Bridge Systems Engineer @ 607 - 274 -6530
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
2/1/2016 Re: Cascadilla Creekway
Re: Cascadilla Creekway
Lauren Trichon [Itrichon@icsd.k12.ny.us]
Sent:Saturday, January 30, 2016 1:43 PM
To: Addisu Gebre
Hello,
As a resident of North Cascadilla Ave., I'd like to advocate for a few things:
1. My family supports the first alternative listed in the 1/6 Memorandum with option A for railing.
2. There is no mention of any attention being given about the walkways on the Tioga St. intersections.
This is of great concern to me and my family as cars tend to take that corner VERY fast, and it is
essentially blind to pedestrians, which remains a dangerous issue that we feel needs to be addressed.
3. A concern was raised (also in the 1/6 Memorandum) that this project is "over- engineered for the
avenue, which carries a very low - volume of low -speed motor vehicles." Unfortunately, this is not the
case. Our house is one of the closest to the road and with young children who frequently play out front,
we've found in our several years here that the signage of "No Thru Traffic," the posted speed limit of 10
mph, and the one sign that a neighbor putting up warning of children being at play, are very frequently
ignored: cars fly onto the street and down its length. Will postings of speed limits and warnings of
children and pedestrians be made more apparent, and, hopefully, enforced by the addition of speed
humps and/or police monitoring? As an anecdote, four vehicles of non - residents of the North side of the
Ave. utilized the street as a Thm Traffic roadway in the fifteen or so minutes it has taken me to draft this
email. Two of them were clearly going above 10 mph.
4. The 2nd Ward website states that some have argued that unless other funding can be found for this
project, it should be, essentially, placed on hold as the city "has more pressing infrastructure needs."
Again, as someone who resides here and has witnessed the creek walls and curbs crumbling increasingly,
the railings rusting and breaking away, and finally the closure of the Sears St. bridge, this is a pressing
matter, and it needs to be addressed as such. Further putting it aside will only make the already
compromised situation increasingly dangerous, and exacerbate the extent of repair needed.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
The Trichon family
Lauren Trichon
English Teacher
Ithaca High School
https: // mail .cityaithaca.orcjawal ?ae =kem&t =IPM. Note& ir= RgAAAADHEQW° I.2bFSTFTrpv% 2bZND8r9lBwAlQxROrlCcSneRGliigZSA ,1a40.ABYP,4ya,A.AKIv 1!?
2/1/2016
Fwd: Fwd: Cascadilla Creek project comments
Fwd: Fwd: Cascadilla Creek project comments
Thomas Shelley [gsl @cornell.edu]
Senffriday, January 29, 2016 10:30 PM
To: Addisu Gebre; Tim Logue
Cc: nosborn @mail.clarityconnect.com; Jim Dam16 @cornell.edu]
Dear Addisu and Tim - -I would like to pitch in, along with my neighbors, to support alternative #2. I also
feel that it is more appropriate for the neighborhood, especially given the historic context of the
neighborhood. I think the pipe railing, in particular, is more fitting with the character of the two blocks
along the creek. Thanks for working with the neighborhood regarding our concerns with this project.
Tom Shelley, 118 E. Court St.
-- - - - - -- Forwarded Message -- - - - - --
Subject:Fwd: Cascadilla Creek project comments
Date.:Sat, 30 Jan 2016 00:03:33 +0000
From.:nosbom@mail.clariiycomect.com
To:Eugene Endres <endresna_,ithaca.edu >' Thomas J. Shelley <tislncornell.edu >, Laura Kozlowski
<laura laurakozlowski.com >, Ashley Miller <ashlevma.fltg nett, Eric Trichon
<trichon @,gmail.com >, Burns And Kristy <burnsandkrisIy@P—mail.com >, Laura Peters
<1an1 lC&,cornell.edu >, Joe Pullman <josephpullman&aol.com >, Ellen Ketchman
<eketchman&aol.com >, Suzanne Gaglie <s aga2lie@twcny.rr.com >, Mary White
<mlwhite@lightlink.com >, Vivian Zayas <vz29@cornell.edu >, Suzanne M. Schwartz
<sms8lg.comell.edu >, Jim <jam16&cornell.edu >, Steve Kyle <sck5ncomell.edu>
CC :nosbom&mail.clarityconnect.com
Several of us from the Cascadilla Avenue /Sears Street neighborhood were in attendance at the meeting.
We'd like to thank Addisu Gebre and Tim Logue for working up and presenting four alternative proposals for the
project. We very much appreciate their dedication to finding a way to move forward with the project.
We have read the proposals and listened to the presentation made to the Board of Public Works. We very much like
the modifications as suggested in alternative #2 (from the memo dated January 6, 2016) of a "10 -12" high concrete
curb, approximately 18" wide (constructed as part of the cap on the retaining wall) with a pipe railing mounted on top
of the curb (with the appropriate sized voids in the railing to meet building code. ") And we very much like the railing
design proposed for this alternative as being more appropriate for the Cascadilla Avenue neighborhood (as detailed in
the memo dated January 12, 2016 with photos of the Six Mile Creekwalk railing and curb).
We feel alternative #2 best addresses the aesthetic concerns the neighborhood had about the railing design (as
presented by LaBella at the public information meeting on September 21, 2015) while at the same time taking into
consideration the safety needs for bicycle riders. As it was summarized in the January 6, 2016 memo: "We think a
design like this, essentially a pedestrian/bicycle railing on top of a tall curb, would be appropriate considering the
very low volumes and very low speeds of motor vehicle traffic."
https: l /mail.cityofiftca.orq/owal?ae= Item& t = IPM. Note& id= RgAAAADHEQW% 2bFSTFTrav% 2bZND8r9lBwAMxROrICcSoeRGLvQZSulAAAABxMXAAAKIx .._ 1/1
2!1/2016
Cascadilla Creek project comments
Cascadilla Creek project comments
nosborn @mail.clarityconnect.com
Sent:Friday, January 29, 2016 1:53 PM
To: Addisu Gebre; Tim Logue
Cc: Jim Dam16 @cwrnell.edu]
January 29, 2016
The following comments are being submitted to Addisu Gebre in response to the additional proposals presented to
the BPW on January 11, 2016 concerning the Cascadilla Creek railings and Sears Street bridge replacement and in
response to his request for recommendations on which alternative proposal the city should pursue.
Several of us from the Cascadilla Avenue /Sears Street neighborhood were in attendance at the meeting.
We'd like to thank Addisu Gebre and Tim Logue for working up and presenting four alternative proposals for the
project. We very much appreciate their dedication to finding a way to move forward with the project.
We have read the proposals and listened to.the presentation made to the Board of Public Works. We very much like
the modifications as suggested in alternative #2 (from the memo dated January 6, 2016) of a "10 -12" high concrete
curb, approximately 18" wide (constructed as part of the cap on the retaining wall) with a pipe railing mounted on top
of the curb (with the appropriate sized voids in the railing to meet building code. ") And we very much like the railing
design proposed for this alternative as being more appropriate for the Cascadilla Avenue neighborhood (as detailed in
the memo dated January 12, 2016 with photos of the Six Mile Creekwalk railing and curb).
We feel alternative #2 best addresses the aesthetic concerns the neighborhood had about the railing design (as
presented by LaBella at the public information meeting on September 21, 2015) while at the same time taking into
consideration the safety needs for bicycle riders. As it was summarized in the January 6, 2016 memo: "We think a
design like this, essentially a pedestrian /bicycle railing on top of a tall curb, would be appropriate considering the
very low volumes and very low speeds of motor vehicle traffic."
For those who have walked along Cascadilla Avenue you know what an unusual and special walkway the city has in
this street. Having lived on this street for decades we know how much it is used by walkers and bicyclists, both
residents and visitors.
When the city initially submitted the grant proposal focusing on Cascadilla Avenue we pointed out that with the
addition of several more hotels downtown, the attraction of a nicely maintained walkway along a creek, within walking
distance of these hotels, could only be a plus for the city. To this end we feel that it is important that the city
consider a proposal that enhances the look of the railing along the creek and does not unduly obstruct the view of
the creek. We also feel it is very important for the city to replace the old, rusted bridge across the creek. Right now
the bridge is blocked with two huge metal signs, the flower boxes along its edges are filled with weeds, and the
railings have been damaged by trucks.
