2030 Long Range Transportation Plan For The Ithaca Metropolitan Area Published by The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, December 2009

ABSTRACT
TITLE: AUTHOR: SUBJECT: 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council The updated 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Ithaca Metropolitan Area. January 17, 1995 initial version December 21, 1999 first update December 14, 2004 second update December 15, 2009 current updated version Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-5570 email: itctc@tompkins-co.org internet: www.tompkins-co.org/itctc 130 (plus appendices)
DATE:
SOURCE OF COPIES:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this document (hereafter referred to as the Plan or LRTP) is to provide members of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, transportation providers, the general public, and other affected groups and individuals with an updated comprehensive Long Range Transportation Plan for the Ithaca, New York metropolitan area. The 2030 LRTP was created in response to the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Final Rule (23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 and 49 CFR Part 613, Federal Register Volume 72, No. 30, Wednesday, February 14, 2008). These were the implementation rules for the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU; Public Law 109-59), which substantially revises titles 23 and 49 of the United States Code. The Plan provides a twenty-year vision for the metropolitan transportation system and represents the product of an extensive public participation effort. The Plan provides a fiscally constrained program for transportation improvements in the amount of $1,518,991,977 over the twenty-year life of the plan. In addition, the LRTP provides specific recommendations for additional transportation and related planning activities that should be carried out in order to achieve the plans Goals and Objectives. It is anticipated that the MPO will undertake plan amendments as new data, technical tools and analytical systems become functional or as otherwise appropriate.
The preparation of this document was financed through grants from and disseminated under the sponsorship of the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration (U.S. Department of Transportation). The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.
2030 Long Range Plan

Updated December 2009 ADOPTION AND AMMENDEMTNS # 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. RESOLUTION NUMBER N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2009-07 DATE September 24, 2009 September 15, 2009 October 20, 2009 November 17, 2009 December 1, 2009 December 15, 2009 December 15, 2009 ACTION Third Public Meeting beginning of final phase of public comment period. Planning Committee review of draft LRTP; Policy Committee review of draft LRTP; Planning Committee review of draft LRTP; End of public comment period Planning Committee approves Final Draft; Recommends final approval Policy Committee approves Final Draft by resolution: Approval of the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan
ii
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
RESOLUTION 09-07*
APPROVAL OF THE 2030 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that Metropolitan Planning Organizations be established in each urbanized area of over 50,000 in population; AND WHEREAS, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council has been designated by the Governor of the State of New York as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Ithaca-Tompkins County Urbanized Area; AND WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations to carry out a "continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive" urban transportation planning process that addresses all modes of transportation; AND WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and its rules implementing Metropolitan Transportation Planning (23 CFR 450) require the development and approval of a comprehensive long-range transportation plan; AND WHEREAS, on December 15, 2009 the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council approved the latest update to its comprehensive long-range transportation plan for the Ithaca-Tompkins County Metropolitan Area in accordance with the requirements of 23 CFR 450; AND WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and its rules implementing Metropolitan Transportation Planning (23 CFR 450) require the transportation plans be reviewed and updated at least every five years in attainments areas; AND WHEREAS, in accordance with the adopted Unified Operations Procedures (section II.B.7.g) of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, an updated comprehensive long-range transportation plan, titled as the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan, has been developed for the Ithaca-Tompkins County Metropolitan Area; AND
iii
WHEREAS, there have been numerous opportunities throughout the update of the comprehensive longrange transportation plan for the public to provide input to the planning process and to participate in the review of the proposed comprehensive long-range transportation plan; AND WHEREAS, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council attests that this Plan has been developed in compliance with the requirements of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and the joint rules for metropolitan planning, 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500; 49 CFR Part 613; AND WHEREAS, the Transportation Planning Committee of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council has reviewed said Plan and has recommended that the Transportation Policy Committee approve the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Transportation Policy Committee of the IthacaTompkins County Transportation Council has reviewed the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Ithaca-Tompkins County Metropolitan Area and hereby approves said Plan; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Transportation Policy Committee of the IthacaTompkins County Transportation Council hereby agrees that the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan will be reviewed and updated to appropriately reflect changes in needs, conditions, and assumptions on a regular basis and not less than every five years; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Transportation Policy Committee of the IthacaTompkins County Transportation Council hereby authorizes and instructs its Staff Director to submit the necessary copies of the approved Plan to the pertinent State and Federal agencies. This resolution having been considered and approved on December 15, 2009.
_______________________________ Carolyn K. Peterson, Chair
_______________________________ Carl Ford, Secretary
*signed original available for review at the ITCTC offices.
iv
ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
MEMBERSHIP
(as of November 1, 2009)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE Carolyn K. Peterson, Chair Dooley Kiefer, Vice Chair Carl Ford, Secretary Donald Hartill Mary Ann Sumner Herb Engman Ron Anderson Roy Staley vacant Laura Shawley Frank Podufalski Glenn Morey Scott Pinney Charles Berggren Dick Coogan Bill Wendt Victor Waldron Richard F. Beers, Jr. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE William J. Gray, Chair Dan Kwasnowski, Vice Chair Ed Marx William Sczesny John Lampman Jonathan Kanter, AICP Fred Noteboom Sue Ritter John W. Courtney Brent A. Cross, P.E. Tim Logue John Gutenberger Bill Wendt Joseph Turcotte Nicole Tedesco vacant Laura Shawley vacant vacant Jack French, Jr. vacant Sue Poelvoorde Joseph Flint Janis Gross Richard F. Beers Victor Waldron STAFF Fernando de Aragn, AICP, Director Teresa L. Linde, Administrative Assistant Victor A. Jorrin, Transportation Analyst Tom Mank, Planning Analyst
Mayor, City of Ithaca Tompkins County Legislator New York State Department of Transportation Mayor, Village of Lansing Supervisor, Town of Dryden Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Village of Cayuga Heights Village of Cayuga Heights Trustee Town of Caroline Highway Department, Town of Danby Supervisor, Town of Enfield Supervisor, Town of Groton Supervisor, Town of Lansing Supervisor, Town of Newfield Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ulysses TCAT Board Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration
Public Works Superintendent, City of Ithaca Environmental Planner, Town of Dryden Commissioner of Planning & Public Works, Tompkins County Highway Manager, Tompkins County Highway Department, Tompkins County Director of Planning, Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent, Town of Ithaca Town Planner, Town of Ithaca Superintendent of Public Works, Village of Lansing Superintendent of Public Works, Village of Cayuga Heights Transportation Engineer, City of Ithaca Director of Community Relations, Cornell University Director of Transportation Services, Cornell University General Manager, TCAT Service/Operations Analyst, TCAT Town of Caroline Highway Department, Town of Danby Town of Enfield Town of Groton Highway Superintendent, Town of Lansing Town of Newfield Town of Ulysses New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration
Emily Hunter, Intern Anna Stokes, Intern
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY POSITION STATEMENT 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MPO AND THE LONG RANGE
The Metropolitan Planning Organization & The Long Range Transportation Plan................. 1.1 What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization................................................................. 1.1 What is the Long Range Transportation Plan ................................................................... 1.1 ITCTC Organizational Structure ........................................................................................ 1.1 Public Involvement................................................................................................................. 1.2
2. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW ..........................................................2.1

Introduction to Tompkins County ................................................................................................... 2.1 Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................................... 2.1 Employment Characteristics .............................................................................................. 2.11 Travel Trends & Characteristics .................................................................................................... 2.14 General Travel Trends ........................................................................................................ 2.14 Commutation ........................................................................................................................ 2.16 Journey-to-Work.................................................................................................................. 2.16 Vehicle Population................................................................................................................ 2.17 Driving Population ............................................................................................................... 2.18 Trip Length ........................................................................................................................... 2.18 Traffic Accidents .................................................................................................................. 2.18 Public Transportation.......................................................................................................... 2.18 Bus and Paratransit ............................................................................................................. 2.19 Paratransit............................................................................................................................. 2.19 Carshare ................................................................................................................................ 2.19 Mobility Management ......................................................................................................... 2.19
3. VISION STATEMENTS
Sustainable Accessibility ................................................................................................................... 3.1 Sustainable Accessibility........................................................................................................ 3.1 Mobility.................................................................................................................................... 3.1 Proximity ................................................................................................................................. 3.2 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................ 3.2 Integration............................................................................................................................... 3.2 Quality of Life ......................................................................................................................... 3.2 Environment ........................................................................................................................... 3.3 Vision Statement Goals & Objectives .............................................................................................. 3.4 Integration............................................................................................................................... 3.4 Mobility.................................................................................................................................... 3.5 Proximity ................................................................................................................................. 3.5 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................ 3.6 Quality of Life ........................................................................................................................ 3.6 Environment ........................................................................................................................... 3.7 vi
4. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM A SUSTAINABLE VIEW

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4.1 Connectivity ......................................................................................................................................... 4.1 Roadways................................................................................................................................. 4.1 Bridges ..................................................................................................................................... 4.5 Transit...................................................................................................................................... 4.5 Paratransit............................................................................................................................... 4.6 Coordination Plan .................................................................................................................. 4.7 Multimodal and Intermodal Facilities................................................................................. 4.7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs ...................................................................................... 4.14 Bicycles ............................................................................................................................ 4.15 Pedestrians ...................................................................................................................... 4.17 System Integration ............................................................................................................................ 4.24 Mobility Impaired ................................................................................................................ 4.24 Parking and Circulation...................................................................................................... 4.24 Design Issues ......................................................................................................................... 4.25 Transportation Demand Management.............................................................................. 4.26 Transportation System Management................................................................................ 4.27 Data Needs............................................................................................................................. 4.32 Intermodal/Freight............................................................................................................... 4.32 Freight Movements........................................................................................................ 4.32 Passenger Movements ................................................................................................... 4.33 Environmental................................................................................................................................... 4.35 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4.35 Air Quality............................................................................................................................. 4.35 Land Use Planning ............................................................................................................... 4.37 Energy.................................................................................................................................... 4.38 Minimizing Negative Impacts............................................................................................. 4.39 Locating Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.39 Safety Element................................................................................................................................... 4.46 Traffic Safety Issues ............................................................................................................. 4.46 State and Regional Planning............................................................................................... 4.46 Part I - New York State Highway Safety Plan ................................................................. 4.46 Part II Tompkins County Emergency Preparedness................................................... 4.48 Financial ............................................................................................................................................. 4.49 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4.49 Resource Estimation ............................................................................................................ 4.49 Expenditure Estimation....................................................................................................... 4.52 Highways ......................................................................................................................... 4.54 Transit ............................................................................................................................. 4.54
5. SCENARIO ANALYSIS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5.1 Scenarios............................................................................................................................................... 5.1 Analysis................................................................................................................................................. 5.4 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT).............................. 5.4 Air Quality and Energy ......................................................................................................... 5.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 5.19 vii
6. PROJECTS FOR IMPLEMENTATON

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6.1 Transportation Initiatives .................................................................................................................. 6.2 Planning Efforts...................................................................................................................... 6.2 Mobility Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 6.5 Operations and Maintenance Efforts .................................................................................. 6.8
7. SAFETEA-LU NARRATIVE
Eight Planning Factors....................................................................................................................... 7.1 Ten Plan Requirements...................................................................................................................... 7.3
APPENDICES
A SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES B INVENTORY OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS C GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS, DEFINITIONS, AND TRANSPORTATION RELATED WEB SITES
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Tompkins County Locator Map............................................................................................... 2.3 FIGURE 2 Ithaca-Tompkins County 2000 Urbanized Area Boundary For Transportation.................... 2.4 FIGURE 3 Census Block Population Density 2000 Tompkins County ................................................... 2.8 FIGURE 4 Households in Tompkins County ............................................................................................ 2.9 FIGURE 5 Age of Population in Tompkins County................................................................................ 2.10 FIGURE 6 Employment in Tompkins County ........................................................................................ 2.13 FIGURE 7 Tompkins County Residents Who Work in Other Counties (2000) .................................... 2.21 FIGURE 8 Residence Location of Workers from Other Counties (2000).............................................. 2.21 FIGURE 9 Journey-to-Work History (Tompkins County)...................................................................... 2.24 FIGURE 10 Journey-to-Work History (City of Ithaca)............................................................................. 2.25 FIGURE 11 Journey-to-Work History (Town of Ithaca) ......................................................................... 2.26 FIGURE 12 Travel Time to Work ............................................................................................................. 2.28 FIGURE 13 Travel Time to Work Percentages ......................................................................................... 2.29 FIGURE 13-A Public Transportation Ridership in Tompkins County ......................................................... 2.30 FIGURE 13-B Sustainability Accessibility Diagram ...................................................................................... 3.1 FIGURE 14 2004 Tompkins County Highway Functional Classification System .................................... 4.3 FIGURE 15 Bridges and Ratings in Tompkins County .............................................................................. 4.8 FIGURE 16 Bridges and Ratings in City of Ithaca...................................................................................... 4.9 FIGURE 17 TCAT Bus Routes - 2009....................................................................................................... 4.10 FIGURE 18 TCAT Bus Routes: Ithaca - 2009 .......................................................................................... 4.11 FIGURE 19 TCAT Bus Boarding Countywide (10/15 11/16/08) ...................................................... 4.12 FIGURE 20 TCAT Bus Boarding Ithaca (10/15 11/16/08) ................................................................ 4.13 FIGURE 21 Tompkins County Intermodal Facilities................................................................................ 4.14 FIGURE 22 Bike Suitability in Tompkins County.................................................................................... 4.16 FIGURE 23 Tompkins County Sidewalk Inventory.................................................................................. 4.18 FIGURE 24 Roads with Sidewalks City of Ithaca.................................................................................. 4.19 FIGURE 25 Multi-Use Trails in Tompkins County .................................................................................. 4.21 FIGURE 26 Multi-Use Trails in City of Ithaca.......................................................................................... 4.22 FIGURE 27 Multi-Use Trails in Ithaca Urbanized Area........................................................................... 4.23 FIGURE 28 Location of Parking Areas City of Ithaca........................................................................... 4.28 FIGURE 29 Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway .................................................................................................. 4.29 FIGURE 30 Tompkins County Congested Roads 2009......................................................................... 4.30 FIGURE 31 City of Ithaca Congested Roads 2009 ................................................................................ 4.31 FIGURE 32 Major Freight Generators and Major Freight Corridors in Tompkins County .................... 4.34 FIGURE 33 Tompkins County eCO2 emissions by sector 2008.............................................................. 4.36 FIGURE 34 Natural Features Focus Areas in Tompkins County ............................................................. 4.41 FIGURE 35 Natural Features Focus Areas in Ithaca................................................................................. 4.42 FIGURE 36 Unique Natural Areas, Federal and State Wetlands in Tompkins County........................... 4.43 FIGURE 37 Historic Bridges and Structures in Tompkins County .......................................................... 4.44 FIGURE 38 Historic Bridges and Structures in Ithaca.............................................................................. 4.45 FIGURE 39 2010-2030 Summary of Estimated Transportation Resources............................................. 4.52 FIGURE 40 Existing Development.............................................................................................................. 5.7
ix
LIST OF FIGURES continued

FIGURE 41 FIGURE 42 FIGURE 43 FIGURE 44 FIGURE 45 FIGURE 46 FIGURE 47 FIGURE 48 Trend-Based Scenario .............................................................................................................. 5.8 Plan-Based Scenario................................................................................................................. 5.9 Tompkins County Congested Roads - 2009.......................................................................... 5.11 City of Ithaca Congested Roads - 2009................................................................................. 5.12 Tompkins County Congested Roads 2030 Trend Scenario............................................... 5.13 City of Ithaca Congested Roads 2030 Trend Scenario ...................................................... 5.14 Tompkins County Congested Roads 2030 Plan-Based ..................................................... 5.15 City of Ithaca Congested Roads 2030 Plan-Based ............................................................ 5.16
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 TABLE 5 TABLE 6 TABLE 7 TABLE 8 TABLE 9 TABLE 10 TABLE 11 TABLE 12 TABLE 13 TABLE 14 TABLE 15 TABLE 16 TABLE 17 TABLE 18 TABLE 19 TABLE 20 TABLE 21 TABLE 22 TABLE 23 TABLE 24 TABLE 25 TABLE 26 TABLE 27 TABLE 28 TABLE 29 TABLE 30 TABLE 31 TABLE 32 TABLE 33... TABLE 34... TABLE 35... Population Totals for Tompkins County Municipalities ........................................................ 2.5 Population Totals for Tompkins County Villages .................................................................. 2.5 Population Trends in Urban and Rural Areas ......................................................................... 2.6 Population Size and Density Figures for Tompkins County 1990-2007 ............................... 2.6 Population Size and Density Figures for the Villages of Tompkins County 1990-2007 ...... 2.7 Persons per Household in Tompkins County.......................................................................... 2.9 Age of Population in Tompkins County................................................................................ 2.11 Employment of Tompkins County Residents Age 16+........................................................ 2.12 Trips Per Person per Day by Trip Purpose 1995 & 2001 estimates.................................. 2.15 Trips Per Person per Day by Mode of Transportation 1995 & 2001 estimates................ 2.15 Tompkins County Commutation Patterns ............................................................................. 2.20 Means of Transportation to Work Census 2000 ................................................................ 2.22 Means of Transportation to Work 2005-2007 ACS........................................................... 2.23 Total Vehicle Registrations in Tompkins County................................................................. 2.27 Vehicles Available and Vehicles per person......................................................................... 2.27 Tompkins County Total Number of Drivers Licenses (1988-2007)................................... 2.28 Travel Time to Work (Workers Age 16+ Not Working at Home)....................................... 2.29 Traffic Accident History for Tompkins County.................................................................... 2.30 Federal Aid Road System Descriptive Statistics ................................................................. 4.4 Road System By Type ...................................................................................................4.4 Bridge Condition ...................................................................................................................... 4.5 Bicycle Suitability - Score ..................................................................................................... 4.17 Roads With Sidewalks ........................................................................................................... 4.20 U.S. Transportation Carbon Emissions (% by mode)........................................................... 4.36 Overall Emissions by Sector.................................................................................................. 4.36 Tompkins County Mileage by Mode .................................................................................... 4.37 Tompkins County Emissions by Mode ................................................................................. 4.37 Summary of Local Highway Resource Estimates................................................................. 4.50 Highway and Transit Resource Estimate (2010-2030)......................................................... 4.51 Summary of Total Estimated Resources ............................................................................... 4.51 Estimated Expenditure Allocations ....................................................................................... 4.53 Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled .......................................................... 5.10 Road Congestion .................................................................................................................... 5.10 Emissions Analysis................................................................................................................. 5.17 Energy Analysis...................................................................................................................... 5.18 x
2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Climate Change and Energy Position Statement
INTRODUCTION Energy-rich and easily adaptable fossil fuels form the foundation of our fast paced contemporary society. For decades, the supply seemed endless. More recently, the threats of climate change, energy descent, political instability in oil rich regions, and environmental degradation suggest we are reaching the limit to our fossil fuel intensive lifestyle and economy. Some people question whether fossil fuels are truly growing scarce and explain that supply restrictions are merely the result of market influences. However, evidence to the contrary is strong. We cannot take the chance that these limits to energy supplies are imaginary, lest we find ourselves unprepared for the future. In recent years, scientific evidence indicating changes in the global climate system has accumulated to highly convincing proportions. In November 2007, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, acting on reports from an extensive network of experts from around the world, formally agreed that, warming of the climate system is unequivocal 1 . This report, along with many others, suggests that sometime in the near future Earth will experience significant changes in weather patterns; the exact consequences of which we do not yet fully understand. The same UNIPCC report insists that action to mitigate and prepare for the effects of climate change must take place quickly, resulting in notable improvements no later than within the next ten years, i.e. by 2017. Together with climate change, fuel availability and affordability promise to remain significant elements in planning for the future. This trend is evidenced by rising costs of gasoline, increasing food costs, and other widespread economic impacts. Limited and/or high cost access to fossil fuels is likely to have immediate and direct impacts on the general population. Americans responded very quickly to the 2008 gasoline price spike by buying more efficient cars, driving less, and looking for alternative ways to travel. 2 In light of these concerns, the ITCTC deems it necessary to address the need to minimize the negative impacts of transportation on the environment and to consider strategies that improve our ability to respond positively to changes in larger transportation networks and in the energy economy. The ITCTC is fortunate that our earlier Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) have laid a solid framework that incorporates goals and objectives that help address the challenges of climate change and energy descent. The ITCTC intends with this Position Statement to refocus its attention on these objectives and advance cooperation within the community and between all concerned local agencies.
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers. November 2007. 2 Leonhardt, David. Big Vehicles Stagger Under the Weight of $4 Gas. The New York Times. 4 June 2008.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS and WHY PLANNING IS IMPORTANT While many of the most articulated transportation related concerns around climate change are environmental in nature, the impacts of transportation extend well beyond the ecological. The way we travel affects our lifestyle options, the quality of our air and water, our health, and also our local economy. Addressing energy descent and climate change in our transportation planning will not only improve our quality of life but also improve adaptability to changing price pressures. What follows is a summary of the key impacts of transportation. Public Health Increasing the modal share of human-powered transportation, such as walking and bicycling, through the provision of improved facilities and the design of walkable developments and neighborhoods, helps combat a range of modern health problems such as obesity, adult-onset diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis, cancer, and stroke. Having access to safe pedestrian and bicycle routes means people are more likely to choose walking or biking as modes of transportation, thus increasing their physical activity. People are also better able to interact with their community and engage in outdoor activities with their families, building valuable social capital. Implementing transportation strategies and policies that reduce reliance on private motor vehicles will result in reduced air pollution leading to reductions in the incidence of asthma and other respiratory disease. Less fuel exhaust in our air will result in less residual pollution in our local soil and water resources. Land Use and Environment Approximately 90% of oil imports into the United States are used for transportation. According to a report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), transportation accounted for 27 percent of U.S. Green House Gas (GHG) emissions in 2003 3 . These numbers are strongly correlated with sprawl development patterns which depend on increased highway infrastructure and personal vehicle use. Transportation strategies can be used to facilitate the implementation of more efficient land use settlement patterns namely, land use designs that emphasize and prioritize public transportation, pedestrian, bicycling and shared (car share, car/vanpool, rideshare) modes of transportation. Fuel Costs/Costs of owning a car When you add up financing, registration costs, insurance, maintenance, repairs, and fuel, the annual cost of car ownership is a significant expense. The high cost of owning a depreciating but necessary asset like a car has a greater impact on the lowincome households and on those who cannot afford to live near work and amenities. In the foreseeable future and almost with certainty within the 20-year planning horizon of the LongRange Transportation Plan, as energy reserves - especially petroleum - decrease in quantity and quality, fuel prices are likely to increase. Investing in strategies that reduce car dependency offers more freedom to people who cannot afford personal vehicles and to those who would rather not own a personal vehicle. It will also reduce personal spending on transportation, and enhance our resilience in the event of future interruptions in larger energy networks.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the U.S. Transportation Sector: 1990-2003. March 2006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420r06003.pdf
INNOVATIONS and IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION Planning departments around the country are becoming increasingly aware of the need for fundamental changes in the way we travel 4 . This awareness is spurring exciting innovations in transportation planning. Numerous strategies and tools, including a variety of Smart Growth techniques and transportation-oriented development (TOD) concepts, can be applied to improve multi-modal transportation in communities and the connectivity between them. Advances in vehicle technology might result in a car and truck fleet that is cleaner and more efficient but not necessarily cheaper or of less consequence with regards to congestion and land consumption patterns. The maturing of the information age has tremendous potential to help implement network-based programs such as bike/car/ride sharing, vanpools, enhanced traffic operations and advanced customer information and service strategies for public transit. Modern computer capabilities and other technological advances are helping in the development of new transportation concepts like automated people movers, late generation light rail, personal rapid transit (podcars), and intelligent transportation system applications. In thinking about long-range transportation planning for Tompkins County, it is important to emphasize aspects of our current system that support sustainable transportation, sustainable land use, and encourage innovative application of human, material, and technological resources. However, periods of crisis often produce rapid innovation and the ITCTC must also keep abreast of arising innovations that can be applied locally. WHY ACT LOCALLY? In a recent interview, Martin Wachs of the Rand Corporation noted, the United States is the only major industrialized country in which the leadership on [climate change] issues is coming from local governments and states. There are numerous states and local jurisdictions that are taking action on climate change in advance of federal action. As of the approval deadline of this 2030 LRTP (Dec. 2009) strong national leadership in addressing climate change and energy descent was still lacking. Without a cogent national policy local action is of paramount importance in combating and adapting to the impacts of climate change. Additionally, local planning can influence regional transportation habits by providing an example of sustainable transportation and by facilitating cooperation and innovation between communities. Since planning affects the way we live long into the future, todays investment decisions will affect how well our transportation system adapts to climate change and changes in energy availability far into the future. Creating local and regional resiliency in our transportation system will help the area address any challenges that will come from reduced fossil fuel availability and variable climate patterns. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION IN TOMPKINS COUNTY Ithaca and Tompkins County are fortunate to have a population that is aware and enthusiastic about addressing climate change. In this respect, this community is well positioned to implement the actions needed to address climate change and energy descent challenges. Due in large part to a history of long-range transportation planning that supports many elements of a sustainable transportation system, Ithaca and Tompkins County already have one of the best public transit systems in Upstate New York. A relatively large proportion of Ithaca and
4
Hume, Christopher. A Planning Headache, 50 Years in the Making. The Toronto Star. 31 May 2008/
Tompkins County residents commute by walking and bicycling, especially in the urban areas. It is important to continue to improve the safety and viability of public transportation and walking in order to expand their modal shares. There is also great potential to increase the modal share of bicycling by providing more dedicated facilities. Private business models such as car sharing, ridesharing, and vanpooling must be encouraged to operate to their highest capacity. In addition, as mentioned above, innovative use of resources and new information and transportation technologies must be considered for implementation, while evaluating new technologies and programs that are surely to arise in coming years. The LRTP includes additional information on available strategies to enhance sustainable mobility and accessibility in Tompkins County.
ROLE OF ITCTC//LOCAL GOALS As an important contributor to planning efforts for the Ithaca Urbanized Area and Tompkins County, the ITCTCs role is one of cooperation, support and serving as a catalyst for transportation programs and projects. In such a role, the ITCTC will help maintain an ethic and awareness that prioritizes climate change and energy security in transportation policy and in other policies that directly and indirectly affect the way our residents travel. The ITCTC will also work with local leadership to generate community involvement in planning for a more sustainable future. In particular the ITCTC will work through its required core planning documents, the 20-year Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the annual Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), to promote goals that help address the challenges of climate change and energy descent. The LRTP embraces a the concept of Sustainable Accessibility, which reflects the communitys vision of transportation as a truly integrated multimodal system that recognizes the combined role of proximity of land uses, connectivity, mobility and its interaction with our environment and our quality of life. CONCLUSION The challenges of climate change and energy availability have the potential to fundamentally change the ways in which we all live and work. As such, they will require a new way of thinking about local and regional planning and cooperation. The implementation of planning policies must meet new demands under potentially very different climatic and energy conditions. Although such change is often spoken about negatively, it is wrong to assume that the future is bleak and that these challenges will only make hard times bearablethis is also a time of opportunity for Tompkins County. Many of the measures required to reduce our vulnerability to changes in the environment and in the energy economy will serve to actually improve the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we interact within our communities. ITCTC representatives and staff, as members of the community, will work to find win/win solutions in transportation that result in sustainable improvements to the quality of life of Tompkins County residents.
1. BACKGROUND The MPO & The LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The MPO & The Long-Range Transportation Plan
What is an MPO In 1974, the U.S. Congress amended the Federal Aid Highway Act, which mandated that all urbanized areas having a population of 50,000 or more designate a single agency to administer federal transportation funds. The agencies that were established were called Metropolitan Planning Organizations. These organizations were to provide a transportation planning process for local, state and federal officials. Today, there are more than 300 MPOs across the country, including the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), the MPO for the Ithaca-Tompkins County area. The ITCTC was created in 1992 after the Ithaca Urbanized area reached 50,000 population in the 1990 census. What is the Long-Range Transportation Plan The regulations that guide the operation of all MPOs indicate that the transportation planning process must include the development of a transportation plan covering a 20-year planning horizon the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The ITCTC Long-Range Transportation Plan needs to be updated every five years. The first ITCTC LRTP was developed in 1995. The 2030 LRTP is the third update since the original. Federal guidelines state the following basic direction for long-range transportation plans: The transportation plan shall include both long-range and short-range strategies/actions that lead to the development of an integrated mulitimodal transportation system to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in addressing current and future transportation demand. ITCTC Organizational Structure As the designated MPO for the Ithaca metropolitan area, the ITCTC is responsible for conducting a transportation planning process that is "continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive". In order to achieve this objective, the ITCTC is structured at three levels.
The Transportation Policy Committee is the final MPO decision-making authority and is composed of the primary elected official from each member government. Cornell University, the New York State Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration and Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) and the other local government in Tompkins County are also represented on the Policy Committee. The Transportation Planning Committee is responsible for coordinating and managing the area's transportation planning activities and providing technical advice to the Policy Committee. The Planning Committee is composed primarily of lead technical staff members from the member entities and local transit operators. The Central Staff is responsible for performing the administrative and technical services necessary to operate the MPO. The efforts of the Central Staff are supplemented by the "in-kind services" of various participants in the MPO process.
M PO STRU CTU RE
P O L IC Y C O M M IT T E E F in a l D e c is io n m a k in g A u th o r ity
P L A N N IN G C O M M IT T E E
T e c h n ic a l R e v ie w & R e c o m m e n d a tio n s
STA FF
T e c h n ic a l A n a ly s is a n d S u p p o rt
IT H A C A -T O M P K IN S C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T IO N C O U N C IL
The MPO holds a series of meetings during each calendar year that are open to the public and where the public may opine on issues taken up by the Committees. The Policy and the Planning Committees meet alternately during the year, holding two joint committee meetings in June and December where both are present. The core functions that the MPO must carry out include developing and marinating both a long Range Transportation Plan and a Transportation Improvement Program of transportation planning and capital projects. During the process of developing these planning documents the MPO informs the public of the activities and encourages their participation The operations and procedures of the ITCTC are guided by the Unified Operations Plan, originally adopted by formal resolution in August, 1992 and updated in May 2000. This document specifies that the Transportation
2030 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Page 1.1
Planning Committee is responsible for development of the Comprehensive Long-Range Transportation Plan. Public Involvement In this 2030 update of the Long Range Transportation Plan, the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council will describe the vision for the transportation systems in Tompkins County taking into account the expressed views of residents, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists concern for the environment and the quality of life in their communities. In the broadest sense, transportation in its many forms affects our common future and what that our community will be like as it evolves. The LRTP looks at a developmental path that makes strategic choices, which have a positive impact on the overall quality of life. The LRTP assumes the position of reducing the negative impacts of transportation on the immediate environment and seeks to involve the public in participating in making choices that contribute towards improving the quality of life in Tompkins County. Through a series of public meetings, printed materials, media outreach and public presentations, the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation County engaged the public and solicited comments and reactions on key components of the LRTP update. The intent was to gather comments on the publics thinking on a transportation system that: 1. Includes all modes. 2. Will be safe, convenient, and efficient. 3. Serve and enhance existing land use and planned growth. 4. Sustain the quality of the environment and enhance our communities. 5. Be financially feasible. 6. Provide access and connectivity with diverse land uses and modes. 7. Be maintained through local officials and citizens participating in transportation decision-making.
Page 1.2
2. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION TO TOMPKINS COUNTY
Located in Upstate New York, Tompkins County contains nine towns, six villages and is home to the City of Ithaca, one of the principal cities of the scenic Finger Lakes region (see FIGURE 1). The City of Ithaca, which is centrally located within Tompkins County, is situated at the southern end of Lake Cayuga and serves as the activity hub for the County and indeed for a greater multi-county region. The area is characterized by topography that is restricted and interrupted by the aftereffects of past glacial activity that created the Finger Lakes region. The climate of the area is variable and is characterized by well-defined seasons. The County is best known as an education center, as it is home to Cornell University, Ithaca College, and Tompkins Cortland Community College. These institutions provide important sources of revenue, employment, and cultural amenities for the residents of Tompkins County as well as surrounding counties. Metropolitan Planning Organization Urbanized Area The ITCTC Urbanized Area is composed of the City of Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Village of Lansing, most of the Town of Ithaca, and small portions of the Towns of Caroline, Dryden, Lansing, Newfield, and Ulysses (see FIGURE 2).
According to the 2007 Census Estimate, Tompkins County grew in population by 4,554 persons between 2000 and 2007, representing an annual average increase of approximately 0.7% (see TABLE 1). The City of Ithaca and all nine of the Towns in the County showed population increases from 2000 to 2007. In terms of the highest percentage of persons gained, the Town of Ithaca gained 8.1% (1,511 of 18,710) and the Town of Danby gained 6.4% (191 of 3,007). The Towns with the smallest increase in population were the Town of Groton (1.1%) and the Town of Newfield (1.2%). Regarding population changes in the six villages in Tompkins County, the total population in all villages decreased by 0.14% per year and only 2 of the 6 villages gained population (see TABLE 2). The only villages having population increases between 2000 and 2007 were the Village of Trumansburg and the Village of Lansing (with increases of 2.8% and 0.7% respectively). A review of the 1990-2007 population changes by Censusdefined "urban" and "rural" areas confirms the notion that Tompkins County continues to become more urbanized demographically (see TABLE 3). This is a trend that was noted in previous Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs). As the area becomes more urbanized, the travel patterns and behaviors of its residents will continue to change. TABLE 4 provides a more detailed view of the area's demographic changes in terms of population density (persons per square mile,) for the 2000-2007 period for the Towns and the City of Ithaca, while TABLE 5 show similar information for the Countys villages. Population density based on 2000 Census block data is presented in FIGURE 3. While pockets of urban density can be found throughout the County, representing traditional agricultural-community development patterns, it is apparent from this figure where the urbanized areas (i.e., 1,000 persons/mile2 or more) lie. By far the greatest concentration of population lies in the urbanized area of the City of Ithaca. Other population density pockets are centered on the villages of Cayuga Heights, Groton, Dryden and Trumansburg. Furthermore, the map displays how density data can be correlated to several variables: the location of the major employment centers (e.g., Cornell University, Ithaca College, Route 96-B industrial corridor, the Central Business District (CBD), and the northeast industrial corridor); the location of sanitary sewer and water service areas; and the ease and availability of transportation services/infrastructure. While there is significant debate over the cause of suburban "sprawl", which is usually attributed to the attractions of cheap land and the low cost of automobile transportation, there may be other reasons such as: the desire to escape perceived liabilities and disamenities of the inner city; desire to belong to a relatively small homogenous community; desire for a smaller local government with the expectation that it would be more responsive. Some of these
Demographic Characteristics The purpose of this chapter is not to provide a detailed demographic analysis, but rather to provide a "snapshot" of demographic characteristics that may have significant effects on the transportation system. The latest data available is used in tables and charts. In most cases 2007 Census Estimate data can be applied, in other cases 2000 Census data is the latest available. In addition, American Community Survey (ACS) data was used when available (ITCTC considers ACS data to be more accurate than standard Census Estimate data). The ACS is an annual survey of the population that is designed to eventually replace the decennial census. In 2008 the first ACS data, reflecting a three year (20052007) average of survey results, was received for population areas greater than 20,000 (i.e. Tompkins County, City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca). ACS will continue to be implemented with the goal of generating 5year averages. The first 5-year results will become available in 2010 which will also be the first data available for all municipalities in the County.
Page 2.1
generalizations may hold true for the trends experienced in the Ithaca urbanized area during the 1980s and 90s, when most of the population growth occurred in the towns and villages surrounding the City of Ithaca. The continuing challenge for local governments is to recognize these trends and to work cooperatively to prevent sprawl from getting worse. The number of persons per household is an important factor in determining trip rates for an area. Large families tend to generate fewer trips (per person) than do smaller families because there is a tendency towards increased vehicle occupancy with each trip. In Tompkins County the number of persons per household (pph) increased slightly from 2.32 in 2000 to 2.37 in 2007(see TABLE 6). This slight increase was fairly insignificant compared to the large decrease in persons per household from 1990 (2.46) to 2000 (2.32). The figure for 1980 was 2.55pph, evidence of the length of this trend. While these figures are slightly lower than national averages, probably due to the influence of the university community on the area's demographics, they do correspond to national trends towards smaller household sizes.
Page 2.2
FIGURE 1
Page 2.3
FIGURE 2 FIGURE 2
Page 2.4
TABLE 1 Population Totals for Tompkins County Municipalities Civil Division 1990 Population (% of County Total) 2000 Population 2007 Population Estimate (% of County Total) (% of County Total) 2000-2007 Numeric Change (% of County Change)
Town of Caroline Town of Danby Town of Dryden Town of Enfield Town of Groton City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Town of Lansing Town of Newfield Town of Ulysses Total County 3,044 (3.2%) 2,858 (3.0%) 13,251 (14.1%) 3,054 (3.3%) 5,483 (5.8%) 29,541 (31.4%) 17,797 (18.9%) 9,296 (9.9%) 4,867 (5.2%) 4,906 (5.2%) 94,097 (100.0%) 2,910 (3.0%) 3,007 (3.1%) 13,532 (14.1%) 3,369 (3.5%) 5,794 (6.0%) 28,775 (29.8%) 18,710 (19.4%) 10,521 (10.6%) 5,108 (5.3%) 4,775 (5.0%) 3,012 (3.0%) 3,198 (3.2%) 14,068 (13.9%) 3,566 (3.5%) 5,857 (5.8%) 29,974 (29.7%) 20,221 (20.0%) 11,011 (10.9%) 5,170 (5.1%) 4,978 (4.9%) 102 (3.5%) 191 (6.4%) 536 (9.8%) 197 (4.3%) 63 (1.4%) 1,199 (27.0%) 1,511 (36.6%) 490 (9.3%) 62 (0.9%) 203 (4.1%) 4,554 (100.0%) 3.5% 6.4% 4.0% 5.9% 1.1% 4.2% 8.1% 4.7% 1.2% 4.3% 4.7%
2000-2007 Percent Change
96,501 (100.0%) 101,055 (100.0%)
Source: 1990 Census, 2000 Census, and 2007 Census Estimate

