Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council

Home • About ITCTC • Committee Meetings • Public Participation • UPWP • TIP • LRP • Completed Projects and Reports • Links

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

                A. Participants and Roles …………………………………………………. 2.1

                B. Participation Process Design and Implementation …………………….. 2.5

                C. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………… 2.8

CHAPTER III. LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES ………………………………………….. 3.1

                A. Environmental Capacity ………………………………………………… 3.1

                B. Traffic Calming ………………………………………………………… 3.5

                C. Mobility ………………………………………………………………… 3.7

                D. Roadway Design Standards ……………………………………………. 3.13

                E. Access and Connectivity ……………………………………………….. 3.14

                F. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access ………………………………………… 3.16

                G. Transit Access ………………………………………………………….. 3.18

                H. Land Use Planning ……………………………………………………… 3.21

                I. Retrofitting Existing Sprawl …………………………………………… 3.23

                J. References ……………………………………………………………… 3.24

CHAPTER IV. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS …………………… 4.1

                A. Neighborhood Conditions ……………………………………………… 4.1

                B. Pedestrians and Cyclists ………………………………………………… 4.2

                C. Transit System ………………………………………………………….. 4.3

                D. Roadway System ……………………………………………………….. 4.5

                E. Traffic Volumes ………………………………………………………… 4.9

                F. Intersection Level of Service …………………………………………… 4.13

                G. Speed Study …………………………………………………………….. 4.16

                H. Public Identification of Transportation Problems and Issues …………… 4.19
 
 

CHAPTER V. PROJECTED VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ………………………………. 5.1

                A. Modeling Process for Motor Vehicles …………………………………. 5.1

                B. Projections of Future Population and Employment ……………………. 5.2

                C. Traffic Projections ……………………………………………………… 5.7

                D. Conclusions …………………………………………………………….. 5.11

CHAPTER VI. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION

ALTERNATIVES …………………………………………………….. 6.1

                A. Defining the Problem …………………………………………………… 6.1

                B. Proposing Alternatives ………………………………………………….. 6.4

                C. Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan ………………………………………………… 6.7

                D. Transit Alternative – Maximum Transit Service ………………………. 6.8

                E. Connector Roads ……………………………………………………….. 6.18

CHAPTER VII. RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………..…… 7.1

1. Transportation Plan Recommendations:

                Recommendation 8 – Freight Study ………………………………….…. 7.9

                Recommendation 9 – Intergovernmental Cooperation …………………. 7.10

Appendix A – Public Comments Received

Appendix B – Bibliography of Other Plans and Studies

Appendix C – Summary of Meetings of Working Group and With the Public

Appendix D – Transit Data Used to Estimate Ridership

Appendix E – Traffic Data Including ATR Counts, Intersection Counts, Speed Data

Appendix F – Level of Service Calculations

Appendix G – Detailed Information Localized Problems

Appendix H – TModel Data

Appendix I – Evaluation of Other North-South Corridor Alternatives
 
 

Table: Page

4.1 ADT and Peak Hour Factors ………………………………………………….. 4.13

4.2 Level of Service Summary 1997 Existing Conditions ………………………… 4.15

4.3 Summary of Speed Measurement Data ……………………………………….. 4.19

4.4 Transportation Problems Identified …………………………………………… 4.22-3

5.1 Historic Population Growth …………………………………………………… 5.3

5.2 Population and Employment Projections …...………………………………… 5.4

5.3 Projected 20-Year Growth in Traffic………..………………………………… 5.12

6.1 NEST Livability Ideas for Localized Problems……………………….………. 6.2

6.2 Transportation Problems to be Addressed by Alternatives …………………… 6.3

6.3 Evaluation of Future Null Alternative ………………………………………… 6.5

6.4 NESTS’ Initial Brainstormed Alternatives ……….…………………………… 6.6

6.5 NESTS Future Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Evaluation .…………………………. 6.10

6.6 Maximum Transit Evaluation …………………………………………………. 6.14

6.7 Summary of Maximum Transit Peak Hour Potential Ridership ……………… 6.15

6.8 Projected Traffic Volumes with Maximum Transit Peak Hour Vehicles …….. 6.15

6.9 Summary of Maximum Transit Service Order of Magnitude Costs ………….. 6.18

6.10 NESTS North-South Connector East Evaluation .……………………………. 6.23

6.11 NESTS North-South Connector Route 34/13 West ...………………………… 6.28

6.12 Comparison of Alternative S and Segment A1 Traffic Diversion Impacts …… 6.3

#Projected 2016 Peak Hour Traffic Volume Impacts of Recommend Alternatives

Versus Null Alternative ………………..………………………… 6.35

1. Public Participation and Collaborative Decision Making Process…….. 2.7

4. Future Volume Comparison on Existing Roadways With and Without

7. Future Volume Comparison on Existing Roadways With and Without
8. Combined S and A2 and S3 ……………………………………………. 6.34

1. Background and Purpose

The area surrounding Cornell University, particularly to the north and east, designated the Northeast Subarea (Figure 1.1), has experienced continuing residential and commercial development growth. Inadequate land-use planning has encouraged sprawled growth, and the transportation system has not been modified in response to growth in traffic, in spite of many previous studies. The transportation system serving the area faces many problems. The
 
 

Insert Figure 1.1

private vehicle is the dominant means of transportation. Existing neighborhood streets carry both local and through traffic, creating conflicts between vehicles and residents. Bicyclists and pedestrians are hampered by deficient facilities, which reduce the attractiveness of these alternative modes of transportation. Existing public transit is limited and has inadequate funds for expansion.

Recognizing these issues, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) in conjunction with the New York State Department of Transportation, sponsored the North East Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS), using funds from the federal Surface Transportation Program. The NESTS effort and the resulting NESTS Transportation Plan it produced are described in this report. The Transportation Plan was prepared based on the new paradigm for transportation planning initially established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and continued in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21), which call for an emphasis on "maintenance of existing facilities; improved efficiency in transportation investments; maximizing mobility through mode choice and access; community participation and localized decision making,and environmental sensitivity.

The purpose of the study provided in the scope of services was:

The NESTS study area includes 6 local municipalities as participants – Tompkins County, the Towns of Ithaca, Lansing, and Dryden; and the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights. Other involved agencies included Cornell University, New York State Department of Transportation, Tompkins County Area Transit System (TCAT), and the New York State Police. A key element in the success of the NESTS effort was a study organization that encouraged the participation of elected officials and staff representatives as well as other organizations and individuals affected by the transportation system. Three groups, each with a defined responsibility, were formed to manage the study as described below:

• Project Management Team: The County Planning Department, Public Works Department, and the ITCTC were responsible for project management and contract administration.

• Client Committee: General project oversight was provided by the Client Committee which also ensured inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination. The members of the Client Committee (mostly elected officials) are listed in Chapter II. To initiate the study, the Client Committee chose the consultant team that conducted the study, and appointed members of the Working Group and established their mission and charge. During the study, the Client Committee provided contractual oversight and reviewed study progress. The Client Committee was charged with providing a final recommendation for approval of the Transportation Plan to the Transportation Policy Committee of the ITCTC and working toward formal local government adoption and implementation of the recommendations.

• Working Group: The Working Group represented the primary stakeholder groups that will be affected by the recommendations in the TransportationPlan. Members are listed in Chapter II. This group provided vital linkages to the community throughout the study. They developed Goals and Objectives and evaluated the various alternatives proposed. The final recommendations of the study that form the Transportation Plan are the result of their efforts.