For those who have never strolled along Cascadilla Creek between Tioga and Cayuga Streets we urge you to take a
walk and see for yourself. It's a very unusual neighborhood, with houses lining both sides of the creek. With its
narrow lanes on both sides it is a cozy neighborhood, which always in the past had been linked by the bridge. For
two years that bridge has been closed, which has had a decidedly negative impact on the cohesiveness of the
neighborhood.
If we as residents and you as representatives of the city of Ithaca are sincere in wanting to make the downtown an
attractive, walkable, livable city, then we urge the city to do all it can to move this project forward in a way that
enhances the neighborhood and results in a safe pedestrian and bike pathway.
Thank you,
Jim Mazza and Nancy Osborn
111 Cascadilla Avenue
Ithaca, NY
0
httpsJ /mail.cityofithaca.orglowa/?as= Item &t =IPM. Note& id= RaAAAADHEOW% 2hFS TFT rnyOA2 h7Nr, nrolg� „4l<�Ix4n.,r,.c,�.4C!... c;;��
2/1/2016 Re: Cascadilla Creekway Project
Re: Cascadilla Creekway Project
Ducson Nguyen
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:15 AM
To: Addisu Gebre; Common Council
Cc: Michael Thorne; Tim Logue
CategorlesNellow Category
Thank you for the thoughtful proposal Addisu and Tim. When I went door -to -door last year I heard from many
residents in the area who are eager to see Cascadilla Creekway and the Sears St. bridge repaired and improved, but
who are also passionate about preserving the area's existing character. And full disclosure: I own a home 1 block
away from the Creekway. So it's with their interests and my own interests in mind that I support doing what we can
to improve that long- neglected but popular walk -, bike -, road- and water way.
All that said, I can't in good conscience support spending $600,000+ when, as my colleagues have pointed out,
there are significant infrastructure deficiencies elsewhere in the 2nd ward and the city as a whole. I spoke with
Dwight Mengel today, one of the aforementioned eager Creekway neighbors who's also the county transportation
planner, and he is optimistic that we'll be able to find alternate funding sources in addition to the grant possibilities
mentioned in the memo (I can't remember what he mentioned specifically, but I'll chat with him again soon). I think
option 4 is the most responsible way forward.
The pedestrian improvements at Cascadilla St /Ave and Cayuga St. are important to me too, though. It's an
intersection busy with cars, pedestrians and cyclists. There's poor visibility for drivers tuming from Cascadilla St and
pedestrians have a hard time getting cars to stop for them to cross Cayuga St. Whether as part of the Creekway
project or a continuation of the other intersection safety improvements around the city, I hope that part of the original
proposal gets priority too.
Thanks so much for your work,
Duc
Ducson Nguyen
ithaca2ndward.ora
text/call: 607 -699 -1382
On January 12, 2016 at 3:23:47 PM, Addisu Gebre (a ebrea,61yofithaca.org) wrote:
All:
Please find attached a memo that Board of Public Works Considered at their meeting yesterday. The
Board has requested inputs on selecting an alternative to purse related to the railing system along the
Cascadilla Creek. So please send me your comments in writing @ aaebre0citvofithaca.ora by January
31st. You can also find attached memo and additional materials in your official mailboxes.
If you have any questions you can reach me @ 607 - 274-6530.
Thank you,Addisu
Addisu Gebre, EIT, Bridge System Engineer
City of Ithaca Engineering Department
108 E Green Street. Ithaca, NY 14850
Office: 607 - 274 -6530 /Mobile: 607 - 279 -7386 /Fax: 607 - 274 -6587
I I
https: l /mail.cityofittaca.org/anrat?ae= Item &t= 1PM.Note &id= RgAAAADH EQW % 2bFSTFTrpy% 2bZNpBr9lBwAIdxROrlCcSoeRGLvaZSulAAAABxMXAAAKIx ... 1/1
2/1/2016
Re: Cascadilla Creekway Project
Graham Kerslick
Re: Cascadilla Creekway Project
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:05 PM
To: Addisu Gebre
Cc: Tim Logue; Michael Thorne; Common Council
CategoriesNellow Category
Addisu,
Thanks again for sending this material and for providing the opportunity for input.
After considering the four options presented I favour option 4 — we return the federal funds and proceed as a local
project.
As stated this gives the City the greatest flexibility with railing design, while being able to pursue funding from other
sources, such as the NYS waterfront revitalization program.
I appreciate that well- designed, approved railing systems have been installed elsewhere in the City. In the context of
new development in that area these are appropriate.
However such designs do not appear sensitive or appropriate to the context of the Cascadilla Creekway area.
In addition, the fourfold increase in the estimated City share of costs for these options strikes me as excessive and
unjustifiable.
Regards,
Graham
Graham Kerslick
4th Ward Alderperson, City of Ithaca
gkerslick ()citvofithaca.orrc
607 - 273 -4620
From: Addisu Gebre <AGebre0Dcitvofithaca.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:23 PM
To: Common Council <councilOcitvofithaca.org>
Cc: Tim Logue <TLogue0citvofithaca.or9>, Michael Thorne <mthorne(a)citvofithaca.org>
Subject: Cascadilla Creekway Project
All:
Please find attached a memo that Board of'Public Works Considered at their meeting yesterday. The Board has
requested inputs on selecting an alternative to purse related to the railing system along the Cascadilla Creek. So
please send me your comments in writing @ aaebre(&citvofithaca.orq by January 31st. You can also find attached
memo and additional materials in your official mailboxes.
If you have any questions you can reach me @ 607 - 274 -6530.
Thank you,Addisu
Addisu Gebre, EIT, Bridge System Engineer
City of Ithaca Engineering Department
108 E Green Street. Ithaca, NY 14850 .
Office: 607 - 274 -6530 /Mobile: 607 - 279 -7386 /Fax: 607 - 274 -6587
httpsJlmail .cityoMaca.orglowat?ae= Item &t = IPM. Note& ick RgAAAADHEQW% 2bFSTFTrpy% 2bZND8r9lBwAKIxROrlrcSneRGI.vnZ t,IgA, ARvg4Xk, AKA„ ��+
2/1/2016 RE_ Cascadilla Creekway Project
RE: Cascadilla Creekway Project
George McGonigal
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 1:42 PM
To: Addisu Gebre; Common Council
Cc: Tim Logue; Michael Thorne
CategorlewYellow Category
Hello, Addisu,
Thank you for explaining the current status of the Cascadilla Creekway Project, and for reaching out to Council to
collect our ideas about it.
I certainly agree with the Planning Board that the FHWA railing system described in Option 1 is overkill, and not a
good fit.
I will add that, in my opinion, options 1,2 and 3 are all too expensive to proceed with. As I recall, this project was
initially proposed as something that we could accomplish with only a 25% local contribution ($120,000). Apparently
that is no longer the case, and the estimated cost to city taxpayers has gone up at least 400% (to $600,000), and
probably more.
As for the fourth option, I suspect the current railing, (and perhaps the worst sections of the creek wall ?,) could be
repaired for much less than the $150,000 originally estimated as the City' portion of the project. Or we could focus
solely on the pedestrian enhancements at the intersection with North Cayuga St.
I agree with my colleague Cynthia Brock that there are many other infrastructure projects that we could and should
address before this one. And that the money spent on design may be useful down the road.
Thanks again for reaching out, Addisu.
George McG
George McGonigal
Common Council, First Ward
tel: 272 -0639
From: Addisu Gebre
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:23 PM
To: Common Council
Cc: Tim Logue; Michael Thorne
Subject: Cascadilla Creekway Project
All:
Please find attached a memo that Board of Public Works Considered at their meeting yesterday. The Board has
requested inputs on selecting an alternative to purse related to the railing system along the Cascadilla Creek. So
please send me your comments in writing @ aaebrefttyofithaca ora by January 31st You can also find attached
memo and additional materials in your official mailboxes.