Note: Village population statistics are included as part of respective Town totals
TABLE 2 Population Totals for Tompkins County Villages Civil Division 1990 Population 2000 Population 2007 Population Estimate
3,457 1,908 437 2,398 3,281 1,611 13,092 3,785 1,832 505 2,470 3,417 1,581 13,590 3,674 1,825 505 2,408 3,441 1,592 13,445
2000-2007 Numeric Change

-111 -7 0 -62 24 11 -145
2000-2007 Percent Change

-0.30% -0.40% 0.00% -0.70% 0.70% 2.80% -0.10%
Village of Cayuga Heights Village of Dryden Village of Freeville Village of Groton Village of Lansing Village of Trumansburg Total Village Population
Source: 1990 Census, 2000 Census, and 2007 Census Estimate

Page 2.5
TABLE 3 Population Trends in Urban and Rural Areas Census Area

Urban Rural 50,133 43,964 53,528 42,973
1990
2000
2007 ACS
59,408 41,182
2000-2007 Numeric Change

5,880 -1791 4,089
Percentage Change
10.99% -4.17% 4.24%
Total 94,097 96,501 100,590 Source: 1990 Census, 2000 Census, and 2005-2007 ACS Three-Year Estimate
TABLE 4 Population, Size and Density Figures for Tompkins County 2000-2007
(City of Ithaca and Towns)
Civil Division
Total Land Area (mi2)

55.0 53.6 93.9 36.9 49.6 5.5 29.1 60.7 58.9 33.0 476.1
2000 Population
2000 Population Density (pop/mi2)

52.91 56.10 144.11 91.30 116.81 5,231.18 642.95 173.33 86.72 144.69 202.69
2007 Population

54.76 59.66 149.82 96.64 118.09 5,449.82 694.88 181.40 87.78 150.85 212.26
20002007 Change (pop)

+102 +191 +536 +197 +63 +1,199 +1,511 +490 +62 +203 +4,554
Town of Caroline Town of Danby Town of Dryden Town of Enfield Town of Groton City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Town of Lansing Town of Newfield Town of Ulysses Total County
2,910 3,007 13,532 3,369 5,794 28,775 18,710 10,521 5,108 4,775 96,501
3,012 3,198 14,068 3,566 5,857 29,974 20,221 11,011 5,170 4,978 101,055
Source: 2000 Census and 2007 Census Estimate
Page 2.6
TABLE 5 Population Size and Density for the Villages of Tompkins County 2000-2007 Civil Division Total Land Area (mi2)
1.7 1.1 1.6 1.8 4.6 1.2
2000 Population

1,077.65 459.09 1,543.75 2,076.67 742.83 1,317.50
2007 Population

1,073.53 459.09 1,505.00 2,041.11 748.04 1,326.67
20002007 Change (pop)

-111 -7 +0 -62 +24 +11
Village of Dryden Village of Freeville Village of Groton Village of Cayuga Heights Village of Lansing Village of Trumansburg
1,832 505 2,470 3,738 3,417 1,581
1,825 505 2,408 3,674 3,441 1,592
Source: 2000 Census, and 2007 Census Estimate
Page 2.7
CENSUS BLOCK POPULATION DENSITY, 2000 TOMPKINS COUNTY
N
34B
38
222
34
34B
38
227
13
89 96
34
366
392
13
13
79
38
366
13A 327
79
96B
34 13
96
Scale: 1:240000
2 Miles
Fig. 3
Persons Per Square Mile Municipal Boundaries No Permanent Population 1 - 100 The st andard geo-referencing format for Tompkins County digit al 101 - 1000 spat ial data is New York S tat e P lane Cent ral coordinat e grid system, based on the 1983 North American Datum and GRS80 Spheroid. > 1000
FIGURE 3
Page 2.8
TABLE 6
Persons per Household in Tompkins County Persons per household Population Households Population Household Change Change 2007 37,374 2000 to 2007 4,089 (4.2%) 2000 to 2007 954 (2.6%)
(excluding group quarters)
1990 Tompkins County 94,097
2000 96,501
2007 100,590
1990 33,338
2000 36,420
2000 2.32
2007 2.37
Source: 1990 Census, 2000 Census, and 2005-2007 ACS Three-Year Estimate
Households in Tompkins County

16,000 14,000 Number of Households 12,000 10,000 1990 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person 5 person 6 person 7 or more person 2000 2007
Household Size
FIGURE 4
Page 2.9
Another interesting observation is the change in household size as a percentage of the total population. TABLE 6 indicates that the average number of persons per household decreased significantly from 1990 to 2000; FIGURE 4 shows how these changes are occurring within the total population. There were reductions in the percentage of total population residing in large families (4, 5 and 6 persons) since 1990, while there was the significant increase in the number of two (2) person and three (3) person households in Tompkins County. Regarding one (1) person households, the number increased from 1990-2000 and then decreased from 20002007. The effects of these trends can be inferred as: (a) more vehicle trips with lower auto occupancy; (b) the availability of more small household dwelling units; and (c) fewer people residing in families and in communal dwellings. A summary review of population by age group (see FIGURE 5 and TABLE 7) reveals the largest increase occurs in the 45 to 64 year old cohort. An interesting observation in this table is the shift from the 25 to 44 year old group to the 45 to 64 year old group, from 1990 to 2007. This is reflective of the aging of the baby-boom generation. The 45 to 64 year old group has increased in size by 56.5% since 1990. The phenomenon establishes the trend for a significant portion of the population. The majority of the changes are probably due to natural cohort variation (and
the way the cohorts have been reported). The figures in this table demonstrate the national trend towards our aging society. Due largely to the influence of the university/colleges, local demographics indicate that there are relatively high rates of education in the Ithaca-Tompkins area. The 2007 ACS Three-Year Estimate figures indicate 52.6% (29,636 out of 56,331) of the Tompkins County population aged 25 and older have completed four plus years of college; the corresponding figure for the City of Ithaca is 64.3% (7,528 of 11,708). These figures are correlated to the relative size of the different age groups within the County (see FIGURE 5 and TABLE 7). Tompkins County has a substantial student population of approximately 25,000. The bulk of the students attend Cornell University and Ithaca College, both within the Ithaca urban area. Many of these students are year-round residents, but most reside in Tompkins County only during the school year. Therefore, they create a significant seasonal impact in the demand for services including transportation. ITCTC staff and other transportation professionals in the county are aware of this dynamic. Transportation studies and data gathering efforts are routinely coordinated with student schedules in order to capture the true peak in the travel demand.
Age of Population in Tompkins County

35,000 30,000 25,000 Persons 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 to 4 years old 5 to 9 years old 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 years years years years years old old old old old Age 65+ years old 1990 2000 2007
FIGURE 5
Page 2.10
TABLE 7
Age of Population in Tompkins County

Age Group 1990 2000 2007 ACS Numeric Difference between 1990 and 2007 (% change) -1215 (-3.0%) -1172 (-9.1%) 3300 (+13.1%) -3031 (-10.5%) 7558 (+56.5%) 1053 (+12.4%) 6,493 (+6.9%)
(% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) 5,293 4,285 4,078 0 to 4 years old (5.6%) (4.4%) (4.1%) 12,943 14,011 11,771 5 to 17 years old (13.8%) (14.5%) (11.7%) 25,110 25,054 28,410 18 to 24 years old (26.7%) (26.0%) (28.2%) 28,914 25,250 25,883 25 to 44 years old (30.7%) (26.2%) (25.7%) 13,372 18,644 20,930 45 to 64 years old (14.2%) (19.3%) (20.8%) 8,465 9,257 9,518 65+ years old (9.0%) (9.6%) (9.5%) Total 94,097 96,501 100,590 (100%) (100%) (100%) Source: 1990 Census, 2000 Census, and 2005-2007 ACS Three-Year Estimate.
Employment Characteristics The 2005-2007 ACS Census Estimates reveals that education is the still the leading employment sector in Tompkins County capturing 47.0% (24,097 of 51,252) of the resident workforce. The remainder of the resident workforce is employed as follows: manufacturing / construction 9.8% (5,021), agriculture / forestry 2.0% (1,042), retail / wholesale trade 10.5% ( 5,382 ), transportation / communication / public administration 7.3% ( 3,760), professional services 10.2% (5,231), finance / real estate 3.8% (1,944), and arts / entertainment / food services 9.3% (4,775) (see TABLE 8). The ITCTC maintains employment information (i.e. number of jobs) at a Traffic Analysis Zone level of detail. This information, which has been provided by the United States Bureau of the Census in its 2000 Census Transportation and Planning Package, is crucial to the development of a travel demand model. TABLE 8 provides employment information from the Census based on number of employees. FIGURE 6 provides a graphical comparison between 1990, 2000, and 2007. A review of TABLE 8 and FIGURE 6 reveals a reduction in employment across many sectors with parallel increases concentrated in educational and health services and communications, transportation and other utilities. Overall, the data indicates a gain in resident employment
of 5,196 from 1990 to 2007. The ITCTC will continue to monitor these developments and work with local municipalities and agencies to address transportation issues. While the impacts of economic trends need further study, they can be expected to have an impact on transportation. For example, it is well known that different types of businesses have different trip generation potential; major retail centers will have higher trip generation impacts than will basic manufacturing locations (i.e., shoppers versus employees). In general, it can be inferred that the changes in the composition of the Tompkins County job market have had some impact on the increased number of trips and travel levels experienced in the area. Other observations can be made regarding the socioeconomic profile of the County's residents. For instance, the unemployment rate in Tompkins County is consistently one of the lowest in the State of New York, and yet there are still many pockets of poverty. While the influences of the college / university include economic stability, the cost of living in Tompkins County is relatively high, affecting housing and transportation decisions. The high cost of living also results in reduced discretionary income affecting retail and other sectors of the economy.
Page 2.11
Population increases and low unemployment have resulted in increased demand and price pressure on the housing market (pushing people further out of urban areas, creating sprawl or longer trip lengths). This has resulted in higher tax and service fees in the core urban areas as they cope with the loss of tax base while retaining the same service and infrastructure maintenance costs. While this plan does not directly address these issues, it is important to recognize the potential effects of
this particular type of service-based economy on transportation and energy issues.
TABLE 8 Employment of Tompkins County Residents Age 16+ Economic Sector

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Mining Construction Manufacturing Transportation and Utilities Communications & Other Public Utilities Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate Personal, Arts, Entertainment, Recreational and Food Services Educational, and Health Services Professional and Scientific and Other Related Services Public Administration Total
1990
1,328 1,992 4,290 886 843 627 6,560 1,903 3,189 19,898 3,540 1,000 46,056
2007
1,042 1,999 3,022 1,078 1,091 481 4,901 1,944 4,775 24,097 5,231 1,591 51,252
Numerical Change
+286 +7 -1,268 +192 +248 -146 -1,659 +41 +1,586 +4,199 +1,691 +591 +5,196
Percent Change
-21.5% +0.04% -29.6% +21.7% +29.4% -23.3% -25.3% +2.2% +49.7% +21.1% +47.8% +59.1% +11.3%
Source: 1990 and 2005-2007 ACS Three-Year Estimate.
Page 2.12
Employment in Tompkins County

30,000 Number of Employees 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0
try ,F is C on hing st ru M a n ctio n Tr ufa ct an u rin s & g U ti l i ti I W nfo e s rm ho a le sa tio n le Tr R Fi ad et n e ai & lT A& In ra s E de & + R Fo ea lE od Se st r Ed Pr vic e uc of es s at io s io na O l & na th l er H Pu ea Pr lt bl of ic es h Ad si on m in al is tra tio n
1990 2000 2007
Ag ,
Fo
re s
Industry
FIGURE 6
Page 2.13
TRAVEL TRENDS & CHARACTERISTICS

General Travel Trends This section presents information based on data from the 1995 National Personal Transportation Surveys (NPTS) and the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS). The NHTS data include information specific to the Ithaca urbanized area. Data sources are identified throughout the text and tables. This is the most recent locally generated trip based data available for development of the 2030 LRTP. One of this plans recommended projects for implementation includes performing a new travel survey for Tompkins County, which will generate updated travel related data. For preparation of the original Long Range Plan the ITCTC acquired the data sets that were created following the completion of a travel survey of Tompkins County residents in 1988. Complications associated with the way in which the data was coded limited its interpretation and made comparison with the 1990 NPTS data exceedingly difficult (in some cases the data was re-aggregated in an attempt to force compatibility. For the current LRTP update the 1995 NPTS and 2001 NHTS, including their New York State Add-On, Ithaca MPO Add-on and tabular summaries and graphics for the Ithaca Urban Area, were used for comparisons. These data sources include information for New York State in addition to national and Tompkins County figures. These were included in the analysis where appropriate. The data limitations that existed during preparation of the original Long Range Plan, particularly the lack of recent travel survey data, remain. However, the data that is available through the census, NPTS and NHTS continue to provide an excellent starting point for the analysis of general travel trends and characteristics in the greater Ithaca-Tompkins County area. TABLE 9 compares the 1995 and 2001 national, state and local data on the basis of Person Trips by Trip Purpose (reported in relative percentages). Tompkins County had a reduction in the percentage of Work Trips between 1995 and 2001. Some of this difference may be a result of the use of different data sets. The 2001 figure for work trips in Tompkins County (17.80%) is just below comparable NPTS figures for New York State (18.40%) and almost even with the nationwide figure (17.7%). Family and Personal Business trip purposes account for the most trips nationally (45.86%), in New York State (43.96%) and within the County (42.86%). The 2001 national and local trends for the other trip purposes seem to be relatively comparable: Educational & Religious (National=9.80%, Tompkins County=11.47%); Social and Recreational (National=27.1%, Tompkins County =
26.70%); and Miscellaneous (National=0.8%, Tompkins County=1.17%). The higher than state and national numbers for the Educational & Religious category is probably due to the large number of students associated with the three institutes of higher learning found in the county. Work Trips are most responsible for peak hour traffic trends by the way they cluster in the mornings and evenings. Generally, peak hours are congruent to rush hour, or the period of time when the majority of people are on their way to or from work. For this reason they receive much of the attention of planners and engineers seeking to address congestion at peak times. However, the bulk of trips on our roadways (approximately 80%) are not work related. These trips also need to be considered when determining travel trends and characteristics. Person Trips by Mode of Transportation figures are presented in TABLE 10 comparing 1995 and 2001 estimates. Some important trends from the comparison include a reduction in the use of Private Vehicles as a percentage of trips per day in Tompkins County, from 88.7% in 1990 to 83.2% in 1995 to 80.33% in 2001. In contrast, the national figures for this category changed from 87.1% in 1990 to 89.3% in 1995 to 86.5% in 2001. Walking as a mode of transportation showed increase percentages from 1995 to 2001 in the National, State and County figures. County increases in the percent of Walk trips date back to 1990 at 7.8%, compared to 1995 (10.68%) and 2001 (14.99%). Bicycle use went from being below the national average to being almost 50% above from 1990 to 1995. The 2001 bicycle figure show a slight reduction form 1.46% to .94%, which is still above the State average. Public Transportation use, as a percent of total daily trips, remained below the national average in the 1995 to 2001 comparison. However, the data available to generate estimates from 1995 and 2001 do not register substantial improvements in service and ridership since 1995. The most significant change arose from the creation of Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit in 1998 and TCATs re-organization in 2005 (as a non-profit corporation). Public transportation ridership (transit plus paratransit ridership) grew from 2,360,400 in 1995 to 3,371,340 in 2008, an increase of 43%. The growth in ridership is not reflected in the NHTS estimates of 1995 and 2001.
Page 2.14
TABLE 9 Person Trips per Day by Trip Purpose 1995 & 2001 estimates
Trip Purpose National 1995 Work Family and Personal Business Educational / Religious Social and Recreational Miscellaneous 20.26% 45.86% 8.80% 24.91% .16% 2001 17.7% 44.6% 9.8% 27.1% .8% New York State 1995 19.85% 45.88% 9.28% 25.00% 0.00% 2001 18.40% 43.96% 9.89% 26.65% 1.10% Tompkins County 1995 19.63% 44.52% 11.42% 24.20% .23% 2001 17.80% 42.86% 11.47% 26.70% 1.17%
Sources: Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey 1995; 2001 National Household Travel Survey; 2001 National Household Travel Survey, New York Add-On Ithaca MPO
TABLE 10 Trips per Person per Day by Mode of Transportation 1995 & 2001 estimates
Mode of Transportation National 1995 Private Vehicle Public Transportation* Walk Bicycle Other 89.34% 1.81% 5.55% .91% 2.39% 2001 86.5% 1.5% 8.6% n/a 3.4% New York State 1995 70.27% 9.73% 15.41% .81% 3.78% 2001 65.6% 10.0% 20.1% .7% 3.4% Tompkins County 1995 83.25% 1.46% 10.68% 1.46% 3.16% 2001 80.33% 1.17% 14.99% 0.94% 2.58%
Sources: Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey 1990 Databook Volume 1, FHWA, Publication No. FHWA-PL-94-010A; and Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey 1995; 2001 National Household Travel Survey; 2001 National Household Travel Survey, New York Add-On Ithaca MPO *TCAT data indicate recent substantial increases in ridership that are not captured in this table. See the last paragraph of page 2.XX.
Page 2.15
Commutation Tompkins County is a net labor importer, the number of non-resident workers in Tompkins County is greater than the number of people who reside in Tompkins County and work outside the county (see TABLE 11). Based on the 2000 Census the total number of persons working within Tompkins County was 57,032 while the number of persons that live and work in Tompkins County is only 43,319. Slightly over 8.6% (4,075 of 47,394) of Tompkins County's resident workers commuted out of the county for work in 2000. This percentage is very close to that from 1990, 8.28%. Meanwhile over 13,713 or 24% of total workers engaged in Tompkins County commuted from more than eight other counties. This is an increase from the figure of 21% in 1990 and represents an increase of 2,332 additional workers commuting into Tompkins County between 1990 and 2000. Tioga County contributed the greatest number of workers to Tompkins County (2,846) followed closely by Cortland County (2,605), while Cortland County received the most workers (1,516) from Tompkins County. The maps shown in FIGURE 7 and FIGURE 8 depict the commutation patterns in Tompkins County compared to the surrounding counties. Similar trends to those described above were reported in the 2020 LRTP using 1980 and 1990 Census data. This provides strong and persistent evidence of Tompkins County as a regionally important center of economic activity. Journey-to-Work The U.S. Census collected journey-to-work data as part of Census 2000. This data is the best available information for the LRTP that can be referenced for all municipalities in the county. The American Community Survey has released a 2007 three year estimate of journey-to-work data but is limited to three jurisdictions: Tompkins County (countywide data), City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca. TABLE 12 provides 2000 Census information on the distribution of the work trips by mode for each town in Tompkins County. This table gives a good indication of where the largest numbers of users for each mode are located. This information is useful in determining potential current and future demand for bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, ridesharing (carpooling) programs, transit routes, and other facilities at a localized scale. The Census counts only one work trip for each worker and assumes that all work trips originate at home and terminate at the work site. The figures in TABLE 13 represent a smaller data set from the 2007 American Community Survey showing journey to work data. Besides showing 2007 ACS data for Tompkins County, TABLE 13 also shows the only other ACS data available
for Tompkins County municipalities with populations greater than 20,000 i.e. the City and Town of Ithaca. The 2000 journey-to-work data indicate that in Tompkins County 59.8% of the workforce drive alone to work, practically unchanged from 59.9% in 1990. The figures are further supported by the data from TABLE 13, where 57.4% of work trips are shown as drive-alone (a.k.a. single occupancy vehicles-SOV). Although not large, the drop in the percentage of drive alone vehicles is a welcome sign. As explained in the Scenario Analysis chapter (Ch.5), drive alone trips will need to be reduced significantly over the next 20 years to meet carbon emission goals established in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. TABLE 13 countywide data for non-drive alone modes of transportation used in the journey to work show that 10.8% rideshare (carpool), 17% walk to work, 6.1% use public transportation, 3.5% bicycle or use other means. A total of 5.3% of workers reported working at home. It is important to note particularly that the walking to work percentage for Tompkins County (17%), the City of Ithaca (41.9%) and the Town of Ithaca (20.3%) are all substantially higher than the national and state averages of 2.9% and 6.2% respectively (see TABLE 13). In total, over a quarter (37.4%) of work based trips in Tompkins County use a mode other than a drive alone. This does not include those 5.3% of workers that work at home. These are enviable figures compared to many other urbanized areas but, clearly, there is room for improvements. It is important to note that the data described in this section was collected before the gasoline price peak of 2008 and does not reflect the lingering impacts of this economic event, namely a strong shift away from private vehicle use for work based trips. While there is disagreement on the subject, there is a significant probability that gasoline prices will once again reach the high levels of 2008, approximately $4.00 per gallon, and higher. The Tompkins County transportation system must be ready to accommodate an increased demand for transit, ridesharing (carpool), vanpooling, bicycling and walking not just for work based trips, but for all trip needs, i.e. family and personal business, social/recreational, educational. While it may seem that the recommendations of this Plan place an unusually high emphasis on transit, ridesharing (carpool), bicycle and pedestrian strategies and investments, consider the following. When combined into a category termed by some as "alternative modes of transportation", transit, ridesharing, pedestrian and bicycle trips account for the following percentages of work trips: 18.9% for the U.S., 40.6% for New York State, and 37.4% for Tompkins County. The figures for New York State are skewed by the disproportionally large
Page 2.16
participation in public transportation in New York City. Regardless, the 37.4% figure for Tompkins County represents a significant number of trips that are taking place moving more people in fewer vehicles, or better yet without vehicles. These alternative modes have less impact or reduce automobile traffic congestion levels and vehicular emissions, and contribute to increased transportation system efficiency. Other programs like vanpools, car sharing, guaranteed ride home, etc. can also contribute to shifting travelers to non-drive alone modes. FIGURES 9, 10 and 11 show historical data (1970-2007) of journey-to-work modes for Tompkins County, the City of Ithaca, and the Town of Ithaca respectively. One interesting factor to note is the high rate of carpool in 1980 during an oil crisis especially in Tompkins County (22.7%) and in the Town of Ithaca (19.4%). The current (2007) Tompkins County rate of carpool is 10.8% or approximately half of what it was in 1980. When projecting increased carpool in 2030 for Tompkins County we considered that we already have a precedent for higher carpool rates in the not so distant past. As explained in the TDM Encyclopedia, a resource of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, traffic congestion is a non-linear function, meaning that a small reduction in urban-peak traffic volume can cause a proportionally larger reduction in delay. For example, a 5% reduction in traffic volumes on a congested highway such as from 2,000 to 1,900 vehicles per hour may cause a 10-30% reduction in delay. As a result, even relatively small changes in traffic volume on congested roads can provide relatively large reductions in traffic delay (Victoria Policy Transport Institute, 2003). Therefore, polices and project that move even a small percentage of trips from automobiles to alternative modes will result in a reduction in congestion and improved performance of the roadway system. Additional secondary benefits will result from lower emissions, more active lifestyles, reduced energy consumption, reduce costs in roadway system expansion, etc. There continues to be a need for additional travel data information, particularly for alternative modes. It is important to appreciate the important role that these modes of transportation can play in the local transportation system, particularly now that climate change and future uncertainty in access to fossil fuel serve as backdrops to all transportation planning activities. In summary, the general travel patterns for the greater Ithaca-Tompkins County show increases in walking, public transportation, and bicycling for most purposes and particularly for the means of transportation to work. Based on historic data the national trends continue to point towards increases in total person trips, person miles of travel, and vehicle miles of travel. These trends,
combined with limited local financial resources and the growing evidence of the negative externalities of continued over dependency on the automobile as the principal mode of transportation, have made it particularly important to understand and seek to maximize the role of transportation modes that serve as alternatives to the automobile. Vehicle Population Statistics compiled by New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Data Processing show the number of personal vehicles registered in Tompkins County for 1998 to be 44,829, 47,182 in 2000, 49,042 in 2003, and 50,985 in 2007 (see TABLE 14). This is an increase of almost 13.73% over a 9-year period. According to the 2000 Census, this figure amounts to approximately 1.53 cars for every household in the County see (TABLES 15). The increase in number of vehicles is reflected in increased levels of traffic and congestion on Tompkins Countys roads. The 2000 Census data provides information on the number of "vehicles available", defined by the Census as: "the number of passenger cars, vans, and trucks of one ton capacity or less kept at home and available for the use of the household members. Vehicles that are rented or leased for one month or more, company vehicles and police and government vehicles are included if they are kept at home for non-business purposes. Dismantled or immobile vehicles are excluded. Vehicles that are kept at home but used only for business purposes are excluded". There is a crucial difference between vehicles registered and vehicles available, particularly in an area with a large college student population. TABLE 15 provides information on population, households, vehicles available and vehicles per person for the County. This information is of particular interest if compared to historic, national trends. The Census provides data on Vehicles Per Household (VPHH). In 2000 the average VPHH the U.S. was 1.2, in 1990 that figure was 1.66 (NOTE: corresponding data for Tompkins County from the 20052007 ACS Three-Year Estimate shows VPHH in 2007 at 1.37. It should be noted that the smaller sample size of this data makes it less reliable then Census 2000 data. In 2010 the first ACS Five-Year Estimate data will be released - which will be more comparable to Census 2000 and earlier data). The reduction in VPHH from Census data is a deviation in the trend towards increasing VPHH that was evident at least since the 1960 Census. (VPHH: 1960=1.03; 1980=1.61). It is unclear if this downward shift will result in a sustained trend, or if it is the result of any specific action. Regardless, agencies in Tompkins County should continue to implement programs that reduce car dependency and support the efficiencies inherent in an integrated multimodal transportation system.
Page 2.17
Driving Population In Tompkins County there were 62,808 driver's licenses in force in 2007. The rate of growth in the number of drivers licenses remained relatively steady over the period form 1980 to 2003 then the number went down in 2004 2006 and then increased to almost the 2003 level by 2007. During the 1980s the number of drivers licenses increased at of rate of 1% per year; from 1990 to 2002 the rate was 1.11%. (see TABLE 16). Trip Length Trip length is a function of the time, speed, and distance of the average trips, by trip type, in a given study area. Trip length is usually reported in terms of time or distance. Trip length statistics are best obtained as part of a travel survey effort. Such data does not currently exist for Tompkins County. The 2001 National Household Travel Survey, New York Add-On Ithaca MPO is the best survey data we have for Tompkins County. However, the Census gathers data on travel time to work as part of its Journey-to-Work effort. As explained before, the Journey-to-Work data is of importance to transportation planning because of its impact on the peak travel period. FIGURES 12 and 13 look at a subset of the population: percent of workers over age 16 not working at home. This is the same data shown in tabular form in TABLE 16. FIGURE 12 shows the total number of workers by travel time to work. FIGURE 13 shows percentages of workers in each category. The general distribution of workers across travel time categories has not changed dramatically as can be seen in FIGURE 12. With the increase in the number of total workers there is a corresponding increase across most time periods except <5 minutes and 30-44 minutes. However, the pattern continues unchanged where the bulk of the workers in Tompkins County take from 10 to 30 minutes to reach their place of employment. The percentage figures in TABLE 17 show an interesting pattern. The only travel time categories to increase their proportion of the total are the 45-59 minutes and 60+ minutes. This may be reflective of the continuing and growing trend for Tompkins County to serve a regional center of employment. Congestion and changes in mode choice (e.g., transit may be slower than a private automobile) may also contribute to the increase in the higher travel time to work categories. Traffic Accidents National statistics show that despite the continued increase in the number of vehicles registered, number of licensed drivers, and the amount of vehicle miles of
travel, the fatality rate for all highway modes continued to decline. Many factors may interact to explain the decreasing fatality rates. For highway modes, promotion of safety belt, child safety seat, and motorcycle helmet usage, and measures to discourage drunk driving have all had a beneficial effect. So, too, have improvements in vehicle and highway design and greater separation of traffic. Finally, some of the decrease in transportation fatalities may be a consequence of better and prompter medical attention for victims of transportation crashes and accidents. The NY State Department of Transportation unveiled a new automated accident reporting system in 2008 called Accident Location Information System (ALIS). A summary of the Tompkins County ALIS statistics from 1994 to 2007 is shown in TABLE 18. This table includes the following data: fatal accidents, total fatalities, accidents involving bicyclists, accidents involving pedestrians, accidents involving animals, and total accidents reported. NOTE: The total number of accidents reported for each year uses a variable methodology making it difficult to compare total accidents per year. However the data is useful to establish a general number of accidents for the county. All the other data listed is comparable since all accidents involving injuries were reported using the same methodology. The ITCTC together with its local partners will continue to explore applications and uses for the ALIS data to help improve safety planning for the Tompkins County transportation system. Specifically, the ITCTC will map accidents locations and accident types to help identify specific locations for consideration for safety enhancements. Public Transportation In previous long range plans public transportation was described in terms of local, regional and intercity bus and paratransit operators, the history of their development and their performance. The Federal Transportation Law, SAFETEA-LU, broaden the definition of public transportation by including new planning requirements for Coordinated Public Transit Human Service Transportation Plans, adding Mobility Management as an eligible capital activity, and reorganizing Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs to fund coordinated community mobility services. The Federal strategy to encourage coordination, collaboration and innovation is a work in progress and has added to the matrix of services and providers in Tompkins County. New mobility services are included in this description of current public transportation services.
Page 2.18
Bus and Paratransit Tompkins County is served by local, regional and intercity bus services, operated by private for-profit or not-for-profit providers. The primary local public transit operator is Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Inc. (TCAT) which was reorganized by Cornell University, City of Ithaca and Tompkins County in 2005. TCAT operates 36 bus routes serving all of Tompkins County and portions of Tioga and Schuyler Counties. TCAT ridership exceeded 3 million passengers every year since 2005 (approx. 3.3 million in 2008) see FIGURE 13-A. Regional commuter bus service links neighboring counties to Tompkins County and Ithaca: o Watkins Glen, (Schuyler County); Operator: TCAT o Elmira, (Chemung County); Operator: First Transit, Inc. o Owego, (Tioga County); Operator: Tioga Transport, Inc. o Newark Valley, (Tioga County); Operator: TCAT o Cortland, (Cortland County); Operator: First Transit, Inc. Intercity bus service is provided by Adirondack Trailways, Greyhound Bus Lines, and Shortline/First Transit. Cornell University provides express bus service between Ithaca and New York City. Paratransit GADABOUT Transportation Services Inc. is a private non-profit transportation agency that provides demandresponsive, curb-to-curb service available to senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and persons eligible for ADA paratransit. Ithaca Dispatch and A Plus taxi are taxi companies licensed by the City of Ithaca. Ithaca Dispatch is the largest taxi company in Tompkins County and provides shared-ride service. Green Hornet and Ithaca Airline Limousine (IAL) are livery operators in Tompkins County. Carshare Ithaca Carshare is a local nonprofit that provides its members self-service 24-hour access to ten vehicles for hourly rental. Carshare members use an online reservation system to choose the vehicle they need at the time they need it. Carsharing is an innovative service supporting public transportation. Ithaca Carshare, launched operations in June 2008. Mobility Management In 2006, Tompkins County created a Mobility Management program, located in the Department of Social Services. Mobility Management staff identify community service gaps with a priority to assist lowincome, seniors and persons with disabilities. The County mobility strategy was developed through the Coordinated
Plan process; to develop innovative services to resolve service gaps in existing mobility services with a priority for journey to work trips. Another priority is to make investments to address customer service gaps common across community mobility services including: Creating a community mobility education outreach program (Way2Go) as a single source for reliable information on all community mobility services and sustainable transportation alternatives for consumers, employers, human service agencies and community organizations. The Way2Go program was developed by Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County starting in 2008. Providing travel training for individuals and creating a network of travel trainers, using professional practices, to train individuals how to use all community mobility services as needed (2009). Implementing the County Working Families Transportation Assistance Program to support lowincome parents travel to work (2009). The Countys mobility management program also supports developing ridesharing, schoolpools, vanpools, car sharing, rural feeder, and other alternative community mobility services. Tompkins County is fortunate to have a robust public transportation system, but also one that is working at close to capacity. There is a strong demand in the community to expand services in all transit areas. An aging population, increasing energy costs, the demands of the current commute pattern and strong transit use by college students serve to fuel the demand for increased transit options. The ITCTC recognizes the critical role transit services play in providing adequate mobility to the residents of Tompkins County. Future adaptation to climate change and energy descent challenges will also be heavily dependent on the share transportation function of the transit system. The ITCTC will continue to work with transit and mobility partners to support the goal of providing sustainable accessibility to the Tompkins County community.
Page 2.19
TABLE 11
TOMPKINS COUNTY COMMUTATION PATTERNS Persons working in Tompkins County Workers living in Tompkins County NET INCOMMUTATION Persons living in Tompkins County and working in: Tompkins County Cortland County Cayuga County Chemung County Onondaga County Seneca County Tioga County Schuyler County Broome County Other Persons working in Tompkins County and living in: Tompkins County Tioga County Schuyler County Cortland County Cayuga County Seneca County Chemung County Onondaga County Broome County Other Source: 1990 and 2000 Census. 41,434 2,536 1,642 1,755 1,372 1,163 856 222 261 1,574 43,319 2,846 1,608 2,605 1,814 1,289 970 500 383 1,698 78.5% 4.8% 3.1% 3.3% 2.6% 2.2% 1.6% 0.4% 0.5% 3.0% 76.0% 5.0% 2.8% 4.6% 3.2% 2.3% 1.7% 0.9% 0.7% 3.0% 41,434 1,617 275 266 191 226 179 96 184 707 43,319 1,516 297 442 299 196 217 110 244 754 91.7% 3.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 1.6% 91.4% 3.2% 0.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 1.6% Total 1990 52,815 45,175 7,640 Total 2000 57,032 47,394 9,638 Percent 1990 ------------Percent 2000 -------------
Page 2.20
Tompkins County Residents Who Work in Other Counties (2000) [Note: 43,319 (91.4%) worked in Tompkins County]
754
1,516 244 110 217 196 299 442 297
Cortland County Cayuga County Chemung County Onondaga County Seneca County Tioga County Schuyler County Broome County Other Counties
FIGURE 7 Residence Location of Workers from Other Counties (2000) [Note: 43,319 (76.1 %) resided in Tompkins County]
1,698 261 1,608
2,605 Cortland County Cayuga County Chemung County Onondaga County Seneca County Tioga County Schuyler County Broome County Other Counties
1,814
2,846 500 1,289
970
FIGURE 8
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council 2030 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 2.21
TABLE 12 Means of Transportation to Work Census 2000

