|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1.1
A. Background and Purpose
. 1.1
B. Study Organization
.. 1.4
C. Goals and Objectives
.. 1.5
D. Organization of the Plan
.. 1.9
CHAPTER II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
.
2.1
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
-
Transportation Plan Recommendations:
Recommendation 1 Adopt Livability Principles
.. 7.2
Recommendation 2 Provide Enhanced Community-Based
Transit Service
7.3
Recommendation 3 Implement Land Use Planning Practices That
Will Enhance Livability
... 7.4
Recommendation 4 Improve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility
Network
7.5
Recommendation 5 Perform Design/Feasibility Study and Reserve
Right of Way for Cross Cutting Roadway
Corridors
.. 7.6
Recommendation 6 Refer Localized Problems to Responsible
Jurisdictions
.
. 7.9
Recommendation 7 Implement Selected Actions
... 7.9
Recommendation 8 Freight Study
.
. 7.9
Recommendation 9 Intergovernmental Cooperation
. 7.10
B. Opportunity
7.10
Appendices
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
List of Tables
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
List of Figures
Figure: Page
1.1 Study Area
.. 1.2
-
Public Participation and Collaborative Decision Making Process
.. 2.7
3.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Traffic Calming Measures
..
3.8-11
4.1 Roadway Network
.. 4.6
4.2 Roadway Network
.. 4.7
4.3 Average Annual Daily Traffic
4.11
4.4 1997 Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Services
. 4.12
4.5 Alternative Judd Falls Road Improvements
4.17
4.6 Speed Data Locations
..
..
. 4.18
4.7 Problem Sheet
. 4.21
5.1 NESTS Model Assumptions Employment ..
.. 5.5
5.2 NESTS Model Assumptions Population .
.. 5.6
5.3 Screenline Locations
.. 5.9
5.4 Future Screenline Volumes
5.10
5.5 Existing and Future Levels of Service
..
. 5.14
6.1 Consolidated Pedestrian/Bicycle Map
6.9
6.2 Potential Transit Routes
.. 6.12
6.3 Alternatives Corridors Evaluated
6.20
-
Future Volume Comparison on Existing Roadways With and Without
North-South Connector East
..
..
6.24
6.5 Future Volume Comparison on Existing Roadways With and Without
North-South Connector Route 34/13 West
..
6.29
6.6 Alternative S Southern Potential Alignment
.
.... 6.32
-
Future Volume Comparison on Existing Roadways With and Without
-
Combined S and A2 and S3
. 6.34
7.1 Recommended Corridors for Further Study
.. 7.7
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
-
Background and Purpose
Tompkins County is special because of its mix of educational, social-cultural,
and natural features. It is the home of Cornell University, Ithaca College
and Tompkins Cortland Community College, which provide the vibrancy and
intellectual stimulation associated with institutions of higher learning.
The City of Ithaca, in the center of the County, serves as the activity
hub for the County and surrounding area. The natural features of the area
include Cayuga Lake and numerous scenic gorges with waterfalls and rapidly
flowing streams. This topography results in many areas for hiking and sightseeing,
some of which have been preserved in state and local parks and preserves.
The topography also constrains the form of the transportation system. Variation
in elevation creates steep grades on roads, bicycle ways, and sidewalks.
The gorges and streams, running predominately east-west, create natural
barriers to north-south travel. Early settlement patterns were greatly
influenced by topography, with small local roads evolving to serve the
developing land uses. Many of the heavily used roads in the area date from
the early 1800s, but they now carry increasingly large amounts of traffic
through established residential areas.
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 21st 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:
To develop a transportation plan that articulates and responds to
the specific transportation issues and their related impacts as they affect
the citizens and businesses within the designated subarea. Furthermore,
this project will be undertaken in a manner that fulfills the planning
requirements and objectives of ISTEA, including (but not limited to) concerns
over intermunicipal cooperation and public involvement.
B. Study Organization
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.
During the course of the study, there was a concerted effort to reach out
to the community by conducting:
-
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.
The Transportation Plan also considered recommendations from
other studies and plans in the area that have been completed or are underway.
The Transportation Plan was developed to provide a framework for
better land use plans for the Towns of Lansing, Ithaca and Dryden, the
Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights, and Cornell University. The recommendations
in the ITCTC 2015 Long Range Plan were also considered as the Transportation
Plan was prepared. Other plans and studies reviewed as part of this
effort are listed in the bibliography in Appendix B.