If you have any questions you can reach me @ 607 - 274 -6530.
Thank you,Addisu
Addisu Gebre, EIT, Bridge System Engineer
City of Ithaca Engineering Department
httpsJ /mail.cityofitheca.orglowat?ae= Item& t = IPM. Note& id= RnAAAADHr- X0 /26 0T�Tr�,o.,��,�..r
2/1/2016 RE: Cascadilla Creekway Project
RE: Cascadilla Creekway Project
Cynthia Brock
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:04 PM
To: Addisu Gebre; Common Council
Cc: Tim Logue; Michael Thome
categories:Yellow Category
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the Cascadilla Creekway Project, and the
strategies I would support pursuing.
The 100 block of Cascadilla Avenue North and South, are quaint, quiet roadways with minimum
automobile traffic apart from the coming and going of area residents. The railings are in a poor
state and the creek walls are in need of attention.
When Council voted to apply to the DoT for funding for this project, there was discussion and
divergence on the priorities for the area. While the railings and creek walls received unanimous
support for its repair, some Council members felt that improvements to the Cascadilla /Cayuga
intersection were of higher importance, and some Council members felt that rebuilding of the
pedestrian bridge (at a cost of approx $100,000) provided minimal community benefit given that
the block was short and there were easy alternatives for the few people who used it (mainly the
handful of residents who lived on either side of the bridge on Cascadilla Ave North).
Originally, the project was attractive based on an expected total project cost of $750,000 with
the City contribution being 20% ($150,000). However, due to DoT requirements regarding the
railing, the expected total cost has doubled and the City portion has ballooned to between 4x
the original estimate ($600,000) with Fed funding, or 6x the original estimate (up to $840,000)
without Fed funding using our own railing design.
Although I appreciate the benefit that this short stretch of road provides to pedestrians, this
project does not rise to the top or middle of my priority list for the money that is.now required.
do not support replacing the Sears pedestrian bridge. If the City is going to replace a
pedestrian bridge, I'd rather see that money spent on the bridge connecting the Courthouse to
the Cayuga Green recreation way and Commons.
I am inclined to see the $70,000 spent on design to LaBella as a good investment, and useful if
we can find outside funding to augment the $150,000 City contribution and do the project for
the railing, creek wall and intersection redesign.
If we cannot find outside funds to keep the City contribution low, the Cascadilla project should
be put aside for now.
There are many projects on the City's capital project list that rise to a higher priority for me,
based on the benefits provided to the larger community. Street milling and paving,
maintenance for our recreational facilities, replacing aging heating systems, funding studies on
the impact of relocating our Collegetown firestation and what impact that will have on response
times and personnel in the City and Town, come to mind right away.
Cynthia Brock
First Ward Alderperson
607 398 -0883
httos:/ /mail,c!tvafftc8,rvn /.uy3Mao =Nn IDN4.N1 .9. a-4 11,A AA ny.ni� ��T - r r•
...^? &t=.: - ,. C...7. - . ^�`w � r7 .. FTr„ ^C. ^f,7�7..�.n' =. n.:.°..�a n. :. c...�ari .._- .. ... .,....., ....,
2/1/2016 Cascadilla Creekway Project
Cascadilla Creekway Project
Ashley Miller [ashleym @fltg.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:03 PM
To: Addisu Gebre
Categories:Yellow Category
Dear Addisu,
I would like to begin my comments on the Cascadilla Creekway Project with an appreciation of your exemplary efforts to
involve the Cascadilla Creek Neighborhood Association in discussions of the bridge and railings design.
As the mayor mentioned at the January BPW meeting, the Cascadilla Creekway "feels special" Many, many people share this
opinion judging from the number of walkers up and down the creekway, as well as the number of photos that appear on
Google Earth taken from the pedestrian bridge or adjacent to the creek. It is special to our neighborhood as well as being a
special feature of our city.
Because the creekway is a beloved neighborhood feature and a magnet for city residents and visitors, aesthetics are
particularly important in the railing and bridge design. I believe that Alternative 2, similar to the fencing used along Six Mile
Creek combines an attractive design with expediency. I was heartened to see Tim Logue's remark in his January 12th
memorandum that "We wouldn't need a railing with such small openings...." I realize that certain safety standards must be
met but one of the great things about the 3 -pipe fencing currently on either side of the creek is the unimpeded visibility of the
creek.
While I can appreciate that Alternative 4 gives the city the most flexibility, my only qualm is the time and energy it would take
to apply for the grants that would help the city pay for this project and, if successful, the length of time waiting for the money.
We in the neighborhood are anxious for this project to be completed, the sooner the better. In particular, we need our bridge
back. Not only is it a popular pedestrian feature (people crossing it always pause and watch the water) but it connects us to
our friends and neighbors.
Best regards,
Ashley Miller
https:// maii .citVofl#ma.orcVowal ?ae= item &t= IPM. NoteNd= RcOAAADHFO W% 2bFCTFTrM iQ49b 7NnRrQIRMrQI�IvR llr'1(:rCnoR(;I.�n7c.��11.A.A ,o.,,.p #vn��u�n �r.i
2/1!2016
Cascadilla Street bridge and railing
Cascadilla Street bridge and railing
Catharine O'Neill [coneill444 @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 9:19 AM
To: Addisu Gebre
Categories:Yellow Category
Hello,
I walk along the creek everyday and always imagine how easily it could be made a very beautiful and
attractive part of the central city. It sounds as if there is not much money to do this at the moment. With
proper funding, a handsome or at least pleasant railing, restored pedestrian bridge, two lamps at this
bridge matching the ones on Aurora and Cayuga Streets and brick paving could make the creek a place
people would come to stroll along. It could be charming. It would be terrrible to put the State highway
funded fencing in and detract from the aesthetics of this area. I've noticed that the twenty feet or so of
fencing running west from Linn Street at the bridge over Cascadilla is reasonable looking and stronger
perhaps than what is along the creek further down in the Sears Street section. Is that a possibility? I
would hope that nothing be done about the railing until a pleasing design can be funded. I would give
priority to a handsome railing over repairing the Sears Street bridge.
Just because I don't know to whom to direct these comments, I will add that the bridge over Willow
Avenue at Hancock Street
and the bridge on Lake Avenue in front of Ithaca Falls could also be beautified with the addition of the
black ornate streetlamps that exist at the other bridges in the city. In the first case this would unify the
neighbourhood and not seem to suggest that one is now travelling into a less desirable neighbourhood,
Northside. In the second case, Ithaca Falls, the most astonishing and beautiful spot in town deserves so
much better design... a good bridge railing, street lamps and a respectable bench unlike the very
unattractive one that was put there a few years ago. And one or two of the trees that have grown up on
the south side of Fall. Creek blocking the view of the Falls could be removed.
And I wonder if any more of those gazebos like the one in Thompson Park are being made. They could
be in other parks and be an recognisable Ithaca structure.
I guess I should find out who to talk to......
Catharine O'Neill
httpsJ /maii.cityofithacaorgtdwat?ae= Item &t = IPM. Note& id= RgAAAADHEOW°/, 2bFSTFTro v° /.2bZNngrQlFt%uAKii(RrrlrcSneRri "g7¢u!AegARrnnxgqAklg Sri
2/1/2016
Fwd: Cascadilla Creekway designs
Fwd: Cascadilla Creekway designs
Addisu Gebre [atg38 @cornell.edu]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 4:02 PM
To: Addisu Gebre
CategoriewYellow Category
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: "Wilham W. Goldsmith" <yvwg_l@cornell.edu>
Date: Jan 23, 2016 5:51 PM
Subject: Cascadilla Creekway designs
To: "Tim Logue" <tim_1o_@ci1yofithaca.org>
Cc: " Addisu Tesfaye Gebre" <atg3j&ornel1.edu >, "Mike Thorne" <mthorne&,cityofithaca.org >, "James
A. Mazza" <jaml6ncornell.edu >, "Mary Tomlan" <MTomlanaaol.com >, "Seph Murtag"
<jmurtaghna.cityofithaca.org>
Hi Tim, Addisu, Mike,
I just read the comments circulated by Ducson, sent out by Seph in his newsletter. I presume you've seen them:
htto: / /ithaca2ndward.org /issues /cascadilia- creekwav/
I'm sure FWHA and DOT have tightened up since I last had to deal with their rules. It was some years ago, with the
rebuild of the downstream bridge over Fall Creek in Forest Home. Nevertheless, I'm hoping there is more room for
options than indicated in Ducson's notes, and I hope we find better options without spending all that extra money.