Civil Division Town of Caroline Town of Danby Town of Dryden Town of Enfield Town of Groton City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Town of Lansing Town of Newfield Town of Ulysses Tompkins County New York State National US Drive Alone 966 (69.7%) (3.4%) 1,241 (70.8%) (4.4%) 5,451 (75.7%) (19.2%) 1,290 (75.5%) (4.6%) 2,081 (72.0%) (7.3%) 4,767 (35.8%) (16.8%) 4,757(54.3%) (16.8%) 4,033 (75.2%) (14.2%) 2,058 (79.5%) (7.3%) 1,695 (70.8%) (6.0%) Carpool 184 (13.3%) (3.2%) 411 (23.4%) (7.1%) 1,005 (14.0%) (17.4%) 255 (14.9%) (4.4%) 476 (16.5%) (8.2%) 1,074 (8.1%) (18.6%) 984 (11.2%) (17.0%) 749 (14.0%) (13.0%) 322 (12.4%) (5.6%) 319 (13.3%) (5.5%) Public Transportation 70 (5.1%) (3.1%) 9 (0.5%) (0.4%) 141 (2.0%) (6.2%) 26 (1.5%) (1.1%) 66 (2.3%) (2.9%) 1,050 (7.9%) (45.9%) 532 (6.1%) (23.3%) 251 (4.7%) (11.0%) 82 (3.2%) (3.6%) 59 (2.5%) (2.6%) 2,286 (4.8%) (100%) 24.4% 4.7% Bicycle 10 (0.7%) (2.4%) 0 (0.0%) (0.0%) 19 (0.3%) (4.6%) 0 (0.0%) (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) (0.0%) 240 (1.8%) (58.5%) 115 (1.3%) (28.1%) 0 (0.0%) (0.0%) 4 (0.2%) (1.0%) 19 (0.8%) (4.6%) 410 (0.9%) (100.0%) 0.4% 0.4% Walk 23 (1.7%) (0.3%) 22 (1.3%) (0.3%) 204 (2.8%) (2.6%) 30 (1.8%) (0.4%) 64 (2.2%) (0.8%) 5,493 (41.2%) (69.1%) 1,892 (21.6%) (23.8%) 66 (1.2%) (8.3%) 34 (1.3%) (0.4%) 123 (5.1%) (1.5%) 7,951 (16.8%) (100.0%) 6.2% 2.9% Work at Home 124 (8.9%) (5.1%) 70 (4.0%) (2.9%) 355 (4.9%) (14.6%) 100 (5.9%) (4.1%) 171 (5.9%) (7.1%) 658 (4.9%) (27.1%) 427 (4.9%) (17.6%) 253 (4.7%) (10.4%) 90 (3.5%) (3.7%) 177 (7.4%) (7.3%) 2,425 (5.1%) (100.0%) 3.0% 3.3% Other 10 (0.7%) (4.9%) 0 (0.0%) (0.0%) 24 (0.3%) (11.7%) 10 (0.6%) (4.9%) 30 (1.0%) (14.6%) 54 (0.4%) (26.3%) 60 (0.7%) (29.3%) 10 (0.2%) (4.9%) 0 (0.0%) (0.0%) 4 (0.2%) (2.0%) 205 (0.4%) (100.0%) .77% .85% Total 1,387 (100.0%) (2.9%) 1,753 (100.0%) (3.7%) 7,205 (100.0%) (15.2%) 1,709 (100.0%) (3.6%) 2,890 (100.0%) (6.1%) 13,335 (100.0%) (28.1%) 8,768 (100.0%) (18.5%) 5,361 (100.0%) (11.3%) 2,590 (100.0%) (5.5%) 2,396 (100.0%) (5.1%) 47,394 (100.0%) (100.0%) 100% 100%
28,339 (59.8%) 5,779 (12.2%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 56.3% 75.7% 9.2% 12.2%
Source: 2000 Census. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Note: Row percentages are provided to the right of the numeric entry, while column percentages appear below the number.
Page 2.22
TABLE 13 Means of Transportation to Work - 2005-2007 ACS Three-Year Estimate

Civil Division City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Tompkins County New York State National US Drive Alone 4,326 (32.3%) 4,423 (45.7%) Carpool 835 (6.2%) 1,048 (10.8%) Public Transportation 1,446 (10.8%) 827 (8.6%) 3,003 (6.1%) 26.3% 4.9% Bicycle 388 (2.9%) 481 (5.0%) Walk 5,601 (41.9%) 1,965 (20.3%) Work at Home 668 (5.0%) 775 (8.0%) 2,593 (5.3%) 3.8% 4.0% Other 113 (0.9%) 150 (1.6%) 670 (1.4%) 1.5% 1.3% Total 13,377 (100.0%) 9,669 (100.0%) 49,341 (100.0%) 100% 100%
28,334 (57.4%) 5,345 (10.8%) 54.3% 76.1% 7.6% 10.6%
1,031 (2.1%) 8,365 (17.0%) 0.5% 0.5% 6.2% 2.9%
Source: 2005-2007 ACS Three-Year Estimate. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Page 2.23
Persons Driving Alone to Work in Tompkins County (1970-2007) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Census Year
Persons Percentage
Persons Carpooling to Work in Tompkins County (1970-2007) 10,000 Percentage of Persons Number of Persons 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Census Year
Persons Percentage
70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Percentage of Persons
Number of Persons
Persons Taking Public Transportation to Work in Tompkins County (1970-2007) 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Census Year
Persons Percentage
Persons Walking to Work in Tompkins County (1970-2007)
7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0%
10,000 Percentage of Persons

Number of Persons
25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007
Census Year
Persons Percentage
Number of Persons
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0
FIGURE 9 Journey-to-Work History (Tompkins County)
Percentage of Persons
Page 2.24
Persons Driving Alone to Work in the City of Ithaca (1970-2007)
Persons Carpooling to Work in the City of Ithaca (1970-2007)
6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007
Census Year
"Persons" "Percentage"
50.0%
2,000 Number of Persons 1,500 1,000 500 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007
Census Year
Number of Persons
40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%
Persons Taking Public Transportation to Work in the City of Ithaca (1970-2007)
Persons Walking to Work in the City of Ithaca (1970-2000)
2,000
Number of Persons
Number of Persons
1,500 1,000 500 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007

Census Year
12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%
7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007
Census Year
50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Percentage of Persons
FIGURE 10 Journey-to-Work History (City of Ithaca)
Page 2.25
Persons Driving Alone to Work in the Town of Ithaca (1970-2007) 5,000 Number of Persons 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Census Year
Persons Carpooling to Work in the Town of Ithaca (1970-2007)
70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
1,500
25.0% 20.0% Percentage of Persons

Number of Persons
1,000 500 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007

Census Year
15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%
Persons Taking Public Transportation to Work in the Town of Ithaca (1970-2007) 1,000 Number of Persons 800 600 400 200 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Census Year
Persons Walking to Work in the Town of Ithaca (1970-2007) 2,500 Percentage of Persons Number of Persons 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Census Year
10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%
24.0% 23.0% 22.0% 21.0% 20.0% 19.0% 18.0%
FIGURE 11 Journey-to-Work History (Town of Ithaca)
Page 2.26
TABLE 14
Total Vehicle Registrations in Tompkins County Year 1998 2000 2003 2007 Personal Vehicles 44,829 47,182 49,042 50,985 Commercial Vehicles 10,643 10,733 9,442 8,136 Trailers 2,561 2,903 2,480 2,918 Motorcycles 1,535 1,592 1,915 2,466 Mopeds 107 88 94 146 Buses 40 33 32 80 Taxi 68 69 62 77 Ambulance 9 9 9 13 Rental Cars 70 69 35 18 Farm 53 57 52 63 Total 59,915 62,735 63,163 64,902
Source: New York State Department of Motor Vehicles.
TABLE 15
Vehicles Available and Vehicles per Person Civil Division Town of Caroline Town of Danby Town of Dryden Town of Enfield Town of Groton City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Town of Lansing Town of Newfield Town of Ulysses Total County Population 2,910 (3.2%) 3,007 (3.0%) 13,532 (14.1%) 3,369 (3.3%) 5,794 (5.8%) 28,775 (31.4%) 18,710 (18.9%) 10,521 (9.9%) 5,108 (5.2%) 4,775 (5.2%) 96,501 (100.0%) Households 1,161 (3.5%) 1,187 (3.1%) 5,455 (15.1%) 1,323 (3.3%) 2,168 (5.8%) 10,287 (28.9%) 6,427 (17.6%) 4,374 (11.4%) 2,052 (5.7%) 1,986 (5.6%) 36,420 (100.0%) Vehicles Available 1,901 (4.1%) 2,216 (3.9%) 9,364 (16.7%) 2,408 (3.9%) 3,823 (6.4%) 12,081 (22.3%) 9,632 (17.5%) 7,394 (12.4%) 3,538 (6.5%) 3,291 (6.3%) 55,648 (100.0%) Vehicles Per Person 0.65 0.74 0.69 0.72 0.66 0.42 0.52 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.58 Vehicles Per Household 1.64 1.87 1.72 1.82 1.76 1.17 1.50 1.69 1.72 1.66 1.53
Source: 2000 Census
Page 2.27
TABLE 16
Tompkins County Total Number of Driver's Licenses (1988-2007) 1988 1989 1990 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Annual Average % Change (1988-2007) Annual Average % Change (1998-2007) 52,996 53,350 54,405 56,653 60,479 63,529 62,513 61,418 61,482 62,808 1.85% 1.09%
Source: New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
Travel Time to Work

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 <5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20-29 30-44 45-59 60+ 1980 1990 2000
Minutes
FIGURE 12
Page 2.28
Travel Time to Work Percentages 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% <5 5 to 10 9 to 14 15 20- 30- 45- 60+ to 29 44 59 19 Minutes
1980 1990 2000
FIGURE 13
TABLE 17
Travel Time to Work (Workers Age 16+, Not Working at Home)

Travel Time (minutes) 04 59 10 14 15 19 20 29 30 - 44 45 - 59 60+ Total 1980 (% of Total) 2,376 (6.2) 6,311 (16.4) 8,376 (21.7) 8,421 (21.9) 8,494 (21.4) 3,345 (8.8) 565 (2.43) 615 (2.05) 38,503 1990 (% of Total) 2,529 (5.9%) 7,057 (16.3%) 9,171 (21.2%) 9,449 (21.9%) 9,252 (21.4%) 3,792 (8.7%) 1,051 (2.4%) 884 (2.1%) 43,185 2000 (% of Total) 2,084 (4.4%) 7,349 (15.5%) 9,717 (20.5%) 9,395 (19.8%) 9,691 (20.45%) 3,268 (6.9%) 1,749 (3.7%) 1,343 (2.8%) 47,394
Source: 1980, 1990 and 2000 Census
Page 2.29
TABLE 18 Traffic Accident History for Tompkins County Personal Total Accidents Accidents Accidents Fatal Total Injury Personal Involving Involving Involving Accidents Fatalities Accidents Injuries Bicyclists Pedestrians Animals 5 5 11 460 644 29 402 7 7 368 487 10 14 324 8 8 414 616 20 16 288 12 14 464 649 13 20 229 7 8 451 628 10 18 389 6 8 491 669 10 18 310 5 5 465 696 17 20 332 5 5 578 815 14 16 472 5 7 641 1,059 19 20 400 6 6 532 810 16 17 230 11 12 609 860 22 21 165 12 15 626 915 19 16 304 13 14 634 905 24 24 108 13 14 645 944 13 29 83 Total Accidents Reported 2,362 1,296 1,135 986 1,449 2,029 2,864 3,046 3,016 2,565 2,677 2,928 2,623 2,648
Year 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
Source: NYS Department of Motor Vehicles Data - Accident Location Information System (ALIS)
FIGURE 13-A
Page 2.30
3. VISION STATEMENT
SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY
The 2030 vision for the future of the Tompkins County transportation system embraces the concept of Sustainable Accessibility. This concept expands our vision, transforming transportation systems into mobility networks that are responsive to pedestrians, bicyclist, transit, rail, freight, and motorists while meeting the vehicular congestion, energy and environmental concerns that are now an impending crisis. Sustainable Accessibility can be defined as the ability to get to a destination or complete a task in an efficient, convenient, and reliable way, while using technologies and services that minimize environmental impacts, promote economic vitality and ensure equity in the provision of transportation to the community. The challenge of Sustainable Accessibility is to identify opportunities and begin to integrate transportation modes (i.e. transit, bikes, walking, cars, car sharing, van pool, trucks, rail, etc.) so they address personal transportation and commercial needs in ways that will enhance our quality of life and promote sustainable growth in Tompkins County. Sustainable accessibility will serve as the organizing principle to develop clear transportation goals and objectives that respond to community needs and are implementable within an acceptable time frame. The vision of sustainability will require insight into the social structure as well as the infrastructure of the community so that the enhancements to the transportation system service all communities equitably. The vision of Sustainable Accessibility will integrate transportation with land use planning to promote land use development patterns that reduce dependency in the automobile as a sole source of transportation. With sustainable accessibility at its core the transportation network will integrate multiple modes of transportation so that traveling by transit, walking, bicycle, car share, car pool, etc. becomes as attractive, convenient and cost effective as private car ownership and use were in the second half of the 20th century. By bringing all modes to bear, the transportation system becomes more efficient and more resilient. A vision of Sustainable Accessibility will also embrace new transportation options and technologies, which will emerge as more investments are made to address the challenges of energy descent and climate change. The components of Sustainable Accessibility include, Mobility, Proximity, Connectivity, Integration, Environment and Quality of Life, each of which
contributes to the ultimate goal of achieving a transportation system that is sustainable and selfevolving. Sustainable Accessibility is the focus of the LRTP Vision; the components above will assist in directing and maintaining this focus as the transportation system is maintained; and will also help guide in any expansion of services.
Sustainable Accessibility
Integration
Proximity
Quality of Life Connectivity Environment
Mobility
FIGURE 13-B
FIGURE 13-B lays out the general relationships that are defined as follows: Sustainable Accessibility: The end goal of this plan. The LRTP lays out a process to achieve Sustainable Accessibility focusing on utilizing transportation resources in a manner that optimizes the choice of modes, minimizes environmental impact and enhances the quality of life of all users. An outcome of this approach is to reduce fossil fuel dependency in transportation and its related negative impacts i.e. vulnerability to fuel supply fluctuations, congestion, vehicle emissions, health (i.e. air quality and motor vehicle related deaths and injury), etc. Mobility: Mobility refers to the movement of people or goods. It assumes that travel applies to persons or freight, trip means person- or freight-vehicle trip. Mobility increases as travelers and freight have more transportation mode options and increased convenience to access their destinations. Enhanced coordination between transportation modes also leads to increased mobility. Modern communication and wireless technologies can serve as substitutes for travel and help individuals access their destinations and complete tasks without the need to be physically present. These technologies can be
Page 3.1
considered to accessibility.
increase
mobility
by
enhancing
such as bank transactions, retail purchases, and other forms of e-commerce. Also critical to integration are the communication technologies that provide traveler information, trip planning assistance, freight tracking and many travel demand management programs. Quality of Life: Quality of life is the degree of well being felt by an individual or group of people. Unlike standard of living, it is not a tangible concept, and so cannot be measured directly. It consists of two components: physical and psychological. The physical aspect includes such things as health, diet, and protection against pain and disease. The psychological aspect includes stress, worry, pleasure and other positive or negative emotional states. It is virtually impossible to predict the quality of life of a specific individual, since the combination of attributes that leads one individual to be content is rarely the same for another individual. However, one can assume with some confidence that the higher average level of diet, shelter, safety, as well as freedoms and rights a general population has, the better overall quality of life it experiences. The terms Quality of Life and Livability are often used interchangeably or to describe similar relationships between transportation systems and facilities and the surrounding natural and human environment.The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute defines Community Livability as the environmental and social quality of an area as perceived by residents, employees, customers and visitors. This includes safety and health (traffic safety, personal security, public health), local environmental conditions (cleanliness, noise, dust, air quality, water quality), the quality of social interactions (neighborliness, fairness, respect, community identity and pride), opportunities for recreation and entertainment, aesthetics, and existence of unique cultural and environmental resources (e.g., historic structures, mature trees, traditional architectural styles). Livability is largely affected by conditions in the public realm, places where people naturally interact with each other and their community, including streets, parks, transportation terminals and other public facilities, and so is affected by public policy and planning decisions. Transportation affects quality of life and community livability in many ways. Our transportation systems generate various negative impacts - congestion, noise, water quality, air quality, health/safety (accidents) - which can negatively affect quality of life at the street, neighborhood, city or regional level. A sustainable transportation system seeks to minimize the negative impacts while providing a good level of service.
Proximity: Refers to the location of different trip origins and destinations. Proximity is considered greater in areas with mixed land uses (i.e. residential close to shops and employment) and higher development densities. As proximity increases, travel times decrease and transportation options other than car use increase. Higher proximity allows for more efficient use of transit (including fixed-route service, car share and vanpools), bicycling and even walking, resulting in a more accessible and resilient transportation system. The relationship between connectivity, mobility, and proximity supports land use development patterns and development management tools that promote compact, mixed use development which can impact physical movement by both shortening travel distances and prompting travelers to use modes other than the automobile, i.e. walking, bicycling, transit, etc. Connectivity: Connectivity refers to the different transportation networks serving an area and the density of connections between different origins and destinations. A well-connected area has transportation networks with many links, numerous modal options, and minimal service dead-ends. As connectivity increases, travel times decrease and route options and transportation mode options increase, allowing more direct travel between destinations, and creating a more accessible and resilient system. Connectivity is achieved through networks of infrastructure (i.e. roads & bridges, sidewalks, trails, etc.) and communications (wireless services, internet, etc.). Integration: The definition for transportation integration is conceptually based on the premise of increasing coordination between modes in order to achieve greater operational efficiencies and to increase the convenience to users. Coordination between modes extends to all aspects of operation including the provision of single payment forms, seamless intermodal connections, and quality information for all modes of transportation. Integration works best when it is customer based and centered on providing ease of access, comfort, reliability and convenience. Integration brings together components of connectivity (networks) and mobility (travel modes and freight) in a dynamic format that seeks to improve efficiency and convenience for users. This concept includes integrating transportation with technologies such as the internet, wireless networks, etc., that would allow users to have access to their destinations and complete their desired tasks remotely. This not only relates to telecommuting, but also the numerous tasks that can be completed via the internet and wireless services
Page 3.2
Environment: A textbook definition of environment is: the sum of the total of the elements, factors and conditions in the surroundings that may have an impact on the development, action or survival of an organism or group of organisms. As stated above, the transportation sector has direct impacts on the environment including among others emissions from fossil fuel based engines, impacts on water quality from non-point runoff from roads and increase in impervious surfaces. Indirect environmental impacts of transportation are many due to the complexity of systems involved including networks (roads, rail, etc.) and vehicles (cars, trucks, trains, bicycles). A life cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life cycle analysis and cradle-to-grave analysis) studying the environmental impacts from manufacture, construction, use and on to eventual disposal, would show massive environmental impacts from the transportation sector. Sustainable accessibility aims to minimize these direct and indirect negative environmental impacts.
Page 3.3
VISION STATEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Overarching goals that pervade all other goals and objectives: To improve the safety of the transportation system. To enhance coordination between transportation providers to the benefit and convenience of users. To minimize negative environmental impacts of transportation To reduce vehicle miles of travel and vehicular emissions To reduce fossil fuel energy dependency INTEGRATION Goal: To develop an integrated transportation system for Tompkins County that is seamless, multimodal and coordinated to achieve greater operational efficiencies and increase the safety and convenience of users. Objective A: Objective B: Objective C: Promote intermodal connectivity. Promote the efficient and effective movement of people and goods by integrating and linking various modes of transportation. Continue development of an integrated multimodal transportation system, including public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and networks, infrastructure and operations planning, construction and maintenance practices. Support implementation of the City of Ithaca Bicycle Plan, and other municipal bicycle plans. Encourage the use of Intelligent Transportation System and other technologies to improve transportation system coordination, convenience and reliability for all users. Encourage the use of fare collection strategies and technologies that enhance customer convenience, and promote coordination between transportation providers. Study, develop, and implement feasible transportation alternatives that provide options to and reduce dependence on the private automobile. Promote the use of Travel Demand Management techniques in order to achieve objectives such as reduced traffic congestion, road and parking cost savings, increased safety, improved mobility for non-drivers, energy conservation and pollution emission reductions. Promote a wide range of mobility management practices among employers in Tompkins County in coordination with transportation providers. Support enforcement of traffic laws by facilitating the use of advanced technologies and interagency cooperation. Promote benefits of walking and bicycling, including participation in promotional activities to encourage the increased use of walking and bicycling as modes of transportation. Encourage all transportation system providers in Tompkins County to develop intermodal and multimodal projects Meet the transportation needs of seniors, youth, individuals with disabilities and other population groups with special transportation needs Target high-risk (crash) areas and propose improvements to ensure a safe environment for users of all modes of transportation. Support the provision of safe transportation and passenger facilities capable of operating under emergency conditions. Coordinate and plan with transportation providers to identify future maintenance, storage, administrative, informational, intermodal, customer facility, infrastructure and vehicle needs, required to meet stated goals.
Objective D: Objective E: Objective F: Objective G: Objective H:
Objective I: Objective J: Objective K: Objective L: Objective M: Objective N: Objective O: Objective P:
Page 3.4
MOBILITY Goal:
To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance mobility. Promote pedestrian, bicycle, rideshare, carshare, paratransit, vanpools, public transit and new innovative alternatives to drive-alone automobile travel. Encourage increased bicycle use for different trip purposes, while working to increase the skill levels of bicyclists. Include planning for bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities in all bridge and road maintenance and new construction projects. Support programs, strategies and technologies that result in reduced roadway congestion and delay. Support programs and strategies that enhance the movement of freight throughout the IthacaTompkins County metropolitan area by increasing safety and efficiency and minimizing the negative impacts of freight transport. Support cooperation with freight haulers to identify opportunities to improve the movement of freight within and through Tompkins County. Encourage expansion in the use of rail for freight movement. Encourage multi-modal approaches to increase bus service to meet work trip demand, while providing for general public mobility. Promote services to support tourism and group travel needs. Support regional connections for people traveling by bus. Plan for intermodal transportation to maximize the utility and function of each mode. Encourage the provision of safe and comfortable environments for public transit employees and passengers on vehicles and at shelters, stops and stations. Support the provision of real-time system information to customers via the internet, wireless services and at bus stops, shelters, stations and other appropriate facilities. Provide increased levels of transit service together with the enhancement of related bicycling and pedestrian facilities to encourage a modal shift to transit. Encourage innovative collaborations and coordination of public and private resources to increase availability and productivity of alternative transportation modes. Monitor and evaluate development of new technologies, fuels and services in the transportation sector that may have potential for local applications. Target public resources to increase access to information and mobility for persons living in isolated and underserved areas of the County, low-income populations, seniors, people with disabilities and persons with limited English proficiency. Support planning to evaluate and implement regional approaches to reduce drive-alone communting such as, by increasing bus service, promoting ridesharing, and developing TDM programs to support alternative travel modes.
Objective A: Objective B: Objective C: Objective D: Objective E:
Objective F: Objective G: Objective H: Objective I: Objective J: Objective K: Objective L: Objective M: Objective N: Objective O: Objective P: Objective Q:
Objective Q:
PROXIMITY Goal:
To achieve land development patterns that enable the efficient provision of multimodal transportation services. Integrate transportation concerns and land use planning efforts in Tompkins County in order to protect the reliability of the transportation system through efficient land use development. Encourage the development of land use plans where none exist and the review and update of existing plans. Link transportation investment with local and regional land use planning. Promote intergovernmental cooperation and legislative initiatives that coordinate land use and transportation infrastructure. Consider land use and site design as it relates to efforts to reduce relative number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel. Encourage review of land use plans and site designs to ensure the accommodation of pedestrian, bicycle and public transit links and facilities. Promote compact, walkable, mixed-use land development patterns for communities in Tompkins County. Encourage innovative solutions in car and bicycle parking management. Promote trip minimization and increased vehicle occupancy rates.
Objective A: Objective B: Objective C: Objective D: Objective E: Objective F: Objective G: Objective H: Objective I:

Page 3.5
CONNECTIVITY Goal: To maintain and improve transportation networks to enhance safety, multimodal and intermodal connectivity and facilitate the movement of people and goods. Objective A: Objective B: Objective C: Objective D: Objective E: Objective F: Consider safety as the base component of all infrastructure design decisions with an end objective of reducing fatal and injury crashes. Improve the existing and proposed road network to safely accommodate bicycling, pedestrian and transit uses. Seek to alleviate traffic congestion and reduce travel time between various geographical sectors of the Ithaca-Tompkins County metropolitan area. Promote transportation system operational improvements to optimize travel time and reduce congestion. Promote interregional mobility through public transportation links between major points of origin and destination. Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. Utilize sidewalks, multiuse trails and paths, pedestrian bridges, roadway shoulder improvements, and other pedestrian facilities to provide needed pedestrian network links. Maintain a multiuse trail network plan for Tompkins County and provide assistance and incentives for its implementation. Support the development of an integrated countywide system of preferred truck routes in Tompkins County. Encourage the development and maintenance of advanced communication networks that can facilitate the use of communication technology as a substitute to travel.
Objective G: Objective H: Objective I: New Objective J:
QUALITY OF LIFE Goal: Develop a transportation system that sustains and enhances the quality of life for Tompkins County residents and visitors. Objective A: Objective B: Objective C: Promote transportation plans and programs that are consistent with and protect expressed community values, cultural heritage and local aesthetics. Apply Context Sensitive Solutions in the design of transportation projects to better support the goals of local comprehensive plans. The transportation system and proposed transportation projects should ensure both positive and negative environmental impacts are equitably distributed to all areas and population groups in the community. Promote the continuing implementation of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. Support efforts to address the special needs of the growing elderly population in Tompkins County. Encourage transportation initiatives that support and foster sustainable economic activity in Tompkins County. Identify transportation system needs that are specific and unique to agricultural communities and businesses. Encourage and support inter-municipal cooperation in the provision of transportation services and planning, including sharing of personnel time, equipment, facilities and other resources. Support regional transportation initiatives, such as the Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway, which promote enhanced intercounty coordination. Support programs and strategies that reduce demand for through-motor vehicle trips in residential areas. Promote infrastructure designs that are sensitive to local environmental issues and preserve or enhance scenic beauty. Support community-based discussions involving the relationship between transportation and affordable housing, community planning, and economic development and revitalization.
Objective D: Objective E: Objective F: Objective G: Objective H: Objective I: Objective J: Objective K: Objective L:
Page 3.6
ENVIRONMENT: Goal: To work progressively towards a transportation system that will have zero-net negative impact on the environment. Objective A: Objective B: Objective C: Objective D: Objective E: Objective F: Implement transportation initiatives that reduce or minimize the production of ozone precursors, small particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other greenhouse gases. Promote alternative fuels and clean air strategies, which can be implemented in public fleets and private vehicles. Support the development of a transportation system that is responsive to changes in energy availability. Limit the impacts of transportation projects on ecosystems to ensure their sustainability. Preserve natural, scenic and cultural areas within the Ithaca-Tompkins County metropolitan area. Support the replacement of the diesel bus fleet with progressively cleaner and more energy efficient bus technologies.
Page 3.7
4. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM A SUSTAINABLE VIEW