• Public Meetings: Four public meetings were held to obtain comments on the study design, existing problems, alternatives considered, and the plan recommendations.

• Client Committee Meetings: Regular Client Committee meetings were held to provide committee members with information on the study progress and obtain their input on the development of the plan.

• Working Group Meetings: During the course of the study, there were 20 Working Group meetings. Members of the Working Group also participated in many subcommittee meetings dealing with specific topics such as livable communities, alternative improvements, and Goals and Objectives. The results of these subcommittee efforts were provided to the Working Group for their further refinement and approval.

• Neighborhood Meetings: Members of the Working Group and consultant staff met with neighborhood groups formally a number of times during the study. In addition, there were many informal meetings conducted by Working Group members and their stakeholder groups.

• Web Page: A web page was maintained and updated throughout the course of the study.

C. Goals and Objectives

Creating a set of Goals and Objectives to guide the study, define transportation issues, and evaluate alternatives was a challenging task because of the diverse interests represented on the Working Group. It was crucial to develop a common set of Goals and Objectives so that the study could proceed based on a shared vision. As the Goals were being developed, an over-riding consideration that received unanimous endorsement from the Working Group was the concept of Livability (see Chapter III). The final Goals reflect this concept.

These Goals cover all the major traffic and transportation issues that must be addressed to provide mobility and livability in the NESTS area. Specific objectives applied to each of the Goals further clarified their meaning and, in many cases, established measurable impacts. Four feasibility factors were also developed to facilitate the evaluation of alternatives and allow comparisons between the various proposals. A major recommendation of the Working Group is that these Goals and Objectives be used in all future evaluations of transportation projects in the Ithaca-Tompkins County area.
 

NORTH EAST SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Preamble The North East Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) advocates using transportation planning to make the northeast study area of Tompkins County a more livable community. The NESTS design and planning process is based on active community involvement in order to develop recommendations that meet current and future community needs. The NESTS study strives to enhance the quality of life in our communities by development of a well-managed multi-modal transportation system that is responsive to the needs of the community. The following Goals and Objectives represent an integrated response to transportation issues in the study area. They address different aspects of concern, and are presented in no particular order. In order for the northeast area of Tompkins County to become a more livable community over the next twenty (20) years, there will be:

 
 
 
 
 
 

NORTH EAST SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (continued)

Goal 1. A transportation system that enhances and preserves the quality of life in neighborhoods, residential and other community areas, including recreational, educational and commercial areas. Objective 1: Increase safety on neighborhood streets. Objective 2: Decrease the volume of vehicular traffic on neighborhood streets. Objective 3: Reduce excessive vehicle speeds. Objective 4: Decrease levels of vehicle-induced air and noise pollution. Objective 5: Design attractive streetscapes. Objective 6: Increase pedestrian and bicycle links between community nodes. Objective 7: Operate clean fueled, quiet buses with frequent neighborhood service. Goal 2. A multi-modal transportation system developed and maintained that connects residential, public and commercial activity centers of the study area and the region. Objective 1: Provide a continuous network of through roads that have adequate capacity to handle traffic with minimal congestion and delay. Objective 2: Design intersections to facilitate effective and safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movement. Objective 3: Design roadways that provide safe clearance between bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Objective 4: Improve traffic flow between north and south destinations within the study area. Objective 5: Minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment.

 
 
 
 
 
 

NORTH EAST SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (Continued)

Objective 6: Improve multimodal access to employment and commercial centers. Objective 7: Provide continuous pathways and connections for bicycles, pedestrians and vehicular traffic between community nodes. Objective 8: Reserve appropriate right-of-ways for proposed new roads now, in anticipation of future needs. Objective 9: Design roadways to be scenic, efficient and have a positive impact on the area through which they pass. Goal 3. Outstanding pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities to use as an alternative to the automobile. Objective 1: Provide well-maintained facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. Objective 2: Emphasize safety and minimize conflicts with motor vehicles. Objective 3: Increase mobility of community members via alternative forms of transportation. Objective 4: Increase TCAT’s service levels in the study area, including weekend and  evening service. Objective 5: Improve ease-of-use for customer information, payment, scheduling and passenger waiting facilities. Goal 4. Support for livable communities through strong linkages between transportation planning and  land use patterns and policies. Objective 1: Balance historic, scenic, cultural and transportation interests. Objective 2: Increase the interconnectivity of the transportation network within the study area in order to increase the efficiency of the road network and provide alternative travel routes.

 
 
 
 

NORTH EAST SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (Continued)

Objective 3: Integrate transportation, land use and economic development. Objective 4: Provide consistent standards for each transportation mode throughout the study area. Objective 5: Serve the transportation-disadvantaged population. Feasibility Factors Consider all costs of proposed alternatives (procurement, engineering, construction, operation and maintenance, and travel costs). Reference existing plans while respecting existing land uses and allowing for flexibility in future planning. Consider the impacts on various stakeholders. Strive for a win-win situation, where no single group benefits at the expense of another.     D. Promote long-term solutions through phased implementation plans.

The Transportation Plan is divided into the following seven chapters:

• Chapter I: Introduction.
• Chapter II: Public Participation Process, describing the collaborative

• Chapter III: Livability Principles, describing livability principles related to

• Chapter IV: Existing Transportation Conditions, describing the current

• Chapter V: Projected Vehicular Traffic, describing the forecast future

system or to the land use planning policies in the NESTS area.

• Chapter VI: Development and Evaluation of Transportation Alternatives,

area transportation needs.

• Chapter VII: Recommendations and Conclusions, describing the

1. Participants and Roles

• Citizen Working Group: During the initial design stages of the study, ITCTC, the NESTS Client Committee, and CDRC worked collaboratively to establish a variety of complementary participation roles. At core was a fourteen-member Citizen Working Group. It was intended that these participants possess a broad spectrum of interests and affiliations, as well as varying degrees of transportation-planning experience. This group was identified through an extensive mailing solicitation to more than 100 groups including neighborhood associations, environmental groups, local business owners, freight shipment providers, law enforcement agencies, municipal planning boards, etc. The Working Group’s overall tasks were to gather information on local conditions and concerns, identify problems, research and develop potential solutions, and ultimately evaluate and select the final recommendations. At the outset, the Client Committee informed the Working Group that it would work toward implementation of the Group’s final recommendations, however recommending to "do nothing" was not a viable alternative.

away from Ithaca]

schedule conflict] Village of Cayuga Heights Police Officer

Better Housing for Tompkins County

Transit Commuter

Bicycle commuter

• Technical Advisors: Several technical advisors worked in partnership with the Working Group. These advisors were primarily local professional staff with transportation or planning expertise. They provided technical insight and interpretation of local conditions while acting as resources for potentially innovative approaches to transportation and land use planning. Several of these individuals were regular attendees at Working Group and public meetings. Following is a list of the technical advisors and their primary affiliations:

Edward Abruzzo Zone Sergeant, New York State Trooper

• Technical Consultant: The role of the technical consultant, Creighton Manning Engineering, was to gather essential traffic data, provide the Working Group with analysis and potential remedies, and generally contribute essential technical expertise. In this capacity, the consultant provided the Working Group with the information needed to proceed to each successive level of inquiry. The technical consultant was chosen by the Client Committee at the initial stage of the project. The following two professionals were Creighton Manning’s on-site staff for the project:

• Client Committee: The NESTS Client Committee was comprised of eight elected or appointed officials of the concerned municipalities and jurisdictions. Throughout the project, this group provided contractual oversight and acted as a conduit for directing information on the study back to their respective organizations. Following is a list of the members and their affiliations:

Henrik Dullea Cornell University, Vice President for University

Relations

• Process Facilitators: The design of the NESTS process was developed by facilitators from the Interface Program of the Ithaca Community Dispute Resolution Center (CDRC) in collaboration with ITCTC and the Client Committee. An interactive skills training workshop on collaborative problem-solving and consensus decision-making for the Working Group and Client Committee members was provided by the facilitators at the outset of the process. In addition, CDRC planned, facilitated, and was responsible for producing the written record summaries of all Working Group and public meetings.