At the time of the Forest Home events, I was acting as a resident (and neighborhood association officer) with my
neighbors, in opposition to the Town of Ithaca's firm insistance that the decayed one -lane bridge had to be replaced by
a two -lane bridge. The town engineer insisted, for a long time, that we had to follow US and NYS DOT rules, which
required two lanes. We simply stonewalled, with thousands of supportive signatures mostly by drivers who were not
neighborhood residents. Despite the inconvenience of the one -lane operation, they supported our claims that the
aesthetics, traffic calming, and historical tone mattered. The town apparently found that DOT could be flexible, and in
the end, the neighborhood won.
Nationally, of course, we all know it has been a very long battle to wrest some advantages from the highway lobby for
little streets, pedestrians, cyclists, and "the neighborhood." But we have been winning, and we've taken something
away from the auto - gas -etc gang. This doesn't seem like the right place to yield too easily.
Best wishes, see you soon,
ME
U&
httDs: //m a! I. Citvaflthaca. ordowa/ ?9e= item $t= IPM NoAirtRnAA4AIlNG(l
2110016 Fwd: I FCNA Ithaca j Public Input Needed for Cascadilla Creekway Project
Fwd: [ FCNA Ithaca ] Public Input Needed for Cascadilla Creekway Project
Josephine M Dosephinemartell @gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:03 PM
To: Addisu Gebre
Another comment for you, Addisu.
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Rob Steuteville <robna<newurbannews com>
Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ FCNA Ithaca ] Public Input Needed for Cascadilla Creekway Project
To: FallCreek Listeserve <fcna- ithacanu googlegrroups com>
Cc: Josephine M <josephinemartell(c�gmail com>
I hope the city rebuilds the Sears Street pedestrian bridge. While there may be higher infrastructure priorities, the bridge's
value can't be quantified in conventional transportation terms. If this were a bridge for cars, people would argue that the cars
will go someplace else and wreak havoc. Pedestrians don't inspire that fear, but they deserve respect. This stretch of
Cascadilla Avenue is probably the most travelled thoroughfare by pedestrians outside of Downtown and Collegetown. It is a
public space for events like the Duck Race, Porchfest, and day -to -day gathering. We shouldn't let this infrastructure slip away.
It's a part of why people want to be in Ithaca and worth the investment.
Rob Steuteville
On Jan 14, 2016, at 4:06 PM, Josephine M wrote:
All-
The BPW is reviewing alternate options for the Cascadilla Creekway project that currently
includes the Sears St bridge and is being funded by the Transportation Alternatives Program.
Comments are due to the City by January 31 st. You can see the proposed alternatives at the
end of the BPW agenda
packet: http: / /www.ciiyofithaca or / g_ AizendaCenter NiewFile /Agenda/01112016 971
Due to design concerns that have been dictated by the funding requirements, some alternate
designs and funding mechanisms are being considered for certain elements of the project. If
you have concerns about this project, please do provide comments in writing to Addisu
Gebre by January 31st at a eg breQcityofithaca.org.
Some brief historical background: Some members of Council had concerns about the Sears
st bridge being replaced. Some of these concerns included:
a) We are currently unable as a City to maintain all of our current infrastructure at the level
we would like,
b) the bridge is not absolutely necessary for accessibility (there are two, working bridges at
either end of the block) and
c) there may be higher infrastructure priorities elsewhere in the city
httpS: /�n'IaII.CItVt�fithacanr Ir,urRMa? =1tc.n rnIPPA �I rtn�.ia- o�gA,�nnu�r��n�o�n�,r.+ _ - - _
2/1/2016 Fwd: [ FCNA Ithaca j Public Input Needed for Cascadilla Creekway Project
Fwd: [ FCNA Ithaca ] Public Input Needed for Cascadilla Creekway Project
Josephine M Bosephinemartell @gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:24 PM
To: Addisu Gebre
CiategoriesNellow Category
Hi Addisu,
Two comments on the Cascadilla Creekway project from Fall Creek residents (Mike Culotta and Nancy
Menning) below.
Thanks,
Josephine
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Culotta <culotta�a mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ FCNA Ithaca ] Public Input Needed for Cascadilla Creekway Project
To: Nancy Menning <nancv.menning(a)gmail.com >, Josephine M <Lsephinemartelingmail.com>
Cc: FallCreek Listeserve <fcna- ithaca(cr�google rg —oups com>
I Serve on the City Conservation Advisory Committee and we submitted comments a while ago that encouraged a
designs consistent with the character of the existing fence barrier. I heard the immediate neighbors met with City
staff but my understading is the Federal funding source has requirements for fencing that are high and visually
unattractive barriers to the water and obstructive the view of the Creek
I think this project and its funding has been under consideration for nearly a year now and has going through several
stages of design review. ..it still appears to me to be quite ...out of character
also wonder if careful consideration of other cities' solutions in areas similar to this important & scenic Creekway
have been examined.
This spot enjoys such a high level of pedestrian traffic! If it appears the Design can't be made aesthetic, I'd suggest
the project be shelved until other funding that care about beauty instead of liability be utilized.
— Original Message
From: Nancy Menning
Sent: Jan 14, 2016 7:10 PM
To: Josephine M
Cc: FallCreek Listeserve
Subject: Re: [ FCNA Ithaca ] Public Input Needed for Cascadilla Creekway Project
Well, I suppose this is in keeping with the local slogan: "Ithaca is Fences." More seriously, I do hope we
can come up with (and fund) something that is appropriate for that stretch of Creekway and that
maintains /enhances its scenic value.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Josephine M <ioseghinemarteII(&-gmail.com> wrote:
All -
The BPW is reviewing alternate options for the Cascadilla Creekway project that currently y j
p Includes the
Sears St bridge and is being funded by the Transportation Alternatives Program. Comments are due to the
City by January 31st. You can see the proposed alternatives at the end of the BPW agenda
packet: httr):/ /www chofithaca oral AgendaCenter /ViewFile /Aaenda/01112016 971
f
httM -,/ /mail rityofilhar�.GY^�M1ra/�a v°.i !_ ? nnuFf)..�o ..In A R ,n.... . .
2/1/2016 Fwd: [ FCNA Ithaca ] Public Input Needed for Cascadilla Creekway Project
Due to design concerns that have been dictated by the funding requirements, some alternate designs and
funding mechanisms are being considered for certain elements of the project. If you have concems about
this project, please do provide comments in writing to Addisu Gebre by January 31st at
aaebreO- citvofithaca. org.
Some brief historical background: Some members of Council had concerns about the Sears st bridge
being replaced. Some of these concerns included:
a) We are currently unable as a City to maintain all of our current infrastructure at the level we would like,
b) the bridge is not absolutely necessary for accessibility (there are two, working bridges at either end of
the block) and
c) there may be higher infrastructure priorities elsewhere in the city
Thanks,
Josephine
Josephine Martell
Alderperson, Fifth Ward
Josephine Martell, Alderperson
City of Ithaca Fifth Ward
imartell(dcityofithaca.org
Ph. (508) 9440144
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "FCNA Ithaca" group.
To post to this group, send email to this email address:
fcna4thaca(a7 googlggroups.com
Watch Free Videos about About Technology and How To Use This List
URL coming soon
For more options, visit this group at
http://aroul2s.g000le.com/group/fcna-ithaca?hl=en?hl=en
Learn More From Our FCNA FAQ and Information Pages:
httl2://ithacarocks.com/fcna-community/
Read Our FCNA FAQ about Commercial Messages:
http://ithacarocks.com/fcna-fag-commercial-messaaes/
Fun Activities For Kids In Ithaca (compiled by FCNA members)
http://ithacarocks.com/fun-activities-for-kids4n-ithacal
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FCNA Ithaca" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fcna-
itthaca +unsubscdbeO- googlegrouas. com.