INTRODUCTION
This chapter will provide technical background information and address specific transportation issues under four specific sections categorized as follows: Connectivity the primary focus areas of connectivity in Tompkins County are the different transportation networks that help to move people and goods in our community. A well connected region has transportation networks with many links, numerous modal options, and minimal service dead-ends. System Integration - The section concentrates addressing issues that make the transportation system operate more effectively and efficiently. System Integration incorporates different issues of the Mobility goal and objectives, congestion mitigation, travel demand management, transportation system management, and alternative travel modes. Also in this section is a discussion of issues related to intermodal links and freight movement. The section will address system-level needs required to provide efficient connections and choices between various modes of transportation, and improved communication and coordination within the transportation community including the freight and commercial passenger sectors. Environmental - This section describes the concerns and issues associated with the impacts of transportation and urban development on the natural and built environments. Safety - This section addresses the Federal requirement for a safety element in the plan. Safety and emergency management programs are identified and their relationship to transportation. Financial - This section addresses the Federal requirement for a financial plan. The section will estimate financial resources available from federal, state, local and private resources for the development, operation, and maintenance of the transportation system and will demonstrate how the long-range transportation plan may be implemented. While this Chapter attempts to clarify issues under each of the above sub-headings, the reader should be aware that substantial overlap does exist. Transportation issues are
critically interconnected with activities in the areas of land use, housing, watershed protection, agriculture, economic development, etc. This plan focuses attention on transportation but the interdependency of transportation with other sectors cannot be overstated. Introduction Infrastructure can be defined as the basic facilities, equipment, and installations needed for the functioning of a system. This section focuses on issues primarily associated with the development and operation of capital transportation infrastructure including roadways, bridges, the transit system, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Maintenance, management, and operation issues will be addressed in this section. Also to be addressed are development and maintenance costs, design standards and safety issues.
CONNECTIVITY
1. Metropolitan Transportation System Federal regulations state that the long-range transportation plan shall, at a minimum: "Identify existing and proposed transportation facilities (including major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors) that should function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to those facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions" (23 CFR450.322.f(2)). One of the functions of this section will be to meet this legislative requirement. a. Roadways The City of Ithaca, located at the center of Tompkins County, is approximately 25 miles from the nearest Interstate Highway, I-81 in Cortland County. Tompkins County has one principal arterial, New York State Route 13, which is also the only Tompkins County roadway included on the National Highway System. According to the NYSDOT Infrastructure Needs Assessment Model (INAM) database, the roadway system in Tompkins County includes approximately 349 miles of State highways. In 1992 the average condition rating for those highways was 6.3 (on a 10-point scale where higher numbers indicate better condition). The figure for 2003 was 6.8, indicating an improvement in the pavement condition of State highways in Tompkins County over that ten-year period. The latest figure for 2007 also stands at 6.8. FIGURE 14 shows a map of the approved Highway Functional Classification System for Tompkins County. TABLE 19 describes the mileage and relative percentages of the federal-aid system in Tompkins County. TABLE 20 lists the mileage of roads in Tompkins County by type of road, meaning which jurisdiction has responsibility of the road. Town roads are by far the largest road type, with
Page 4.1
County and State roads also having a significant of the proportion for roadways in the county. Functional Classification is important because it helps identify roadways that are eligible for federal aid and because different design standards are applicable depending on the roadway classification. Rural minor collectors and local roads are not eligible for federal aid funding. The functional classification of roads is usually reviewed every ten years after the decennial census, but can be updated at any time to reflect infrastructure changes. The federal-aid functional classifications system for Tompkins County was approved by FHWA on February 26, 2001 and amended by the ITCTC Policy Committee May 18, 2004. This functional classification scheme is legislatively required as a prerequisite to the use of federal transportation funds. The classification of roads was accomplished by ITCTC, local planning and NYSDOT staffs following federal guidelines.
This functional classification system is useful for planning and programming purposes for a number of reasons; first, as previously mentioned, it is required by law and is an absolute prerequisite for the use of federal aid, second, it is "regional" in scope, thus it is homogenous throughout the area and third, the process of classification is technically derived, based on the location of relative trip activity nodes and on establishment of an appropriate mix of functional classes by percentage (Source: Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures, March 1989, Publication No. FHWA-ED-90-006). Great care was taken in developing a functional classification system that is reflective of actual roadway use and fully accommodates the technical needs of transportation officials. The next regular update to the Federal Functional Classification is expected to take place on 2011.
Page 4.2
FIGURE 14
TABLE 19 Federal Aid Road System Descriptive Statistics 2000 System (based on Census 2000) Functional Class URBAN ROADWAYS Urban Principal Arterial - Freeway Urban Principal Arterial Total Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Total Urban Arterial Urban Collector Urban Local Street RURAL ROADWAYS Rural Principal Arterial Rural Minor Arterial Total Rural Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Total Rural Collector Rural Local Road TOTAL 17.30 57.10 74.40 117.20 83.20 200.40 700.10 1,293.60 1.77% 5.86% 7.63% 12.02% 8.53% 20.56% 71.81% 100% 20-25% 65-75% 6-12% 2-4% 7.10 15.90 23.00 57.80 80.80 52.30 162.60 2.23% 4.99% 7.22% 18.14% 25.35% 16.41% 50.02% 15-25% 5-10% 65-80% 5-10% Centerline Miles Percent FHWA Guidelines
TABLE 20 Road System By Type Percent of Total Miles 12.5% 21.1% 44.6% 4.3% 5.3% 1.3% 4.4% 3.9% 2.8% 100%
Road Type State Roads County Roads Town Roads City Streets Village Streets Institutional Streets (CU, IC) Private Roads Abandoned / Vacant Not entirely one route type TOTAL
Centerline Miles 180.3 304.5 644.7 61.5 76.1 18.9 63.3 56.0 39.9 1,445.2
Page 4.4
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ continue to include bridge maintenance as an important b. Bridges component of project development efforts. The major infrastructure issues related to bridges include maintenance and operations, traffic safety, and capacity (addressed later in this chapter). NYSDOT performs periodic inspections of all bridges. Bridge condition ratings are assigned in a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is a failing structure and 7 is excellent. The scale uses a weighted formula that accounts for several structural components of a bridge. Bridges that score less than 5 are considered deficient. They are candidates for rehabilitation work, replacement or perhaps closure. Priority deficient bridges are those that either have an inspection rating of less than 3.0 (there are none of these in Tompkins County) or have an inspection rating between 3.0 and 3.999 with an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of greater than 4,000 (there are 4 of these in Tompkins County). Priority deficient bridges are given priority funding over deficient bridges. A deficient or priority deficient rating does not mean a bridge is unsafe. A bridge that is considered unsafe would be closed to further use. According to NYSDOT's Bridge Needs Assessment Model (BNAM) database, there are 194 bridges in Tompkins County that were inspected between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2008. Of these, 53 are State-owned, 132 are locally owned, and authorities and others own nine (five by Cornell and four by the NY State Parks). Of all the bridges, 38.1% are rated as deficient. The priority deficient bridges are located as follows: - Rt 13 (Elmira Rd) over Carter Creek (BIN# 1010290) - NYSDOT - Rt 13 (Dryden Rd) over Fall Creek (BIN# 1010400 - NYSDOT - Etna Road (east of Pinckney Road) BIN# 3369020 Tompkins County - East Clinton Street over Six Mile Creek (BIN# 2210440) City of Ithaca Of these the E.Clinton Street and both Rt.13 bridges are already scheduled in the TIP for repairs between 2010 and 2011. The Etna Road bridge received repairs in 2008 after the BNAM inspection. FIGURE 15 and FIGURE 16 show the location of the bridges of Tompkins County along with their bridge rating. TABLE 21 shows that the percent of deficient State owned bridges has increased since 2003, but is still lower than figures from 10 years before. The nine authority bridges in the county have experienced significant decline in condition over the last nine years. BNAM figures indicate that eight out of the nine of these bridges are deficient. The ITCTC recognizes the importance of bridge maintenance as a critical factor in having a safe and efficient transportation system. Over the years many bridge projects have received funding through the TIP. Over 50% of the 2007-2012 TIP funding, in effect at the time of preparing this plan, was dedicated to bridge projects. The ITCTC will
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council TABLE 21 BRIDGE CONDITION 1999 % Avg. Deficient Rating 36% 58% 66% 5.88 5.05 4.90 2003 % Avg. Deficient Rating 28% 39% 64% 5.64 5.54 4.73 2007-2008 % Avg. Deficient Rating 32% 43% 89% 5.48 5.26 4.46
Owner State Local Authority
c. Transit Public transit service in Tompkins County is provided by TCAT. In 1996, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) was authorized by the New York State Legislature. In 1998, the City of Ithaca, Cornell University and Tompkins County agreed to form TCAT as a joint venture to operate public transit service in Tompkins County. In 2005, the parties reorganized TCAT as a not-for-profit corporation. TCAT analyzes its bus route performance and proposes adjustments to fares and specific routes in response to evolving fiscal conditions and customer demands. The agency undertook two system-wide re-evaluations, a consolidated service and fare study in 1998-99, (which created the TCAT system) and a Transit Development Plan in 2008-09. TCATs fixed route bus system includes three counties. TCAT operates in every town in Tompkins County. Plus, TCAT provides commuter service from Watkins Glen in Schuyler County and Newark Valley in Tioga County. TCAT service is concentrated in the Ithaca urbanized area. Nearly 61% of Tompkins County residents live within one quarter () mile of a bus route, with 88% for urban and 31% for rural populations. (Source: Tompkins County Planning Department). In 2009, TCAT used 50 buses to operate service. This is a reduction of 8 buses (14%) from 2008, which were previously used to operate select rural routes by a private contractor. TCAT contracts with GADABOUT Transportation Services, Inc. for demand responsive paratransit service required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA paratransit). GADABOUT operates 26 small buses. In 2009, TCAT operated 35 routes with a diverse range of schedules for academic year, summer and yearlong service. All towns in Tompkins County are served by TCAT. Sunday service is available in the Ithaca urban area. Public transit routes are shown in FIGURES 17 and 18 (Note: TCAT continuously reviews its bus routes
Page 4.5
in an effort to improve service; therefore, the bus routes shown in the maps may be changed at any given time). In 2008 TCAT performed a complete bus ridership survey on all their transit routes noting where transit riders boarded the bus and where they alighted. FIGURES 17 and 18 also show the results of the ridership survey: Very Low Ridership = 1-50 riders per day Low Ridership = 51-100 riders per day Good Ridership = 101-150 riders per day Very Good Ridership = 151-500 per day Excellent Ridership = more than 500 riders per day Transit routes showing the most ridership were #30 (Commons-to-Cornell-to-Shops at Ithaca Mall). #81 and #82 (Cornell University Campus) and the #10 (Cornell University to Commons Shuttle). Since 2005, the top three urban routes with the highest ridership (30, 81 and 10) carried nearly 50% of total TCAT ridership. FIGURES 19 and 20 show the principal transit boarding locations in the TCAT system based on 5 weeks of activity in 2008. The downtown Ithaca bus stops at Seneca and Green Streets handled the most passengers (44,870 and 41,538 respectively), along with Parking Lot A at Cornell (35,144). Other principal activity nodes include The Shops at Ithaca Mall, Collegetown, and Cornell University campus locations at Parking Lot B, East Ave. at Sage Hall/Statler Hall and Hasbrouck Apartments. Before consolidation in 1999, TCAT ridership peaked in 1996 at 2,141,191 passengers. Between 1996 and 1998, ridership declined by 2.7% to 2,085,169 passengers. TCAT experienced strong ridership growth after the consolidated service began in the fall 1999. In 2000 ridership was at 2,413,150. In 2005, TCAT ridership passed 3 million passengers for the first time. In 2008 TCAT carried 3,307,531 riders. Demand for increasing the scale and scope of transit service continues as evidenced by the interest generated by the TCAT 2008-2009 Transit Development Plan and continued ridership increases. TCAT will be operating a new hybrid fixed and demand-responsive route serving the Etna area of the Town of Dryden when the new service plan is put into effect in January 2010. Increased service demand during the 2008 gasoline price hike offered clear evidence of the potential demand for increased service, particularly to serve the commuter traffic from rural towns and neighboring counties to the Ithaca urban area. A coalition of representatives from the counties surrounding Tompkins County, higher education institutions and transit providers have been meeting periodically to discuss and advance enhanced regional (multi-county) transportation options in the area. The ITCTC will continue to work with this group to ensure that transit and other mobility options are used to serve
the largest possible number of commuters into and out of Tompkins County. Until the American Recovery and Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 was enacted, TCAT faced a chronic capital-funding shortfall for timely bus replacement. An infusion of federal stimulus funds, directly and indirectly, provided funding to replace 15 of 16 older TCAT buses. Until then, neither federal or state capital assistance programs proved adequate to the task. Therefore, TCAT considers operating transit buses for up to 18 years, 6 years longer than the federal life cycle, as long as safe operations conditions are maintained. In addition to rolling stock, there will be substantial capital facility needs to be addressed in the next twenty years. These include: (a) rehabilitating and expanding the transit center; (b) developing park and ride facilities; (c) vehicle location information systems to provide real time location information to dispatchers and passengers; (d) smart card fare collection system to automate fare accounting; and (e) additional and renovated passenger shelters to increase accessibility, security and ease of use. d. Paratransit GADABOUT Transportation Services, Inc. was developed in 1976 and re-organized as a non-profit transportation corporation in 1981. GADABOUT provides wheelchair accessible, demand responsive service for people over 60 years and persons with disabilities in Tompkins County. GADABOUT set a ridership record of 63,809 in 2008, a 67% increase in the decade of 1999-2008. GADABOUTs administration and operations center and 26 paratransit buses are based and maintained at TCATs transit facility. GADABOUT was an original tenant of the transit facility (with a fleet of 13 buses) when it opened in 1992. TCAT contracts with GADABOUT to operate its ADA paratransit service. In the next twenty years, with the generational shift of aging Baby Boomers, the demand for mobility services for seniors is expected to significantly increase. The trend of developing senior residential centers and mixed use, urban housing targeted to seniors will add to demand for flexible mobility services in general and, eventually, for paratransit and other ancillary senior transportation services. Growing demands for senior mobility and the need to provide a practical alternative for automobile use by frail seniors require new business models. GADABOUT has demonstrated the value of using volunteer drivers to provide paratransit service. An example of a new approach is to use time banking to reward volunteers and car donations to fund passenger trips. Social entrepreneurism may be useful to create affordable mobility services. The ITCTC encourages coordinated planning for capital and operational needs for paratransit and new service strategies to meet the growing demand
Page 4.6
for mobility by seniors. Such new approaches may be applicable to general community mobility. e. Coordination Plan Mobility services targeted to provide job access for lowincome persons and special needs populations needs continued attention. The Tompkins County Department of Social Services and ITCTC have closely cooperated to develop the Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan for Tompkins County (Coordinated Plan). Under this plan, required by SAFETEA-LU, human services and transportation agencies have identified resources, service gaps, and annual project priorities to improve community mobility, increase the capacity of providers to supply more service, and to increase efficient delivery of transportation for human service needs. The Countys Mobility Management program, in the Department of Social Services, coordinates project implementation. The ITCTC will continue to work with its local partners to implement the Plans priorities and to revise the Coordinated Plan in the future. f. Multimodal and Intermodal Facilities The issues associated with intermodal freight and commercial passenger facilities are discussed under a separate heading below. For the purposes of defining the Metropolitan Transportation System, a map of intermodal facilities is provided here (see FIGURE 21). Multimodal facilities refer to the accommodation of various modes of transportation. In Tompkins County transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are the principal components considered under the "multimodal" aspect of this section. Specific discussions of bicycle and pedestrian issues appear later in this chapter. TCATs City Center project, to replace three bus stops around the Ithaca Commons, achieved progress by completing the Seneca St stop in 2007 and the Green St. facility in 2009. The Aurora St stop is being planned in relation to a proposed hotel development. The Project enhances the public transportation experience for all customers and also results in improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. The improved streetscape at the stops directly benefits the Downtown. The functionality of the new passenger facilities promotes seamless multimodal integration. ITCTC supports multimodal planning, which frequently requires multi-party collaboration for implementation. . A comprehensive plan is needed to bring bus stops up to standard to include effective signage, adequate shelter, and to promote multimodal and land-use integration. Identifying and geo-coding bus stops enables their use in personal way finding by pedestrians and for multimodal trip planning. Thus, identified bus stops can mark locations for multimodal services such as bike parking, car share, and rideshare stops located near by. Bus passenger shelters, electric power, information displays
and area map, can enhance potential for integration with other modes and with compatible land-uses. Intercity bus service and bus tourism are two modes providing new opportunities for planning, public-private collaboration and multimodal integration. Recent analysis indicate that efforts by carriers to enhance their fleets and improve customer service, together with higher fuel costs for individual drivers are leading to a renaissance of the use of buses for intercity travel. The Ithaca intercity bus station is conveniently located in the West End of Downtown Ithaca, within walking and bicycling distance of most of the population in the Flats of the City of Ithaca. However, the inter-city bus station, which serves as a gateway for approximately 179,000 annual passengers, lacks basic passenger amenities, i.e. bathrooms, street furniture, bicycle parking. Rehabilitation or relocation of the intercity bus facility is needed to provide a modern facility. Currently, the intercity bus facility is served by the public transit system, taxis and paratransit. Regular and frequent service should be continued to facilitate transportation to the final destination of intercity travelers. Intercity bus service in Tompkins County includes three carriers and approximately 28 buses per day The prospect for high-speed rail service in Upstate New York could stimulate demand for feeder bus service from Tompkins County. A regional bus plan would be needed to integrate new services with local transit and other modes. Both County and City economic strategies promote tourism, however, a plan is needed to enhance and manage bus tourism while mitigating potential negative impacts of congestion.
Page 4.7
FIGURE 15
Page 4.8
FIGURE 16
FIGURE 17
FIGURE 18
Page 4.11
FIGURE 19
FIGURE 20
FIGURE 21
Page 4.14
g. Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs As explained below and in Chapter 1, the bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation carry a significant percentage of the journey to work trips in the Tompkins County. To achieve the goals of the LRTP, reduce greenhouse gas production and dependency in fossil fuels every effort should be made to maintain and enhance the trip share of these alternative modes to the automobile. The presence of a dedicated full or part-time bicycle/pedestrian coordinator for Tompkins County would help achieve this outcome. Such a person would review projects for their multimodal impact, and coordinate training, education, and outreach and provide assistance to local municipalities. The ITCTC supports the creation of a bicycle/pedestrian coordinator position and will work with the County, City of Ithaca and other member agencies to determine the best administrative option to locate such a position and secure its funding. Bicycles: The need to develop an integrated, countywide bicycle system is crucial. Various efforts have contributed to this end but better coordination is needed. The City of Ithaca adopted a Bicycle Plan in 1997, but has found implementation difficult, primarily because of narrow street widths and potential impacts to on-street parking. Currently the City is using a combination of federal, state and local funding sources to design and build the Cayuga Waterfront Trail connecting the Citys waterfront destinations to each other and to nearby neighborhoods. In addition, the City of Ithaca and its Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) continue to work on a variety of projects, including sidewalk improvements, the possible designation of Bicycle Boulevards, strategically located bicycle lanes, enhanced bicycle parking facilities, etc. The BPACs work will answer questions about the actual impacts and feasibility of installing bicycle facilities within the Citys road network. Cornell University has an active program to educate students about safe bicycle use and the network of trails and paths available to bicyclists on campus. Other municipalities around the county are advancing multiuse trail projects that eventually will interconnect and provide a comprehensive countywide system. For well over a decade TCAT has instituted a popular Bikes-on-Buses program that serves thousands of customers every year. This program allows riders to combine their bicycle trips with transit in those occasions were a bicycle only trip is not possible. Every vehicle in the TCAT fleet is equipped with bicycle racks. They are indicative of the interest and potential of developing an infrastructure for bicycling within the existing transportation system. In 2007 ITCTC produced the first Bike Suitability Map for Tompkins County. 24,000 copies of this map were distributed throughout the county (at the Farmers Market,
bike and outdoor shops, recreation facilities, colleges, etc). This map was so popular that a 2nd edition was produced in 2008 (see FIGURE 22 Bike Suitability in Tompkins County a representation of the data included the Bicycle Suitability map for Tompkins County). TABLE 22 shows summary information of bike suitability in Tompkins County. It is clear that additional data is necessary to complete a more detailed, regional bicycle plan. However, some recommendations for development of a bicycle transportation system include cost-effective projects such as pavement re-striping to include bicycle lanes, providing bicycle parking, road shoulder condition/width improvements, and road shoulder maintenance (especially cleaning of shoulders), the latter of which can be implemented with minimum delay or as part of ongoing maintenance efforts. The ITCTC supports the development of a "bicyclefriendly" transportation system that serves to encourage increased bicycle use and make cycling safer. The primary policy position is that bicycles are legitimate forms of transportation that should be accommodated in the design process for transportation facilities and land use development. Doing so minimizes the potential for conflict with motorized vehicles, thus not only making the system safer but also making it more efficient for all modes (e.g., vehicles not slowed by presence of cyclists).
Page 4.15
FIGURE 22
TABLE 22 Bicycle Suitability Score 2008 System (from Bike Suitability Map) Bike Suitability Score Centerline Miles Percent
sidewalks throughout the County that were added in the interim period. The location of sidewalks in the City of Ithaca are shown in FIGURE 24. TABLE 23 shows the sidewalk miles for each municipality with sidewalks. The countywide network of multiuse trails identified in the ITCTCs Transportation Trail/Corridor Study, together with the Black Diamond Trail, will provide regional connections between many population centers in Tompkins County. The multiuse trails will provide regional pedestrian and bicycle connections that will complement local pedestrian and bicycle networks (i.e. sidewalks, bicycle lanes, etc.). Substantial progress has been made in planning and development of the countywide trail system since the Trail/Corridor Study was completed. The ITCTC plan for countywide trails is shown in FIGURES 25, 26, and 27. The ITCTC will continue to work with local partners to enhance the network of sidewalks, trails and other pedestrian facilities to provide expanded connectivity between activity areas and improve the safety for users. The development of a pedestrian network that safely meets the needs of all persons would in itself provide an incentive for more persons to walk. The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council also supports efforts to address pedestrian issues through design of the built environment. In particular the design of transportation facilities (i.e. roads, bridges, etc.) offer the opportunity to consider the needs of pedestrians. A number of intersection design treatments such as bulbouts, raised crosswalks, pedestrian signals, etc. should be considered for incorporation into projects. Sidewalks should be provided at every opportunity. Educational initiatives, such as local schools providing specific training on pedestrian safety issues (to all age groups), and promotional campaigns for walking would also help in encouraging the use of this important mode of transportation. The need to comply with ADA standards, and to consider issues such as how traffic signal (phase) timing may affect an elderly/disabled persons abilities to safely cross a street, is an important consideration in pedestrian planning. The importance of this issue will continue to increase as the average age of the population increases over the next 20 years. Much progress has been made to address pedestrian issues on a project-by-project basis and as a fundamental policy in site plan review and project design. It is imperative that the ITCTC and its local members continue to prioritize and implement cost-effective improvements to the pedestrian network to ensure the safety of all pedestrians. The ITCTC will work cooperatively with its local partners to promote the actions and programs that will lead to the development of walkable communities in Tompkins County.
OUTSIDE CITY OF ITHACA Excellent Very Good Good Fair INSIDE CITY OF ITHACA Heavy Traffic Volume Moderate Traffic Volume Low Traffic Volume Very Low Traffic Volume
178.2 194.4 177.3 80.9 17.3 57.1 74.4 117.2
28.2% 30.8% 28.1% 12.8% 13.0% 39.7% 30.8% 16.6%
Pedestrians: As described in Chapter 2, Tompkins County has a large percentage of its journey-to-work trips that take place by walking (2007 ACS: 17% countywide; 42% in the City of Ithaca; 20% in the Town of Ithaca). Clearly, pedestrian movements are an extremely important component of local transportation planning. The ITCTC seeks to enhance the pedestrian experience in order to maintain and increase the number of people who choose this mode of transportation to complete their daily trips. The City of Ithaca is served by a comprehensive network of sidewalks, though gaps do exist in the system. The ITCTC supports efforts to maintain and enhance this network. The City possesses extensive GIS data on sidewalk facilities; a recent survey of this information by City staff identified four main areas lacking in pedestrian facilities or adequate network connections: West Hill lack of sidewalks, substandard conditions Old Elmira Road and Spencer Road corridors lack sidewalks East Hill and South Hill connections need improvement, lack of sidewalks in upper sections Residential neighborhoods need better connections to the waterfront. Outside the City of Ithaca sidewalks are found mostly in the Tompkins County villages and in areas of the Town of Ithaca where there are denser settlement patterns. In 2002 the ITCTC completed a survey of pedestrian facilities countywide outside the City of Ithaca (see FIGURE 23). This information was circulated widely to serve as a resource to local planners and decision makers. In 2009 ITCTC field checked the 2002 survey and edited to include
Page 4.17
TOMPKINS COUNTY SIDEWALK INVENTORY