• Public Participants: Throughout the study, there was significant involvement from members of the public not directly affiliated with the NESTS project team. Commencing with the initial solicitation of Working Group members and culminating in a final public meeting with more than 200 citizens in attendance, the NESTS process was highly inclusive. All regular and subcommittee Working Group meetings were open to the public in accordance with the "Public Involvement Procedures" of the ITCTC. Interested citizens frequently contacted the CDRC facilitators, technical consultants and Working Group members outside of meetings to share information and express concerns.

1. Participation Process Design and Implementation

• The commitment of all participants to seek common and satisfactory options and solutions

• An inclusive decision making process, with participants reflecting the diversity of stakeholders

• Open and free flow of information
• Stakeholder involvement in gathering and/or assessing information
• Negotiations focusing on underlying interests rather than polarized positions
• Identification, analysis, and testing of multiple options
• Multiple opportunities and forums that allow for different levels and modes of participation

• Attended consensus skills training workshop and established operating agreements
• Established stakeholder interests
• Identified transportation needs and problems
• Became familiar with existing conditions and collected transportation data

• Investigated, refined, and then established the study’s Goals and Objectives
• Undertook problem analysis
• Developed and refined livability principles

• Created evaluation criteria for solution acceptability

• Initiated potential solution development
• Incorporated innovations from other transportation planning projects
• Evaluated/tested potential solutions with traffic data
• Continued problem analysis and solution development
• Evaluated solution proposals relative to the study’s Goals and Objectives
• Selected solutions and created recommendations

1. Working Group Decision Making: From the outset of the study, Working Group members agreed that decisions would be made by consensus. As previously mentioned, the CDRC facilitation team provided a skills training workshop in collaborative problem-solving and consensus decision-making. The collaborative framework introduced at that workshop set the tone and structure for all future group interactions. Documentation on the consensus decision-making process is available from CDRC.

 

 

Throughout the study, there were various junctures at which the Group’s work required formal decisions. For example, determining the content of the study’s Goals and Objectives required substantial collaboration and a final consensus decision. The most significant decision-making juncture in the overall study was the final determination of recommendations. After having narrowed the options through exhaustive analysis and revisions, the Group proceeded to evaluate the proposed options. Through an iterative process that allowed for reflection upon the study’s Goals and Objectives and incorporation of public
 
 
 
 

Figure 2.1
 
 

input, the Working Group developed the proposals into solid recommendations. In the spirit of consensus decision-making, the final agreement process involved not only the identification of common perspectives, but also the acknowledgement and inclusion of different values and priorities. In order to reach consensus, some Working Group members choose to accept certain components of the recommendations even though they were not completely satisfied with the content. In particular, the North–South Roadway Corridor and the S1 recommendations did not have unanimous support. After extended deliberation, those members who had not been in full support choose to accept the vast majority’s motion and ultimately endorsed the recommendations as presented in the report.

2. Outreach and Publicity: At key stages of the study process, there were opportunities for the larger public to provide input through well-publicized open public meetings. At these events, the Working Group and the technical consultant shared their current work and engaged the public in interactive activities to solicit citizen response and to stimulate dialogue on concerns and additional solutions. Additionally, the study created an open channel of communication through a NESTS web site, e-mail correspondence, and the option of phoning in questions and concerns to the ITCTC office telephone. These options were frequently utilized by the public.

The NESTS process provided valuable opportunities for citizen participation in transportation and land use planning. Broad citizen involvement, with professional facilitators, worked well to combine technical analysis with sensitive local concerns. The participatory nature of the study allowed for the incorporation of a diversity of experience and interests that could not have been achieved otherwise. Consequently, the final product is substantially representative of the larger interests of the local community. The experience gained from NESTS can be used to enhance public involvement and improve the quality of outcomes on similar projects in the future.

A major focus of the NESTS study has been that of transportation planning in support of livable communities. The study’s Goals state the need to preserve and enhance the quality of life in neighborhoods, residential and other community areas, and to support livable communities through strong linkages between transportation planning and land use patterns and policies.

While recognizing that we live in a culture which relies heavily on motor vehicles for personal and commercial transportation, we know that much can be done to improve community livability while increasing multimodal access. By balancing historic, scenic, cultural and transportation interests, a high degree of livability can be realized. Each section of this chapter deals with a different approach to addressing livability concerns, including Environmental Capacity, Traffic Calming, Mobility, Roadway Design Standards, Access and Connectivity, Pedestrian and Bicycle Access, Transit Access, Land Use Planning, and Retrofitting Existing Sprawl.

1. Environmental Capacity

The environmental capacity of a road is reached when any one of several key factors reaches an unacceptable level, indicating that the road and its traffic have begun to significantly degrade the livability of the land-use through which it passes. These key factors include: pedestrian safety, noise, general inconvenience and annoyance, odors and air pollution, vibration, visual intrusion, danger to pets, loss of privacy, and a diminished sense of community.

Traffic impacts depend upon the characteristics of the traffic stream, the roadway design, and the adjoining land use. Important characteristics of the traffic stream include the number and speed of vehicles, the amount of truck traffic, and the resultant noise, vibration, air pollution, etc. Relevant characteristics of the roadway itself include width and number of lanes, pedestrian facilities, number and type of intersections, whether on-street parking is allowed, the travel speed for which the road was designed, etc. Pertinent characteristics of the land use include the age of residents, the amount of pedestrian activity, whether it is a residential, commercial, or industrial setting, density of development, how close buildings are located to the road, the presence of shrubs and trees to screen the road, etc.

Residential areas generally have the lowest tolerance for traffic, and are the focus of livability concerns for the NEST study. Parks are another land use negatively impacted by too much traffic. Commercial areas actually desire drive-by traffic, and tend to have higher environmental capacities than residential areas. Heavy industrial and undeveloped areas with no homes or pedestrians tend to have a very high environmental capacity.

The upper limit for acceptable traffic volumes in a typical residential area is in the range of 800 - 1200 vehicles per day (Spirn, p. 68; Spitz, pp. 44-45). However, in some sensitive areas, this key limit can be much lower. For example, a neighborhood with a high percentage of children or elderly residents living close to a wide street with fast moving traffic and no pedestrian facilities would experience much higher impacts for a given amount of traffic, and would therefore have a much lower acceptable traffic volume than is typical for a residential area. Note that many neighborhood streets within the NESTS study area are currently experiencing traffic levels significantly higher than their environmental capacities allow.

Many methods can be used to either increase a particular road’s environmental capacity, or to keep that road operating within its environmental capacity. The following modifications should be used to make roads and their vehicles less of an intrusion on the land uses through which they pass:

• Reduce the speed of traffic coming through the area. There are many means of doing so, including designing the road for slower speeds (narrow, winding, and with more physical and visual cues to provide a greater sense of speed), lower posted speed limits, and better enforcement.