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 TCATs 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.
|
Organization of the Plan
The Transportation Plan is divided into the following
seven chapters:
-
Chapter I: Introduction.
-
Chapter II: Public Participation Process, describing the collaborative
participation process used in NESTS.
-
Chapter III: Livability Principles, describing livability principles
related to
the Transportation System.
-
Chapter IV: Existing Transportation Conditions, describing the current
characteristics of the transportation system in the NESTS area.
-
Chapter V: Projected Vehicular Traffic, describing the forecast
future
conditions if there are no major changes to the transportation
system or to the land use planning policies in the NESTS area.
-
Chapter VI: Development and Evaluation of Transportation Alternatives,
describing and evaluating the alternatives proposed to address
area transportation needs.
-
Chapter VII: Recommendations and Conclusions, describing the
recommendations of the Transportation Plan.
CHAPTER II
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
The public involvement component of the North East Subarea Transportation
Study (NESTS) was an innovative collaboration between local governments,
technical consultants, and the citizens of Tompkins County. In this highly
participatory process, local government entrusted primary responsibility
for problem identification, data gathering, and solution generation to
a diverse group of citizen representatives working in conjunction with
a transportation planning consultant.
The underlying premise of the NESTS process design was that a properly
involved and informed public would significantly improve the quality of
the studys outcome. Additionally, experience from similar projects had
shown that the potential for building understanding, ownership, and thereby
broad community support for the studys results would be dramatically enhanced
through extensive public participation.
This chapter describes who was involved in the study, how they participated,
and what activities they undertook. Significant junctures in the overall
deliberation process are identified and described. The chapter is divided
into two parts. The first part identifies the participants, describes the
process by which they were selected and their various roles in the study.
The second part summarizes the participation-process design and the outreach
and publicity activities.
-
Participants and Roles
The NESTS process involved the collaborative participation of the
following six groups.
-
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 Groups 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 Groups final recommendations, however recommending
to "do nothing" was not a viable alternative.
The final fourteen members were selected jointly by CDRC and the NESTS
Client Committee based upon written applications with the objective of
having the group possess a balance of interests, skills, and geographic
representations. The Working Group members and their respective affiliations
were:
John Bailey Bailey Insurance Company
Savanna Park Neighborhood Association
Dryden Masonic Lodge
Fred Bonn (5/98-7/99) Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce
[Replaced Linda Daybell
upon her resignation]
Barbara Caldwell Town of Dryden Planning Board
Ithaca Board of Realtors
Tompkins County League of Women Voters
Lois Chaplin Cornell Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Specialist
Tompkins County Greenway Coalition
Ithaca City Bicycle Advisory Council
(former member)
Lin Davidson Town of Lansing Planning Board
Lansing Lions Club
Cash grain farmer
Linda Daybell (11/97-5/98) Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce
[Resigned due to moving United Way of Tompkins County
away from Ithaca]
Robert Dey (11/97-1/98) Cayuga Heights Fire Company
[Resigned due to Tompkins County Fire Advisory Board
schedule conflict] Village of Cayuga Heights Police Officer
William Goldsmith Cornell Professor, City & Regional Planning
Forest Home Improvement Association
Alternative Community School Advisory Bd.