1
P ROSPECT ST
A ST S E NE C
M CL ALL EN ST
2
D BR A
GA
3
ST
RKWAY ST
O OT GR
E CORT LAND ST
T CH S CHUR T NS MAI
P AR K
BARROW S ST
ST
EL
N IO UN
CA Y UG A S
T RU M AN ST
S PRING ST
RA IL
E AV
ST
HE CT
SO UT H ST
ST
P ERU R
4
To wn of La nsing Villag e of Gro to n
B AN T KS
Village of Tr umansburg
1
AI L
RO AD
RI GH
PEA S E
W H IG CA ST M PS T
OF
W A Y
MA IN ST
ST
TH S SO U
T
N ST S MAI
MI LL
O R
ST
IN
ST
RO AD ST
To wn of U lysses
Town of Enf ield
R L E A
F U L
To wn of N ewfie ld
all sidewalks Municipal boundary Roads Majwater
BUSH LA
EU PL AN D
RD
1) Village Of Tru mansburg 2) Village Of Groton 3) Village Of Freeville 4)Town Of Enf ie ld 5) Village Of Dryde n 6) Village Of Cayuga Height s 7) Village Of Lansing
KL IN ER D
YS LE T
ST
PEA RL ST
Town of G ro to n
MA
T IN S
Village of Lansing
Villag e of Free ville
Villag e of Cay uga He ights
Villag e of Dry de n
5
LEWIS ST ROCHESTER ST
City of It haca Town of It haca
Town of D ryde n
NORTH ST
LIBRARY ST
W ALL ST
N R R I L N E D O L I A R T O L R D I E E T R L A C V L A M S H
To wn of C aro line
YRD ME R RE A C E R D MI L N DI
O AL F F B U
RD
E M AIN ST
JAMES ST
HIGHLAND DR
E YD DR N KE LA L AI TR
LA K
ST
To wn of D anby
1 0 000
0 2 000 0
1 00 00 2 0 00
20000 F eet 4 000 Mete rs
6 7
TH E P ARK WAY
PL EA SANT
H TR IP
D RD L AN HIGH
GRA
HA M R
B RO WN
RD
E GROV
OU TE 1 3 S T AT E R
M HA RI P NT
OA
K HI
LLR
AMM R ER D
RD
U PTO WN RD
W YC K
O FF
RD
R ME RD
Fig #
Ma rch 1 8, 2 00 4
FIGURE 23
Page 4.18
FIGURE 24
Page 4.19
TABLE 23 Roads with Sidewalks Municipality Road Miles 89.7 174.9 24.6 11.9 6.1 12.5 33 12.6 Sidewalk Percent of Miles Roads w/ sidewalks 54.4 13.7 8.8 3.3 0.7 3.1 1.4 3.1 60.6% 7.8% 35.8% 27.7% 11.5% 24.8% 4.2% 24.6%
City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca (Incl Villages) Village of Cayuga Heights Village of Dryden Village of Freeville Village of Groton Village of Lansing Village of Trumansburg
Page 4.20
FIGURE 25
FIGURE 26
Page 4.22
FIGURE 27
Page 4.23
SYSTEM INTEGRATION
Introduction This section concentrates on making the transportation system operate more efficiently as a coordinated system. Issues relate to the mobility impaired, travel demand management, transportation system management strategies, parking management and related data needs are addressed here. 1. Mobility Impaired In the United States mobility impaired persons are commonly those persons who, for one reason or another, do not have personal access to the use of an automobile. In general, these persons are elderly, disabled, youths, or economically disadvantaged. It is a stated objective of Federal legislation to provide specific consideration for the transportation needs for these groups. Most critical in addressing the issues in this section is to continue to develop a well-integrated, strongly multimodal transportation system for Tompkins County. Every individual has a particular set of needs and limitations that cannot be addressed by single transportation mode strategies. Providing options in transportation - transit, paratransit, car share, bicycling, pedestrian, taxi, etc. - will allow individuals to achieve mobility without the need and burden of private automobile ownership. Currently, the ITCTC supports data gathering efforts conducted to determine the nature and extent of resources and needs of the mobility impaired population. Other ideas to consider include: (a) making transportation a consideration in the planning of programs and facilities serving the elderly and people with disabilities; (b) studying and considering the development of day care facilities and other services in conjunction with major activity nodes/employment centers, and (c) considering the need to link low income neighborhoods to employment opportunities, retail and service centers, and recreational facilities. Children's activities should also be considered in order to create initiatives and programs to reduce the number of trips related to these activities. ITCTC staffs meets regularly with members of the youth services community to coordinate efforts and planning for youth transportation. The following are possible areas of activity in Tompkins County: (a) work to decentralize organized activities, basing their location on neighborhood and community units; (b) provide enhanced transit service to those centralized activities that would include security features such as advanced registration and check-in for children; and (c) improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities in order to provide better safe access for children to events or transit stops, d) as possible, provide comprehensive and frequent transit service to the outlying
areas of Tompkins County; e) open dialogue between the transit operators and the school districts to better accommodate the youth population and f) enhance ridesharing opportunities for students and families. 2. Parking and Circulation Parking areas are an integral part of the transportation system. Their construction, maintenance (including snow removal), and performance must be considered as part of any planning process. The City of Ithaca and Cornell University include the principal employment centers in the Tompkins County. In addition, they generate a significant number of recreational, personal, and entertainment based trips. Parking management in these two critical areas is crucial to addressing traffic circulation and public transportation issues. In 2008, ITCTC did an analysis from aerial photos locating and measuring road and parking areas in the City of Ithaca (see FIGURE 28). The results of the analysis showed the following: a) there are 231.37 acres (0.362 sq. miles) of parking areas in the City of Ithaca, which accounts for approximately 6.6% of the total acreage of the City of Ithaca. b) there are approximately 0.5937 sq. miles of road surface in the City of Ithaca. This accounts for 10.8% of the total acreage of the City of Ithaca. c) parking areas and roads combined account for 17.4% of the total acreage in the City of Ithaca. The layout and design of parking areas can have a serious impact on the circulation patterns and efficiency of adjacent roads. Major developments should provide detailed on-site circulation studies that maintain the capacity of adjacent roadways by implementing access management techniques such as, minimizing curb-cuts and promoting internal circulation. In addition, full consideration of "alternative modes" (i.e., pedestrians, bicycles, public transportation vehicles) needs to be integrated in the design phases of parking lots. Recent studies and professional literature have focused attention to the land use/transit/parking interactions. In particular, there are strong arguments on how the provision of free or low-cost parking can influence the selection of travel modes in favor of private automobile use. In urbanized areas like the City of Ithaca, there are increased opportunities to offer the public options to private automobile use for transportation. Dense transit service, a comprehensive sidewalk network, car share, taxi use, Gadabout and bicycling all offer options for private automobile use. Well developed parking management strategies that seek to capture the true cost of parking can help promote the use of alternative modes while at the same time providing parking access to help support a healthy urban environment.
Page 4.24
It is also important to note the potential impact of minimum parking requirements on land use development potential. There is a trade-off between parking and other development options (residential, commercial). In urban areas seeking increased densities in order to stimulate their local economies and the vibrancy of the community, parking requirements may need to be reconsidered in order to allow more land to be dedicated to productive uses (residential, office, commercial) instead of parking. The City of Ithaca can consider offering access to transit and car share as credits to reduced parking requirements. The ITCTC supports the City of Ithacas efforts to consider and debate these issues in the Collegetown Plan. The ITCTC will work closely with the City of Ithaca, Cornell Transportation Services, TCAT and other community partners in studying and developing parking management strategies and plans. 3. Design Issues Roadway Design A significant amount of research and an ever-growing list of completed projects provide guidance in what is called Context Sensitive Design (CSD), or what NYSDOT calls Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). This is an approach to transportation planning that recognizes that transportation has wide societal impacts and is not merely the practice of road construction to maximize vehicular movements. It can be defined as "...a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting, and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. (Project for Public Spaces)" NYSDOT offers the following definition: Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is a philosophy wherein safe transportation solutions are designed in harmony with the community. CSS strives to balance environmental, scenic, aesthetic, cultural and natural resources, as well as community and transportation service needs. Context sensitive projects recognize community goals, and are designed, built and maintained to be sustainable while minimizing disruption to the community and the environment (NYSDOT-Context Sensitive Solutions website-www.dot.state.ny.us/design/css/resources.html). Roadway design can influence how transportation corridors operate: i.e. are they welcoming to non-motorized modes? Do they facilitate the provision of transit? What land uses are best suited for the road type? Therefore, one can expect the roadway design on a rural road to differ significantly from that in an urban area. Within urbanized areas there are many different contexts that need to be accommodated: main streets, residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, etc. In each of these roadway design that applies CSS can play an important
role on the land development patterns of adjacent properties. Design of a road as a single-mode automobile oriented commercial arterial, for example, will result in single-use development, large parking lots, and a road that is unfit for anything but driving. Walking and bicycling become inconvenient and unsafe, and with dispersed development, transit is less efficient. In contrast, a different road design can welcome pedestrians and bicyclists without losing capacity while allowing for mixed use development of adjacent properties. In a case like this road design can be the catalyst to help move away from sprawl development to a smarter, more efficient land use development pattern. Ultimately, a communitys goals are best accommodated by some form of context based roadway design. Much research has been done to help planners and decision makers consider the best solutions for their areas. Locally, the Tompkins County Planning Department has developed a toolbox offering ideas and tools for consideration in all types of planning activities (http://www.tompkins-co.org/planning/vct/index.html). The Cornell Community and Rural Development Institute has also developed a toolbox designed primarily for rural communities, but of help to anyone interested in community development (http://www.cdtoolbox.net/). More specific to roadway design the Institute of Transportation Engineers published a set of guidelines titled Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, which help expand the conventional approach to roadway design to facilitate walkable, connected neighborhoods, mixed land uses, and easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists. (http://www.ite.org/css/). Additional resources can be found in Appendix C under Transportation Related Web Sites. Scenic Resources Residents in Tompkins County have shown a strong desire to consider the aesthetics and impacts of roadway projects during the planning stages. The ITCTC supports the idea that the "infrastructure should fit the land", through consideration of geographic conditions, environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, etc.), and respect for existing land uses. The possibility of creating a countywide scenic road system in Tompkins County has been included in past LRTPs, as was the need to identify and protect scenic areas, vistas, and corridors. This latter emphasis was also evident in the development of goals and policies for the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan and the resulting project, Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory, to help identify scenic areas and views in Tompkins County (http://www.tompkinsco.org/planning/nri/documents/TCSRreportJan17.pdf).
Page 4.25
The New York State Scenic Byways Program designated the Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway (CLSB) as a scenic byway in 2001. The CLSB is an eighty-six mile long system of roads circumventing Cayuga Lake, including: State Roads 89, 90, 34, 34B and 5/20 (www.cayugalake.com). Currently, the non-profit corporation Cayuga Lake Scenic Byways, Inc., serves the a facilitator agency implementing the byways corridor management plan, applying for funding and otherwise managing the development of the CLSB in cooperation with interested parties and all three counties with jurisdiction: Cayuga, Seneca and Tompkins. It is expected that together with the Route 90 Scenic Byway the CLSB will provide a solid foundation for the development of a broader Finger Lakes Scenic Byway network. The ITCTC will continue its participation in development of the CLSB for the benefit of residents of Tompkins County (see FIGURE 29). 4. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the name given to a series of strategies that can be utilized singly or in tandem to create a program whose purpose is to alleviate traffic problems through reduction of automobiles on the road, especially single occupancy vehicles. The strategies include combinations of improved alternatives to driving alone, incentives to use alternative modes, disincentives for driving alone, along with work hour management. The ITCTC supports implementation of voluntary transportation demand management programs, which target major employers or employment areas, such as downtown Ithaca. These programs should address work hours (flextime, compressed work weeks, staggered hours) telecommuting options, carpool/vanpool, guaranteed ride home, transportation allowances, parking management, enhancements to bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and the role of transit and car sharing as part of an overall strategy. The programs should also provide training and assist in start-up procedures. Potential benefits to employers include: reduced absenteeism, increased productivity, reduced parking costs, etc. There are several other actions that are instrumental to the reduction of travel demand. For example: (a) promoting economic development and job development in locations that reduce total commuting mileage; (b) investigating the demand for teleconferencing centers at major activity nodes; and (c) implementing parking management policies that minimize the number of vehicles in specific areas (e.g., require residential permits, limit the number of on-street spaces, provide secure remote parking lots, etc.) in conjunction with incentives for use of public transportation, car sharing, car pools, walking or bicycling. Integration of communication strategies for TDM including; public information, consumer education, proactive outreach to agencies and employers, customer feedback, and promoting coordination between service providers are the objectives of Cornell Cooperative
Extensions Way2Go program. The potential benefit for integrating mobility information is much greater than the sum of marketing and advertising efforts of individual transportation providers. The Cornell Transportation Services Office has developed and promoted TDM strategies to the Cornell community since 1988 with great success. Cornell Transportation Services actively reaches out to Cornell students, faculty and staff with incentives and information on using TDM. The County Mobility Management Program conducts train-the-trainer programs on individual travel training (for persons who need training or coaching to access mobility services) for agencies with the aim of creating a network of experienced and trained travel trainers. The ITCTC will work with Way2Go, Cornell Transportation Services, the County and other local programs and agencies to facilitate and enhance access to information the will help the traveling public make informed personal transportation decisions. Integration of revenue collection or payment among service providers is an unrealized opportunity for increasing consumer convenience and market growth. Several service providers are using new fare collection or access technologies. TCAT has a contactless smartcard (which is encoded in Cornell University identification cards), Ithaca Dispatch uses prepaid TaxiCash cards, and Ithaca CarShare uses a wireless key fob to access and lock its vehicles. What is missing is the ability for consumers to use a single payment media to access multiple transportation services, an EZ-Pass for local mobility. The EZ-Pass example simplifies using a consumers credit card to pay for small transactions for trips. The goal is to maximize consumer convenience with a single payment media. ITCTC supports collaborative efforts to evaluate options for integrating payment media, involving financial and telecom partners working with transportation providers. Public transportation plays a key role within travel demand management programs. The ITCTC supports efforts that will make public transportation easier to use by overcoming some of its associated penalties (time, inconvenience, etc.). Past studies by the ITCTC and TCAT propose strategies and recommendations aimed at enhancing transit service in Tompkins County. The ITCTC will work with TCAT and other MPO partners to facilitate implementation of those recommendations that show greatest promise. In addition the ITCTC will work cooperatively with other agencies to attract more commute riders to public transportation. This can be achieved through a series of strategies aimed at expanding and enhancing commuting services including: establishing a coordinated park and ride program for the urbanized area, continued monitoring of bus route operational efficiencies, discount programs and other pricing incentives to commuters, and provide a guaranteed ride program. Furthermore, amenities should be provided to ensure passenger comfort, extensive customer support, and
Page 4.26
that information is available to the public 24 hours a day. FIGURE 21 shows the location of existing rural park and ride facilities as well as the potential location for regional park and ride facilities that could serve the Ithaca urbanized area. Technological innovations now allow for telecommuting and smart bus systems. Smart bus systems improve the quality of the communication between the public transportation system and potential riders. The ITCTC supports TCATs efforts to provide improved printed schedules, station/stop signage and state-of-the-art passenger information systems. These latter include technologies that allow for interactive communications equipment located at transit stations/stops and use of the internet for trip scheduling and to provide real-time transit information. For example, an automated vehicle location system, utilizing global positioning technology (uses satellite signals to determine vehicle locations), can report real time positions of public transit vehicles, which are then relayed to the TCAT website where riders can see the exact location of their bus. Opportunities also exist for further enhancements to the current electronic fare payment system in order to increase convenience and ease of use for customers. The ITCTC recommends studying, developing, and implementing projects and programs that enhance the feasibility of alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use. Public transportation services, ridesharing (carpooling), vanpooling, shared-ride taxi, paratransit, walking and bicycling should be promoted to reduce single occupancy vehicles. To achieve a higher percentage of trips made by bicycling and walking there is a need to improve and/or build walkway and bikeway networks with separate signage and traffic control devices for pedestrians and cyclists. It would also be possible to coordinate with area employers to offer financial or other incentives to employees who do not require parking spaces for automobiles. The ITCTC will continue to monitor new ideas and concepts, such as major employers providing "fleet bikes" for their employees to use in daily work or personal travel that shows potential for application in Tompkins County. 5. Transportation System Management Transportation System Management (TSM) involves managing the existing transportation system to obtain increased efficiency, which relates to the "supply side" of the transportation system equation. TSM projects are often used as cost-effective means of reducing intersection or corridor related congestion. The ITCTC travel demand model was used to identify links with the highest levels of congestion. The model based its analysis on estimating Volume-to-Capacity ratios (V/C ratio) for the principal roadways in the county. V/C ratios relate the traffic volumes to the roadways traffic capacity based on the roads geometry, traffic flow speeds and
adjacent land uses. FIGURES 30 and 31 display the output from the travel demand model for 2009 conditions. The travel demand model is currently designed to model the afternoon peak hour (5-6PM). Therefore, the map may not highlight links that experience congestion at other times. While further, more detailed quantitative analyses are necessary, this figure provides a starting point from which to begin the process of developing strategies and projects that address the needs in these problem areas. TSM strategies focus on upgrade to coordinated traffic signals, establishing formal traffic incident management plans addressing accidents and weather events, advanced planning for detour routes, providing real time information to drivers, coordinated/shared data collection. Specific roadway design changes such as alleviating bottlenecks on a road, adding a turn lane at an intersection or the use of alternative intersection designs (e.g., roundabouts) may be considered as TSM strategies. However more intensive capacity expansion adding new lanes or new roads is not considered TSM. The appropriate use of TSM measures should be determined on a case-by-case basis within the framework of a regional plan of action.
Page 4.27
FF
FIGURE 28
FIGURE 29
FIGURE 30
FIGURE 31
The ITCTC is supportive of ongoing efforts to upgrade traffic signals in the City of Ithaca, particularly in high traffic areas. Bicycle and pedestrian needs should be considered in the design of the signals upgrade. Resources should be allocated to ensure the optimal management and operation of the traffic signal system. Other TSM strategies that may have future local applications include the following: (a) use of reversible lanes for high-volume commuting corridors; (b) use of peak-period on-road parking restrictions to obtain additional capacity; (c) use of peak-period parking surcharges to encourage mode shift or to reduce peak-period travel volumes; (d) developing better project planning methods to minimize delays, congestion, and disruption due to construction/maintenance projects; (e) removing or modifying unnecessary controls (stop signs, right turns on red, etc.); (f) use of transit and non-SOV preferential treatments for congested corridors; and (g) developing local policies to address incident management. For example, there should be a clear policy for clearing/towing procedures, particularly on the main commuter routes. Any addition of new capacity by constructing new facilities in key corridors must be carefully studied and considered a last recourse action. 4. Data Needs Transportation data is a critical input to achieving improvements in transportation planning and the implementation of transportation projects and initiatives. There are three key areas where data is needed: traffic counts; accident reporting system; and household travel survey data. Traffic counts are a fundamental set of data used in every transportation related operation. The ITCTC has a travel demand model, which depends on traffic count data for calibration purposes and to verify its outputs. In 2007 the ITCTC began to implement a coordinated traffic count program resulting in an annual report on traffic counts. The ITCTC coordinates with NYSDOT, Tompkins County Highway Division, City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and other local jurisdictions that perform traffic counts. The program will be most effective after five years, when traffic counts are repeated at specific locations along local highways and location specific comparisons can be made. Coupled with NYSDOTs triennial counts on state roads this will provide a comprehensive traffic count record for Tompkins County. A reliable and comprehensive traffic accident reporting system is a key component of a planning process to identify and address traffic safety needs. The state unveiled the Accident Location Information System (ALIS) in 2008 after many years of effort. Through ALIS the ITCTC has access to vehicular accident information that was previously collected and stored by at least 5 different agencies with different reporting formats and protocols. The ITCTC will
work closely with local partners to analyze and utilize data from ALIS in ongoing transportation safety planning efforts. The ITCTC will continue to work with the US Census and NYSDOT to obtain updated household travel survey data. After the 2010 Census and depending on the data generated by that effort, the ITCTC will consider conducting a travel behavior survey to better determine travel patterns and modes used in Tompkins County. This data would also be used to redefine the modeling parameters of the ITCTCs travel demand model and to make it multi-modal. In 2009 ITCTC staff trained on using NYSDOTs Roadway and Rail Energy and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Extension (RREGGAE) with the US Environmental Protection Agencys Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) software for predicting greenhouse gas emissions in future scenarios. These software were used in the analysis presented in Chapter 5. The ITCTC will continue to utilize this software and its associated Region 3 data for future analyses. 5. Intermodal/Freight Present legislation requires federal, state, and metropolitan areas to focus on intermodal planning, which involves the efficient and effective operation of the transportation system. In order to obtain the most efficient use of the system, users must be able to select the most appropriate mode for each segment of a trip. The first step is to ensure that transfers between modes are possible and that users are given the option to choose between different modes. Invariably the transfer of people and goods within a transportation system will represent costs and time delays. The emphasis of intermodal planning is to provide users with the opportunity to choose between modes and provide them with the ability to transfer between them in a manner that minimizes costs and time delays. The major intermodal (transfer) facilities in Tompkins County include: Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport, intercity bus facility, park-and-ride facilities, and a small railroad yard (see FIGURES 21 and 32). In addition, travelers in Tompkins County routinely transfer modes at bus stops and stations from pedestrian and bicycle to transit. As described in the Transit section earlier in this chapter, the TCAT bus stops at Seneca St. and Green St. in downtown Ithaca and the A-Lot at Cornell are the busiest in the transit system. Other stops at Cornell and the Shops at Ithaca mall also serve a substantial numbers of customers and function as important intermodal facilities. This plan section is divided into two parts, freight movements and passenger movements. Freight Movements Freight movement in the Greater Ithaca-Tompkins County area must be addressed in a different manner than in larger metropolitan areas. This area does not serve as a major hub
Page 4.32
for the transport of goods, but rather serves mostly as a destination to which goods are brought. The area relies heavily on trucking and rail for the movement of freight. Rail is used to transport coal, a portion of which is transferred to trucks for local delivery at the Ithaca rail yard, while the remaining coal continues by rail to the AES Cayuga power plant. The railroad is also used to ship salt from the Cargill, Inc. salt mine in Lansing, and ash from the power plant. A minimal amount of freight is flown into Tompkins County Airport and there are no plans to increase freight movement in this mode. For other freight the area relies exclusively on trucking. (FIGURE 32 shows the major freight generators and freight corridors in Tompkins County). The ITCTC coordinated implementation of a consultant based Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study (FTS). The FTS was completed on April 2002. The study provided the first comprehensive look at truck movements countywide, including: truck traffic counts a truck origin/destination survey surveys of area residents, highway superintendents and major shippers/receivers The FTS included a series of public meetings, developed and analyzed alternative strategies to address concerns and finally, presented a series of recommendations and mitigation strategies. A network of recommended truck routes, consisting mostly of NY state routes, was identified to provide for the safe movement of freight while best addressing the negative impacts of truck movements. Other recommendations address changes to ordinances, developing a truck route signing system, enhanced law enforcement, and creating a public education programs for truckers/shippers/carriers. The FTS identified the long-standing generators of hazardous waste in Tompkins County. New York State does not require registration of vehicles that transport hazardous materials, nor does it have a set routing system for hazardous material hauling. State highways are built to handle all truck traffic. Hazardous materials haulers are likely to follow the same travel patterns as the rest of the trucks. It is recognized that commercial delivery vehicles transport hazardous material and can offer small risks; however, larger quantities of materials should be specifically routed through the area to ensure a fast and efficient response by local agencies in the event of an emergency. Municipalities may regulate the routing of hazardous materials through ordinances. Such an effort would need to be coordinated to ensure the continuity of routes. Local agencies should consider developing a hazardous materials routing plan for the greater Ithaca-Tompkins County metropolitan area.
Tompkins County has access to water routes for shipping via the Cayuga Lake and Erie Canal system. Local companies, due to high costs, environmental regulations, and their frequent shipments to/from land-locked southward destinations, do not currently utilize water transportation for freight in the Tompkins County area. Nevertheless, it is possible that faced with increased costs in fossil fuels, water transport may regain an economic advantage over the 20year planning horizon of the LRTP. Norfolk Southern Railroad has one train a day running in Tompkins County, Sunday through Thursday. In addition, one to three days a week rail is used to deliver coal to the AES Cayuga power plant and shipping salt out of the mines of Cargill, Inc. in Lansing. Unfortunately, the rail line crosses one of the most congested areas of the City of Ithaca. A problem exists when trains run through the City during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods, creating significant backups on the main area roadways. The ITCTC supports increased coordination between the railroad, the City of Ithaca and emergency response providers to minimize the impact of rail movement through the City. Passenger Movements The LRTP supports enhanced connectivity between the passenger modes of transportation available in Tompkins County: automobiles, intercity bus, public transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and air travel. Currently TCAT provides regular public transit service to the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport terminal. In addition, there is readily available taxi service, airport limousine and car rental services. As discussed under the CONNECTIVITY section, the Ithaca Inter-City bus terminal is served by the public transit system, taxis and paratransit. The facility is located within walking and bicycling distance of many residents in the Flats of Ithaca. Regular and frequent TCAT service to the inter-city bus terminal should be continued to facilitate transportation to the final destination of intercity travelers. TCAT bus stops serve as important intermodal facilities. The ITCTC will continue to work with TCAT to improve bus stops in ways that facilitate intermodal use. These projects can take many forms i.e. connecting bus stops to sidewalks, providing bicycle parking, providing shelter, providing traveler information (next bus arrival time) depending on the needs of individual stops. TCATs offers their popular Bike-on-Buses program, which provides two bike racks in every TCAT vehicle. Among others, this program is popular for cyclists looking to overcome the obstacles of hilly terrain in Tompkins County.
Page 4.33
FIGURE 32
In 1996, TCAT began its Bikes on Buses (BoB) program. All TCAT buses were equipped with bicycle racks, providing a popular and important service to riders in Tompkins County. Buses carry approximately 18,000 bikes each year. The bike on buses program is arguably the most successful intermodal program in Tompkins County. The ITCTC will continue to work with TCAT to improve the transit systems ability to address needs of bicyclists and pedestrians by providing safe, attractive and accessible bus stops, passenger shelters, and park-and-ride lots with widespread distribution of bike racks. All public transit trips begin and end with a pedestrian component. Bus stops need to be evaluated to ensure the necessary pedestrian infrastructure is provided to allow for efficient movement to and from the transit stop; and to make sure they meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, transit operators should ensure that all stops are within appropriate distances of origins and destinations. Transfers between the public transit system and the automobile are often made at park-and-ride lots. Currently, Tompkins County is strong importer of labor. Approximately 15,000 people travel into the County on a daily basis for employment, many of them in single occupancy private vehicles. These conditions indicate a strong potential for successful implementation of a parkand-ride system. Actions to improve transit use by commuters include: (a) improving amenities at existing park-and-ride facilities; (b) promoting the increased use of such facilities (through such methods as encouraging local employers to participate in transportation demand management programs); (c) providing incentives to customers for using public transit; and (d) by increasing the frequency of public transit routes. Additional park-and-ride facilities should be developed based on existing and future commuting patterns. Preliminary studies indicate that northern and eastern approaches to the Ithaca urban area would be the best candidates for new park-and-ride facilities. Specifically, facilities may be successful serving the SR-13 corridor from Dryden to Cortland; the Village of Lansing in the vicinity of the Shops at Ithaca mall; the SR-96 corridor in the vicinity of the Cayuga Medical Center; and the SR-79 approach from the Town of Caroline. The ITCTC will continue to work with local sponsors; TCAT and NYSDOT implement a more robust regional park-and-ride system in Tompkins County.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Introduction The transportation system must balance the protection of our natural, social, cultural, and historical resources with the need to address transportation demands. It is undeniable that the provision of transportation, particularly a system based on internal combustion engine cars and trucks, will generate significant undesirable environmental impacts. Environmental concerns range from the more direct vehicle related issues (e.g., air quality, noise impact, energy use, etc.) to more community-level concerns (e.g., neighborhood preservation, jobs/housing balance, appropriate mixed-use development, etc.). There are several transportation related areas that impact the environment, these will be addressed in the following sections: Air Quality, Land Use Planning, Energy Efficiency, and Minimizing Impacts and Disruptions to the Natural, Scenic, or Cultural Environment. Any discussion of environmental issues related to transportation will necessarily result in considerable overlap between multiple planning disciplines, i.e. land use, economic development, neighborhood planning, natural areas planning, etc. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan presents alternative future land development scenarios, which were used as the basis for an analysis of future air quality impacts, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. The ITCTC travel demand model, TransCAD, was used to model future year road networks based on the proposed land use scenarios. The results of this analysis are found in Chapter 5: Future Scenario Analysis. In addition, the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2008 to include an Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Element. ITCTC staff worked with the Tompkins County Planning Department to ensure that their new plan element and the ITCTCs Long Range Transportation Plan were mutually supportive. 1. Air Quality Currently, Tompkins County is in attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. However, it is understood that failure to consider emission issues in an integrated and comprehensive manner could lead to continued and unacceptable degradations in air quality. Nationwide the transportation sector accounts for approximately 28% of carbon emissions, the second largest sector after electricity generation. Trucks and cars account for 79% of the transportation related emissions. TABLE 24 shows the U.S. transportation emissions by mode.
Page 4.35
Locally, the Cities for Climate Protection Local Action Plan, Tompkins County, NY calculated the greenhouse gas emissions for Tompkins County in units of equivalent carbon dioxide - eCO2 for the base year 2008. The results of that inventory indicated that in 2008 Tompkins County produced a total of 1,319,955 tons of eCO2. The inventory showed that emissions from transportation (more specifically the combustion of gasoline and diesel) produced the majority of community emissions at 34%. FIGURE 33 and TABLE 25 show the distribution of greenhouse gas emission sources for Tompkins County. TABLES 26 and 27 give data pertaining to transportation mileage and emissions. The policies, projects and initiatives in the LRTP support the development of a transportation system that reduces its dependence on automobiles by promoting and enhancing the use of alternative modes of transportation. This is proposed through the provisions of improved service and facilities, and by encouraging land use development practices that support alternative modes of transportation. Concurrent with the above, the LRTP recommends improvements in transportation system operations that result in enhanced system efficiency, reducing congestion and idle time, also resulting in reduced emissions.
FIGURE 33
TABLE 24 U.S. Transportation Carbon Emissions (% by mode) Light Vehicles (cars, vans, 60% SUVs) Heavy Vehicles (trucks) 19% Air 9% Rail 2% Waterborne 3% Pipeline 3% Other 4% 100%
TABLE 25 Overall Emissions by Sector Year 2008 Tons of eCO2 Residential 275,275 Commercial 277,065 Industrial 90,304 Transportation 449,158 Waste 25,516 Other 202,637 1,319,955
Source: Cities for Climate Protection Local Action Plan, Tompkins County, NY
The ITCTC recommends that the impacts of proposed transportation initiatives should be assessed to determine their effects on air quality. Wherever feasible overall improvement in air quality should be attained through transportation initiatives. The ITCTC will continue to work with local, state and federal partners to develop and establish proactive and constructive evaluation criteria and planning strategies which will have a significant influence on protecting and preserving future air quality.
Page 4.36
TABLE 26 Tompkins County Mileage by Mode % total miles Gasoline (miles) Diesel (miles) Passenger Cars 60.2% 0.3% Heavy Truck 0.0% 5.2% Light Truck/SUV 32.4% 1.3% Motorcycle 0.4% 0.0% Transit Bus 0.0% 0.2%
Local municipalities are encouraged to review zoning and other land use regulations in order to allow and support development patterns that allow for mixed uses. Zones that offer a mix of complementary land uses (e.g., commercial, residential, recreational) together with supporting design guidelines, would enable persons to combine trips, encourage more pedestrian and bicycle trips, facilitate the provision of transit, reduce the number and length of automobile trips, and result in reductions in congestion, and consequently, energy consumption and vehicular emissions. Municipalities in New York State are not required to adopt comprehensive plans, nor must these plans contain a transportation section. Until recently in Tompkins County, with a few exceptions, contemporary comprehensive land use plans did not exist or were outdated. Fortunately, this is changing. Currently there is a Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan and most jurisdictions have existing comprehensive plans or ongoing initiatives to develop or update plans. This is a favorable trend that will have a significant impact on the ability of the ITCTC to conduct more effective transportation planning by improving coordination with planned future land uses. The ITCTC will support local efforts to develop comprehensive plans including making available use of the travel demand model for analysis. Local governments are also encouraged to consider the balance of jobs and housing in their planning decisions. The "jobs-housing balance" is the ratio of suitable employment opportunities available to the working age population of a region or sub-region. A balanced jobs/housing ratio in an area can result in shorter trip lengths and encourage the shift from the single occupant automobile to other modes, thus allowing for reductions in automobile trips. This balance is best accomplished through the coordination of economic development and housing development via the local planning and development review function. The issue of housing in Tompkins County has received much attention locally in the years approaching the 2030 LRTP update. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan covers this topic in great detail and provides guidance for local municipalities. The ITCTC will continue support land use, housing and economic development activities that lead to more efficient use of our existing transportation resources as stated in the LRTP goals and objectives. Neighborhood preservation has repeatedly been one of the premier issues when addressing transportation planning. In both the NESTS and Freight Transportation Studies protection of residential areas became a principal issue of concern. In Tompkins County many neighborhoods are crossed by roads that have grown in their traffic volumes as land was developed further out from the Ithaca urban core. Commuter and other trips use these roads to move across the area, impacting the neighborhoods.
TABLE 27 Tompkins County Emissions by Mode Emissions by Source Tons eCO2 Diesel 69,644 Gasoline 371,848 Motorcycle Gasoline 585 Transit Bus Diesel 7,080
Greenhouse gas emissions in future scenarios for Tompkins County will be discussed in Chapter 5. 2. Land Use Planning In New York, land use and transportation planning have occurred in relative isolation from each other. In the July 1994 edition of the Land Use Law Reporter (Pace University School of Law, Albany, New York) it was stated that, "...failure to coordinate land use and transportation planning has: made it very difficult if not impossible, to predict transportation demand and plan effective regional transportation systems; created land use patterns that are automobile dependent, energy inefficient, environmentally damaging and that cannot be serviced properly by public transportation systems; generated traffic congestion that increases air pollution...". These statements are still valid in 2009 as communities across the New York continue to struggle with containing sprawl development, and managing congestion, energy and air pollution issues. Land use patterns are fundamental determinants of the number of trips that people make. Zoning ordinances have traditionally served to separate land uses. Automobiles allowed this separation to be intensified and expanded. As a result much of the development in the last sixty years has been auto oriented, often at the expense of other modes of transportation.
Page 4.37
There seems to be general agreement that traffic and traffic speed should be reduced in residential neighborhoods. This may be accomplished by implementing appropriate trafficcalming techniques and/or increasing law enforcement efforts. On rare occasions there is an opportunity to re-route traffic around neighborhoods by favoring access to alternative routes that make "cut-through" trips less attractive. In all cases traffic must be managed based on the particular conditions of each neighborhood and considering the need and desires of the residents. There is no single strategy or recommendation that will serve all locations. There are many design elements that can be incorporated into site plans and the existing infrastructure to ensure "human-scale" developments and spatial relations. Sample ordinances and development regulations can be found by investigating applicable design standards and models from other areas that address both new large-scale and smaller infill development projects. Residential areas should have bicycle and pedestrian friendly street networks that are visually pleasing and safe. Building mass, setbacks, signage, street lighting, landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle access, transit access, etc. can be included in guidelines to ensure consideration of these issues during project planning and review. Also important is the subject of equity. Proposed transportation projects must be evaluated to ensure both positive and negative environmental (including social, cultural, and economic) impacts are distributed equitably across neighborhoods and communities so as not to unfairly burden or advantage any socioeconomic group or community. Transportation related technical project evaluations are important, but it is also crucial to analyze the transportation system to ensure that the principles of social and environmental justice and ecological sustainability are achieved. 3. Energy
-Approximately 28% of all energy consumption in the United States is attributable to the transportation sector. Over 86% of all energy consumption in transportation is in the form of petroleum fuels. Cars and light duty vehicles (60%) and heavy-duty trucks (16%) together consume 76% of all transportation related energy, which is almost totally dependent (97%) on petroleum fuels.[Source: US Department of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book ( 2007)].
automobile trips, reducing distances traveled, increasing the use of alternative fuels, and increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles. The LRTP includes goals, objectives and project recommendations that seek to promote reductions in transportation energy use through planning, operational enhancements and growth management strategies. The fuel efficiency of vehicles and the utilization of alternative fuels are important energy concerns that are primarily acted on at the State or national level. Nevertheless, this plan encourages the study of the utilization of alternative fuel sources, understanding that the desirability of an alternative fuel source should be evaluated on an embodied energy basis and its ability to meet the following goals: reduce dependency on oil for sustainability and national security/economic reasons, reduce air pollution, and reduce global warming impacts. The use of alternative fuels should be considered for the vehicle fleets of major employers, where economies of scale may make a shift in fuel type economically feasible. There are different ways of addressing fuel efficiency locally. Through individual actions of choice, Tompkins County residents can shift more fuel-efficient cars, such as the hybrid models that are becoming more widespread in the market. Also through individual choice, people can greatly improve the efficiency of their vehicles by keeping them well tuned, tires properly inflated, and by applying ecodriving practices such as reducing idling time, determining the lowest mileage route for trips, using cruise control were appropriate, etc. (More on Eco-driving practices can be found at http://www.ecodrivingusa.com/#/ecodrivingpractices/. The policies and recommendations in this plan will be most influential on the number of trips and trip length factors. The initiatives, policies and programs mentioned in other sections of the Systems Integration section, including transportation system management and transportation demand management strategies, changes in land use regulations, and promoting transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation are aimed at improving the operational efficiency of the transportation system and reducing the number of automobile based trips. These outcomes will result in reductions in energy consumption in the transportation sector, with corresponding reductions in emissions. There is a distinct possibility that, over the next 20 years, fossil fuel prices will rise as a result of continuing/increasing demand and declining marketable supplies. Gasoline prices will have a marked effect on consumer decisions on everything from what car to buy to where to live, and are likely to be a major determinant on future transportation policy and funding decisions at the national level. The oil price peaks of 2008 demonstrated the volatility of the fossil fuel market and how powerful a tool energy pricing can be
The quote above shows the important role the transportation sector plays in the nations balance of petroleum fuel use. The international political relations and economic policies dependent on oil supply and demand cycles are intricately associated with transportation. To reduce oil dependency in the U.S. you have to address transportation in the U.S. There are many ways to improve energy consumption in transportation which include: reducing the number of
Page 4.38
to achieve reductions in energy consumption. Under these circumstances there is increased opportunity for new technologies, programs and concepts to come online. Electric cars, fuel cell vehicles, personal rapid transit, transit priority systems and other intelligent transportation system ideas are all ripe for implementation. Other concepts are sure to arise. The ITCTC will remain alert to technological advances and, through the metropolitan planning process, offer a venue to consider their potential local benefits and opportunities for implementation.
reseeding of ditch sides after cleaning is an effective way of mitigating these negative impacts. In addition, it is recommended that Tompkins County's Unique Natural Areas be protected to preserve their important ecological functions. These areas have been identified as having outstanding environmental qualities and deserve special attention (http://www.tompkinsco.org/planning/nri/nri.htm). Scenic resources contribute significantly to the quality of life of Tompkins County residents. A variety of planning and regulatory tools exist to enable local governments to protect locally significant scenic areas. For example, they could adopt view shed zoning that considers obstructions and hence attempts to maintain public access to the view; promote acquisition of land for pull-offs, overlooks and other uses that preserve the scenic nature of the area and provide access to views; and local agencies can consider urban forestry projects, volunteer maintenance, and other community-based activities to keep the roadway/transportation environment beautified. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, an important tool available to local governments is the Tompkins County Scenic Resource Inventory prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department in January 2007. This document can be a useful starting point for any effort to help protect scenic resources in Tompkins County (www.tompkinsco.org/planning/nri/documents/TCSRreportJan17.pdf). Another resource is the Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway (CLSB), which includes State Routes 34b, 34, 34/13, 96/89 and 89 in Tompkins County (www.cayugalake.com). This system of roads circles the southern end of Cayuga Lake and comprises part of the tri-county scenic byway around Cayuga Lake. The Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway, Inc. nonprofit organization is coordinating development of the CLSB in cooperation with Cayuga, Seneca and Tompkins County. The ITCTC has participated in the process leading to the byway designation and will continue to be an active participant in the development of this important regional transportation resource. The ITCTC encourages residents and municipalities along the byway to take action in protecting the scenic resources that make the CLSB a unique and special route and a destination for visitors to the area. 5. Locating Environmental Impacts and Areas of Mitigation In implementing transportation improvements, project sponsors need to be aware of possible negative impacts on natural and historic resources in the County. Mitigation of these impacts is facilitated by clear delineation of areas of high environmental importance. FIGURES 34 through 38 show the locations of Natural Features Focus Areas; Unique Natural Areas, Federal and State Wetlands; and Historic Bridges and Structures in the ITCTC region.
4. Minimizing Negative Impacts on the Natural and Scenic Environments Although transportation projects can leave undesirable effects on the natural environment, measures can be taken to reduce and minimize these effects. While the intent of national and state legislation is to ensure this process occurs, there are other non-regulatory measures that can be considered. Agro-ecosystems and other ecosystems such as wetlands, streams, uplands, and forests should be maintained to ensure they perform their desired services and retain their natural integrity and inherent value. Areas of high biological diversity should also be maintained. Areas with an abundance of species provide a variety of important aesthetic and genetic functions. Wise management does not always preclude activity in these areas. Routine maintenance activities such as mowing can be managed to promote species diversity. Therefore, complete protection of an area is not always the best or only management alternative. Local municipalities are encouraged to protect native flora and fauna, giving particular attention to unique natural areas, and threatened or endangered species when reviewing transportation system maintenance practices. Adequate planning and implementation of mitigation strategies should help minimize negative impacts when designing and maintaining transportation facilities. Potential recommended actions that reduce environmental impacts include: diverting storm-water runoff to retention basins to reduce salt, silt, and thermal contamination; collecting paint chips from bridge maintenance projects to protect streams from lead contamination; minimize the use of salt in winter; ensure sedimentation and herbicidal pollution are minimized during maintenance practices; minimize the use of defoliants and herbicides by planning for maintenance free plantings through State or National wildflower programs; and maintaining the health and effectiveness of roadside trees, shrubs and groundcover. The goal should be for highway departments to eliminate the use of herbicides. Minimizing the application of herbicides is appropriate and should be considered by the affected MPO participants. Cleaning roadside drainage systems has been identified as a major source of sedimentation in creeks feeding Cayuga Lake. Immediate
Page 4.39
Projects planned in the LRTP and included in a Transportation Improvement Program primarily consist of maintenance and improvements to existing facilities. Projects with severe environmental impact, such as construction of new roadways, are rare within the ITCTC planning area. Nevertheless, Tompkins County features a high concentration of natural and historic resources that may be subject to the adverse impacts of transportation projects. These resources include gorges, forests, and wetlands, as well as significant architectural sites. The resource location information will enable the ITCTC and project sponsors to more readily anticipate concerns in areas of environmental impact. In developing each Transportation Improvement Program, projects will be overlaid on the base-maps included in this Plan and areas of potential mitigation will be identified. Environmental mitigation efforts can then be pursued as appropriate and necessary. Potential mitigation activities are discussed in the above subsection. The ITCTC will play an advisory role in analyzing the potential for environmental impacts and the location of those impacts during TIP development. Project sponsors will be responsible for meeting all applicable regulations and requirements during project implementation. The ITCTC worked closely with the Tompkins County Planning Department as it developed the Countys Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Departments Natural Features Focus Areas maps (FIGURES 34 and 35) provide general categorization of natural resource zones in the County, including watersheds and habitat areas. The Unique Natural Areas, Federal and State Wetlands in Tompkins County, NY map (FIGURE 36) shows the Countys wetland resources, plus the nearly 200 Unique Natural Areas sites identified by the Tompkins County Planning Department which are determined to contain significant ecological, biological, geological, or aesthetic characteristics. These areas are administered by various agencies at the local, state, and federal level. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies for the protection and management of forest, agricultural, natural and recreational resources countywide. The Tompkins County Conservation Plan developed in 2007 identifies the issues and strategies needed to address the priorities established in the Comprehensive Plan. More information on the Conservation Plan, the Natural Resources Inventory and the Unique Natural Areas can be found at www.tompkins-co.org/planning/nri/nri.htm. Landmarks of historical interest are abundant in the ITCTC region. The Historic Bridges and Structures maps (FIGURES 37 and 38) show the location of these features as determined by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) and the Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau. The historic features are particularly clustered in the downtown Ithaca area and on the Cornell University campus.
Page 4.40
FIGURE 34
Page 4.41
FIGURE 35
Page 4.42
FIGURE 36
Page 4.43
FIGURE 37
Page 4.44
FIGURE 38
Page 4.45
SAFETY ELEMENT
Traffic Safety Issues Traffic safety is the paramount concern of all ITCTC actions. The areas of traffic distribution, facility design, education, and enforcement emerge as the primary issues. A recurring theme in public comments was the need to reduce the impact of traffic through residential areas. Pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle safety, noise, vibrations and emissions all contribute to make this more than a continuing annoyance, but a legitimate health and safety concern. The use of a variety of traffic calming techniques to tame the traffic moving through residential and other built-up areas has received much attention nationwide and locally. The transportation planning profession including NYSDOT, and organizations such as the Transportation Research Board, the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials have all developed guidelines and positions that allow for the implementation of traffic calming techniques. The ITCTC will continue to support the appropriate application of traffic calming to encourage the development of a transportation system that minimizes the negative impacts of motor vehicles without affecting overall mobility. Education is a major component of any effort to address traffic safety. A tremendous amount of data has become available thanks to advances in electronic communications, which could support educational initiatives. The idea of promoting multi-modal transportation, offering skills training, and raising public consciousness levels regarding the presence of different modes, principally pedestrians and bicyclists, are all-important. The Ithaca-Tompkins area must continue and enhance existing efforts to reach more of the population. Small programs, such as safety programs in our schools need to be renewed and pursued with vigor. Another area of constant concern regarding traffic safety is traffic law enforcement. Speeding traffic is an issue of overwhelming concern. While providing additional traffic control officers sounds like an easy solution, it is generally recognized that the costs of doing so are prohibitive. Technological solutions, such as remote radar "smart signs" and traffic light enforcement systems, might play a role in addressing this issue. Prioritized enforcement actions, based on data collected from traffic counters and vehicular crash and other incident information, offer another potential strategy for implementation. The LRTP Projects for Implementation include a projects for the study of remote enforcement options and development of a priority enforcement plan. Traffic calming techniques, mentioned
earlier in this chapter, also offer a variety of options to help deal with speeding traffic through roadway design. Early in 2009 data from the statewide Accident Information Location System (ALIS) became available to New York MPOs. The ITCTC has distributed this information and will work with local partners and law enforcement agencies to in planning and program development efforts that will lead to increased safety on our roadways. SAFETEA-LU established and funded a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. This program has been successful in bringing to the forefront issues addressing the relationship of childhood obesity, safety and transportation. A grant cycle in 2008 resulted in three applications from Tompkins County, one of which received funding. The ITCTC will continue to use the data, educational information and funding opportunities offered by SRTS to promote the safety of pedestrian and bicycle routes to schools in Tompkins County. State and Regional Safety Planning Federal legislation requires the Metropolitan Transportation Plan to include a safety element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals and countermeasures or projects for the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) as contained in the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan. In addition this chapter provides an overview of Federal, State and Local Governments participation in the development of Tompkins Countys emergency response preparedness. The chapter outlines the general responsibilities of the operational departments and provides a chronology of some key legislation effecting the Tompkins County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and related documents. These topics are discussed below in Part I- New York State Strategic Highway Safety Plan and Part IITompkins County Emergency Preparedness. Part I - New York State Strategic Highway Safety Plan The Vision Statement of the New York State Strategic Highway Safety Plan of 2007 contains key elements that provide guidance to ensure that those who live, work and travel in New York State enjoy a transportation system where: 1. safety is appropriately considered in education, enforcement and engineering; 2. the movement of people and goods is efficient; 3. there is a balance of transportation modal options; 4. the transportation system is environmentally sound; 5. there is a reduction in fatal and injury crashes. The Vision Statement of the Tompkins County LRTP (Chapter 3) organizes its Goals and Objectives under the concept of a Transportation System that is Sustainable
Page 4.46
and Accessible. Below are LRTP goals and objectives taken from Chapter 3, which demonstrate how the LRTPs vision of a Sustainable Transportation System relates to the Vision Statement of the New York State Strategic Highway Safety Plan of 2007. A complete record of the goals and objectives can be found in the LRTP Chapter 3 Vision Statements, Goals and Objectives. The Tompkins County LRTP Vision Statement divides its Goals and Objectives under the following broad categories: Integration Proximity Connectivity Mobility Quality Of Life Environment LRTP Vision Statement Goals and Objectives Overarching goals that pervade all the goals and objectives: 1. Improve the safety of the transportation system. 2. Enhance coordination between transportation providers to the benefit and convenience of users. 3. Minimize negative environmental impacts of transportation. 4. Reduce fossil fuel energy dependency. Integration: Goal: To develop an integrated transportation system for Tompkins County that is seamless, multimodal and coordinated to achieve greater operational efficiencies and increase the safety and convenience of users. Objective C: Continue development of an integrated multimodal transportation system, including public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and networks, infrastructure and operations planning, construction and maintenance practices. Objective E: Encourage the use of Intelligent Transportation System and other technologies to improve transportation system coordination, convenience and reliability for all users. Objective H: Promote the use of Travel Demand Management techniques in order to achieve objectives such as reduced traffic congestion, road and parking cost savings, increased safety, improved mobility for nondrivers, energy conservation and pollution emission reductions. Objective K: Promote benefits of walking and bicycling, including participation in promotional activities to encourage the increased use of walking and bicycling as modes of transportation. Proximity: Goal: To achieve land development patterns that enable the efficient provision of multimodal transportation services.
Objective C: Link transportation investment with local and regional land use planning. Objective E: Consider land use and site design as it relates to efforts to reduce relative number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel. Objective I: Promote trip minimization and increased vehicle occupancy rates. Connectivity: Goal: To maintain and improve transportation networks to enhance safety, multimodal and intermodal connectivity and facilitate the movement of people and goods. Objective A: Consider safety as the base component of all infrastructure design decisions with an end objective of reducing fatal and injury crashes. Objective B: Improve the existing and proposed road network to safely accommodate bicycling, pedestrian and transit uses. Objective J: Encourage the development and maintenance of advanced communication networks that can facilitate the use of communication technology as a substitute to travel. Mobility: Goal: To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance mobility. Objective L: Encourage the provision of safe and comfortable environments for public transit employees and passengers on vehicles and at shelters, stops and stations. Objective M: Support the provision of real-time system information to customers via the internet, wireless services and at bus stops, shelters, stations and other appropriate facilities. Quality Of Life: Goal: Develop a transportation system that sustains and enhances the quality of life for Tompkins County residents and visitors. Objective C: The transportation system and proposed transportation projects should ensure both positive and negative environmental impacts are equitably distributed to all areas and population groups in the community. Objective E: Support efforts to address the special needs of the growing elderly population in Tompkins County. Objective K: Promote infrastructure designs that are sensitive to local environmental issues and preserve or enhance scenic beauty. Objective L: Support community-based discussions involving the relationship between transportation and affordable housing, community planning, and economic development and revitalization.
Page 4.47
Environment: Goal: To work progressively towards a transportation system that will have zero-net negative impact on the environment. Objective B: Promote alternative fuels and clean air strategies, which can be implemented in public fleets and private vehicles. Objective C: Support the development of a transportation system that is responsive to changes in energy availability. Part II-Tompkins County Emergency Preparedness
Organization Description
The Emergency Management Strategic Group chaired by Deputy County Administrator and is an internal team of County department staff, focusing on readiness issues within county government and related to maintaining services in the event of an emergency. Responsibilities involve assessment of the county government infrastructure, internal countywide emergency planning and developing a workforce emergency management plan. Background Federal and State agencies and their rules provide support and mandates for Tompkins County emergency management efforts. The Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) mission is to support citizens and first responders to ensure that the nation works together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. The New York State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) Mitigation Section led the development of the State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The New York State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan represents the State's approach to mitigating the adverse impacts of natural disasters within its borders and to fulfill its Federal obligations to mitigate the risks resulting from natural hazards. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, enacted by Section 104 of the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) provided new emphasis on mitigation planning. Operationally, Hazard Mitigation is defined as the process whereby hazards are identified, risks and vulnerabilities are quantified, risk elimination or reduction measures are identified, awareness is created, and cooperative efforts are undertaken to prevent, reduce or eliminate losses. The DMA2K emphasizes the need for State and Local governments to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts as well as continuing the requirement for a State Mitigation Plan as a condition of disaster assistance. This plan is also intended to serve local jurisdictions as a guide in completing and updating natural hazard mitigation plans that will meet the requirements set forth in DMA2K. To be eligible for future disaster mitigation funding, FEMA requires that all local governments have an approved Federal hazard mitigation plan. In cooperation with the Towns of Caroline, Danby, Enfield, Groton, Ithaca, Lansing and Ulysses, Tompkins County completed the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation Plan (www.tompkins-co.org/planning/haz_mit.htm),which was approved by FEMA in 2006. The Towns of Newfield and Dryden are developing hazard mitigation plans independently. The City of Ithaca has completed its own plan independently. The County and each of the Towns actively coordinate between themselves and local partners
Page 4.48
The Countys emergency management program is a threepronged effort implemented by the Countys Department of Emergency Response, the Countys inter-agency Emergency Management Planning Committee and its internal Emergency Management Strategic Group. The ITCTC fully supports the work of these groups and their efforts to address the emergency response needs of Tompkins County. The emergency management program is further described below. a. Department of Emergency Response The Department holds responsibility for managing the countys emergency dispatch and communications system, implementation of the countys 911 communications system, oversight of county mutual aid and disaster plans, and training and development of emergency medical and fire personnel. In addition, the Department provides Emergency Preparedness information to the public including development and maintenance of the Tompkins Ready website www.tompkinsready.org . b. The Tompkins County Emergency Planning Committee (TCEPC) The TCEPC was established by resolution of the Tompkins County Legislature in 2000. Its mission is to facilitate the planning process for emergency management of disaster responses and to assist with operations during times of local emergencies. The committee is composed of representatives of county government, city government and other local response agencies. Its responsibilities include identifying appropriate local measures and resources to prevent disasters, developing mechanism to coordinate local resources, and delivering services to aid citizens during and after disasters. Among the Committees responsibilities, are to annually update the Tompkins Countys Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. A diverse team of individuals and local agencies participate in support of TCEPC and the Countys emergency management programs. c. The Emergency Management Strategic Group
to implement the action items identified in each hazard mitigation plan.
FINANCIAL
Introduction The weakest part of any planning process is in the area of financial resource estimating and forecasting, particularly when working within a long planning horizon. One of the major problems is forecasting revenues that are dependent on the political process. The Federal transportation program is vulnerable to political and procedural vagaries, where a legislative body sets one level of funding ("authorized") but may appropriate a lesser amount or change funding levels with other legislation. Given the unpredictability of the funding process, inflation and other economic factors, it is difficult to make accurate annual projections, and impractical when projections are forecasted for twenty years. In addition, the multi-agency/governmental arena of an MPO makes it difficult to determine exact equivalencies of diverse funding streams. This financial analysis is largely based on a continuation of the priority guidance to "preserve existing facilities". The analysis is based on past revenue and expenditure levels and does not attempt to incorporate fundamental changes that may result from the implementation of this plan. For instance, implementing some measures may lead to increased governmental expenditures (e.g., computer models, computerized traffic signals, real-time transit information, new and improved bicycle facilities, etc.), but may also result in reduced societal costs (e.g., reduction in the costs of congestion, improved air quality, improved personal health and sense of community, etc.). Others may lead to decreased government expenditure (e.g., prioritized snow removal, local roadways built to more modest design standards, less rigorous maintenance practices, etc.), but may lead to other undetermined costs. This type of comprehensive, cumulative analysis is beyond the scope of this plan. 1. Resource Estimation Information on fiscal resources was gathered from three sources: the New York State Department of Transportation, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit and the New York State Comptrollers Office. Demographic data was derived from the US Census, New York Statistical Information System and Cornells Institute for Social and Economic Research. In all cases resources were projected into the 20year planning horizon based on historical funding trends that are reflective of variations and inflationary forces.
Local Resource Projections An adjusted Per-Capita Multiplier Method was used to develop local transportation funding resource projections for the 20-year plan horizon. This method links future resources to the population base. This approach was used in lieu of carrying out a linear trend based projection because, as an estimator, applying the per capita cost multiplier method directly on the projected population, offered a smaller standard error. Transportation expenditure data was obtained for the seventeen local governments in Tompkins County (Tompkins County, the City of Ithaca, the Towns of Ithaca, Caroline, Danby, Dryden, Enfield, Groton, Lansing, Newfield and Ulysses, the Villages of Lansing, Cayuga Heights, Dryden, Groton, Trumansburg and Freeville). Figures compiled from the State Comptrollers Office were used to calculate local transportation capital and operations funding resources into the future. Application of the percapita multiplier method required developing an adjustment factor that would account for variability in transportation expenditures observed in the base years (2001-2007). The 2001 to 2007 average ratio between expenditures of local transportation funds per capita and average percent change in per capita transportation expenditures generated the adjustment factor of 41.2608. This was added to the average ratio of transportation expenditures per capita (406.1535) to generate the adjusted per-capita multiplier of 447.4143. Applying the per capita multiplier to the annualized population growth estimates resulted in a 20-year (20102029) local transportation resources estimate of $650,058,456. Local transportation expenditures include "Operation & Maintenance" (O&M) and "Capital Projects". Funds were disaggregated into these categories based on average percentage expenditures on O&M versus Capital Projects calculated from New York State Comptrollers Office Special Report on Municipal Affairs for 2002 through 2007. In addition, private sector contributions were estimated at $13,001,169 over 20 years, or approximately $650,000 per year. Private contributions are transportation funds that originate from a non-governmental source. The estimated number was found by setting the private contributions to 2% of what would be the total expenditure, the same percent that the private contributions were estimated to be in the 2025 LRTP. Private contributions include projects such as mitigation for proposed land use development, private subdivision roadways, expenditures in private bridges, etc. Private contributions were assigned to capital projects for purposes of analysis of expenditure allocation. TABLE 28 shows a summary of the local highway resources estimate as described in the paragraphs above.
Page 4.49
TABLE 28 Summary of Local Highway Resource Estimates 2010-2029 Operations & Capital Private Total Maintenance Projects Contributions $477,922,977 $172,135,479 $13,001,169 $663,059,625
NY State Resource Projections The New York State Department of Transportation (Region 3, Syracuse) provided estimates of State and Federal highway program aid for the six-year period 2010-2015. These figures were used to develop a 20-year estimate of available resources from the State. TABLE 29 includes the federal, state and local resources available to Tompkins County over the 20-year period. NYSDOT estimates were based on planned funding targets through 2015 and conservative estimates of anticipated program growth through 2030. The estimate of available State funds, $174,035,000, includes some operations, such as materials, tree removal, bridge painting and cleaning, drainage, contract maintenance for NYSDOT bridge and pavement facilities, etc. What is not included in the State fund resource estimate is the cost of State forces that undertake these operations. Federal Aid Resource Projections Federal aid for highway programs was estimated at $200,000,000. This is reflective of the approximately $10,000,000 per year that are programmed in the ITCTC TIP. It is important to note that while NYSDOT did not include a set-aside for the Transportation Enhancement Program in their estimates, it was considered as part of the total federal aid by the ITCTC at the rate of $300,000 per year. This has the effect of reducing the amount of federal aid estimated to be available for other types of projects, adding further to the conservative nature of the fiscally constrained plan. The amount under the "State Funds" column is for NYSDOT projects and does not include any funds available to local entities. The third source of information pertains to transit funding. TCAT and Tompkins County, the designated FTA grant recipient, provided the information required to develop the transit estimates in TABLE 29. The local and State "matching" contributions to these funds were calculated based on current program requirements. The FTA Section 5307 (urban area transit service) figures for capital and operating assistance were based on actual Federal Fiscal Year 2009 figures. The State Dedicated Funds (SDF)Capital funds were calculated based on the 2009 formula. The estimates from TCAT reflect the most recent changes in funding formulae and appropriate fund levels. TABLE 30 summarizes the previous two tables and provides the estimate of total resources available.
Page 4.50
TABLE 29 Highway and Transit Resource Estimate 2010-2030 Funding Program Highway Program Transit2: Sect. 5307 Urban Formula (capital) Sect. 5309 Discretionary Capital Sect. 5310 Paratransit (capital) Sect. 5311 Rural Capital Sect. 5316/17 JARC/New Freedom SDF State Dedicated Funds (capital) Subtotal Transit Capital Transit Operations* Transit Sub-Total $445,453 2,650,000 585,000 637,500 5,800,000 0 $10,117,953 $271,261,456 $281,379,409 $944,439,034 3,750,000 $7,482,953 $113,766,512 $121,249,465 $295,284,465 $445,453 2,650,000 0 637,500 $3,563,623 21,200,000 2,340,000 5,100,000 5,800,000 0 $38,003,623 $41,264,855 $79,268,478 $279,268,478 $4,454,529 26,500,000 2,925,000 6,375,000 11,600,000 3,750,000 $55,604,529 $426,292,823 $481,897,352 $1,518,991,977 Local $663,059,6251 State $174,035,0003 Federal $200,000,0003 TOTAL $1,037,094,625
Total Transportation
Sources: 1 The Local Government Data Base, New York State Office of the Comptroller (see Table 22) funding increases over planning period based on historical trends. 2 Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit 3 NYSDOT Note: *Funds for Transit Operations come from the following sources: Local fare revenue and local subsidy, increasing at approximately 6.5% per year after year 2010 State New York State Transit Operating Assistance, based on 2010 budget request and increasing 3% per year after year 2013 Federal Section 5307 funds (includes transfer from 5311 to 5307), based on 2010 adopted budget and increasing 2.5% over planning period
TABLE 30 Summary of Total Estimated Resources 2005-2024 Program Highway Transit Total Local $663,059,625 $281,379,409 $944,439,034 State $174,035,000 $121,249,465 $295,284,465 Federal $200,000,000 $79,268,478 $279,268,478 TOTAL $1,037,094,625 $481,897,352 $1,518,991,977
Page 4.51
In summary, for the 2010-2030 planning horizon, local resources are estimated to provide 58.4% of the transit funds, 63.9% of the highway funds, and 62.2% of the total transportation program funds. State resources are calculated at 25.2% of the transit funds, 16.8% of the Highway funds, and 19.4% of the total program funds. Federal government funds are estimated to contribute 16.4% of the transit funds, 19.2% of the highway funds, and 18.39% of the total transportation program funds. FIGURE 39 provides a graphic representation of the Local/State/Federal funding splits for the Transit, Highway, and Total program resources.
cover other project categories such as safety, transportation enhancement and capacity projects. Another major source of information came from the local government expense data. Since local operating and maintenance costs were included in these data, these were assumed as "baseline" costs and were allocated as expenditures against the resource estimate. Transit allocations were based on expenditures proportions utilized by TCAT. The Capital Facilities include projects with a high probability of implementation. No attempt has been made in this plan to allocate costs by individual project year. The expenditures reflect year of expenditure dollars based on the analysis used above under 1.Resource Estimation. However, TABLE 31 provides a summary of the estimated expenditure allocations. A brief discussion of these allocations follows the table.
2010-2030 Sum m ary of Estim ated Transportation Resources