• Reduce the amount of traffic. This can be accomplished by reducing the need for travel, by encouraging the use of alternative modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian), by restricting or closing roads, and/or by providing an alternate route for through traffic. Care must be exercised in determining such an alternate route, however, so that the problem is not simply transferred from one residential area to another.

• Prohibit through-trucks from using certain streets in sensitive residential areas. As above, alternate routes may need to be specified, and it is important to not simply move the problem from one sensitive street to another.

• Reduce pavement width and improve lane definition. Narrowing the pavement tends to slow cars down, to increase driver attentiveness, to reduce the dominance of the roadway on the land use, and to reduce the amount of time required for pedestrians to cross the street.

• Reduce noise, odors and air pollution. This can be accomplished by decreasing the amount of traffic, by decreasing the speed and number of trucks, or by promoting the use of quieter, cleaner-running vehicles (for example, electric buses). Although "easing the flow of traffic" by reducing starts and stops may help, this may also create other problems (more traffic, higher speeds, fewer pedestrian crossing opportunities, etc). When easing the flow and traffic calming measures conflict, preference should generally be given to traffic calming.

• Shield the land-use focal point (e.g. building, playground, etc) from the road. This can be accomplished by planting trees, erecting fences or other barriers, or, where appropriate, by increasing the distance between the road and the land use by moving one or the other.

• Plant street-side trees, shrubs and other vegetation. This helps to slow traffic, filter pollution, break up or muffle traffic noises, beautify the streetscape, shield the view of the pavement, create a safety buffer, and provide shade on hot summer days.

• Create attractive off-street public spaces. Such amenities provide residents (especially children) a place to safely meet, congregate, and play other than in the streets.

• Provide facilities for pedestrians. These include sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian amenities which facilitate neighborly interactions. On-street parking can also provide some protection for pedestrians from the traffic stream. Note that separate pedestrian facilities may not always be necessary or desirable. On low-speed, low-traffic streets, pedestrians and bicyclists can safely share the pavement with automobiles on a more-or-less equal basis. In some cases, it may even be desirable to give pedestrians and bicyclists the right of way over automobiles.

Examples of local measures which have been taken to avoid undesirable traffic impacts include: prohibiting through-trucks from some residential areas, reducing speed limits near schools, eliminating all vehicular traffic from the Ithaca Commons, and providing a traffic-free shopping environment within Pyramid Mall. Unfortunately, this type of piecemeal approach to addressing environmental capacity concerns in specific areas can sometimes create new problems in adjacent areas. What is needed is an integrated approach to resolving traffic impacts throughout the NESTS study area.

B. Traffic Calming

The purpose of traffic calming is to reduce vehicle speeds in a given area. This is achieved by changing roadway design to incorporate specific features which will make drivers want to drive more slowly and carefully. Even though a roadway may be safe to drive at 25 or 30 mph, careful design can encourage drivers to travel slower than the posted limit. The optimum speed for each residential area will depend on many factors, but in some areas, it has been found that speeds of 15 to 25 mph (25 - 40 kph) are best (CART, p. 18). This should result in fewer and less severe accidents, less noise, and less pollution, while still maintaining a high level of mobility.

The effect of traffic calming is to create safer, more livable communities while allowing mobility and accessibility. This is accomplished through reducing the negative side effects of that mobility (environmentally compatible accessibility management).

The underlying principles of traffic calming include:

• Roads are not just for cars. They should be multimodal in varying proportions, but never to the exclusion of other modes. Over-emphasis on the automobile as a mode of transportation (at the expense of other modes) discriminates against a large section of society (including those who are too young to drive).

• Residents have rights. Residents have a right to the best quality of life their government can provide. This includes the least noise and pollution possible, as well as a safe environment with a rich community life.

• Maximize accessibility while minimizing the costs. Maximize the efficiency of the existing roads and transit. Traffic calming can be a cost-effective means of reducing impacts while maintaining mobility.

• Increase travel choices. This can be done by improving transit and increasing the attractiveness and safety of bicycle and pedestrian environments. In addition, improvements can be made to intermodal linkages, such as bike/transit, pedestrian/transit, and bike/pedestrian.

• Increase incentives to use public transit. Positive measures include: increasing convenience of transit, having safe and attractive transit facilities, providing for park-and-ride facilities, having attractive fares, providing for transit advantages (e.g. dedicated bus lanes), etc.

• Discourage use of private automobiles (in tandem with improved transit). This can be accomplished through increasing parking fees, implementing parking restrictions, decreasing vehicle speeds, increasing fuel prices, implementing a commuter fee or road usage tax, charging tolls on certain roads, and banning cars from certain areas (e.g. pedestrian malls, Ithaca Commons).

• Optimize vehicle occupancy. Implement various Traffic Demand Management measures, such as car and van pools, etc.

• Implement land use controls to reduce the need for transportation. Aim to reduce the number of trips concurrent with a reduction in length of trips. (See Land Use Planning.)

C. Mobility

Efforts to improve a given area’s environmental capacity can have varying effects

on the free flow of traffic through that area. Some measures which improve neighborhood livability have no effect on the flow of traffic (planting street-side trees and shrubs, providing pedestrian facilities, creating attractive off-street public spaces). Other measures improve livability specifically by affecting the flow of traffic (reducing traffic speed, reducing traffic volume, prohibiting through trucks). Traffic calming measures tend to fall toward the restrictive end of this range.

Contrary to popular belief, smaller roads aren’t necessarily worse for mobility. Wide roads encourage high vehicle speeds, and many drivers find it difficult to stay within the

Figure 3.1 – page 1
 
 

Figure 3.1 – page 2
 
 
 
 

Figure 3.1 – page 3
 
 

Figure 3.1 – page 4
 
 

speed limit on wide residential streets. Narrowing the pavement can help in this regard. In fact, streets can be narrowed (and curved and contoured and tree-lined) up to the point where drivers just begin to drive below the speed limit, and there will still be no reduction in mobility. Travel time would not increase (for law-abiding drivers), the trip would now be more scenic, and there would be less need for speed enforcement. Narrowing and beautifying roads to this extent therefore benefits residents, without inconveniencing drivers. Such measures can thus be implemented in residential neighborhoods throughout the NESTS study area. In fact, since they do not reduce mobility, these measures would be appropriate for all roads within the study area.

Implementing traffic calming measures on residential streets can bring vehicle speeds down to 15 to 25 mph, which benefits neighborhood safety and livability, but increases travel times for through traffic. However, even with lower speeds and longer travel times, the roads would still be able to handle all of the traffic. This is because the limiting factor is almost always the intersections, not the roads themselves. (Take, for example, a road which terminates in a traffic signal. The carrying capacity at the intersection is half that of the road, simply because the light will be red half of the time, preventing the flow of traffic. The same is true for stop and yield signs; a queue forms if traffic flows up to the intersection at a greater rate than it can flow through it.) Thus, as long as the intersections are the major source of delay, vehicle speeds can be reduced without reducing the carrying capacity of the road network.

Drivers who may feel inconvenienced by reduced travel speeds have several choices. They can keep the same travel route, and simply spend an extra minute or two driving. (It takes one additional minute to drive one mile at 20 mph instead of at 30 mph.) They may take alternate routes, preferentially selecting non-residential roads where the speed limits are still relatively high. Other drivers may choose to ride bicycles instead, since bicycling on traffic-calmed streets can be just as fast as driving. Or, they may choose to live closer-in, thus reducing sprawl. Since reduced travel speeds do not reduce carrying capacity and result in only a minor increase in travel time, speeds of 15 to 25 mph on residential streets do not pose a major hardship for motorists. Traffic calming measures can thus be implemented in all residential neighborhoods.