(former member)
Alternative Community School Advisory Board (former member)
Thomas LiVigne Cornell University Real Estate Department
Tompkins County United Way
Better Housing for Tompkins County
Dwight Mengel Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit,
Project Manager
Dorothy Munson Lansing business owner
Tompkins County Farm Bureau
Business & Professional Womens Group of
Ithaca
Fred Noteboom Town of Ithaca, Superintendent of Highways
David Orr Cornell Local Roads Program
Kappa Delta Rho Alumni Board
Transit Commuter
Dana Paul Bill Cooke (auto dealership) Service Manager
Ludlowville Neighborhood Association
Tompkins County Household Haz.Waste Adv.Committee
Bicycle commuter
Dennis Reinhart Village of Lansing Superintendent, Public Works
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
-
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:
Fernando de Aragon Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, Director
Edward Abruzzo Zone Sergeant, New York State Trooper
Katie Borgella Tompkins County Planning Department
Brent Cross Village of Cayuga Heights, Superintendent of Public Works
John Gutenberger Cornell University, Asst. Director of Community Relations
James Hanson Tompkins County, Commissioner of Planning
David Herrick TG Miller Engineering
Jonathan Kanter Town of Ithaca, Director of Planning
Bill Mobbs Tompkins County, Commissioner of Public Works
Diane Noyes Sergeant, New York State Trooper
Bill Wendt Cornell University, Director of Transportation Services
-
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 Mannings on-site staff for the project:
Doug Hamlin, P.E. (12/97 - 4/98)
Chuck Manning, P.E. (3/98 - 7/99)
-
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:
Cathy Valentino, Chairperson Town of Ithaca, Supervisor
Ron Anderson Village of Cayuga Heights, Mayor
Henrik Dullea Cornell University, Vice President for University
Relations
Brad Griffin Town of Lansing, Planning Board member
Janice Gross New York State Dept. of Transportation Director
(Region 3)
Donald Hartill Village of Lansing, Mayor
James Schug Town of Dryden, Supervisor
Stuart Stein Tompkins County Board of Representatives
-
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.
The CDRC facilitators, together with ITCTC Director, Fernando de Aragon,
served as liaison between various public entities and the internal NESTS
participants. They coordinated the technical consultants activities and
materials to assure successful integration by the Working Group and the
larger public. Most publicity materials were developed and media contact
directed by the CDRC facilitation team. At all stages, two of the following
three facilitators were working on the project:
Kelly Aiken Facilitator, CDRC (11/97-6/98)
Judy Saul Executive Director, CDRC (11/97-1/98 & 4/98-7/99)
Scott Sears Facilitator, CDRC (11/97-7/99)
-
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.
Through the wide-ranging involvement of many citizens over the eighteen-month
study period, the Working Group and technical consultant gained invaluable
insight into local needs and concerns. Public input generated many excellent
proposals for solutions. In keeping with the intent of the NESTS process,
the final recommendations reflected the contributions of the public-at-large.
Of particular note were the contributions of one public participant, Bruce
Brittain. Although not officially appointed to the Working Group, he worked
side-by-side with the group throughout the study.
-
Participation Process Design and Implementation
1. Process Design: The collaborative environment within
which the various NESTS participants interacted was constructed to allow
a wide spectrum of interests, viewpoints, innovation, and technical understanding
to be expressed in a balanced manner. The framework for the process was
modeled upon the following concepts of consensus-based collaborative planning
and problem- solving:
-
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
Utilizing the above principles to achieve its mission, the
Working Group undertook the following sequence of activities:
-
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 studys 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 studys Goals and Objectives
-
Selected solutions and created recommendations
Figure 2.1 provides a graphic representation of the overall public
participation process of the study. A summary record of the studys twenty
Working Group meetings and four public meetings is included in Appendix
C. For additional details, complete meeting summaries from each Working
Group meeting are available on file in the ITCTC offices.
-
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 Groups
work required formal decisions. For example, determining the content of
the studys 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 studys 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 NorthSouth 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 majoritys motion and ultimately endorsed the recommendations
as presented in the report.
-
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.
During the problem identification stage of the study, Working Group
members engaged in a concentrated effort to solicit public input through
a written survey. This survey was distributed at the first two NESTS public
meetings, through presentations at regularly scheduled local civic group
meetings, and at a limited number of workplaces.
C. Conclusion
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.
CHAPTER III
LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES
A major focus of the NESTS study has been that of transportation planning
in support of livable communities. The studys 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.
-
Environmental Capacity
Many residential neighborhoods in the NESTS study area are stressed with
large amounts of traffic, traffic that strongly harms the livability of
these areas. Environmental capacity addresses the impact of traffic
on the livability of the built environment in the same manner that carrying
capacity (including level of service) addresses the impacts of the
roadway environment on the flow of traffic. First formalized by Colin Buchanan
in 1963, the concept of environmental capacity has been tested, refined,
and successfully implemented for over 35 years. Originating in England,
it then spread to Europe, and finally to the United States, where it has
now gained growing acceptance by transportation planners and engineers,
augmenting and replacing the traditional engineering approach to roadway
capacity analysis.
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 roads 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.