'y For more options, visit https : / /groups.google.com /d /optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 13
Groups "FCNA Ithaca" group.
https: / /mai i.cityofithaca.orglowa!?ae= Item&t =IPM .N ote&id= RgAAAADH EQW %2bFSTFTrpy %2bZN p8r9lBwAMxROr 1CcSgeRGLvgZSulAAAABxMXAAAKIx ... 2
2/1/2016
FW: safe railing along Cascadilla Avenue for bicycle boulevard
FW: safe railing along Cascadilla Avenue for bicycle boulevard
Kathy (Gehring) Servoss
Sent:Monday, January 11, 2016 8:33 AM
To: Tim Logue; Addisu Gebre
FYI
- Kathy Servoss
Executive Assistant
Supt. of Public Works, Engineering, & Parking
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 - 274 -6527
From: Dave Nutter [nutter.dave @me.com] IMernle-re of f, v 91c9e /ta �e S
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:54 AM J
tl diSo��
To: Board of Public Works CDtr1 Cr'/,
Subject: safe railing along Cascadilla Avenue for bicycle boulevard
If the City of Ithaca is going to declare Cascadilla Avenue to be a bicycle boulevard, that street should
first have the appropriate safety features. To call it a bicycle boulevard with a 2 -block long dismount
zone instead of making it safe for bicycling, as suggested by the Planning Board, would not make it
worthy of being called a bicycle boulevard. That would be irresponsible. The Bicycle & Pedestrian
Advisory Council would welcome the Planning Board as well as the Board of Public Works to appoint
their liaisons to the BPAC so that such issues could be better understood.
A bicycle boulevard is an invitation to riders, especially those who are inexperienced, averse to motor
traffic, very old or very young, in other words the most vulnerable of the population. These folks should
not be led into a hazardous situation, nor given the absurd request - which riders can be expected to
ignore - to get off and push a bike for 2 blocks just because the city is unwilling to take responsibility and
properly fix a hazard which is known to the City, yet is not necessarily obvious to the rider, before
inviting bicycle traffic into this situation. Cascadilla Avenue an attractive, low traffic connection as part
of a route between the Commons and Northside. But this street is very narrow, and riders are being
invited to ride against motor traffic as well as with it. Whenever riders pass one another, pass a
pedestrian, encounter a motor vehicle, ride 2 abreast, or simply wish to enjoy a view of the creek, a rider
is apt to ride very close to the railing. It is imperative that, if a handlebar bumps against the railing, thus
turning the wheel toward the creek and stopping the bike suddenly, this must not send a rider over the
railing and headfirst into the rocks and water below.
Therefore the top of the railing must be high enough to be above the center of gravity of an adult rider to
prevent riders from going over it. This is a standard design feature along bicycle facilities. Similarly, the
lowest railing must be low enough that a child cannot get under, and all horizontal elements must be
spaced closely enough that a child cannot get through. The individual bars do not need to be thick, nor do
they need to have the effect of making the railing opaque. The railing does not need to be designed to
stop heavy, high speed motor vehicles, because the street serves as a low speed driveway for the residents
of a few houses. The railing should be a light color so it can be easily seen, especially at night, because
typical bike lights are designed to make the rider visible, not to illuminate the rider's way.
Thank -you for taking these issues into account as the City of Ithaca moves forward to improve conditions
for bicycling.
c. . . ,.
httpsJ /mail.citvofit tint? /rvnra/?ow- Item?. t =iPne ni. a4Qpa- a,,�gpnn��cn���oi��c..r�T_ ,.�. t ^,,.. w —r /,_.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 -6590
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Michael J. Thorne, P.E. Superintendent
Telephone: 607/274 -6527 Fax: 607/274 -6587
NMMORANDUM
TO: Common Council
Planning & Development Board
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council
Attendees of project public meeting
FROM: Tim Logue, Director of Engineering Services
Addisu Gebre, Bridge Systems Engineer
DATE: January 12, 2016
. RE: Cascadilla Creekway Project, CP #802
Please find enclosed a memo that the Board of Public Works considered at their meeting
yesterday. The Board has requested your input on selecting an alternative to pursue related to the
railing along the creek. Please send your comments to Addisu Gebre in writing at
4g2bre@cityofithaca org or the above address by January 31'. If you have any questions, you
can also reach him at 274 -6530.
In addition to the memo, we have included a picture of the type of railing that we originally
considered (and budgeted for) as part of the application for the Transportation Alternatives
Program. It is the railing that we used along the Six Mile Creekwalk behind the Gateway
Commons building at 401 East State/MLK Jr. Street (Picture A). We wouldn't need a railing that
had such small openings, but this style of railing was what we were considering. This would be
the type of railing that we would suggest in Alternative Two, in conjunction with a taller
wall/curb along the creek (Picture B).
Also, we wanted to clarify that under Alternative Four, the City would certainly be able to pursue
other funding for this project. For example, this project would be eligible for funds under the
NYS Local Waterfront Revitalization Program or possibly through preventative mitigations
under a FEMA program. With the announcement of the Governor's Upstate Revitalization
Initiative, there may be other funding programs that would be applicable.
Please send your recommendation on which alternative to pursue to Addisu Gebre by January
31St. We will then present the recommendations to the Board of Public Works on February 8th,
with the hope of that the BPW will select an alternative on February 22nd.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
Y vm Sf� Ze
{ J
,s
r.
'iF3 z
I
L
�w
Q
x
Y t
r +� cm
1 j
a,
A
� e
,1
}
r�
0
F ��r��
�f
�, .�
'�
w
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 -6590
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Michael J. Thorne, P.E. Superintendent
Telephone: 607/274 -6527 Fax: 607/274 -6587
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Public Works
FROM: Tim Logue, Director of Engineering Services
Addisu Gebre, Bridge Systems Engineer
DATE: January 6, 2016
RE: Cascadilla Creekway Project, CP #802
ins memo is Mtenaed to provide an update on the current project progress and to seek direction
from the BPW on how to proceed with the project. The Board will likely want to seek input from
Common Council, the Planning Board, and the public before selecting an alternative. With the
Board's direction, staff will circulate this memo and request input so that the BPW can make a
decision at the first meeting in February.
The Cascadilla Creekway Project proposes to rehabilitate and enhance the 100 block of
Cascadilla Avenue, which is an important bicycle and pedestrian way along Cascadilla Creek.
The project scope includes:
s Replacement of railings along the creek;
• Preservation of creek wall;
Replacement of Sears St. Pedestrian bridge;
® Making pedestrian enhancements and upgrading six (6) curb ramps at the Cascadilla Ave.
IN Cayuga St. intersection to meet current ADA guidelines; and
® Enhancement of Cascadilla Ave as part of the bicycle boulevard system
In September 2015, the project consultant, LaBella Associates D.P.C., submitted draft project
scoping report for City's review. Subsequently, staff consulted with the Planning Board's Project
Review Committee and held a project pubic information meeting on October 11, 2015.
As part of the draft design report, our consultant proposed using standard, federally- approved,
crash tested railing along creek, due to the fact that motor vehicles are allowed on Cascadilla
Avenue and the vertical drop into the creek. The current railings (even if they were repaired) do
not meet this standard, though they have been in place for decades. The Planning Board, the
public, a number of Common Council members, and staff have expressed concerns that the
railings are not context sensitive and are "over- engineered" for the avenue, which carries a very
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
Page 2 of 3
low - volume of low -speed motor vehicles, and acts much more like a walkway and bikeway upon
which people can also drive. Unfortunately, communications with NYSDOT have confirmed that
if the City is to use federal funds on the project, we must use a Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) approved railing system. There are three ways to get approval: 1) use a specific railing
system that is already been crash tested and approved; 2) apply to FHWA to modify an
approved, crash - tested system; or 3) following a specified protocol, crash test a railing system
and seek FHWA approval. A fourth option for the City would be to forfeit the federal funding
and proceed as a local project.
Staff seeks direction on which of these alternatives to pursue.