Beautifying streetscapes, narrowing pavement widths and reducing traffic speed would be welcomed in all residential neighborhoods. However, in some areas, these measures would not be enough; traffic restrictions or even road closings may be necessary to bring traffic volumes down to acceptable, livable levels. This would reduce the carrying capacity of the road network and divert traffic to alternate routes. If no suitable alternate routes are available, then automotive mobility would become severely restricted. If desired, some of this lost mobility could be restored by building one or more new roads to handle the diverted traffic. In this manner, even the most overburdened residential streets could be made quite livable without undue mobility consequences. Needless to say, any new roads should avoid residential areas, and these roads should have no curb cuts (no private right of frontage access) so that traffic flow would not be disrupted by future development, and vice-versa. Due to the difficulty of finding appropriate routes, and the costs and impacts associated with building them, this approach is probably not feasible for most residential areas, but should be pursued where warranted.

4. Roadway Design Standards

5. Access and Connectivity

 

 

To a large extent, neighborhood livability is determined by the connectivity within the neighborhood. It should be possible to visit with neighbors and to walk or bike around the neighborhood without undue interference from an inhospitable streetscape or heavy traffic. Good transportation planning allows for access to residential neighborhoods while supporting connectivity within neighborhoods.

Although for most people the automobile has become the major means of access to and from their neighborhoods, the NEST study advocates a multimodal approach, stressing the importance of transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Perhaps the greatest improvement in access and connectivity can be accomplished by reducing the need for travel. Mixed-use zoning and home-based occupations allow people’s origins and destinations to be located within the same general (or even immediate) area. While the automobile will undoubtedly continue to be a major means of access in the foreseeable future, it is important to put the traditional traffic engineering approach into perspective. Transportation plans should not increase travel speeds in an attempt to reduce travel time, if this comes at the expense of neighborhood livability.

Many residents may appreciate municipal efforts to decrease their commute times. However, such efforts should be undertaken with caution, especially if doing so could degrade the livability and quality of life in that or another residential area. When people look for a neighborhood in which to settle, finding a comfortable, affordable, low-traffic, livable community tends to be far more important than commuting time. People’s search for the right neighborhood may even take them as far away as the next county, in spite of the fact that their daily commute will be a little longer.

Although transportation engineers rarely recognize their contributing role, the attempt to decrease commuting time at the expense of neighborhood livability seems to be one of the major driving forces behind continuing suburban sprawl (and subsequent increased travel time). This is a national phenomenon, one which has left many major U.S. cities with increasingly disjointed, far-flung suburban development while abandoned urban centers decay and die. This trend is one which is also evident locally. Quiet residential cul-de-sacs in Lansing continue to attract people, even though this development is taking place further and further from Tompkins County’s major employment and commercial centers. Unfortunately, access to these new developments tends to be through older, established residential areas. As traffic counts rise, municipalities have rebuilt the older residential streets so that they can accommodate the increased amount of traffic. When this is done, it compromises the livability of the older neighborhoods and leaves a degraded central community which residents now flee in order to live in the newer, further out, and not-yet-degraded residential developments. Rather than allowing this pattern to continue, it is critical that the livability of all residential areas be maintained and enhanced, even if this means that commuting time for some of the further out suburban developments may be a few minutes longer. Residents in these outer suburban areas should find it reassuring to know that their neighborhoods will not, in turn, be degraded by future development.

6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access

Provision for expanded accessibility requires a comprehensive process, where pedestrian and bicycle traffic is regarded as a significant and meaningful component of municipal transportation, alongside planning for automobiles and public transit, and is explicitly written into both general transportation plans and specific construction projects. To this end, municipalities must have staff committed to bicycle and pedestrian planning and promotion. An integrated approach in providing the choices of walking or bicycling will allow our communities to grow toward the image we hold of them as livable places.

Although bicyclists and pedestrians share many similarities, it is important to keep in mind that these are, in fact two separate travel modes. While cyclists and pedestrians may share the same problem (e.g. traffic along a highway), their solutions may not be the same. Similarly, it is important to bear in mind that there are two different kinds of bicyclists. One group consists of cyclists, adults as well as children, who restrict their travel (or have their travel restricted) to designated bicycle facilities and low-traffic, low-speed neighborhood streets. The other group is composed of advanced cyclists who are capable of operating a bicycle under most traffic conditions, even at relatively high speeds. The individual needs of both types of bicyclist, as well as those of pedestrians, can and should be addressed with a targeted approach suitable to each of these three user groups.

Specific measures to improve pedestrian and bicycle access include:

• Continuous network of uninterrupted facilities. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should not contain significant gaps or simply end without warning, and should continue uninterrupted across municipal boundaries. The design and configuration of these facilities can and should change according to adjoining land use, as long as the transitions are smooth and clearly evident.

• Appropriate types of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. On low-traffic low-speed streets, such as should occur in residential areas, no dedicated facilities may be needed, since pedestrians and bicyclists can safely share the driving lanes with motor vehicles. Roads with more vehicles travelling at higher speeds generally require facilities, such as shoulders and crosswalks, to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian activity. Although more expensive to construct and maintain, completely separate parallel facilities, such as sidewalks, bikeways and multi-use trails, are sometimes desirable along high-traffic high-speed roads.

• Coordinated municipal maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. It is important that there be a coordinated system of municipal maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including road shoulders, sidewalks and multi-use trails. Under the current system, some facilities within the NESTS study area are maintained by Cornell University, some by Town or Village crews, some by adjoining homeowners, and some not at all. The problem of lack of continuous maintenance is especially evident in the winter, when snow and ice removal become a major issue, but this is truly a year-round concern.

• Bicycle parking facilities. Efforts should be made to ensure that adequate bicycle parking facilities exist for employee, customer and visitor usage at businesses, libraries, schools, transit stops and other public destinations. Changes in zoning may be necessary to require new development to provide sufficient parking provisions.

• Innovative pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These could include physical measures such as differentiated shoulders, which would provide motorists with visual, audible and tactile cues that they had strayed out of the driving lane and onto the shoulder, but would still allow bicycles unrestricted use of both the shoulder and driving lane. This should provide the safety of a separate bike path, but with the continuous access and easy winter maintenance of a paved shoulder. (An example of an innovative measure already in place in the greater Ithaca area is the TCAT bobCat program, which provides for bike racks on municipal buses.)

• Efficient use of facilities. If mixed-use (bicycle and pedestrian) facilities prove successful, then selected single-use (bicycle or pedestrian) facilities could be opened to both of these modes, reducing the need for parallel, redundant facilities. In some circumstances, a single bike-hike trail would serve both pedestrians and bicyclists quite well, instead of requiring both sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Many experienced cyclists would choose to continue to exercise their right to ride in the road, even if a parallel facility were provided, while casual bicyclists might welcome the slower and more relaxed pace of a facility shared with pedestrians rather than with cars.

• Education, enforcement and encouragement. Effectiveness of new and existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities can be augmented through various means, including: maps and signage, public awareness of the rights and responsibilities of all road users (motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians), adult and child bicyclist education and safety training programs, adequate enforcement of bicycle safety laws (perhaps through use of bicycle-mounted police), etc.

5. Transit Access

The public transit option includes large, medium and small buses providing three different basic types of service. The conventional system involves large buses following fixed routes and schedules, and serves the largest number of people. Community transit service uses smaller buses, and provides flexible service for fewer riders but to a much more extensive network of neighborhood bus stops. Finally, there are small-scale, truly demand-responsive services, such as those provided by taxicabs and agencies such as GADABOUT.