Traditional roadway designs tend to be effective in moving vehicles,
but they are typically not efficient, having a poor mobility-to-impact
ratio. By employing the methods outlined above, a road can be made more
efficient, having less impact for a given amount of traffic, or carrying
more traffic for a given amount of impact. This is beneficial when attempting
to maximize both livability and mobility, rather than either
to the exclusion of the other. Note that the methods commonly used for
increasing a roads carrying capacity (widening, straightening and
raising the speed limit) will increase traffic impacts. Therefore, a roadway
should not be rebuilt to increase its carrying capacity if its environmental
capacity has already been reached or exceeded.
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.
Drivers may or may not care about observing speed limit signs, but
they are always concerned with their own safety. For example, drivers are
not likely to slow down to observe a 25 mph speed limit through a neighborhood
if the street is wide enough for four cars. They will slow down, however,
if they enter a narrow street, approach a bump in the road, or encounter
a different road surface. "Traffic calming" devices such as skinny streets,
reduced sight lines, traffic circles, diverters, and textured crosswalks
create streets that drivers must use carefully, for their own safety.
As a result, traffic calmed streets are safer for all users. Because
automobile traffic moves slower, there are fewer accidents--and the accidents
that do occur are less severe than those that happen at higher speeds.
In addition, traffic calmed streets are quieter and usually enjoy less
traffic, making them safer and more pleasant for pedestrians, bicyclists
and residents (Blizzard, p. 14).
Traffic calming measures should be implemented on a case-by-case basis
adapted to specific local needs, striving for the best results with the
least inconvenience for through traffic. In order to be successful, these
changes must also be done with overwhelming support of the residents. Thus,
local governments need to have a process in place for the implementation
of traffic calming measures which includes opportunities for public participation
as well as for technical analysis. Features may be placed in temporary
fashion to test for effectiveness, and every implementation should add
to the beauty of the road.
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.
Other measures which can complement traffic calming efforts include:
-
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.)
Examples of traffic calming measures include: speed tables, raised crosswalks,
intersection bulbs, chicanes, diverters, diagonal cutoffs, chokers, urban
width restrictors, gateways, playstreets, woonerven (pedestrian-priority
streets), etc. Figure 3.1 (source: Florida Pedestrian Planning and Design
Handbook) compares the advantages and disadvantages of several typical
traffic calming measures. More information is available through the references
listed at the end of this chapter.
C. Mobility
Efforts to improve a given areas 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 arent 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.
-
Roadway Design Standards
Roadway design standards should reflect the character of the adjoining
land uses, which the road serves, rather than be determined by roadway
ownership (i.e. whether it is a village, town, county or state road). These
design standards should change where appropriate (e.g. where the land use
changes), instead of at some (arbitrary) municipal boundary. Roads within
residential neighborhoods should be narrow, calm, safe and attractive (and
should have the look and feel of being residential). Pavement
width should be kept to a minimum (perhaps 18 feet, certainly no wider
than now), and a speed limit of 25 mph is often appropriate. In non-residential
areas, the road can be wider if the desired vehicle speed is higher and
the traffic is heavier. Many roads within the NESTS study area have some
residential sections (which should be treated as such) and some non-residential
sections (which may be treated differently). For example, Warren Road has
several alternating residential and non-residential sections, but only
the residential sections need to be narrow and low-speed. Note that design
standard categories reflect the land use through which the road
passes, not the functional classification labels used by AASHTO
and NYSDOT. Also, uniformity in design standards is intended as a means
to an end, not as an end in itself. Local variations in design standard
are acceptable, and in some cases may even be necessary, in order to achieve
the desired results at each specific location (see Traffic Calming).
The Environmental Capacity and Mobility sections provide
more detailed recommendations on how to modify roads in developed areas
so that they can meet their performance criteria.
-
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 peoples 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. Peoples 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 Countys 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.
-
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
For many people, safe facilities for walking and bicycling are among the
criteria that define a livable community. Planning that includes provisions
for these modes of transportation is especially helpful because more walking
and biking leads to less motorized traffic, thus enhancing the environment
for walking and cycling. Building continuous and safe access for pedestrians
and cyclists provides communities with the means to remediate the negative
effects of automobiles and, at the same time, it provides those communities
with the fruit of that remediation: safer communities for walking and cycling.
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.