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Highway Transit Tot al Federal Stat e Local
FIGURE 39
2. Expenditure Estimation The estimation of expenditures is based on several factors. The issue of which federal program resources to allocate for each expenditure area is considered to be minor. Due to the flexibility included in federal transportation legislation, it is expected that funds will be transferred between programs to best meet the expenditure demands of the area. This section does not attempt to differentiate federal from state from local fund sources (although based on the estimation process there should not be any cases of local expenses exceeding local resources). A clear division between "transit" and "highway" projects has been maintained for the sole purpose of making the allocation of estimated resources easier. These estimates are based on "historic trends" which are subject to variables such as annual state and federal appropriations. Federal and state highway funds were distributed one-third to bridges, one-third to pavement projects. This is in accordance with the established practice used to allocate resources during TIP development under NYSDOTs Goal Oriented Programming process. This proportion in the distribution of funds also reflects historical trends. The last third of federal and state highway funds were distributed to
TABLE 31 Estimated Expenditure Allocations 2010-2030 Expense Allocation Bridge Pavement Safety Enhancement Operating & Maintenance Multimodal Capacity Subtotal Transit: Capital Facilities Operating Maintenance/Misc. Buses Subtotal Total *Discrepancies in the figures are due to rounding errors. $134,912,250 $239,279,375 $52,205,842 $6,000,000 $477,922,977 $126,774,181 $1,037,094,625 $14,363,632 $426,292,823 $14,100,000 $27,140,897 $481,897,352 $1,518,991,977 Percent Of Total* 8.9% 15.8% 3.4% 0.4% 31.5% 8.3% 68.3% 0.9% 28.1% 0.9% 1.8% 31.7% 100% Percent Of Category* 13.0% 23.1% 5.0% 0.6% 46.1% 12.2% 100.0% 3.0% 88.5% 2.9% 5.6% 100.0%
Project Type Highway:
Page 4.53
Highways Bridge: NYSDOT data analysis revealed 17 state-system, 57 local-system, and 8 authority or other-owned bridges are classified as in deficient condition, requiring work over the 20-year planning period. Additional bridges will also continue to require regular maintenance, while other bridges may need emergency work as a result of weather events, accidents, etc. The $137,912,250 allocated to bridge rehabilitation and repair in TABLE 31 includes one-third of Federal and State highway resources plus a five-percent local share. In addition, an estimated $200,000 per year was added to account for private fund used for bridge projects. The aim is to reduce the percentage of State deficient bridges from a current 32% to 20%, locally owned bridges from 43% to 30% and to limit deficient authority or other-owned bridges to no more than 4 out of the 9 bridges in that category. Pavement: In support of LRTP objectives to maintain existing transportation infrastructure, one third of the federal and state highway resources, plus an estimated $200,000 per year in private funds, a total of approximately $128.7 million over 20 years, was allocated to this category. Approximately $110.6 million in additional local capital projects were added to this figure to cover funding of local road pavement projects. A total of approximately $239.3 million is shown for pavement expenses. As stated previously, the aim of the pavement program is to maintain and improve the condition of the highway infrastructure. Safety: Increased safety has been a priority of the ITCTC since its initial LRTP. Even though very few projects get funded exclusively from surface transportation program safety funds, it does not detract from the importance of this policy. The fact is that safety features are designed and constructed as principal or incidental aspects of nearly every type of transportation project. This plan maintains the allocation of highway funds for safety projects at 5% of the total transportation program. While even at $52.2 million the funds may underestimate the "needs" for safety improvements, they also under-represents the commitment and investment to safety that is part of every TIP project. Enhancements: The Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) under under past federal legislation has been a popular and highly competitive program. Applicants from Tompkins County have aggressively and successfully pursued this line of funding. For purposes of this LRTP it is estimated that $300,000 per year will be available to Tompkins County from the TEP or other similar competitive grant programs.
Operating and Maintenance: The combined estimates of 20 year O&M costs calculated for all the Tompkins County local governments were incorporated here. It is important to note that the NYSDOT estimate of available State funds included some operations costs, such as materials, tree removal, bridge painting and cleaning, drainage, etc. Multimodal Capacity Projects: The LRTP analysis and vision strongly recommend the need to expand mobility options in Tompkins County (see Ch.3 Vision and Ch.5 Scenario Analysis). This will help meet multiple energy efficiency, emissions reduction and sustainable accessibility objectives. Although the 20-year total of approximately $126.7 million is intended to cover for targeted capacity projects on the local roadway network, it is acknowledged that these resources will be of greatest value when funding Transportation System Management (TSM) activities (e.g., signal synchronization, traveler information systems, traffic circles, bike lanes, "flex" to transit, etc.); for expansion of multimodal facilities and programs (principally bicycle, pedestrian and transit); and for the implementation of transportation mobility and demand management program such as ridesharing, car sharing, vanpools, guaranteed ride home, staggered work hours, etc. Implementation of these non-automobile based transportation strategies, coupled with more efficient land use development patterns provide a framework for long-term sustainable transportation in Tompkins County. Transit Capital Facilities: The total of $14,363,632 includes funding for TCAT Facility rehabilitation, and replacement of passenger facilities and shelters. Operating: The total operating budget estimate of $426,292,823 reflects an annual growth rate of 5% over the 20-year planning horizon. The Operating projections include all revenue sources: local (fare revenue and local subsidy), state transit operating assistance and federal operating assistance. Maintenance/Miscellaneous: This "catch-all" category includes a variety of projects that may range from short-range planning to implementation of special transit projects, from communications and data processing equipment replacements to improved signage. A cost of approximately $700,000 per year was used to calculate this allocation. Buses: The buses estimate includes urban, rural and paratransit buses operated by TCAT, its contractors,
Page 4.54
and GADABOUT. The resources estimate for purchasing buses is $27,140,897, which includes purchases for GADABOUT under the Section 5310 program. The estimate for bus acquisition assumes TCAT will be successful in getting funding from different non-formula Federal sources (i.e. congressional earmarks, one-time programs such as ARRA, etc.). Further, the estimate assumes regular allocations from the New York State Dedicated Transportation Fund. TCAT's biggest long term funding problem is capital funding, especially for replacement buses. The size of TCAT's bus fleet requires capital funding at a level that far exceeds its annual urban formula allocation (Sec. 5307). Therefore, TCAT must compete for discretionary capital funding from federal and state programs. The cost of not being able to replace buses in a timely fashion is reflected in the high maintenance costs of an aging bus fleet. As part of its strategic planning, TCAT will identify strategies for funding replacement buses, bus rehabilitation and remanufacturing.
Page 4.55
5. SCENARIO ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the results of an analysis of future development scenarios conducted jointly by the ITCTC and the Tompkins County Planning Department (TCPD). The TCPD developed the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) in 2004 at the same time that the 2025 LRTP was being written. This provided the opportunity for both agencies to coordinate their efforts to ensure the creation of mutually supportive planning documents. Both agencies continued to work closely together developing the future scenarios included in the 2030 LRTP. The principles and policies of the Comprehensive Plan recommend future development in Development Focus Areas, where increased densities and mixed uses are encouraged in existing urban areas, villages, other currently developed areas and areas where community water and sewer are available. This approach is supported by the goals and objectives found in this LRTP. A shift to mixed-use development patterns in Development Focus Areas is expected to result in, improved conditions for the provision of transit and for shifting a greater number of trips to walking, bicycling and ridesharing. The TCPD developed a series of scenarios to help illustrate the potential impacts of future growth based on different land use development patterns. Using the TCPDs 2030 projected land use, the ITCTC used its travel demand model (TransCAD) to help determine the impacts of traffic on the countys road network. The scenarios and analysis results are described below. For the first time in this LRTP, ITCTC was able to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions for current and future scenarios. ITCTC used an interface developed by the New York Department of Transportation called Roadway and Rail Energy and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Extension (RREGGAE) to run the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator Highway Vehicle Implementation (MOVES-HVI) software. ITCTC future scenarios will follow the recommendations and emission goals of the 2008 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Element of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, which calls for a 40% reduction in carbon emissions over 20 years. Besides using the outputs from the TransCAD model (Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled) to make calculations, MOVES RREGGAE also takes into account 2030 projected Alternative Vehicle Fuels / Technologies for passenger cars, SUVs, vans, trucks and buses, vehicle speeds, and 2030 expected Fuel Efficiency.
The Comprehensive Plan and the LRTP recognize that responsibility for regulating land development in Tompkins County lies at the local municipal level, within the towns, villages and the City of Ithaca. Thus the land use scenarios were not meant to prescribe a specific future land use pattern. Rather, the scenarios were intended to show the relative impacts of future development on various systems in the county: transportation, natural areas, water resources, etc. The LRTP analysis explored the impacts on the transportation system. The Comprehensive Plan includes expanded analysis of other systems impacted by land use.
SCENARIOS
Two future land use scenarios, Trend-Based and PlanBased, were developed for this analysis. A current conditions scenario was also developed to provide a point of comparison. The Trend-Based scenario was based on a development pattern that continues recent land development trends. The Plan-Based scenario included a more deliberate development pattern as supported by policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The scenarios were built by applying different geographic distributions of future housing units and future jobs. Each scenario assumed relatively little change in the existing land uses in Tompkins County and was based on future population projections reflecting an increase in population of 5,000 persons and 4,000 new jobs over a 25-30 year period, based on data from the New York Statistical Information System. NOTE: ITCTC also used the projected land use patterns provided from the NYS Route 13/366 Corridor Management Plan (June 2008) and the Route 96 Corridor Management Plan (Draft June 2009) in both the TrendBased and Plan-Based scenarios. For these two corridors these results were deemed as more accurate than the projected land use from the Comprehensive Plan. For the rest of Tompkins County future land use projections were based on the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the housing and jobs distribution factors (land-use factors) the scenarios where defined by changes in the vehicle/fuel mix, reductions of number of in-commuter to the county, and adjustments to the overall number of drive-alone trips. How these factors were adjusted to help define the different models is explained in the following sections. The list below shows the 2030 vehicle/fuel mixes used for modeling both the Trend Based and Plan-Based scenarios section: Moderate Alternative Vehicle Mix (AVM) Passenger Cars: 8% diesel by 2030 15% bio-fuels by 2030
Page 5.1
30% hybrid by 2030 10% hydrogen hybrid-fuel cell by 2030 17% compressed natural gas by 2030 15% electric by 2030 5% gasoline by 2030 SUVs, Vans, Pickup Trucks: 13% diesel by 2030 28% bio-fuels by 2030 24% hybrid by 2030 5% hydrogen hybrid-fuel cell by 2030 10% electric by 2030 Transit Buses: 80% diesel full hybrid AIC by 2030 20% hydrogen hybrid-fuel cell by 2030 School Buses: 50% diesel full hybrid AIC by 2030 50% diesel by 2030 Light Commercial Trucks: 20% diesel by 2030 15% hybrid by 2030 Short-Haul Trucks: 52% diesel by 2030 34% bio-fuels by 2030 Long-Haul Trucks: 34% diesel by 2030 62% bio-fuels by 2030 Aggressive Alternative Vehicle Mix Passenger Cars, SUVs, Vans, Pickup Trucks: 0% gasoline or diesel by 2030 0% bio-fuels by 2030 0% hybrid by 2030 10% Hydrogen hybrid-fuel cell by 2030 40% Compressed Natural Gas by 2030 50% Electric by 2030 Transit Buses: 80% diesel full hybrid AIC by 2030 20% hydrogen hybrid-fuel cell by 2030 School Buses: 50% diesel full hybrid AIC by 2030 50% diesel by 2030 Light Commercial Trucks: 0% gasoline by 2030 40% diesel full hybrid AIC by 2030 20% Compressed Natural Gas by 2030 40% Hydrogen hybrid-fuel cell by 2030 Short-Haul Trucks: 0% gasoline by 2030 30% diesel full hybrid AIC by 2030
40% Compressed Natural Gas by 2030 30% Hydrogen hybrid-fuel cell by 2030 Long-Haul Trucks: 0% gasoline by 2030 20% diesel by 2030 40% diesel full hybrid AIC by 2030 20% Compressed Natural Gas by 2030 20% Liquid Propane Gas by 2030
Trend-Based Scenarios Under the 2030 Trend-Based land use scenario future housing was distributed around the county based on patterns of development between 1990 and 2000. In that decade, housing growth occurred primarily in rural and suburban areas. A small portion of housing growth took place in existing urban areas and other historical center of development the countys villages, hamlets, and the City of Ithaca. Future housing in the Trend-Based scenario was projected to continue that pattern. Job growth was designed to roughly follow housing growth pattern, with most of the growth happening in rural and suburban areas. It was also assumed that job growth would most likely locate along or near major transportation corridors. Two (2) 2030 Trend-Based land use scenarios were analyzed for this long-range plan: Trend-Based used the 2030 trend land use projections used in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan only. Trend-Based (Aggressive AVM) used the 2030 trend land use projections provided in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, a 40% reduction in drive-alone in-commute trips, plus aggressive predictions in alternative vehicle mix (AVM) and fuel use in 2030. Plan-Based Scenarios Five (5) 2030 Plan-Based land use scenarios were analyzed for this long -range plan: Plan-Based used the 2030 planned land use projections used in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan only. Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM) used the 2030 planned land use projections provided in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, a 40% reduction in drive-alone in-commute trips, plus aggressive predictions in alternative vehicle mix (AVM) and fuel use in 2030.
Page 5.2
Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM/Low Trip) used the 2030 planned land use projections provided in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, a 40% reduction in drive-alone in-commute trips, aggressive predictions in alternative vehicle mix (AVM) and fuel use in 2030, and low reductions in drive-only trips in the Urbanized Area of the county [-15% drive-alone auto trips in City of Ithaca, -15% Hospital area, -30% Lansing Village, -15% Cayuga Heights, -10% Etna, -10% Varna, 10% Town of Ithaca]. Plan-Based (Moderate AVM/High Trip) used the 2030 planned land use projections provided in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, a 40% reduction in drive-alone in-commute trips, moderate predictions in alternative vehicle mix (AVM) and fuel use in 2030, and high (50%) reductions in drive-only trips for every household in the County. Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM/Moderate Trip) used the 2030 planned land use projections provided in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, a 40% reduction in drive-alone in-commute trips, aggressive predictions in alternative vehicle mix (AVM) and fuel use in 2030, and moderate (25%) reductions in drive-only trips for every household in the County. The Plan-Based scenarios were all based on a change in the distribution of housing growth among rural, suburban and Development Focus Areas. These scenarios placed most housing growth in existing, expanded and new Development Focus Areas. The remaining residential growth was distributed in the rural and suburban areas. Job growth was distributed roughly proportional to the residential growth. These scenarios also assigned suburban and rural growth away from Natural Features Focus Areas and Agricultural Resource Areas as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The principal difference in the geographic distribution of housing and job growth assumed in these scenarios compared to the Trend-Based scenario is the expansion of the existing villages, City of Ithaca, and hamlet areas; and more focused development of South Lansing, Danby, Jacksonville and the area around the Cayuga Medical Center following the historical village pattern found in Tompkins County. There would still be growth in the suburban and rural areas of the county, together accounting for roughly one-third of new residential development. However, there would be very little creation of new suburban areas. Rather, there would be infill development within existing suburban areas where water and sewer service is existing or planned.
After running the computer models for both Trend-Based scenarios and for all five Plan-Based scenarios, the PlanBased (Moderate AVM/High Trip) and the Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM/Moderate Trip) were the only scenarios that met the greenhouse gas reductions recommended by the Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Element of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. The Trend-Based (Aggressive AVM), Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM/Low Trip) and the Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM) scenarios reduce GHG by approximately half as much as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The Analysis section that follows shows comparisons between all the scenarios.
Page 5.3
ANALYSIS
The maps in FIGURES 40, 41 and 42 depict the distribution of land uses for the existing conditions, TrendBased and Plan-Based scenarios (Source: Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan). As can be observed the proposed scenarios are only marginally different, a result of efforts to portray future conditions that are realistically achievable. The TransCAD travel demand model used population and employment data to generate and distribute trips along the models road network. The network included all state roads and county roads and other roadways of major regional significance. For this analysis the basic model network was modified to include recent roadways changes and others that were expected to occur with a high degree of certainty. The TransCAD model used for this analysis was calibrated to model the PM peak hour of traffic from 5:00 to 6:00pm. As such it was designed to reflect the worst traffic conditions on the roadway network. Calibration means that the results of the 2009 Current Conditions model run were compared to the actual latest traffic counts at locations throughout the County to ensure the greatest accuracy for analysis. The model is also a drive-only model, which means it predicts auto trips - not trips taken using walking, biking, or public transportation modes. The drive-only trips for journey-to-work origins and destinations per Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) are taken from the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package, Parts 1 (Residence) and 2 (Workplace). Future increases in walking, biking, and bus modes-to-work are estimated in the future by reducing the percentage of drive-only origin / destination trips in a given TAZ. All results from this analysis are based on computer models that include numerous assumptions and generalizations that result in inherent errors. In other words, no model can completely replicate reality; therefore their results are by no means exact. Nevertheless, computer models are valuable tools to help identify the relationships between different factors, and can help identify trends and their relative magnitude. 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) The model served as a useful tool to generate a general view of the distribution of trips along the road network, highlighting major trends and patterns in traffic movements. To illustrate the impacts of the Trend-Based and PlanBased scenarios we used the measures of vehicle-milestraveled (VMT) and vehicle-hours-traveled (VHT). These factors provided system-wide measures of the efficiency of
the road network for comparison between scenarios. VMT reflects the cumulative miles traveled for all trips, and VHT, the total hours of travel on the road for all trips. Both measures were derived from the models road network for the PM peak hour and calculated to reflect annual values. TABLE 32 below, shows significant differences when comparing the VMT and VHT in the two (2) Trend-based 2030 Scenarios to the five (5) Plan-based 2030 Scenarios: 3.4% more Vehicle Miles Traveled in the Trend Based Scenario compared to the Plan-Based Scenario; 3.2% more Vehicle Hours Traveled in the Trend Based Scenario compared to the PlanBased Scenario. 3.8% more Vehicle Miles Traveled in the Trend Based (Aggressive AVM) Scenario compared to the Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM) Scenario; 4.9% more Vehicle Hours Traveled in the Trend Based (Aggressive AVM) Scenario compared to the Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM) Scenario. 42.0% more Vehicle Miles Traveled in the Trend Based Scenario compared to the PlanBased (Moderate AVM/High Trip) Scenario; 47.7% more Vehicle Hours Traveled in the Trend Based Scenario compared to the Plan-Based (Moderate AVM/High Trip) Scenario. The overall increase in population and employment is expected to generate traffic activity that would create pressure to increase VMT and VHT from current conditions. The data in Table 32 indicates that land use changes alone cannot help achieve reductions in VMT. The Trend Based scenario, reflecting higher low density rural/suburban development, resulted in the most severe VMT and VHT increases. The Plan Based scenario, with its more efficient land use pattern, also showed increases but not as pronounced. Even after reducing in-commuters by 40%, VMT and VHT remained above 2009 levels. To achieve reductions in VMT and VHT that will allow the county to reach its energy and emission reduction goals it is necessary to shift away from the use of single occupancy vehicles, i.e. driving alone. When comparing the two extreme scenarios [the Plan-Based (Moderate AVM/High Trip) and the Trend-Based] we see that the allocation and distribution of future growth combined with programs, incentives and facilities to shift travelers away from single occupancy vehicles could have an major effect on 2030 traffic patterns. A 42% difference in VMT between these two models results in more than 300 million less vehicle miles traveled in the Plan-Based (Moderate AVM / High Trip) Scenario than in the TrendBased scenario. Likewise a 47.7% reduction in VMT results in 4.5 million less vehicle hours travelled in the Plan-Based (Moderate AVM/High Trip) Scenario than in the TrendBased scenario. The benefits of these differences translate
Page 5.4
directly into reduced congestion and all the resulting secondary positive effects (noise, safety, time savings, etc.), in addition to lower emissions of smog inducing gases and greenhouse gases and reduced energy consumption (see Section 2 below and TABLE 33). FIGURES 43 thru 48 show a visual representation of congestion on county roads generated by the TransCAD model for the Current 2009 conditions, the Trend-Based and the Plan-Based(Moderate AVM/High Trip) future scenarios during the PM Peak Hour (5-6PM). Congestion is defined be the volume to capacity ratio (V/C). This ratio relates the traffic volume to the roadways capacity. A V/C ratio of 1 indicates that the road is working at capacity, therefore a value less than one indicates there is available capacity and values greater than 1 indicate the roadway is operating overcapacity. For this analysis a V/C ratio value of .8 - .9 is considered approaching congestion and values greater than .9 are considered congested. Here is a summary of the impacts of each Scenario: 2030 TREND-BASED SCENARIO: Rt 34 from Stewart Park to the Town of Lansing Line will be congested (not congested in 2009) Rt 34 from Town of Lansing Line to Waterwagon Rd will be approaching congestion (not congested in 2009) N Triphammer Rd in front of the Ithaca Mall will be approaching congestion (not congested in 2009) Warren Rd from Rt 13 to Hillcrest Rd will be congested (approaching congestion in 2009) Hanshaw Rd from Rt 13 to Etna Rd will be congested (approaching congestion in 2009) W Buffalo St from Meadow St to Taughannock Blvd will be congested (approaching congestion in 2009) N Cayuga St from W State St to W Court St will be congested (not congested in 2009) Albany St from Green St to Seneca St will be congested (not congested in 2009) 2030 PLAN-BASED (Moderate AVM / High Trip) SCENARIO: W Buffalo St from Meadow St to Taughannock Blvd will be congested (approaching congestion in 2009) Cayuga St from W Seneca St to W Court St will be congested (not congested in 2009) Rt 13 (N Fulton St) from Hancock St to W Court St will not be congested (congested in 2009) Rt 96B from Clinton St to Ithaca College will not be congested (congested in 2009) Rt 79 from Pine Tree Rd to Park La will not be congested (approaching congestion in 2009) Rt 13 from Mineah Rd to Village of Dryden Line will not be congested (approaching congestion in 2009)
In summary, the land use in the Trend-Based Scenario increased congestion at selected locations throughout the County. In contrast, the land use in the Plan-Based (Moderate AVM / High Trip) Scenario not only had less new congestion in the County, but actually decreased congestion at selected locations. TABLE 34 summarizes the miles of congested roads in the Current Conditions, Trend-Based and Plan-Based (Moderate AVM / High Trip) land use Scenarios. Congestion analysis for the other scenarios was not done because there were minor or no reductions in VMT. The congestion analysis data shows the following: 2030 TREND-BASED SCENARIO: a slight 7.5% increase in miles of congested roads when compared to Current Conditions a significant 93.6% increase in miles of roads approaching congestion when compared to Current Conditions 2030 PLAN-BASED (Moderate AVM / High Trip) SCENARIO: a significant 50.3% decrease in miles of congested roads when compared to Current Conditions a slight 10.0% decrease in miles of congested roads when compared to Current Conditions 2. Air Quality and Energy The State of New York Energy Plan requires that long range transportation plans quantify their energy and air quality impacts. For purposes of the 2030 LRTP the Trend-Based and the Plan-Based scenarios were analyzed to determine how they would affect these environmental parameters. The ITCTC used an interface developed by US EPA called Roadway and Rail Energy and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Extension (RREGGAE) to run the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) software. These two pieces of software allow changing different parameters, vehicle fuels/technologies, to model the emissions impacts of different future scenarios. Off model conversion factors were used to generate estimates of energy consumption for the different scenarios. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan established a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the county by at least 2 percent of the 2008 level for each of the next 40 years, achieving at least an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for each sector (including transportation) by the year 2050. This translates to a reduction of 40% from 2009 levels by the year 2030, the planning horizon of this LRTP. TABLE 35 shows the result of a running the greenhouse gas analysis between the Current Conditions, the two (2)
Page 5.5
Trend-Based and the five (5) Plan-Based scenarios. Using the current conditions scenario as a point of comparison the table shows significant increases in emissions under the Trend Based scenario (10.9%) and more moderate increases under the Planned Based scenario (5.9%). As with VMT and VHT the land use pattern included in the Planned Based scenario shows better results and continuing current trends in land development patterns. Reductions in emissions are achieved under when scenarios include Aggressive Alternative Vehicle Mix (AVM) and/or Drive Alone Trip Reductions. However, including Aggressive AVM in the Trend and Planned Based scenarios result in approximately half of the desired 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (-18.7% and 21.9% respectively). To reach an order of magnitude close to 40% reduction it is also necessary to implement a substantial mode shift from drive alone trips to alternative modes of transportation. The two models with greatest greenhouse gas reductions, -38.6% and 45.6%, integrate different combinations of AVM and drive alone trip reductions. Similar to the above, the goal is for future scenarios to be less energy intensive. TABLE 35 shows the results of energy calculations as applied to the different scenarios. Since both the emission and energy calculations are strongly influenced by the vehicle miles traveled for each scenario, the data patterns from the energy calculations are similar to that of emissions. That is, significant energy increases under the Trend-Based scenario and more moderate increases under the Plan Based scenario. Moderate reductions result from scenarios that add Aggressive AVM as a factor. The largest reductions are observed in the models that combine AVM and drive alone trip reductions.
Page 5.6
Groton
McLean
Trumansburg
South Lansing Freeville Dryden