Fixed-route public transit works best when passengers can easily walk to and from bus stops, and when bus routes are simple and direct, uncluttered by many minor loops off of the main route. Unfortunately, the typical suburban development pattern sets commercial buildings far back from the main street, with a front parking lot as a buffer. This site design is convenient only for automobiles. Public transit which serves streets with the "big parking lot in front" development pattern faces a real dilemma. The bus either stays on the main street, picking up or dropping off people at the edge of a parking lot "no-man’s land," or it sacrifices efficient travel time by going in and out of every congested parking lot.

Many measures can be taken in order to improve the transit system. These include:

• Residential neighborhood stops. The goal is to have a neighborhood bus stop within a 5-minute walk of all residences. A stop may be a sign, passenger shelter or, ideally, some place (e.g. store) that is open much of the time. Bus shelters should be provided at all locations where more than 20 people board the bus per day.

• Pedestrian facilities. People using the bus are pedestrians at the beginning and ends of their trips. In order to be viable, public transit needs to be completely integrated into the pedestrian network.

• Bicycle facilities. In order to improve multi-modal integration options for bicyclists, secure bicycle racks should be provided at bus shelters. Use of bicycle racks on buses should be continued and expanded as bus service continues to grow.

• Park-and-Ride facilities. Park-and-Ride lots should be established at several locations within the NESTS area. Such lots should be equipped with safe parking facilities for bicycles as well as for automobiles.

• Frequent bus service. In order to attract more ridership, each fixed route should have several buses operating during peak hours of usage, resulting in frequent bus service and short waits for passengers at bus stops.

• Reliable schedules. Passengers must be assured that time schedules will be reliably followed.

• Real-time information. Modern technology now makes it possible to provide bus shelters with real-time information concerning bus location and direction.

• Maximize attractiveness. Provide clean, quiet, comfortable, safe, convenient, frequent and reliable service in order to attract and retain users. Strive to make routes and fare system easy to understand and use, especially for first-time riders.

• Minimize negative impacts. As the number and frequency of buses increases, care must be taken to ensure that they do not disrupt the livability of the residential neighborhoods through which they pass. Sensitive selection of routes and use of buses that are clean, quiet and relatively small can do much to lessen the negative impacts on the community.

• Education and marketing. Promote the transit system through extensive and intensive education and marketing campaigns.

• The right choice. Strive to make riding the bus more convenient than driving. Continually make riders feel that they made the right choice in utilizing their transit option.

• Explore other options. In addition to buses, explore other options, including ride-sharing, car and van pools, fixed-route light-rail transit, etc.

5. Land Use Planning

Unfortunately, during the last half century, Americans have adopted land use regulations that emphasize sameness and large lots, require ample space for parking of cars, and isolate different kinds of activity. But monotonous sameness, provisions for cars, and separation of activities promote auto traffic, and auto traffic can make neighborhoods unlivable.

To resolve this troublesome dilemma, whereby land use planning has promoted increased auto traffic, and thus destroyed the very neighborhoods it was intended to protect, new sorts of land use planning come into play. To allow higher accessibility without excessive auto traffic, good plans specify higher residential densities, more mixing of next-door activities, and design details that promote individuality and privacy, without excessive use of space. High-traffic roads represent a noxious land use which also needs to be controlled. Limits on traffic need to be matched with zoning and transportation maps in order to keep major traffic-carrying roads from degrading residential areas.

Many actions can be taken to control suburban sprawl and to ensure that close-in neighborhoods are just as livable as those farther out. Specifically, action can be taken to alter the location and form of development:

• Focus development into nodes or centers. Concentrate development into areas where adequate public infrastructure and facilities exist or can reasonably be provided without harming significant natural, scenic, agricultural or other open space resources, and while preserving existing neighborhoods.

• Enhance nodes/centers. Where development can be concentrated into nodes or centers, enhance those areas with pedestrian, bicycle, and streetscape improvements. Provide performance guidelines/design standards for sidewalks, bikeways, lighting, parking and landscaping, aimed at making these areas more pedestrian-friendly and at a human scale.

• Reduce need for automobiles. Promote development patterns which reduce the need for and use of automobiles, but instead encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation through pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-friendly layout and design. Restrict large, single-use developments which would create unacceptable traffic volumes in sensitive areas.

• Allow mixed uses. Encourage mixed uses in higher density residential and business zones. Such uses must first be determined by the municipality to be compatible and supportive of one another. Allow "living over the store" in business zones. Allow small-scale neighborhood shopping uses adjacent to residential areas. Allow for a wide range of low-impacting home occupations in recognition of the growing trend toward working at home. Locate stores, offices, residences, schools, and recreation areas within walking distance of each other in compact neighborhoods, with pedestrian-oriented streets. Apply flexible design standards to help ensure compatibility of building form and siting at a human scale.

• Preserve open space. Significant natural, agricultural, and other open space areas should be preserved, especially outside of development nodes/centers. This can be accomplished through such means as very low density zoning, purchase of development rights (PDR) or transfer of development rights (TDR) programs, and by encouraging or mandating cluster subdivisions in certain situations.

• Ensure that zoning does not preclude opportunities for affordable housing. Affordable housing located near the urbanized center of Tompkins County reduces travel/commuting time, helps to reduce use of automobiles, etc. Allow accessory apartments with appropriate restrictions in single-family zones.

• Provide for innovative/creative housing and neighborhood concepts. This can be accomplished through "planned development zones," co-housing (e.g. EcoVillage), elder cottages, shared housing for the elderly, etc.

• Parks and public space. Ensure the provision of adequate and accessible park and public open space areas in conjunction with new development. This should be guided through the preparation and adoption of a comprehensive park and open space plan. Municipalities can require the setting aside of adequate park and recreation areas through the subdivision and site plan approval process in conjunction with proposed residential development.

• Do not mandate inordinate amounts of off-street parking. Set parking requirements at the minimum necessary to ensure adequate, safe off-street parking. Allow and encourage shared parking where adjoining uses operate at different peak hours.

• Limit the number of access drives and curb cuts on streets intended to carry through traffic. Where appropriate, also consider the possibility of eliminating frontage access altogether.

• Update subdivision and site plan approval requirements. Provide for bus stops, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, lighting, landscaping, etc. Provide for future connections to other subdivisions and to nodes/centers of development. Discourage dead end cul-de-sacs in new development (unless there is a demonstrated purpose), instead striving for a flow-through network of low-speed, low-volume neighborhood streets.

• Update municipal comprehensive plans. Address and incorporate, where appropriate, the above suggested guidelines. Long-range plans should target those areas which are appropriate for concentrating future development versus areas which warrant long-term preservation. Such projections should be done through consultation with adjacent municipalities (and Cornell University) to ensure the coordination of planning for future land use patterns and transportation systems on an area-wide basis. Planning assistance is available through the Tompkins County Planning Department and the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council.

5. Retrofitting Existing Sprawl

• Reduce impact of existing traffic on residential neighborhoods. Implement environmental capacity principles and traffic-calming techniques outlined above to reduce impacts of traffic.

• Reduce volume of traffic in existing residential neighborhoods. Encourage use of alternate transportation modes, consider new roadway links which increase connectivity and decrease concentrations of traffic in sensitive residential areas, consider restricting or closing some roadway connections, provide alternate routes for traffic, etc.

• Ensure continued mobility. Where appropriate, provide pedestrian/bicycle connections as well as new roadway links between residential areas and employment and commercial zones.