-
Transit Access
Livable communities include public transit as a real travel option. Since
conventional suburban development has been based on the assumption that
nearly all trips will be made by automobiles, provisions for other alternatives
(walking, bicycling and public transit) have been generally omitted from
most private and public development projects. Having realistic choices
for transportation requires a new look at public and private decisions
that shape facilities, street networks, and patterns of development. A
community goal to have a superior, convenient and efficient public transit
system needs to be supported by the day-to-day public and private decisions
which determine whether places will be accessible to public transit. Transit
access issues include site design and layout, provision of pedestrian facilities,
provision of passenger facilities, and community planning that results
in efficient transit services.
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-mans 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.
-
Land Use Planning
Where we find well-organized patterns of land use, we expect to find livable
neighborhoods. But, behind this simple truth, there is great complexity.
In quite direct ways, land use planning helps determine the character of
neighborhoods, and thus their livability. Land use planning involves zoning,
the regulation of new developments, the specification of lot sizes, building
types and building sizes, and restrictions on permissible activities: housing
but not industry here, and schools but not pig farming there. People prefer
to keep noxious land uses at a distance, to order their living spaces,
to spread things out a little. Perhaps such order is good. But there may
be good results from disorder.
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.
Other land use planning measures can be taken to deal with regulating
access, circulation and parking. These include:
-
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.
Finally, there are land use planning measures which can be taken to enhance
intermunicipal
cooperation and planning coordination, including:
-
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.
-
Retrofitting Existing Sprawl
When dealing with livability issues, it is generally easier to prevent
problems than it is to correct them later. Thus the emphasis on future
land use planning. However, some measures can be taken to address livability
concerns which arise in existing, poorly planned residential areas. These
include planning and zoning principles and techniques which can help to
address or alleviate problems associated with existing suburban sprawl,
such as:
-
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.
-
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 Majestys 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]
CHAPTER IV
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
This chapter summarizes the existing conditions of the transportation
network within the Northeast Study Area, presenting existing data collection
and analysis, as well as quantitative measures of the transportation issues
identified during the public meetings and by the Working Group. These issues
include impact of traffic on neighborhood livability, bike/pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts, pedestrian/bike safety, traffic congestion and transit service
needs. This information served as the basis for forecasting, analysis,
and development of recommendations to address the long-term needs in the
NESTS study area.
-
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.
-
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 Countys population would walk and use bicycles
if the infrastructure to safely support walking and bicycling were in place.
-
Transit System
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) was authorized by the New York
State Legislature and formed by agreement between the City of Ithaca, Cornell
University and Tompkins County to operate public transit service in Tompkins
County. TCAT operates bus routes directly and under municipal contracts
with private operators including Swarthout Coaches, Inc., Tioga Transport,
Inc., and GADABOUT Transportation Services, Inc. From 1997 to 1999, TCAT
conducted a Service and Fare Consolidation Project to plan new routes,
services and fares. Through surveys and public meetings, the NEST study
area was identified as a major transit market. TCATs fare and service
plans will go into effect in June and August 1999, and represent a significant
increase in transit service in the study area.
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.
In 1998, the bus service operated 7 buses for 13,622 revenue hours
and traveled 149,691 revenue miles. The overall average speed was 11 miles
per hours
(including stops). In 1998, the five bus routes carried 419,652 passengers,
with an
overall productivity of 30.1 passengers per revenue hour. Since 1996,
ridership has
grown 1.3% from 414,199 to 419,652 passenger trips. In 1998, transit
in the NEST
service area comprised 18% of TCATs total ridership and 11% of TCATs
total
revenue miles.
The NEST area is served by TCATs ADA paratransit service required by
the
American with Disabilities Act. Persons with disabilities who are unable
to ride fixed route buses are eligible to be certified for ADA paratransit
service. ADA paratransit service provides curb-to-curb service along one
and a half mile wide corridors that follow bus routes during the same time
the fixed route buses operate. TCATs ADA paratransit service is operated
by GADABOUT. Further, GADABOUT, Cayuga Taxi, and Airline Limousine Service
provide additional demand responsive service in the NEST area.
-
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.
Since transit service is oriented to the commuter needs of Cornell University,
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.