Etna Lansing Cayuga Heights
# Jacksonville
ITHACA
#
Varna
Enfield
Slaterville Springs
#
Trumbulls Corners #
Brooktondale
Newfield
Danby
West Danby
Existing Development
Legend Urban Center Expanding Urban Center Rural Center Suburban Center Suburban Rural
FIGURE 40
Source: Tompkins County Planning
Page 5.7
Groton
McLean
Trumansburg
South Lansing Freeville Dryden

Etna Lansing Cayuga Heights
# Jacksonville
Varna
#
Enfield
Slaterville Springs
#
Trumbulls Corners #
Brooktondale
Newfield
Danby
West Danby
Trend-Based Scenario
FIGURE 41
Legend Urban Center Rural Center Suburban Center Suburban Rural
Page 5.8
Groton
McLean
Trumansburg
South Lansing Freeville
Jacksonville
Dryden
Etna Lansing
New Village
Cayuga Heights Varna
ITHACA
#
Enfield
Slaterville Springs
#
Trumbulls # Corners
Brooktondale
Danby
Newfield
West Danby
Plan-Based Scenario
FIGURE 42
Legend Urban Center Expanding Urban Center Rural Center New/Expanding Rural Center Suburban Center Suburban Rural Resource Area
Page 5.9
TABLE 32 Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled

% Change % Change Annual VMT Annual VHT Compared Compared (All Modes)* (Auto Only) to 2009 to 2009 Scenario 2009 - Current Conditions 2030 - Trend-based w/ land use changes only 2030 - Plan-based w/ land use changes only 2030 - Trend-Based (Aggressive AVM) w/ aggressive alternative vehicle mix / -40% in-commute 2030 - Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM) w/ aggressive alternative vehicle mix / -40% in-commute 2030-Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM / Low Trip) w/ aggressive alt vehicle mix / urban trip reduction / -40% in-commute 2030-Plan-Based (Moderate AVM / High Trip) w/ moderate alt vehicle mix / 50% trip reduction / -40% in-commute 2030-Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM / Moderate Trip) w/ aggressive alt vehicle mix / 25% trip reduction / -40% in-commute (miles) 672,319,554 743,913,724 (hours) 8,287,865 9,438,446 (VMT) x 10.6% (VHT) x 13.9%
718,341,676
9,140,334
6.8%
10.3%
721,997,321
9,202,747
7.3%
11.0%
694,501,459
8,746,694
3.3%
5.5%
642,954,880
7,947,518
-4.4%
-4.1%
431,735,362
4,938,045
-35.8%
-40.4%
563,159,695
6,830,662
-16.2%
-17.6%
* includes VMT from auto, TCAT bus, school bus, and trucks
TABLE 33 Road Congestion

Miles of Miles of Roads Congested Roads Approaching Congestion Scenario 2009 - Current Conditions 2030 - Trend-based 2030 - Plan-Based (Moderate AVM / High Trip) w/ moderate alt vehicle mix and 50% trip reduction (> or = .9 VOC) (.8-.9 VOC)
10.21 10.98 5.07
8.46 16.38 7.61
Page 5.10
FIGURE 43
Page 5.11
FIGURE 44
Page 5.12
FIGURE 45
Page 5.13
FIGURE 46
Page 5.14
FIGURE 47
Page 5.15
Page 5.16
FIGURE 48
TABLE 34 Emissions Analysis
Annual VMT All Modes Scenarios 2009 - Current Conditions 2030 - Trend-based w/ land use changes only 2030 - Plan-based w/ land use changes only 2030 - Trend-Based (Aggressive AVM) w/ aggressive alternative vehicle mix / -40% in-commute 2030 - Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM) w/ aggressive alternative vehicle mix / -40% in-commute 2030-Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM / Low Trip) 642,954,880 w/ aggressive alt vehicle mix/urban trip reduction / -40% in-commute 2030-Plan-Based (Moderate AVM / High Trip) w/ moderate alt vehicle mix / 50% trip reduction / -40% in-commute 2030-Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM / Moderate Trip) w/ aggressive alt vehicle mix / 25% trip reduction / -40% in-commute 431,735,362 14.13 12.85 289,100 293,400 -25.0% 694,501,459 14.91 13.54 301,100 305,700 -21.9% 721,997,321 15.59 14.23 313,200 317,900 -18.7% 718,341,676 13.94 19.48 407,900 414,200 5.9% (miles) 672,319,554 743,913,724 12.99 14.69 18.28 20.54 385,300 427,300 391,200 434,000 Methane (Metric Tons) Nitrous Oxide Atmos CO2 (Metric Tons) (Metric Tons) CO2 Equiv (Metric Tons) % Change from 2009 (CO2 Equiv) x 10.9%
7.43
10.05
236,900
240,100
-38.6%
563,159,695
10.42
10.84
209,300
212,900
-45.6%
Page 5.17
TABLE 35
Energy Analysis Total Energy Petroleum Energy Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption Consumption Consumption Scenario 2009 - Current Conditions 2030 - Trend-based % change - compared to 2009 2030 - Plan-based % change - compared to 2009 2030 - Trend-based (Aggressive AVM) % change - compared to 2009 2030 - Plan-based (Aggressive AVM) % change - compared to 2009 2030-Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM / Low Trip) % change - compared to 2009 2030-Plan-Based (Moderate AVM / High Trip) % change - compared to 2009 2030-Plan-Based (Aggressive AVM / Moderate Trip) % change - compared to 2009 (metric tons) 5,104,000 5,662,000 10.9% 5,404,000 5.9% 4,754,000 -6.9% 4,565,000 -10.6% 4,380,000 -14.2% 3,227,000 -36.8% 3,242,000 -36.5% (metric tons) 4,886,000 5,419,000 10.9% 5,172,000 5.9% 3,499,000 -28.4% 3,370,000 -31.0% 3,240,000 -33.7% 2,951,000 -39.6% 2,297,000 -53.0% (metric tons) 4,998,000 5,542,000 10.9% 5,290,000 5.8% 4,641,000 -7.1% 4,458,000 -10.8% 4,277,000 -14.4% 3,164,000 -36.7% 3,154,000 -36.9%
Page 5.18
CONCLUSIONS
In order to meet energy and air quality reporting requirements for the State of New York Energy Plan ITCTC staff used its travel demand model together with EPAs MOVES, the RREGGAE interface, and off-model calculations to make future projections of energy use and emissions. The projections were made based on potential future development scenarios found in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan and were crafted in cooperation with the Tompkins County Planning Department. Much of the analysis in this chapter us based on the 5:00pm-6:00pm peak hour of vehicle travel, which is a current analysis limitation of the transportation model used. Peak hour results were used to generate annual figures. The scenario analysis is useful visualize the direction and magnitude of trends and offer interesting insights to inform future decisions. The analysis in this chapter indicates that the Trend-Based, Plan-Based and Plan-Based scenarios will result in increased vehicle miles traveled, energy used for transportation and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the scenario analysis shows that the Plan-Based scenario will generate less vehicle miles traveled, energy use and emissions than the Trend-Based scenario. We can conclude that the land use pattern included in the Plan Based scenario and the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan is an important component of a more sustainable future for the region. However, even if the smart land use development pattern were to be strengthened beyond the conservative application use in the Plan-Based scenario, it is difficult to envision land use changes alone allowing the transportation sector in Tompkins County to reach the 40% reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions included in the Countys Comprehensive Plan. Multiple models runs of the Trend and Plan-Based scenarios showed that it was not until in-commuter mode shifts were combined with aggressive alternative vehicle and fuel mix (AVM) assumptions that the results begin to produce significant reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Even so, these scenarios with Aggressive AVM, which includes an almost complete shift away from petroleum-based fossil fuels for transportation, only resulted in 20% reductions from current levels. To reach the 40% target reductions the Plan-Based scenario was incremented to include significant reductions in drive-alone trips in combination with Aggressive and Moderate AVM assumptions.
There are several key conclusions that surface from this analysis as efforts are made to reduce energy use and emissions from transportation: -First, there is no single fix to the challenge of reducing energy use and emissions from transportation. This is a system wide challenge that will require multifaceted, system wide solutions. The analysis showed that combining strategies (i.e. more efficient vehicles + trip reduction) is essential to achieve the goal reductions in energy and emissions. -Reducing vehicle miles traveled in general, and particularly by drive-alone or single occupancy vehicles (SOV), will be a key component of any successful strategy. It is recognized that shifting the prominent transportation role currently played by private automobiles will be a significant challenge. The goal is to make the car one of many options for most people to get around, instead of the only option. Reaching established goals for energy and emissions reductions in transportation will not be likely without a reduction in countywide vehicle miles traveled -In order to achieve a modal shift away from car dependency land use development patterns must take a more efficient form, as described in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. This will facilitate the use of transit, walking, bicycling, car pools, vanpools, car sharing and ride sharing. All of these currently available alternatives work best when land uses are integrated and in close proximity. -Vehicle fleet efficiency and fuel mix is another key component of any successful strategy to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Cars and trucks will continue to be important components of all future transportation scenarios. The analysis in this chapter showed that just having energy efficient, clean cars is not enough to meet established goals for energy use and vehicular emissions. However, without a clean, efficient vehicle fleet it is difficult to envision achieving them. -Transit in all its forms will need to play a much-expanded role in transportation. Transit needs to evolve into a first option for all different trips recreational, work commute, social, services, shopping, etc. -Non-motorized modes, bicycling and walking, already account for significant number of trips in Tompkins County (i.e. over 40% of work based trip in the City of Ithaca). These modes need to be accommodated and enhanced to encourage additional use. They offer a clear opportunity for urbanized areas in the County to capture the inherent efficiency of their urban forms. Together with transit improvements, they offer the most cost effective way to encourage a mode shift in the short term.
-Information and computer technologies can make

telecommuting, travel demand management, ridesharing,
vanpools, car sharing, public transportation, and mobility support programs more efficient to implement and accessible to the community. New efforts are needed to make integration of service delivery through technology benefit service providers and consumers alike. These programs encourage the use of multiple modes of transportation and are needed to increase the mode share of alternatives to driving-alone. -The scenario analysis in this chapter highlighted how vehicle technology and type of fuel used will play a huge role in achieving energy and emission reduction goals. There is little opportunity to affect these factors at the local level. State, national and international policies, along with market forces, will be of greatest influence in advancing and promoting new technologies and alternative fuels. The market is unpredictable but public response during the 2008 gasoline price spike is indicative of the immense power of pricing to affect change at all levels of society and particularly in the transportation sector. -Federal and State policies and programs that promote and fund transit and other alternative modes and encourage a mode shift away from SOVs will help drive local action. National and State leadership and support will be essential to allow those at the local level to accomplish the significant transformation of the transportation system that will be required to meet the challenges of global warming and energy descent.
Page 5.20
6. PROJECTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to list selected transportation related initiatives and projects for implementation. Where possible, the narratives will define the appropriate party(s) to implement the project or initiative. This plan tries to capture the activities of all parties dealing with transportation in Tompkins County. Therefore, principal project responsibility may lie with municipalities, State agencies, other public/private agencies or a combination of these. When there is sufficient detail or previous experience in conducting such projects or initiatives, a dollar cost estimate will be included. The initiatives and projects that are presented here are intended to help achieve a portion of the community's vision as expressed in the Goals and Objectives. This section of the Long Rang Transportation Plan, is organized around the functional headings of: Planning Efforts Mobility Efforts Infrastructure Efforts Operations and Maintenance Efforts While not every initiative fits neatly under one of these headings, they provide a useful organizational framework. The projects and initiatives listed in this chapter exist at different stages of implementation. Many are listed as desirable projects but have not been implemented. Others have been started and exist at some stage of implementation. The action item description will indicate if implementation is ongoing. Otherwise, the expected implementation time interval is indicated following the project title as short, intermediate, or long as represented below. It is understood that implementation for many of these projects will be continuous in nature, stretching over several years: Short = 1-5 years Intermediate = 5-10 years Long = 10-20 years
These priority areas seek to enhance the efficiency of the current transportation system through technology and physical enhancements while providing for alternatives to automobile use. Expand and Promote Multimodal Mobility Options and Integration Federal legislation since ISTEA in 1991 has been supportive of development of a multimodal transportation network that stresses efficiency of operations and diversion of automobile trips to other modes. The LRTP goals and objectives stress the need to enhance the level of service and facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation. Reducing private automobile dependency will help reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption and dependency. In Tompkins County the main strategy for improving mobility and adapting to a future of reduced fossil fuel availability is founded on reducing vehicle miles traveled through the diversion of trips to alternative modes of transportation, primarily transit, ridesharing, walking and bicycling. As an area with moderate growth rates and a relatively small population base there is the opportunity to develop and market effective programs that address the needs of different population groups. As of 2009 non-automobile ground transportation options in the Tompkins County area include transit (TCAT), intercity bus service, taxi, car rental, and car sharing. The adequacy of walking and bicycling facilities varies across the county. Opportunities exist to implement vanpool and ridesharing programs. In addition, the provision of public transportation needs to be constantly evaluated to ensure that service is always optimized. Having robust alternatives to private automobile for transportation will make Tompkins County more resilient as we move to a future of reduced fossil fuel access. Transportation Systems Management Projects Even as we work towards a future of reduced car dependency it is understood that the transportation system is and will continue to be heavily dependent on car and trucks for the movement of people and goods. The road/bridge infrastructure in Tompkins County is a valuable existing asset that needs to be maintained for use by all modes of transportation. As we move to a transportation paradigm with increased complexity and expanded use this plan proposes the use of the Transportation System Management (TSM) concept to manage the transportation system for maximum efficiency across all modes. This includes implementation of projects such as traffic signal systems upgrades, intersection channelization, dedicated paths for different modes, etc. It is well understood that you cannot build yourself out of congestions. But through increased efficiency the capacity of the existing networks can be expanded and functionality maintained.
Priority Areas Of the activities listed in this Chapter the ITCTC has selected the following to be priority areas to facilitate implementation: Expand and Promote Multimodal Mobility Options and Integration Transportation System Management Projects
Page 6.1
Completed Initiatives from 2025 LRTP The projects and initiatives listed below where implemented in the period between 2005 and 2010. SR-13/366 Corridor Management Plan implemented by Tompkins County Planning Dept (TCPD). Completed 2008. SR-96 Corridor Management Plan implemented by TCPD. Completed 2009. Enhanced Downtown Ithaca Transit Facilities As of late-2009 the Seneca Street stop has been completed and Green Street bus stop work is near completion. Develop a Coordinated Annual Traffic Count Program implemented by ITCTC with cooperation from local partners and NYSDOT. Annual traffic count report in production since 2006. Develop a Bicycle Suitability Map for Tompkins County implemented by the ITCTC. First map published in 2007. Map will continue to be updated. Study Implementation of Car Sharing Program implemented by Ithaca Carshare in partnership with NYSDOT/NYSERDA, Cornell University, Ithaca College, ITCTC, City of Ithaca, EcoVillage and other local supporters. Ithaca Carshare program was launched in June 2008. Accident Reporting System the ITCTC has access to information to the Accident Location Information System (ALIS), a statewide database of vehicular accident information. ALIS is managed by NYSDOT and came on-line in 2009.
TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES
A. PLANNING EFFORTS I. Land Use Planning and Policies: 1. Review of Local Development Regulations Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by municipalities. Cost: To be determined. Local development regulations should contribute to the solution of transportation issues and not unnecessarily degrade the performance of the transportation system. For example, the number of parking spaces required by zoning regulations should not be excessive; site design requirements should adequately address pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities; new developments should be "transit-oriented" in order to encourage and accommodate transit use; commercial access to arterial facilities must be carefully reviewed and controlled; and on-site circulation should be adequately studied and addressed. Further, local regulations should be considered on a regional scale and work to support the Principles and Policies included in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. 2. Develop Traditional/Physical Land Use Plans Implementation interval = Long To be conducted by municipalities. Cost: To be determined. Local governments are encouraged to develop and maintain local comprehensive plans in coordination with neighboring municipalities and the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. 3. Corridor Management Plans Implementation interval = intermediate To be conducted jointly by the affected local jurisdictions, the ITCTC and other partners. Cost: To be determined. There are a number of regional arterial roadways that are vulnerable to level of service deterioration because of the demand to develop land adjacent to the highway corridors. Corridor Management Plans analyze technical data and public input to recommend specific strategies, land use related and operational, which will protect the functional operation of the highway. State Route 13 remains the most important travel corridor in Tompkins County and its sole principal arterial. One of its primary functions
Page 6.2
is to carry traffic with longer trip lengths (i.e., through-traffic). However, it has become a principal commercial corridor, particularly through the City of Ithaca. Current and proposed commercial expansion in the southwest retail area of the City, has resulted in an increase in trip generating activities, with additional increases projected for the future along the adjacent portion of SR-13. As Tompkins County continues to grow, there will undoubtedly be additional pressure to develop commercial parcels and major residential subdivisions adjacent to the SR-13 corridor. A corridor study of SR-13/366 through the Town of Dryden was completed by the Tompkins County Planning Department in 2008. A second corridor management study was completed in 2009 for SR-96 (Trumansburg Rd.) from the City of Ithaca, north to the Village of Trumansburg. It is recommended that a similar study be completed to the south of the City of Ithaca and be considered a priority project. 4. Develop a Countywide Scenic Roads Plan Implementation interval = Long To be conducted by the ITCTC and affected municipalities. Cost: $80,000 (estimated) The objective is to incorporate roads of scenic, historic, or cultural significance into a logical comprehensive system that encourages community investment, tourism, and preservation activities. The effort will include a review of current NYS Scenic Byways or other "models". The project will result in a Countywide Scenic Roads Plan including specific proposals for applications to NYS Scenic Byways Program and Transportation Enhancement Program for funding. All activities under this effort need to be done in cooperation and coordination with the on going development of the currently designated Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway and utilizing existing resources such as the Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory. II. Transportation Data Collection Activities 1. Conduct a household travel survey for Tompkins County Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the ITCTC. Cost: $100,000 estimated. Household travel surveys are used to gather triprelated data such as mode of transportation, and duration, distance and purpose of trips. It also gathers demographic, geographic, and economic
data for analysis purposes. The data can be used to gauge the extent and patterns of travel, to plan new investments, and to better understand the implications for the regions transportation infrastructure. The data is also valuable to calibrate the trip type and trip rate tables used in the ITCTC travel demand model. 2. Conduct Travel Time Assesments Selected High Traffic Volume Routes Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the ITCTC. Cost: to be determined. Travel Time Assessments gather trip time data that can be used for enhancements to the ITCTC travel demand model and as measures of congestion along certain routes. III. Promotional and Educational Strategies 1. Safety Education Implementation interval = Short To be jointly conducted by various participants. Cost: To be determined. General safety education has been identified as a priority. Education efforts may be low-cost to implement and can be directed towards a number of audiences. Audiences may range from elementary school programs to collegelevel continuing education. The recommendation is for the ITCTC to establish a subcommittee on safety. This subcommittee would be charged with reviewing current efforts in the area, determining additional "target audiences", and investigating implementation mechanisms. 2. Transit Promotions Ongoing project managed TCAT Marketing Division. Cost: Varying, to be determined TCAT follows a marketing strategy with comprehensive public outreach. In addition to advertising, TCAT operates a website (www.tcatbus.com) that includes an automated trip planner and on-line bus pass sales. In addition, TCAT updates schedule information at bus stops and distributes printed schedules and route maps. Recommendations for future actions include real-time bus location information and two-way communication at key transfer stops, enhanced promotion of TCAT employer subsidy of transit passes and expansion of the emergency trip home program for pass users. The cost of these recommendations is to be determined.
3. Bicycle Promotions
Page 6.3
To be jointly conducted by various participants. Implementation interval = Short Cost: To be determined. Recent efforts have been piecemeal, and need improved coordination. Full support of local governments, ranging from declarations of "Bike to Work Week" to providing staff support to organize events, would be beneficial. This effort should be linked to previously discussed education programs to ensure that bicycling safety is addressed. 4. Pedestrian Promotions Implementation interval = Short To be jointly conducted by various participants. Cost: To be determined. In general, pedestrian groups are not well organized or are extremely low-profile. The SAFETEA-LU Safe Routes to School program helped focus attention on pedestrian issues and the benefits increasing pedestrian activities. This effort should be linked to previously discussed education programs to ensure that pedestrian safety is addressed. IV. Transportation Infrastructure Work with municipalities and other local partners to assess transportation infrastructure needs, including roadways, transit, bicycles and pedestrians, to support local planning efforts. 1. Roadway Needs Assessment Implementation interval = Ongoing/Per Request To be conducted by the ITCTC and participating local governments. Cost: Varying, to be determined Utilizing the travel demand model, the ITCTC will work with local governments to assist in analyzing the roadway network impact of future land use plans and anticipated development. 2. Bicycling Facilities Improvements Implementation interval = Intermediate To be completed by various participants in conjunction with the ITCTC. Cost: To be determined. The ITCTC will assist with efforts to enhance the provision of bicycling infrastructure such as: bike lanes, bike lifts, bicycle boulevards, bicycle parking facilities, etc. The ITCTC will also support efforts to produce bicycle plans at the local and regional levels.
Implementation interval = ongoing To be completed by various participants in cooperation with the ITCTC. Cost: To be determined. Pedestrian planning continues to be a byproduct of other transportation project implementation. The ITCTC inventoried pedestrian facilities countywide in 2003. An inter-jurisdictional planning effort, including the municipalities, Tompkins County and NYSDOT can help identify additional work that is needed to address specific priorities for pedestrian facilities countywide. This effort needs to be coordinated with TCAT to enhance pedestrian access to bus stops and shelters. In a study completed in 2007, the Tompkins County Planning Department developed and tested a community based Walkability Assessment Survey. This survey is available as a tool to help communities inventory and evaluate their pedestrian facilities. The ITCTC will assist local governments interested in facilitating planning for their pedestrian facilities and will help identify funding sources. 5. Transit Infrastructure Implementation interval = Intermediate To be completed by TCAT in cooperation with Tompkins County and the ITCTC. Cost: To be determined. TCAT has a detailed capital needs plan that addresses the acquisition/replacement of vehicles, communications equipment, transit facility equipment, safety and security equipment, and bus stops and shelters. The ITCTC will work in coordination with TCAT and Tompkins County to ensure that its facilities and equipment needs are met in order to provide the highest quality public transportation system for the residents of Tompkins County. 6. Complete Streets Network Plan Implementation interval = Intermediate To be completed by the ITCTC in cooperation with Tompkins County and local municipalities. Cost: To be determined. A Complete Street is a street designed and operated to enable safe access for all users pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transportation users of all ages and abilities are able to move safely along and across a complete street. This project will develop criteria to describe what make a street or road a good candidate for development as a Complete Street. Roadways in Tompkins
4. Pedestrian Facilities Planning