• Restore neighborhood character. Rebuild residential roads to beautify streetscapes, restore roadways to a human scale and improve the character and livability of the neighborhoods through which they pass, thereby strengthening the sense of community.

5. References

• Blizzard, Meeky. Creating Better Communities: The LUTRAQ Principles: Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality. Sensible Transportation Options for People (STOP); Tigard, OR. 1996. [Available at the ITCTC Office]

• Buchanan, Colin, et. al. Traffic In Towns: A Study of the Long Term Problems of Traffic In Urban Areas. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London. 1963.

• CART (Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation). Traffic Calming: The Solution to Urban Traffic and a New Vision for Neighborhood Livability. Ashgrove, Australia. 1989. Reprinted by Sensible Transportation Options for People (STOP); Tigard, OR. 1993. [Available at the ITCTC Office]

• Clarke, Andrew and Michael Dornfield. National Bicycling and Walking Study: Traffic Calming, Auto-Restricted Zones and Other Traffic Management Techniques –Their Effects on Bicycling and Pedestrians (Case Study No.19). US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; Washington, DC. 1994. [Available at the ITCTC Office]

• Dutchess Land Conservancy. Design Guide for Rural Roads. Millbrook, NY. 1998.

• Ewing, Reid, Charles Kooshian, and Mark White. "Traffic Calming State-of-the-Art" (Draft). For the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In Traffic Calming Seminar. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1998. [Available at the ITCTC Office]

• Hass-Klau, Carmen, Inge Nold, Geert Bocker, and Graham Crampton. Civilised Streets: A Guide to Traffic Calming. Environmental and Transport Planning; Brighton, England. 1992. [Available at the ITCTC Office]

• Savage, Joseph, David MacDonald, and John Ewell. A Guidebook for Residential Traffic Management, Final Report. Washington State Department of Transportation; Olympia, WA. 1994. [Available at the ITCTC Office]

• Spirn, A.W. The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. Basic Books; New York. 1984.

• Spitz, Salem. "How much is too much (traffic)." ITE Journal, May, 1982, 44-45.

• University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. Florida Pedestrian Planning and Design Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. 1997. [Available at the ITCTC Office]

1. Neighborhood Conditions

 

 

Many residential neighborhoods in the NESTS study area are heavily impacted by the existing transportation network. High traffic volumes and high vehicle speeds significantly degrade the quality of life and livability of these areas. In addition, the roads themselves can disrupt the sense of community. Pedestrians and bicyclists feel vulnerable walking along or crossing wide, inhospitable streetscapes, which greatly reduces neighborly interactions.

High traffic volumes and speeds are incompatible with neighborhood activities. Speeds in excess of 45 mph have been measured in some residential areas, and volumes of over 5000 vehicles per day are all too common. The impacts of this traffic include vibration, noise and air pollution, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and loss of sense of community. In several areas, these impacts have reached unacceptable levels.

Within the NESTS area, there are many examples of pleasant, human-scale residential street designs: tree-lined roads of modest width which follow the natural ground contours and serve to knit a neighborhood together. Some of these can be found in Forest Home and in Cayuga Heights. Unfortunately, the area also has many examples of inappropriate residential street designs, where a wide expanse of blacktop dominates the neighborhood, and serves as a barrier, dividing or segmenting the community. An example of this would be Route 366 through Varna. Sadly, even some of the newer, low-traffic cul-de-sacs have been designed to be unnecessarily wide, straight and intrusive, with pavement widths as wide as four or five cars.

2. Pedestrians and Cyclists

 

 

Despite the hilly terrain, severe winters, and lack of adequate infrastructure, bicycling and walking are a popular means of transportation in the greater Ithaca area. According to the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey, walking and bicycling percentages for Tompkins County are approximately five times higher than the national average. It must be noted that these numbers understate the use of these modes – students, who represent a significant portion of the community and are predisposed to walking and bicycling, are not included.

The popularity of these modes is demonstrated to an even greater extent in the City of Ithaca where there is a higher density population, a greater mix of land uses providing multiple destinations, and an extensive network of sidewalks. Good connections between walking, bicycling and transit are other positive factors that make a community more bicycling- and walking-friendly. TCAT was among the first in the Northeastern U.S. to install bike racks on the front of their fleet of buses, thus providing even more options for people to connect a bicycle trip with transit.

Pedestrians and cyclists have been vocal about the fact that roadways, sidewalks, and separate multi-use pathways are inadequate in the NESTS area. Pedestrians are frustrated when a sidewalk ends and their only choice is a beaten path along the edge of the road, or nothing at all. Similarly, many roads have inadequate shoulder space or bike lanes to provide a continuous, safe route for cyclists. Families, inline skaters and others are disappointed to find few, segmented multi-use paths in the greater Ithaca area for recreational uses. Poor and inconsistent maintenance of facilities, particularly during the winter, is another problem facing pedestrians and bicyclists.

Although no exact data are available, there are strong indications that even more of Tompkins County’s population would walk and use bicycles if the infrastructure to safely support walking and bicycling were in place.

3. Transit System

Public transit in the NEST study area is comprised of primarily commuter routes oriented to serve the Cornell University campus with connections to downtown Ithaca. Local routes provide circulation internal to the campus and its immediate environs. Suburban commuter routes serve Northeast Ithaca, the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights, and East Ithaca inside the NEST study area. Rural commuter routes pass through the NEST study area from the Towns of Lansing, Groton, Dryden, Caroline and Danby. Service is also provided to Pyramid Mall. This section focuses on the existing conditions of suburban routes operating in the NEST study area.

• Suburban Services and Ridership: Presently, five bus routes operate weekdays from 7:00 AM to 1:30 AM, although most routes operating during regular commuter hours. Two bus routes operate on Saturday, and one route runs Sunday night. Three routes operate between the Northeast and Cornell. Two routes connect Eastern Heights, East Hill and Cornell. These routes were developed to meet specific service needs and have irregular bus frequencies ranging from 34 to 72 minutes between buses.

• Passenger Stop Amenities: There are 48 designated bus stops in the NEST study area, not including the Cornell University campus, of which only three stops have bus stop signs. During July-August 1999, TCAT is installing bus stop signs and summary bus schedules at all 48 stops. Ten bus stops have shelters.

• Bus Fleet: The transit bus fleet serving the NEST area consists of seven buses, which range in age from 1981 to 1992. Two of these buses are lift-equipped. Six of the buses are heavy-duty transit buses with a 12-year life cycle, and one bus has a 10-year life cycle. Five of the buses are operating past their design life cycles; however, four of these were recently reconditioned.

• Service Demands: In October 1997, TCAT conducted surveys of passengers and the public concerning the quality of bus service and demands for more service. Of 475 passengers in the NEST study area, the top five comments were: 1) more frequent buses, 2) earlier and later service, 3) expanded bus service, 4) provide Sunday service, and 5) compliments of drivers. The general public desired more buses on weekdays and weekends, extension of bus routes, and more flexible bus service.

• Conclusion: The NEST service area is under-served by present levels of public transit. There is a public desire to expand transit routes and services fueled, in part, by the location of medium-density apartments and the relocation of medical and other public service providers to the area. In general, transit has a very low public visibility, given that few of its designated bus stops have signs or shelters. The transit bus fleet consists of used buses, the majority are older than their desired service life cycles.

downtown Ithaca, and service to Pyramid Mall, overall ridership is respectable and

growing slowly. Transit productivity is high. Overall, the NEST service area

demonstrates a high potential as a market to expand transit service, invest in amenities,

and renew the bus fleet.