1. Use an FHWA approved railing system, such as one proposed to date by LaBella. We
have clarified with LaBella and NYSDOT that even along a bikeway, we do not have to
use the taller (54 ") "bicycle railing," and would be allowed to use a 42 inch high railing
along the creek. This crash tested railing system is considerably more expensive than the
original grant application scope of work/budget; however, the federal share of the project
in dollars ($600,000) is fixed. Any additional funds would have to be made up by the
City.
Current Total Project Cost: $1,200,000
Original Estimated Total Cost: $750,000
Original Estimated City Share: $150,000 (20% of the original total project cost)
Current Estimated City Share: $600,000 (50% of the current total project cost)
2. Choose an FHWA approved railing system and modify it by adding railing or
fencing. This option would require anew design for a railing, an analysis of the
implications of modifying it, and submission to FHWA for approval. There would be
some additional cost for our consultant to design and analyze the railing system, and the
approval process with FHWA would likely take 3 or 4 months. Depending on what we
propose, construction costs could also be higher than in Alternative 1. One modified
system that we have discussed is comprised of a 10 " -12" high concrete curb,
approximately 18" wide (constructed as part of the cap on the retaining wall), with a pipe
railing mounted to the top of the curb (with the appropriate sized voids in the railing to
meet building code). We think a design like this, essentially a pedestrian/bicycle railing
on top of a tall curb, would be appropriate considering the very low volumes and very
low speeds of motor vehicle traffic, and the fact that no one seems to have ever heard of a
vehicle crashing through the railing and into the creek.
Current Total Project Cost: >$1,200,000
Original Estimated Total Cost: $750,000
Original Estimated City Share: $150,000 (20% of the original total project cost)
Page 3 of 3
Current Estimated City Share: >$600,000 (50% of the current total project cost)
3.. The City could elect to follow the protocols to crash test a railing system of our own
design and seek FHWA approval. Preliminary discussions indicate that pursuing this
option would like cost at least $100,000, and take somewhere between 6 to 12 months to
complete.
4. Return the federal funds and proceed as a local project.
This options gives the City the greatest flexibility in regard to railing design, but forfeits
the $600,000 federal share in the project. The City would be responsible for the full cost
of our current design contract with LaBella, which is approximately $70,000. The
construction costs and the total project costs would be significantly lower, perhaps
upwards of 30% to 40% lower, but with the current estimate of $1.2M, this might still
mean a final project cost of $720,000 to $840,000.
Included with this memo are the current, preliminary renderings of the railing system proposed
under Alternative 1, and a September 13, 2015 memo from the Planning Board to the BPW.
Our recommendation is to circulate this memo and seek input from Common Council members,
the Planning Board, the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council, and the public, requesting that
comments be submitted to staff by January 31', so that the Board can discuss at your first
meeting in February (8a'), with the hope that the BPW can make a decision at the second meeting
in February (22nd).
If you have any questions, please call Addisu Gebre, Bridge Systems Engineer @ 607- 274 -6530
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 -5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development - 607- 274 -6550 Community Development/lURA — 607 - 274 -6559
Email: dgrunder @cityofithaca.org Email: Tura @cityofithaca.org
To: Board of Public Works
From: Planning & Development Board
RE: Improvements to Cascadilla Creekway
Date: September 23, 2015
The Planning Board has reviewed plans dated September 15, 2015 for the proposed
improvements to Cascadilla Creekway. As the Board understands the project it is to include
some wall repairs, safety railings on both sides of the creekway, possible intersection
improvements and a pedestrian bridge replacement.
Drawings illustrating the proposed height of the railings in relation to pedestrians, cars and
cyclists, show that the railings on the south side of the creek are proposed to be approximately
five feet high. The Planning Board understands that the reason for this height - which as the
drawings depict, can be taller than a car - is to comply with safety standards that would allow
the southern side of the creekway to be an official bicycle boulevard. However, the Board also
understands that bike boulevards can include portions posted as dismount areas. The Board
also understands that due to cost, the only feasible railing design is a standard steel box beam
railing system.
The Planning Board feels that the tall height of the railings on the south creek side combined
their standard highway design will significantly detract from the experience of being in this
truly unique and beautiful part of the City. Since the structure of the railings cannot (as the
Board understands it) be under consideration the Board suggests that the railings be painted
dark green, similar to the railings on the Thurston Avenue Bridge. In addition, it urges the
Board of Public Works to post this portion of the bike boulevard as a dismount area so that the
railings on its south side can be lowered to the more open, welcoming and pedestrian scaled
3'6' proposed for its north side. The Board feels that the creekway will continue to function as
an important pedestrian and bike route with this change and that lower painted railings will
significantly improve the aesthetics and human scale of this project, and render it more
appropriate for its beautiful Creekside setting.
GEM
6a
LL
mW
I;
Au
F
z
92
Z
oc
z
10.
ui 0, y
LU
QQ C;5 6,
IN!
Luf
LIT,
09-12M
LI'M
LU
6j*
VAR.
031
31
Hal
.a
LUI
J�
C
g �a
V�
ua
r
Tl
�� n
t II is FAMST REF
T
ij a
r
%
41,
CASCADILLA STRW -4.r — — -
All III
Hill
i - gi OF
1
Tlwl
was
<
.Jl.,�
J, - I
LU
P
R!
in
z
c
t;
z
Lug
—2.1
oz R
&u
•
i
� r
+
r#
�r
- 1
fi a 1
r
i +
r
91
h
XN
J
6
* <Y< + ;1F +.lr4 alit �YY Y�.+� •�..�<i4+
1 ..i.�
i. �. fl .�. i,�. •..A: =�{. is K.
:.. +►,i.
*<.. <. +� a. �. n. *.�. .ar rya
t
.
f s ..�
i .•A �..�.i . .f .: r, a s T
!�
91
h
XN
J
6
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/274 -6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, Director of Engineering Services
Date: February 3, 2016
Re: Tioga Street and the Bicycle Boulevard Plan
As you may know, this year, the 300 and 400 block of North Tioga Street are on the
work plan for repaving. We are currently in the process of determining the scope of the
work. One significant question has come up that staff needs direction from the Board of
Public Works is whether we should include the elements of the Bicycle Boulevard Plan,
which was adopted in September 2012 and revised in November 2014. This plan is
attached, and the related elements are highlighted, including the map on page 6. The
plan is also posted in the City's webpage at:
hgp://www.cilyofithaca.org/222/Bicycle-Boulevards
The attached memo from Kent Johnson outlines some design alternatives that BPW
could pursue as a part of this project. One of these alternatives, indeed the preferred
alternative that was included in the Bike Boulevard Plan, includes removing on- street
parking from one side of the street in the blocks between Court Street and the
Commons, to allow for the inclusion of bicycle lanes. Since we recently went through
something very similar to this last year with the Cayuga Street project, and since there
were some lessons learned from that process, I would propose the following public
input and decision making process to evaluate the design alternatives and to determine
what should be included in the construction project later this year.
With the BPW's direction, staff will do the following:
• Issue a press release calling for written public comment due 30 days later and
calling for a public hearing at the BPW meeting on March 14th
`An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Q.
• Directly mail property owners along the 200, 300 and 400 blocks of North Tioga
Street requesting written comment and notifying them about a 3/14 public
hearing
• Directly email Common Council, the Downtown Ithaca Alliance and the Bicycle
Pedestrian Advisory Council, asking for written public comment and notifying
them about the public hearing on 3/14
• In conjunction with the Parking Division, we will collect data about the potential
on- street parking impacts. This would include determining the number of on-
street parking spaces impacted, collecting occupancy data for the directly
impacted blocks and the adjacent side street blocks.
