HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 Bicycle Plan for City of IthacatrRnrI'Prgc I
ADDENDUM
to the
March 1997 lthaca Bicycle Plan
As proposed by the City of lthaca Stecring Commitlee for Bike Plan Implementation
August 2001
Inclusive of this Addendum, the Steering Committee for Bike Plan Implemurtation supports
adoption of the lthaca Bicycle Plan in its present form. The Committcc rccommends this second
addendum to the Ilhaca Bicycle Plan in accordance with the requests ofthe New York State
Department of Transportation (I.IYSDoT). The Committee is eager to move forward with the
implementation ofthe Ithaca Bicycle Plan and believes that the Plan is an appropriate
comprehansive planning document that establishcs the foundation upon which thc City can and
should base its future decisions aboul implemenlation of the PIan.
Amendments to the March 1997 Ithaca Bicycle Plan
2. "Stenciled shorldcrs," as called for in the Plan, are not meant to indicate a prohibition against
use ofthe shoulder by motor vehicles. Rathcr, the starcils provide mrrkings to encouragc and
dircct cyclists to use part ofthe pavement lhal is not ordinarily used by motor vehicles. As
wirh the previous iton, acceptable markings and signage would be used.
3. Some safety concerns were raised about the potential mixing ofcar, truck, and bicycle traffic
on narow streets, where lhe option of adding dedicated biclclc lanes is not fcasible.
However, since most bicycle traffic will use the right-hand lane, thoe will not be much
potsntial for mixing bikc and motor vehicle traffic in the situations where narrower lancs
have been provided. The obvious occasions in which they would be in he samc lancs would
be when negotiating left tums (including the maneuver going from Fulton eastbound onto
Clinton). In these situations, lane width is immalerial, since the cyclist must cross into and
entire lane lo make the tum. Installation ofappropriate signage, including pavernent
stencils, will partially offset the potential for drivers to be unaware ofthe presence, or
potenlial prescnce, ofcyclists lhrcughout the Route 96 project area" and elsewhere.
QTPLANNINO\PROJICISV]iI. Phn\BiL Plsn Addcndum Numb.r Two.dcc
The purpose ofthis addendum is to explicitly acknowledgc commcnts raised by the Nl'SDoT, as
detailed in a letter from A. S. Vetter, NYSDoT Regional Planning and Prograrn I{anager, dated
March I l, 1998. This letter, in regard,i to lthaca Bicycle Plan Commerts, was re-sponded ro by H.
Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Developmenl for the City of Ithaca, in a letter dated
September 24, 1998. The Conmittee undcrstands that NYSDoT will not fully approve the Plan
until their comments, as described in Mr. Van Cort's letter. have bee'n included in the Plan itself;
hence, this addendum.
l. "Denver arrows" will not be used to demarcate hybrid lanes on New York State highways.
Instcad, when slencils are called for, symbols specified by the Manual of Uniform Trallic
Control Devices will be used.
IIRAT'T PaBc 2 o9t07lol
4. The Plan proposes a limited number of bikeway seStneflts on which bicyclists would ride
against tra{Iic. These segments are short langths oflocal, low-volume strcets. They were
selected because, from the perspective ofthose who are likely to use and bc responsible for
the proposed bikeway system, they provide necessary connections. The proposed treatrnent
has been found generally acceptable by most ofthe many skilled, experienced cyclists, as
well as pmfessionals with knowledge of highway desigr principles and standards, who have
pajticipaled in pr.paration and review of the Plan. As the Plan states, such segmenls would
be supplied with special signage and striping to p(omote au/areress of, and conformance to,
the atypical traffic pattem.
5. The impact of the Plan's proposals for on-steet parking is a topic that has been the object of
local debate from the outset. The issue is being addressed ttuough the mechanism ofpublic
meetings at each stage ofplan preparation and review. This process has contributed 10 Plan
revisions and modifications throughoul the period of its preparation. With respect to parking
impacts, the results have been changes to pmposed routes, and much reduced loss or
relocation of parking spaces. Comment received at these meetings, and through other
mechanisms, is regularly evaluated and made available lo the Planning Board, Boud of
Public Works, and Common Council, for their use in making recommerdations and decisions
or the ultimate disposition ofthe PIan. Public comment received at these public sessions has
been incorporated into the Plan as appropriate.
O1PtJlNNnlG\PRO,ECTS\Bikc Plin\BiI. Plln Addcndum Nur$.r Two.doc