-
Roadway System
The roadway system in the Northeast Study Area (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2)
serves through traffic, commuter traffic, and local traffic. It provides
access to major retail and commercial areas, and it provides access to
neighborhoods and residences. The system is comprised mostly of two-lane
local streets with turning lanes at selected locations that often have
overlapping and conflicting functions. A description of the primary roadways
follows:
-
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
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
route to Cornell from Route 13 to the east as well. It travels through
the hamlet of Varna, intersecting with a number of local streets and driveways,
and then continues west to Ithaca. The speed limit ranges from 30 to 45.
-
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.
These four State highways serve primarily east-west movements. There are
no State highways in the NESTS area that serve north-south traffic movements.
Routes 34 and 38 are two north-south State routes located just outside
the study area, but they do not serve major traffic generators such as
Cornell in the NESTS area. North-south traffic currently must use local
streets, many of which pass through residential areas and neighborhoods,
thus contradicting the Livability principles established by the Working
Group. The most heavily loaded north-south streets are the first five listed
here:
-
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.
-
Traffic Volumes
This section documents the base year traffic conditions, including average
daily traffic (ADT), peak design hour volume (DHV), peak hour turning movement
volumes, peak hour factors (PHF), and the peak hour volume as a percent
of ADT (K factors).
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.
Weekday traffic volumes from each of the counts were averaged, giving
a two-way average daily traffic volumes for segments of the study area
network. The resulting 1995-97 ADT volumes, peak hour, and peak hour volume
appear in Table 4.1. The K factors (the percent of ADT during peak hour)
were calculated and are summarized in Table 4.1. Figure 4.3 shows estimates
of annual ADT for major NESTS roads.
The critical hour for traffic occurs some time between 4:00 and 7:00
PM. Therefore, intersection turning movement traffic counts were conducted
or obtained for the PM peak at the 28 critical intersections in the study.
Appendix E contains the turning movement counts.
The turning movement counts were compared with the peak hour volumes
from the ATR counts as a data quality-control check while balancing turning
movement volumes between adjacent intersections. The resulting Existing
1997 Design Hour Intersection Volumes are shown on Figure 4.4. The following
conclusions are evident from this information:
-
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
Figure 4.4
-
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.
Note: The peak hour volumes discussed above may differ from those
shown in Table
4.1 because of the difference in the location of the counts.
Table 4.1 ADT and Peak Hour Factors
|
ATR No.
|
Location
|
ADT
|
Peak Hour Time
|
Peak Hour Volume
|
K-Factor
|
|
1
|
Forest Home Drive
|
4100
|
5:00-6:00 P.M.
|
400
|
10%
|
|
2
|
Warren Road
|
7000
|
5:00-6:00 P.M.
|
730
|
10%
|
|
3
|
Cayuga Heights Road
|
1100
|
5:00-6:00 P.M.
|
130
|
12%
|
|
4
|
North Triphammer Road
|
11400
|
5:00-6:00 P.M.
|
1000
|
9%
|
|
5
|
North Triphammer Road
|
9300
|
6:00-7:00 P.M.
|
900
|
10%
|
|
6
|
Route 366
|
10400
|
4:00-5:00 P.M.
|
950
|
9%
|
|
7
|
Route 13
|
14600
|
4:00-5:00 P.M.
|
1200
|
8%
|
|
8
|
Route 79
|
5200
|
4:00-5:00 P.M.
|
460
|
9%
|
-
Intersection Level of Service
Intersections generally control the carrying capacity of a highway system,
and they create delay and congestion. Intersection performance is one of
a broad range of elements in the overall evaluation of the transportation
system. A detailed analysis was completed for each of several critical
intersections, including geometric and traffic signal timing data, peak
hour traffic counts, and level of service. This information is provided
in Appendix F. The critical intersections included are shown in Figure
4.4.
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
beyond the scope of this study. It is recommended that installation
of a westbound
channelized right-turn lane be considered. This would reduce confusion
for traffic
making the left turn from Triphammer Road to Hanshaw Road. Since that
left turn is
the largest single movement at the intersection during the peak hour,
this change could
improve the traffic operation at Community Corners.
-
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.
Table 4.2
Level of Service Summary
1997 Existing Conditions
| Intersection |
|
|
PM Peak Hour
|
|
Movement
|
Control
|
V/C1
|
Delay2 (sec.)
|
LOS3 | |