With this information and input, we would expect to have more detailed conversations
at the Board meeting on February 22nd, hold a public hearing at the meeting on March
14th, continue discussion on March 28th, and hope for a decision from the BPW on April
lVh. This would allow us enough time to generate questions and answers, evaluate the
alternatives and data, hear the public input, and make a decision.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14E850 -5690
OFFICE 0V11IF CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/274 -6557
TO: Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
FROM: Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer
RE: Description of design alternates for N. Tioga St. project
DATE: January 29, 2016
Overview
The 300 & 400 blocks of N. Tioga St. have been tentatively approved for a repaving project in
2016. As is typical practice, such projects are considered for additional upgrades while the opportunity
exists to be performing work in the vicinity. In this particular case, these blocks, plus the 200 block, are
planned for inclusion in the Bicycle Boulevard network as outlined in the Bicycle Boulevard Plan which
was initially adopted by the BPW in 2012 and revised in 2014. A majority of the Bicycle Boulevard
network was built in 2015 as part of the City's Safe Routes to School project (CP #786); portions not
connecting neighborhoods to schools were not within the project scope. A key objective of the remaining
N. Tioga St. portion of the Bike Blvd. network involves its connection to the Ithaca Commons. As
discussed in the plan, the final two blocks (200 -300 blocks) of N. Tioga St. are recommended to be
treated as bike lanes rather than a shared, bike boulevard design due to the higher traffic conflicts and
more urban context in those blocks. The three below design alternates could be considered. Major design
differences are in bold type.
Design alternates
Alternate # 1:
Implement the street design indicated in the adopted Bicycle Boulevard Plan. This design would include:
- Extension of the existing Bike Blvd. from Farm St. to Court Street.
Signs and pavement markings would be installed. On -street
parking would not be impacted. 4-►
- Removal of 13 paid parking spaces on the east side of the street
between Court St. and Buffalo St. plus the removal of 5 un -paid
10- minute limit spaces between Buffalo St. and Seneca St. Ut
- Installation of standard bike lanes in both directions between Court
St. and Seneca St.
- Installation of a curbed bump -out on the north side of the
Tioga/Court intersection to prevent motorists from driving r�r
northbound on the Bike Boulevard. Bicyclists could continue 1 i
northward. (See design examples on right). Note, this bump -
out could be tested for one year as a temporary installation to
gauge the public's acceptance and to monitor traffic impacts.°
- Lower the speed limit to 25 MPH in the 200 -400 blocks (which is
the speed limit for the rest of the Bike Blvd. network).
Alternate #2:
Implement a street design similar to the one shown in the adopted Bicycle Boulevard Plan. This design
would include:
- Extension of the existing Bike Blvd. from Farm St. to Court Street. Signs and pavement markings
would be installed. On -street parking would not be impacted.
Removal of 13 paid parking spaces on the east side of the street between Court St. and Buffalo St.
plus the removal of 5 un -paid 10- minute limit spaces between Buffalo St. and Seneca St.
Installation of standard bike lanes in both directions between Court St. and Seneca St.
Instead of a curbed bump -out on the north side of the Tioga/Court intersection, install a
speed hump midway between Court St. and Cascadilla Ave.
Lower the speed limit to 25 MPH in the 200 -400 blocks (which is the speed Iimit for the rest of
the Bike Blvd. network),
Alternate #3:
Install buffered or protected bike lanes between Court St. and Seneca Street by removing all parking in
the 200 & 300 blocks. This design would include:
- Extension of the existing Bike Blvd. from Farm St. to Court Street.
Signs and pavement markings would be installed. On-street
+tf
parking would not be impacted. A
- Removal of 13 paid parking spaces on the east side of the street •~ '
Court St. and Buffalo St. plus the removal of 5 un -paid 10- minute
limit spaces between Buffalo St. and Seneca St.
- Removal of 18 paid parking spaces on the west side of the i
street between Court St. and Seneca St.
- Installation of buffered or protected bike lanes in both
directions between Court St. and Seneca Street. These bike
lanes could be buffered from motor vehicle lanes with a ainted '
p -
buffer, or they could be protected by using flexi- posts. (See
design examples on right). Concrete barriers would not be
feasible due to the prevalence of driveways.
Install either a curbed bump -out on the north side of the
Tioga /Court intersection or a speed hump midway between Court f
St. and Cascadiila Ave.
Lower the speed limit to 25 MPH in the 200 -400 blocks (which is the speed limit for the rest of
the Bike Blvd. network).
Discussion of design alternates
Design Alternate #1 would implement the Bicycle Boulevard Plan as adopted. The primary goal
of the Bicycle Boulevard Plan is to reduce barriers to bicycle use by increasing bicycling safety and
convenience. Safety can be increased by installing traffic - calming measures to reduce motor vehicle
speeds and/or traffic volumes. In Alternate #1, the curb bump -out traffic - calming device would reduce
northbound traffic volumes along N. Tioga Street, thus reducing bicycle /motor vehicle passing conflicts
along this route. It is anticipated, however, that there will be some level of opposition (perhaps severe
opposition) to this traffic- diverting element by residents and businesses that no not want to see motor
vehicle traffic reduced on N. Tioga St., and by those concerned that traffic volumes might increase on
adjacent streets. These are real and legitimate concerns. Though the traffic impacts will be estimated
ahead of time, it's really not possible to determine exactly what the final impact will be ... or to what
degree the public will support the changes after they are made. If there is significant public concern, the
curb bump -out could be installed temporarily so that the impacts could be studied over a period of time,
and the public could have time to observe the impacts as well.
Design Alternate #2 exchanges the traffic- diverting device for a speed hump designed to reduce
speeds but not volumes. Though this approach will not address the Bicycle Boulevard Plan objectives as
well as Alternate #1, it is more likely to be supported by a broader cross- section of the public who will
appreciate the traffic- calming benefits along the street.
Both Alternate #1 & #2 involve on- street parking reduction in the 200 & 300 blocks of N. Tioga
St. to allow the installation of standard bike lanes. It is understood that this approach will not be
universally supported. A parking study will be forthcoming detailing the availability and utilization of the
existing on- street parking in the area, and will estimate the impacts of the proposed parking changes. The
study will include the two affected blocks of N. Tioga St, plus one block in all directions.
Alternate #3 would differ from #1 & #2 in that all of the on- street parking in the 200 & 300
blocks would be eliminated so that buffered bike lanes could be established. This type of treatment was
highly supported by bicycle users last fall when the Cayuga Street bike
lanes were discussed. The recommended design would be a single bicycle
lane along each side of the street, separated from the adjacent motor
vehicle travel lane with a 2' to 3' wide painted buffer as shown above. (A
single, two -way design (like in the example on the right) would require
significant intersection and traffic signal modifications and is not being
recommended.) The impact to on- street parking would be twice the impact
of Alternate #1 or #2. The above - mentioned parking study will include this
scenario as well.
Summary
The three design alternates discussed above each provide suitable accommodations for bicycle
users and involve impacts to traffic and parking. it is understood that none of the alternates provides a
perfect scenario that fully accommodates everyone's needs and preferences. Feedback from the public is
the key to determining which design alternative best balances the needs and preferences of those
traveling, parking, living, and working along N. Tioga Street.
City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan
A plan for a network of low- traffic & traffic- calmed bicycling routes
The above photographs were taken in Tucson, San Luis Obispo, Portland, Minneapolis, Madison, Palo Alto, Columbia, and Berkeley
Prepared by:
City of Ithaca Engineering Office
September 12, 2012
1. Adopted by the City oflthaca Board of Public Works on September 24, 2012
2. Revised by BPW on Nov. 24, 2014 route modified to include entirety of Plain Street
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 multi -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
Figure 1: Image of a bicycle boulevard in San
Luis Obispo, CA
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
devices. This plan also includes a planning -level cost estimate. These are the key items
necessary for the BPW's review, and subsequent approval.
2
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 Titus 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 bic, cl 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:
1. Safe — 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
speeds and volumes have been selected, and, where speeds and/or volumes may
be too high, traffic calming measures could be used.
3
2. Convenience — Bicyclists (like motorists and pedestrians) benefit from easy -to-
follow, 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. & 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 of the streets). The map on page 6 illustrates the locations of the
recommended routes. (Note: additional Bike Blvd. segments may be added in the future.)
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.
4
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 Bike Walk Tompkins, Way2Go
and RIBS), events (such as bike rodeos), and City entities (such as the
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Council and IPD) to facilitate education and
encouragement activities that relate to bicycle use, particularly along the Bike
Blvd. network.
k,
Bicycle Boulevard Map
Z
Poie-nows
i PeOPOSEP
J or-
�f !S-r.