1. Roadway System

• Route 13: This State Route is the only continuous four-lane roadway in the study area. It is part of the regional highway system that connects Cortland, Ithaca, and Elmira. Within the study area, it begins as a two-lane roadway in the east. Access is partially controlled with at-grade intersections at Warren Road, Brown Road, Hanshaw Road, Lower Creek Road, Dryden Road (Route 366), and Pinkney Road. Grade separations exist at Triphammer Road and at Cayuga Heights Road. Within the study area, Route 13 has a 55 mph speed limit and functions exclusively as a traffic-carrying facility.

• Route 79: This regional State Route provides access to the southeast. It is two lanes wide with shoulders for bicycles. There are a number of small commercial, multi-family, and single family driveways served directly by this roadway. The speed limit ranges from 30 to 45 mph.

• Route 366: This two-lane facility serves as an important intra-county connector between the Towns of Dryden and Ithaca and the City of Ithaca. It is a primary access

• Route 34B: This two-lane facility serves as a major east-west connector in the northern part of the study area. It connects with Route 34 in the study area and Route 38 in the Town of Dryden. It is a primary route for truck traffic from the Cargill plant in the Town of Lansing.

• Triphammer Road: North Triphammer Road and Triphammer Road connect Route 34, Route 13 and the Cornell campus. This roadway, along with Warren Road, provides the primary north-south route for travel in the study area. In the vicinity of the major commercial developments in the Village of Lansing, this roadway is four lanes wide with turning lanes. North of these developments, it is a two-lane road with connections to local streets and a number of residential driveways in a semi-rural setting. The Village and Town of Lansing, in cooperation with Tompkins County, are planning a reconstruction of the section north of Route 13. South of the commercial developments, Triphammer Road was recently reconstructed by the Village of Cayuga Heights to include turning lanes at major intersections, new street lighting, and improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. In this area and south to Cornell University, the adjacent land uses are primarily residential.

• Warren Road: Although Warren Road does not provide as long a continuous north-south route as Triphammer Road, it is still a vital link serving north-south traffic movements because it connects Cornell, Route 13, and the employment center surrounding the Tompkins County Airport. Between Route 13 and the Cornell campus, Warren Road serves three schools as well as a number of residences, and it separates two golf courses. There is a clear conflict between its uses as a through road and a neighborhood street. Warren Road is two lanes wide with turning lanes at some major intersections, but with limited bike and pedestrian facilities.

• Pleasant Grove Road: This short section of road (about 1.3 miles long) connects the Community Corners area in the Village of Cayuga Heights with Cornell. It is partially residential, and is the busiest north-south route for traffic between Hanshaw Road and Cornell.

• Forest Home Drive, Judd Falls Road, and Caldwell Road: These three narrow roads and the two associated one-lane bridges over Fall Creek are the focal point of north-south traffic on Pleasant Grove and Warren Road. At the same time, they function as the local streets for autos, bicycles, pedestrians and joggers in the Forest Home neighborhood and in the Cornell Plantations. These functions are incompatible with the heavy traffic. There is also no dedicated space along these roads for bicycles, and sidewalks are limited to short sections.

• Pine Tree Road: This local residential street is one of the signed connectors to the Cornell campus from Route 79. It varies in width with intermittent provision for bicycles and pedestrians. There is a short pedestrian path between its intersections with Snyder Hill Road and Ellis Hollow Road.

• Ellis Hollow Road: This road through a rural residential area carries through traffic, in conflict with its neighborhood character, and it has no provision for bicycles and pedestrians.

1. Traffic Volumes

Automatic traffic recorder (ATR) count information was collected for this study and existing counts from other studies were obtained as well to collect two-way traffic volumes for a period of several days on eight roadway segments in the study area. Appendix E contains the complete ATR counts.

• Traffic volumes are highest during the typical weekday afternoon commuter hour.

• Depending on the location, the peak hour for the study area generally occurs for a one-hour period between 4:30 and 6:00 PM.

• K factors ranged from 8 percent to 11 percent, which is typical for this type of area.

• Route 13 is the most heavily used roadway in the corridor with 2200 vehicles per hour west of Triphammer Road and 2700 vehicles per hour east of Triphammer Road. There is no predominant directional split to this traffic in the afternoon peak hour.

• The volumes along Triphammer Road vary significantly. Starting to the north of Graham Road, two-way peak hour volumes are 1050, increase to 2250 just north of Route 13, and then they drop to 1600 south of the Route 13 ramps and decrease to 1300 at Community Corners. South of Community Corners, traffic on Triphammer Road drops to 400 in the peak hour.

• The heavy impact of Cornell commuting traffic volumes on traffic is clear with predominant flows away from the campus on Pleasant Grove Road, Warren Road, Route 366, Judd Falls Road, and Pine Tree Road. On Warren Road, Pine Tree Road and Route 366, about 70 percent of the afternoon peak hour traffic is traveling in the outbound direction. Total peak hour traffic volumes on 3 local streets range from 600 on Pleasant Grove Road and Warren Road to 750 on Pine Tree Road. Route 366 carries the highest volume with 850.
• Figure 4.3

• North of Route 13, Warren Road has a peak hour volume of 1350, which includes traffic from the airport and the surrounding employment centers. Further north, traffic drops to 650 with a northbound flow of 75 percent during the afternoon peak hour.

• In many neighborhoods, off-peak traffic conflicts with livability.

1. Intersection Level of Service

Intersection Level of Service (LOS) and capacity analysis relate traffic volumes to the physical characteristics of an intersection. Appendix F contains detailed descriptions of the various LOS ratings. Generally, a LOS rating of D is considered minimally acceptable. Signalized and unsignalized intersection levels of service were calculated (rather than actually measured), and are shown in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.4. Most of the intersections operate at an acceptable level of service. Conditions at the eight intersections with an unacceptable level of service are discussed below.

• Route 34/34B: A level of service E was computed for the northbound approach at this intersection. Since there was excess capacity on the other approaches, a re-timing of the signal would result in a level of service C on the northbound approach while maintaining an overall level of service C.

• Triphammer Road/Graham Road: This intersection is currently controlled by a four-way stop sign, which does not accommodate the traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. As part of the North Triphammer Road project in the Village of Lansing, a traffic signal is proposed for this location. With a traffic signal in place and turning lanes as proposed, this intersection would operate at a level of service B.

• Route 13 WB On/Off Ramp & Triphammer Road: The level of service calculation for the westbound right-turn at the ramp at this location indicated a poor level of service. This intersection operates in coordination with the eastbound ramp intersection. Since this right turn can occur simultaneously with the left turn onto the eastbound ramp, an adjustment to the signal timing would be possible and the turn would then operate at level of service C, with an overall level of service B for the intersection.

• Route 13 EB On/Off Ramp and Triphammer Road: During the afternoon peak hour, there are about 200 vehicles making this left turn. A poor level of service for this movement was computed, based on the existing signal timing. By modifying the signal timing, it would be possible to provide a level of service B at the intersection.

• Community Corners: This location with three closely-spaced unsignalized intersections, two of which have a poor level of service, has been recognized as a problem for many years. A number of potential solutions have been proposed, but the type of comprehensive engineering evaluation necessary to evaluate them was

• Hanshaw and Pleasant Grove Roads: The Pleasant Grove approach is controlled by a stop sign and operates at level of service E. A signal could be installed at this location to improve the flow, but it is not recommended because the overall solution to the traffic congestion in Community Corners should address this intersection as well.