I P?-VTC-C,7V
Farmer's Market
41,
A
A
i.
low
Z
Poie-nows
i PeOPOSEP
J or-
�f !S-r.
I P?-VTC-C,7V
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
Figure 2
Figure 3
are proposed for installation on street signs along the routes H
(similar to the arrangement shown in Figure 4).
Most communities that have Bike Blvd. networks
install painted bicycle and/or text markings onto the roadways Figure 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" Figure 5
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 2. 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 200'3), 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-
lOmph 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.
1 § 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 ..."
Z National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1999. Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and
Pedestrian Injuries. Available at: http: / /www.nhtsa.gov /people/ injury /research/pub/hs809Ol2.htmi
3 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2004.
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
11 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.
• 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.
Clinton St. can be time- consuming to cross at this location because it can often
E
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 Figure Cr The above image shows an
than traffic calming measures.) example of a traffic- diverting island/bump-
out and signage used to prevent motorists (but
Install a large center median at the end of not bicyclists) from entering the street.
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.
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 re -orient 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 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 recommended that
1111
Figure 7: This image shows the
signs used on a street in
Massachusetts that permits one -way
travel for motor vehicles and two -
way travel for bicyclists.
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 prohibit entry by motorists at the intersections of Lake/Monroe, Cascadilla/Cayuga,
and Cascadilla/Sears. It is recommended that the north side of Cascadilla Ave. remain
one -way for all traffic. Along the south side of the street it is recommended that a l 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:
1. 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 Bike Walk Tompkins, Way2Go
and RIBS), events (such as bike rodeos), and City entities (such as the
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Council and IPD) to facilitate education and
encouragement activities that relate to bicycle use, particularly along the Bike
Blvd. network.
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 parking spaces. Two bike lane designs are feasible; one
11
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 along Third
St. to connect the Bike Blvd. network to the Farmers Market (which will impact on- street
parking and 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
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.
12
Plannina -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
44001
$2
linear ft.
$8,800
Misc. sign adjustments
$4,000
Sub total
Contingency (15 %)
Overall project total 1
$83,200
1 $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 projects. 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 1 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"
48"
or
72"
72" or 108"
14
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/274 -6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, Director of Engineering Services
Date: January 27, 2016
Re: Street name request: Northcross Road
Cornell University has requested to rename a portion of a street currently known as
Sisson Place within the City. The portion is south of Jessup Road to the bend in the road
where Sisson Place transitions from a north /south alignment to an east /west
alignment. Please see the attached map showing the street segment. This renaming
would change the north/ south section, and make it congruent to a segment just north
of Jessup Road, which is in the Village of Cayuga Heights and which has been renamed
Northcross Road by the Village.
In accordance with Section 342 -2 of the City Code, "No person shall assign any name to
any new street without first submitting the proposed name to the Board of Public
Works for its approval." Please find attached a draft resolution for your consideration. I
don't see any issues with this proposal.
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
nommonamommimL - AI
CAMPUS MAP i
CORNELL BUILDINGS '
•� MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
e •oc xro sac too
e eat NCRTH
c` " � Catnputs IlTIa>mti�tg ®ff�ice Jamuaay 2016
j Cornell Chid r
Care Faciity
• I
,4 P
Beta
ALT
.. Phl � ,
Hurluurt *" use
(=cola y Hdasey -.a �~ �� •1
Je
Field ssup North Campus North campus ;
Townhouses Student Center
Aetcana Stuoies,
and Research Center
44
A•�
,C '', Tob
is //yy Wad F`�Sld House
Ion cooperative
m . �.{ • �� 1.�
+w` / / }� r!P • • � • � • � • � A9cwe:k rC Pua
� t
CITY i�L6 m tar uniy !
t l
C��RptPJ� �
'tiphammer p
r• -� J��- �Zy Cooperative �f {j Ja�C9l.
R Delta
1
s
ma N Campus I
mlze Jnrme H8 d, • ^�
! mern
Delta t4 LJvin C ter
;
Fz
_9 4 1cnM1a
HE COTS CO Ff Prospect I'r�
�:.
Juf US Cai66felh!0, Claire Dickson
A
Abpu]5us1a.
1
Hai -I
°.L are�ss 307ttiaG 308WatTy!%ra06 court Mews
41G ihlrater. 7'c !2 "°""""°' Hdl Hal
(UroerBredua
Acrosi ona' /• ;y - `. `^�•
C1FeES :% ! ' Kappa! !Bauer Kay 4ai
�Z Kappa Zeta Hell ,ARpeFSau(h Fiel1sa
Psi �.,, Robert J. &Helen _
THURSTOH ! q�'E.�UE 1 Aet:aGamstaca: �.lell .?" 111 .sw Appel Comm ena �., ,...
.../ .: -. ..u..aheo...17CCea•ten 536 -. ' ^)� Ra wlings
... t YThVStt?rAiro
Green
Avenue
3t3�'eit Balm
Hall
ARTS . MACE -- -. � � I O
Hill� �cX Hall
Helen Newman
<......r,,..✓ l `-- .- ._�..._.�6.,•�,,� Hell I
gape_
ii n F�ydroalectrlc '
on plant
! al`s Mcyea R
lade -
Thurstor keF'.,. - I
Bridge
Kin Shad �
Foundry r� -
wafff
lTv f�1'E'HtiE + Chille
Fqe±
Hat! •e .. Gq�4:
1 �r .........
Village Of Capugal J�Eigbts;
MARCHAM HALL
836 HANSHAW ROAD
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPIONS ) SS:
VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS)
(607) 257 -1238
fax (607) 257-4910
Kathryn D. Supron, Mayor
Joan M. Mangione, Clerk & Treasurer
Angela M. Podufalski, Deputy Clerk
Brent A. Cross, Engineer
I, Joan M. Mangione, Clerk of the Village of Cayuga Heights, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
following Resolution #7666 is a true and exact copy of the whole of such resolution on file in this office passed
at the meeting of the Board of Trustees held on the 20th day of July, 2015.
Resolution #7666
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Board of Trustees of the Village of Cayuga Heights officially assigns the
designation of Northcross Road to the roadway which runs from Sisson Place northward, crosses Jessup Road,
and continues to a dead end in Cornell's A. -Lot, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The block in the City of Ithaca from Sisson Place to Jessup Road be
designated as the 100 block and the block in Cayuga Heights north of Jessup Road be officially designated as
the 200 block of Northcross Road, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The bus shelter be officially assigned street number 204 as requested
by Cornell University in order for passengers using the Campus to Campus bus to be more easily directed to the
proper location.
Motion: Trustee Salton
Second: Trustee Friend
Discussion: The Police Department has no problem with this designation. Both the City of Ithaca and the
ViIIage of Cayuga Heights need to assign the designation.
Ayes: Trustees Biloski, Friend, Marshall, Robinson, Salton, and Woodard
Nays & Abstentions: none
Motion carried
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the official seal of the Village of Cayuga Heights
of Tompkins County, New York, this 25th day of January, 2016.
,SEAT, -- - ,i .. i M. Mangione
huge Clerk & Treasurer
Police Dept. & Village Administration
OFFICE HOURS
9 AM — 4:30 PM
httpJAvww.csyuga- heights_ny. us
Board of Public Works
Proposed Resolution
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Code, Section 342 -2, "No person shall assign
any name to any new street without first submitting the proposed name to the Board of
Public Works for its approval," and
WHEREAS, Cornell University has requested to rename a portion of Sisson Place within
the City, as shown on the attached map, to Northcross Road, and
WHEREAS, this renaming would make the extent of the existing north/ south portion of
Sisson Place south of Jessup Place congruent with the extension of said road north of
Jessup Road, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Works approves the request of Cornell University
to rename the abovementioned portion of Sisson Place to Northcross Road, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that this segment of Northcross Road shall be considered the 100 block of
Northcross Road; the Village of Cayuga Heights has designated the segment north of
Jessup Road as the 200 block of Northcross Road.