Page 6.4
County will then be analyzed to identify a wellcoordinated network of roads to form a Complete Streets Network Plan. The ITCTC will work with local project sponsors to facilitate the incorporation of Complete Streets features in the roads identified in the plan.
4. Voluntary Variable Work Hours Program Implementation interval = Long Lead agency to be determined. To be conducted with participation from the ITCTC, Way2Go, TCAT and NYSDOT with the cooperation of local employers. This could be a sub-component of that larger effort See I.1 (above). 4. Guaranteed Ride Home Program Implementation interval = Intermediate Lead agency to be determined. Develop a Guaranteed Ride Home program in support of other TDM initiatives. II. Community Based Projects 1. Study of the Parking Management in the City of Ithaca Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the City of Ithaca in cooperation with the ITCTC, Cornell University and other affected parties. Cost: To be determined. The City of Ithaca has a varied system of parking and parking regulations. These have evolved to address the demands from different sectors of the community: local businesses, permanent and temporary (rental housing) residents, commuting employees, etc. This project will study parking management strategies, determine how they further the goals and objectives of the LRTP and City plans, and propose alternatives for improvements. 2. Cornell Daily-Fee Parking System Study Implementation interval = Long To be conducted by the ITCTC in association with Cornell University, the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights. Cost: $60,000 estimated The NESTS Transit Planning Project (NTPP) recommended a study on moving from the current permit-based parking system at Cornell University to a daily-fee system employing smart card technology. The switch to a daily parking fee would alter the incentives for parking since drivers would face a charge for each day they parked and would save the fee if they used transit or another mode instead. The NTPP report includes a technical memorandum discussing in detail a series of technology options available to Cornell that would make the daily-fee system convenient and easy to use. This Daily-Fee Parking System Study should be designed to recommend an implementation strategy of a new parking system at Cornell, determine the overall cost of implementation, provide financing strategies and estimate the potential impacts on parking demand in the short and long range periods.
B. MOBILITY EFFORTS I. Transportation Demand Management Programs 1. Support Way2Go Community Wide Program for Transportation Information Implementation interval = Short Way2Go-Cornell Cooperative Extension with participation from the ITCTC, NYSDOT, TCAT, taxi companies, Ithaca Carshare and other transportation providers in Tompkins County. Cost: To be determined. The Way2Go program is designed to be a strategic, user-friendly point of contact for transportation information in Tompkins County. The program will also serve the critical role of collecting transportation related information and comments from the public. The ITCTC will continue its support of the Way2Go program as a key partner in the provision and collection of transportation related in formation for members of the public. 2. Voluntary Employee Commute Options (ECO) Program Implementation interval = Long Lead agency to be determined. To be conducted with participation from the ITCTC, Way2Go, TCAT and NYSDOT with the cooperation of local employers. Cost: To be determined. This program would be designed to assist selected major employers in establishing an Employee Commute Options (ECO) program similar to those that are mandated in the downstate air quality non-attainment regions. This effort would focus on assisting willing employers in establishing a program commuter "coordinator" position, providing model programs, and establishing employee awareness and education programs. 3. Rideshare (Ride-Matching) Program Implementation interval = Short To be conducted jointly by Way2Go, Tompkins County, Cornell University, Ithaca College, Tompkins Cortland Community College and the ITCTC. Cost: $9,000-$18,000 per year (estimated) Community wide program to provide computerized ride-matching services in support of carpooling for commuters, but also for onetime ride needs.
Page 6.5
5. Study of Mobility Impaired Population Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the ITCTC in association with interested agencies. Cost: To be determined. Mobility impaired persons are generally those persons who, for one reason or another, do not have personal access to the use of an automobile. In general, these persons are elderly, disabled, youths, or economically disadvantaged. This project is to study the mobility impaired population of Tompkins County to determine the nature and extent of transportation resources and needs of persons in the area. III. Transit Programs 1. Passenger Information Services Implementation interval = Short To be conducted by TCAT. Cost: To be determined. With the goal of providing individual customer information accessible 24hours/day, TCAT will evaluate and implement a comprehensive passenger information program. The information services range from simple to complex. TCAT is implementing a broad-based bus stop sign project with summary schedules. TCAT seeks to improve customer information access by telephone and internet and other evolving technologies. In addition, TCAT hopes to implement next bus and real-time passenger information at key bus stops, including Green at Commons and Seneca at Commons. 2. Passenger Facilities Improvements Implementation interval = Short To be conducted by TCAT Cost: To be determined. The project will assess needs at passenger stops and shelters for signage, ADA and pedestrian access, lighting, safety, communications, bike storage and physical and design integration with surroundings, including the need for bus pull-offs and road shoulder improvements. These efforts will be coordinated with planned pedestrian facility improvements. In addition, TCAT would like to explore passenger facility luxuries, such as wireless internet access at key stops and on vehicles, energy-efficient lighting and heating, and other luxuries. Finally, TCAT will work toward improved coordination with relevant agencies, such as NYSDOT, County Highway Department, and other municipalities. 3. Transit Infrastructure & Capital Needs
Implementation interval = Intermediate To be completed by TCAT in cooperation with Tompkins County and the ITCTC. Cost: To be determined. TCAT has a detailed capital needs plan that addresses the acquisition/replacement of vehicles, communications equipment, transit facility equipment, safety and security equipment, and bus stops and shelters. The ITCTC will work in coordination with TCAT and Tompkins County to ensure that its facilities and equipment needs are met in order to provide the highest quality public transportation system for the residents of Tompkins County. Finally, TCAT hopes to achieve a sustainable and realistic bus replacement schedule. 4. Unified Fare System Implementation interval = Short To be conducted by TCAT in association with the ITCTC and other interested parties. Cost: $60,000 estimated The purpose of this project is to facilitate the implementation of a seamless transportation system in Tompkins County through customer use of single fare cards to pay for all transportation options including public transit, car share and taxi. Additional transportation providers can be added as needed. TCAT is implementing a digital magnetic stripe/ RFID-based pass system that can be expanded to include car share, taxi, employee incentive programs, and other transportation options. This project will include expansion (Phase II) of the pilot program already in place with Cornell University (Phase I, completed August 2007). 5. Rural Transportation Services Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by TCAT in association with the ITCTC and other interested parties. Cost: to be determined TCAT sees provision of rural commuter transportation service as a key need and growth opportunity over the next ten years. There are four components of TCATs rural transportation strategy. First, TCAT anticipates expansion of fixed-route services to neighboring counties, similar to TCATs Tioga and Schuyler County services. Second, TCAT is implementing a vanpool program targeted toward very long-distance commuters who, because of their distance from Ithaca, are difficult to serve with traditional fixedroute transit. Third, TCAT hopes to eventually implement an express park-and-ride system in which additional commuters can park closer to home and take the bus to their place of employment. Finally, TCAT continues to support
Page 6.6
programs to channel riders into rural transit services, such as van feeder services. 6. Integrated Information Technology Services Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by TCAT Cost: to be determined TCAT sees a need for several new internal and external technology systems. Internal systems include, but are not limited to, maintenance tracking and inventory control, scheduling and run cutting, payroll and dispatching, bus stop inventory and route GIS, and others. External systems include, but are not limited to, bus headway signs, bus stop summary schedules, route schedules, next bus indicators, and others. This project will study TCATs existing technology implementation, identify needs, and make recommendations regarding new technologies needed and integration of technologies. 7. Regional Transportation Initiative Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the Regional Transportation Coalition composed of representatives from government, higher education and private agencies in Tompkins, Schuyler, Cortland, Tioga and Chemung and Cayuga Counties. Cost: $100,000 The Coalition is proposing a feasibility study for a broad spectrum of integrated regional public transportation services in the region. The feasibility study would consider the potential for expansion of bus operations, a regional network of park & ride facilities, ridesharing, vanpooling, and ancillary services to support long distance commuters. At a minimum, the study should include an analysis of the potential service area for expanding regional commuter bus services, ridesharing (car and van-pooling), and the infrastructure to support commuter services. The study would identify service gaps to meet changing labor demand and commuter markets.
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians should be explored. In addition, it is recommended that the use of emergency vehicle and transit priority systems be studied and considered for implementation in the central business district. The initial phase of this project has been funded through the ITCTCs TIP. Additional resources are needed to address the continuing phases of this effort. 2. State Route 13 Signal Management Program Implementation interval = Short Term To be conducted by the NYSDOT in cooperation with the City of Ithaca. Cost: To be determined. Develop a program to review and revise signal system operations in the West End area of the City of Ithaca. This projects needs to be repeated periodically based to respond to changing traffic conditions.
V. Assistance to Local Trail Development Efforts 1. Implementation of Trail Development Strategy Implementation interval - ongoing To be conducted by ITCTC staff, in coordination with the Tompkins County Planning Department, in support of local trail development efforts. On March 1996 the ITCTC completed the Transportation Trail/Corridor Study. The ITCTC has expressed its support and priority for the aggressive and effective implementation of the trail network described in the Trail/Corridor Study (see Chapter 4, Figures 25-27). When determining how to fund a trail development project, the ITCTC will consider, and will urge NYSDOT transportation planners and decision makers to consider, all eligible federal funding categories, not only Transportation Enhancements. Development of a comprehensive multi-use trails network in Tompkins County has the potential for a significant positive impact on the transportation system. In addition, multi-use trails serve as a regional asset, providing harder to quantify but no less important, benefits to the quality of life of residents of Tompkins County. ITCTC can provide trail development technical assistance, i.e. mapping, data, grant applications, funding information to interested municipalities and other government agencies. Interested participants should make an official request for assistance through their mayor or supervisor in the form of a letter/email directed to the ITCTC.
IV. Transportation Systems Management 1. Traffic Signal Upgrade Program for Downtown City of Ithaca Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the City of Ithaca in cooperation with NYSDOT. Cost: To be determined. The upgrade of the traffic signal system in the core urban area of the City of Ithaca is one of the most important capital projects facing the area. The current system causes substantial delay and congestion despite constant efforts to keep the system in synchronization. Use of sensors to actuate signals in the presence of
Page 6.7
C. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EFFORTS I. Local Resource Sharing 1. Personnel Resources Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by local participants with cooperation with the ITCTC and NYSDOT. Cost: To be determined. It has been recommended that local participants examine their needs and resources and consider new models for consolidating services. For example, the County may have design staff that could assist a village with designing a project (instead of hiring a consultant). 2. Equipment Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by local participants with cooperation with the ITCTC and NYSDOT. Cost: To be determined. This current practice should be continued, formalized, and expanded in order to save public expense in the replacement of expensive heavy equipment. 3. Materials Purchasing & Storage Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by local participants with cooperation with the ITCTC and NYSDOT. Cost: To be determined. Joint purchasing may provide the benefit of reduced cost (by "buying in bulk" and in saving time and hauling costs from distributed instead of centralized stock piles). In addition, shared storage facilities could provide savings of valuable property. This may become a more crucial issue if proposed regulations materialize requiring salt storage in a contained, covered building. 4. Review of Highway Jurisdiction Implementation interval = Short To be conducted by local participants with cooperation with the ITCTC and NYSDOT. Cost: To be determined. Roadways come under the jurisdiction and control of city, village, town, county and state governments. Over time the functionality and operation of roadways may changes along with changes in preferred commuting routes land, use patterns, location of population and employment centers, etc. In some cases roadways are owned by multiple jurisdictions, creating inefficiencies. As a result of the above there are times when changing ownership of a roadway may lead to increased efficiencies and lower costs of maintenance. This project proposes to review the highway jurisdiction
patterns in Tompkins County to identify instances where a change in ownership can result in benefits to the parties involved. 5. Snow Plowing Priority Plan Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by local participants in conjunction with the ITCTC. Cost: To be determined. A simple plan, illustrated in map form, showing snow plow priority routes would be of benefit to the public, private sector transportation providers (e.g. truckers, delivery services, personal care workers, etc.), and public safety agencies. II. Enforcement Actions 1. Priority Enforcement Plan Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the local participants in cooperation with local and State Police agencies and the ITCTC. Cost: To be determined. Local traffic enforcement should be increased; however, it is recognized that police budgets are limited. For that reason, it has been suggested that efforts to enforce traffic laws could be coordinated with transportation professionals. Local transportation professionals routinely collect information such as traffic volume, vehicle mix, and traffic speeds. This information could assist local police agencies in focusing their efforts in order to maximize the impact of enforcement actions. 2. Study the Use of Remote Enforcement Options Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the local participants in cooperation with the ITCTC. Cost: To be determined. High tech" solutions utilizing remote sensing technologies have been employed in several cities in the U.S. and Europe. For example, a commonly used technology that has been studied in some depth uses sensors to detect red-light runners. This technology would assist local police agencies address their personnel and budget shortage -issues. 3. Traffic Clearing Plan Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the local participants in cooperation with local and State Police agencies, emergency responders and the ITCTC. Cost: To be determined. A policy of traffic clearing procedures should be reviewed/established. Such a policy would
Page 6.8
specify how police would clear traffic obstacles, particularly in high congestion areas, as part of a coordinated incident response system. 4. Hazardous Materials Routing Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by the ITCTC in cooperation with the local participants, NYSDOT, and other affected parties. Cost: To be determined. Public safety personnel, transportation professionals, and the trucking and transportation industry should be included in a process to plan hazardous material routes. In addition, specific haz-mat responses should be formalized. The topography of the area (i.e., major hills leading into the City) and the nearly singular access to the hospital make this an important issue. 5. Improve Coordination Between Law Enforcement, Public Works And Planning Efforts Implementation interval = short/ongoing To be conducted by the ITCTC in cooperation with the local law enforcment, public works and planning participants, and other affected parties. Cost: To be determined. This project calls for law enforcement, public safety, transportation engineering and planning professionals to coordinate their efforts to report traffic accidents, dangerous infrastructure conditions and ideas for improvements in order to increase the safety of the transportation system. Currently, these public service providers dont have a well structured system to share data and information. III. Freight Movement 1. Freight Transportation Study Implementation of Study Recommendations Implementation interval = Intermediate/Long To be conducted by the ITCTC in cooperation with local governments, NYSDOT, and law enforcement agencies. Cost: To be determined. The Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study was completed on April 2002. This study includes a series of recommendations for improving freight movement through the county. The principal goals of the study were to minimize the negative impacts of freight transportation, mostly truck hauling, while increasing safety of residents, truck drivers and other road users. The study recommends truck routes, increased enforcement actions and an education program for shippers and the public.
It is recognized that implementation of recommendations from the Freight Transportation Study will take place over an extended period of time.
Page 6.9
7. SAFETEA-LU NARRATIVE
EIGHT PLANNING FACTORS
The SAFETEA-LU legislation (P.L. 109-59, Section 6001(h)) specifies eight factors to be considered in the transportation planning process. These factors must be explicitly reflected in the planning process products, including the Long-Range Transportation Plan. The ITCTC has made a good faith effort to consider and address these factors throughout the 2030 LRTP. A brief review of the success of these efforts follows. 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
Response: In several of its planning projects for implementation, the ITCTC has committed to addressing the transportation-related security concerns and needs of Tompkins County. The areas topography and climate present unique security challenges in preventing and mitigating potential natural and man-made threats. Cooperation with and among state and local participants is essential to implement effective response strategies. NYSDOT implements a bridge inspection program that includes all bridges. Bridge condition ratings are assigned in a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is a failing structure and 7 is excellent. This analysis is used by state and local engineers to develop their maintenance plans for bridges. The ITCTC works closely with its local partners to ensure the these critical infrastructure assets are funded to maintain their state of good repair. More information is included in Ch.4 Connectivity section. Tompkins County has a robust program structure to address emergency management and disaster response. These activities are guided by the Tompkins Countys Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation Plan. More information is included in Ch.4 Safety Element section. The ITCTC recognizes the key role of law enforcement resources in improving transportation security. The ITCTC will continue to work with its partners to improve enforcement efficiency by identifying priorities and exploring developing options, such as remote enforcement. Further, the ITCTC supports TCAT actions to improve the security of transit infrastructure through capital and operational improvements.
1.
Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
Response: The ITCTC participated in the process of generating an economic development plan for the county. The ITCTC continues to be an active member of the Tompkins County Area Development agency Economic Development Strategy Coordinating Committee. The ITCTC will continue to coordinate its transportation planning efforts with economic development agencies whose mission is strengthening the economic vitality of Tompkins County.
2.
Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
Response: The ITCTC recognizes the importance of safety in the transportation system. As such, the agency has supported efforts in pedestrian and bicycle planning, intersection improvement programs and transportation enhancement projects that provide a safer environment for non-motorized users. Since its first LRTP the ITCTC has identified safety as one of the overarching concerns that pervade all goals, objectives and strategies in the LongRange Transportation Plan. In addition, in cooperation with NYSDOT, the ITCTC has programmed a substantial number of bridge rehabilitation/replacement projects and railroad crossing safety improvement projects. The ITCTC will continue to prioritize safety in its transportation planning and project funding efforts. The ITCTC has identified the creation of a coordinated traffic accident reporting system as a priority project. Accurate accident reporting data will be invaluable in order to address transportation safety planning and law enforcement concerns. Recently NYSDOT implemented the Accident Location Information System (ALIS). The ITCTC will use this information in its future transportation planning efforts.
4.
Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;
Response: The 2030 LRTP strongly supports the provision enhanced mobility options for residents, visitors and freight haulers in Tompkins County. The plans goals and objectives embrace the concept of Sustainable Accessibility. This broad concept seeks to transform transportation systems into mobility networks that are responsive to pedestrians, bicyclist, transit, rail, freight, and motorists while meeting the vehicular congestion, energy and environmental concerns that are now an impending crisis. Sustainable Accessibility can be defined as the ability to get to a destination or complete a task in an efficient, convenient, and reliable way, while using technologies and services that minimize environmental impacts,
Page 7.1
promote economic vitality and ensure equity in the provision of transportation to the community. The ITCTC was supportive of the consolidation of transit services in Tompkins County, which resulted in improvements in overall public transportation service. The ITCTC continues to work closely with TCAT in a cooperative manner to promote enhanced public transportation in Tompkins County. The ITCTC also cooperates with Gadabout, the only paratransit service available in Tompkins County, to ensure continued effective implementation of their critical transportation service. The ITCTC will work with TCAT to advance the goals and objectives of the LRTP with the final goal of providing the best possible transit service to residents of Tompkins County The ITCTC recognizes the importance of the impacts of land use decisions on the transportation system. As such it works closely with local governments in efforts to promote decisions that will enhance intermodal connectivity, transit operations, and the livability of communities in the planning area.
The ITCTC is continuously refining its travel demand model, which can be an important tool to assist local governments in predicting the transportation impacts of both transportation and land use development decisions. For the first time the 2030 LRTP includes an Climate Change and Energy Position Statement that is meant to clarify the ITCTCs policy with regards to transportation and its relationships to greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. The Position Statement as well as the Energy and Greenhouse Gas Element of the County Comprehensive Plan identify the strong dependence on private automobile travel as a key factor in the transportation sectors energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions balance. The 2030 LRTP strongly encourages the reduction of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as a necessary step towards meeting energy consumption and green house gas emissions goals for future years. The plan recognizes that some of the principal incentives to spur a modal shift will originate at the national and state level (i.e. gasoline prices), but that other strategies can be initiated locally. A variety of strategies are included in the plan to help promote the required modal shift away from private cars. They include land use planning to reduce trip distance, ensuring the provision of access and facilities for other modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian, car share, van pools, ridesharing), facilitating access to transportation information, etc. There are multiple environmental and economic benefits from reducing car dependency that will advance the purpose of this planning factor: enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life.
5.
Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life;
Response: Since the initial LRTP in 1994 the ITCTC has expressed specific concern over the apparent lack of balance in the local planning realm with regard to the relationships between transportation and development, land use, economic, and environmental impacts. The ITCTC has recommended that the county and local governments complete planning efforts as comprehensive land use plans, economic development plans, and local thoroughfare plans. The existence of these documents is important to the regional transportation planning efforts of the MPO. The role of the ITCTC has been to, first, encourage intergovernmental cooperation on specific development and transportation issues; second, to offer technical advice to help resolve transportation/development conflicts, and third, to work towards more coordinated transportation planning between local governments and the MPO intended to enhance the linkages between transportation and development. The ITCTC worked closely with Tompkins County in development of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. The principal objective of that cooperative effort was to ensure the Comprehensive Plan and the LRTP were mutually supportive. The land use components in the Scenario Analysis in Chapter 5 was derive from the countys Comprehensive Plans. Similarly, the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission goals in Chapter 5 are those generated during development of the Energy and Greenhouse Gas Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
6.
Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;
Response: A number of local initiatives and projects are in place that assist Tompkins County in achieving greater integration between modes. All the Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) buses are equipped with bicycle racks. It is the policy of TCAT, the countys public transportation agency, to continue to provide bicycle racks in all their routes. In addition, TCAT is aggressively pursuing ADA compliance for its facilities and multiple other projects aimed at improving the efficiency of transit service. Tompkins County was a participant in the New York State Canal System Recreationway Study. The ITCTC completed a Transportation Trail/Corridor Study for Tompkins County and together with the Tompkins County Planning Department offers trail development technical assistance. The City of Ithaca has adopted a Bicycle Plan, a downtown design plan, and plans for Inlet Island, the West End and Southwest Park. Currently the City of Ithaca is in the early stages of developing a City Comprehensive Plan. The ITCTC will play an active role in that effort. Various other communities continue to work on local planning initiatives
Page 7.2
that contain projects that will be eligible for Transportation Enhancement Program funding. All of these local planning efforts will assist the MPO in the identification and prioritization of enhancement projects and help supplement this plan. The ITCTC completed a Freight Transportation Study in April 2002. The data from that study was integrated into the development of the 2030 LRTP. The ITCTC will work on implementation of the recommendations included in the Freight Transportation Study, which focused on improving the safety and efficiency of freight transportation in Tompkins County while minimizing the negative impacts to residents. Currently, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Airport is served by public transit (TCAT) and by private transportation providers (i.e. taxi and limousine services). The airport access road (Brown Road) provides effective vehicular access to the facility. Integration is one of the central components of the Sustainable Accessibility concept espoused by the 2030 LRTP goals and objectives in Chapter 3. The definition for transportation integration is conceptually based on the premise of increasing coordination between modes in order to achieve greater operational efficiencies and to increase the convenience to users. Coordination between modes extends to all aspects of and works best when it is customer based and centered on providing ease of access, comfort, reliability and convenience. Integration in the 2030 LRTP brings together components of connectivity (networks) and mobility (travel modes and freight) in a dynamic format that seeks to improve efficiency and convenience for users.
Projects currently programmed in the Transportation Improvement Program demonstrate this commitment. The Financial section on Ch. 4 also shows the substantial investment planned for preservation of existing facilities. The ITCTC has consistently included as one of the primary principles in the LRTP the improvement of performance of the existing transportation system through TSM and transportation demand management (TDM) efforts. ITCTC staff has worked with the member agencies, particularly the City of Ithaca and Cornell University, to study and implement appropriate TDM strategies. The ITCTC has also coordinated with TCAT to plan and program a variety of projects that will enhance public transportation service and should help to increase use of transit. Examples of these projects include: enhanced passenger information systems, enhanced fare collection system, improvements to and additional bus shelters, improved bicycle/pedestrian access to bus routes. More recently, the ITCTC has cooperated with TCAT towards implementation of a vanpool program for Tompkins County. Tompkins County has a substantial network of abandoned railroad corridors. The ITCTC is actively involved in advancing development of these right-of-ways into multiuse trails in conjunction with municipal partners countywide. Developing these trails efficiently preserves the corridors as transportation facilities. Multiuse trails encourage and facilitate safe and efficient non-motorized transportation, and thus provide a much-needed alternative to the automobile. Although no single alternative mode will ever meet all the transportation needs currently met by automobiles they transit, bicycling, walking, car sharing, ridesharing, vanpooling - in combination with efficient land use development, can provide a viable option for many automobile based trips. Thus reducing congestion, enhancing the effectiveness of the existing transportation system overall, reducing maintenance costs and eliminating the need to expend resources to increase roadway capacity.
7.
Promote efficient system management and operation;
Response: The 2030 LRTP recognizes the importance of transportation system management (TSM) and operations initiatives in securing the integrity of the transportation system in Tompkins County. TSM strategies can also help expand the effective service life of valuable transportation infrastructure assets. Specific goals and objectives and recommendations for projects for implementation seek to improve efficiency through TSM options. Specifically, the plan identifies support for the City of Ithacas traffic signal upgrade program..
TEN PLAN REQUIREMENTS

The federal metropolitan planning rule (450.322, page 7275) specifies ten planning requirements to be included in the metropolitan transportation plan. The ITCTC has made a good faith effort to consider and address these requirements throughout the 2030 LRTP. A brief review of this effort follows.
8.
Emphasize the preservation transportation system;
of
the
existing
Response: The transportation programming processes of the New York State Department of Transportation and the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council place special emphasis on maintaining the operational capability and safety of existing roads, bridges, and transit operations.
Page 7.3
1.
Identify the projected transportation demand of persons and goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of the transportation plan;
Response: The current plan assumes that the transportation demands of persons and goods will remain relatively stable and a function of any growth in population. While this is a simplistic view, it does consider the following: (a) The population trends in the area are relatively stable growing at a rate of .7% per year between 2000 and 2007; and (b) the ITCTC recognizes the importance of modifying individual travel behavior as a means of avoiding the undesired environmental and societal impacts of an expanding highway system and continued automobile dependency within the transportation sector. The ITCTCs travel demand model serves as an important tool to identify projected demands on the transportation system. This plan includes results from model runs in the analysis of alternative development scenarios derived from the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 5). The Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study completed in April 2002 described the freight movement patterns in the county. These are expected to remain relatively unchanged. There are currently no major proposals that would affect freight movement in the county. The low rate of population growth will also help moderate demand for freight services. The ITCTC recognizes that any number of activities (i.e. new retail centers, manufacturing facilities, etc.) could induce increased demand for freight transportation. The ITCTC will monitor economic and land use activities to identify such changes and address them through the planning process. In addition, the ITCTC continuously seeks the input and participation of affected and interested parties. Individuals who represent organizations such as neighborhood councils, advisory committees, and planning boards are regular participants in the activities and deliberations of the MPO. The ITCTC and its staff maintain close working relationships with other planning professionals, both public and private, working in Tompkins County. While this contact may be "informal" (through such organizations as the American Planning Association or through "brown bag" meetings), the result is the exchange of information, ideas, and viewpoints on transportation and development that keep ITCTC staff informed on issues that may affect demand for transportation services and facilities.
function as an integrated transportation system, giving emphasis to those facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions over the period of the transportation plan. In addition, the locally preferred alternative selected from an Alternatives Analysis under the FTAs Capital Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR part 611) needs to be adopted as part of the metropolitan transportation plan as a condition for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309; Response: The Transportation System chapter of the LRTP includes a detailed inventory of existing and proposed transportation facilities. The plan identifies the regions existing network of infrastructure supporting both motorized and non-motorized transport. A presentation of multimodal and intermodal facilities is included. In addition to detailing the highway and transit system, the plan includes a sidewalk inventory and discussion of bicycle and pedestrian programs. The ITCTC and partnering municipalities are promoting development of a countywide multiuse trail system. This system will provide a significant off road network of trails connecting many of the key trip generators in the county, thus providing a bicycling and walking transportation infrastructure that currently does not exist. There is strong potential for bicycling to become an important mode of transportation in Tompkins County. The ITCTC seeks to promote this through the construction of bicycle friendly facilities and seeking explicit consideration of bicycle and pedestrian issues in the implementation of transportation and land use development projects. The ITCTC is committed to working with its partners to maintain the functionality of existing key infrastructure. Route 13, the only National Highway System route in Tompkins County, continues to be a significant and heavilyused artery. The route is also the areas primary link to the Interstate System. The ITCTC worked with local partners to implement a corridor management study for Route 13 in the northeastern part of the County. The agency will continue to be an active participants in efforts to implement the recommendations of the study.
3. Identify operational and management strategies to improve the performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize safety and mobility of people and goods; Response: There are a number of existing and future initiatives that serve to mitigate congestion locally. Partner agencies play a key role in implementing congestion management strategies. Cornell University, the largest employer in Tompkins County has an exemplary program for its faculty and staff, which promotes the use of carpools, and public transportation use for the commute to the
2.
Identify existing and proposed transportation facilities (including major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors) that should
Page 7.4
university. TCAT has been very aggressive in improving its scheduling, pricing and management structure to improve service. As a result, TCAT leads its upstate NY counterpart agencies in most measures of ridership and operational efficiency. Census data shows that pedestrians are already an important component of the Journey-to-Work trips in Tompkins County. The ITCTC seeks to strengthen the role of pedestrians by encouraging the construction of pedestrian facilities, including improvement in pedestrian safety features. ITCTC staff worked in close consultation with the Tompkins County Planning Department staff to coordinate data gathering and analysis with the new Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. The goals and objectives of the LRTP support those of the Comprehensive Plan and vice-versa. The LRTP was incorporated by reference to the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan to address transportation issues in the County. The ITCTC will continue to work with the Tompkins County Planning Department in an effort to better coordinate transportation and land use planning. The ITCTC is working with its partners to continue implementation of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan for Tompkins County. The coordinated plan assesses the services currently available to those with limited mobility (disabled persons, the elderly, etc.) and identifies the transportation needs of these vulnerable populations. The plan focuses on policy priorities and strategies to improve the operation and management of existing and future services. The Scenario Analysis chapter highlights the need to promote a modal shift away from drive-alone transportation. Increased use of transit, support of walking and bicycling modes, as well as implementation of ridesharing, vanpooling, paratransit, car sharing, and TDM programs will be critical cost effective components of the future transportation system in Tompkins County. These programs exist at different stages of implementation. Ithaca Carshare has offered car sharing services since June 2008. The ITCTC will continue to support this innovative program. The ITCTC is working with Cornell University, Ithaca College, Tompkins Cortland Community College, Tompkins County, and Cornell Cooperative Extension to implement a county wide ridesharing program. This should go operational sometime in 2010. Similarly a vanpool program managed by TCAT is nearing its implementation stage. The ITCTC is also working with Cornell Cooperative Extension and Tompkins County in the implementation of a traveler information program called Way2Go. This will provide individually tailored travel information services via a strong community outreach effort, and a robust web interface. Eventually, Way2Go may perform many of the functions of a countywide TDM program.
Other projects listed the Projects for Implementation section of the plan will have the direct or indirect result of alleviating congestion and improving traveler safety. The reader is directed to that section of the plan, which provides descriptions of specific recommended strategies.
4.
Reflect the consideration of the congestion management process in TMAs that meet the requirements of this subpart, including the identification of SOV projects that result from a congestion management process in TMAs that are nonattainmment for ozone or carbon monoxide;
Response: The Management Systems are not fully developed. The ITCTC urbanized area is not a TMA. TMA requirements are not applicable to this area.
5.
Assess capital investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and projected future metropolitan transportation infrastructure and provide for multimodal capacity increases based on regional priorities and needs. The metropolitan transportation plan may consider projects and strategies that address areas or corridors where current or projected congestion threatens the efficient functioning of key elements of the metropolitan areas transportation system;
Response: The ITCTC, with the assistance of NYSDOT, Tompkins County, and other transportation partners, will continue to refine its assessments of these issues. The current process, as discussed in the Financial section in the Transportation System chapter, relies on generalized cost and revenue estimates. The ITCTC is working to develop plans and strategies to address and mitigate congestion on important routes as the region experiences population and economic growth. For example, significant development is expected to continue North of the City of Ithaca in the area served by Route 96, near Cayuga Medical Center. The ITCTC worked with its partners to implement a corridor management study for Route 96. There is an ongoing dialogue between affected parties to address future development activities in the area. The corridor study data and recommendations are important contributions to this dialogue.
Page 7.5
6.
Include design concept and design scope descriptions of all existing and proposed transportation facilities in sufficient detail, regardless of funding source, in nonattainment and maintenance areas for conformity determinations under the EPAs transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93). In all areas (regardless of air quality designation), all proposed improvements shall be described in sufficient detail to develop cost estimates;
It is important to mention that the LRTPs direction to promoting alternatives to the drive-alone mode will result in numerous and substantial environmental benefits. Incresing the efficiency of the transportation system by moving away from car dependency will reduce energy use, emissions, and congestion; while at the same time reducing demand for additional or expanded highway facilities.
8.
Response: The Ithaca Urbanized Area and Tompkins County are in attainment with regards to air quality conformity regulations. Nonattainment/maintenance requirements are not applicable to this area. Proposed improvements are described in the Transportation System chapter, and where applicable, included in the Projects for Implementation chapter. Specific federally projects in the ITCTC planning area are included in the latest Transportation Improvement Program, which can be found in the ITCTC website: www.tompkins-co.org/itctc.
Identify pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation facilities in accordance with 23 USC 217(g);
Response: The 2030 LRTP includes specific goals, objectives, strategies and actions intended to meet this requirement. Maps have been provided showing the general location of proposed facilities in the Transportation System chapter. The ITCTC intends to continue its involvement with local government committees and other advocacy groups for these modes. This will include interfacing with the City of Ithaca, which has adopted a detailed bicycle system plan and is currently addressing implementation issues, Cornell University, which has developed a specific bicycle/pedestrian plan, and other local governments that currently have or will soon produce detailed, local-level bicycle and pedestrian plans. In addition, the ITCTC will continue to promote development of a countywide network of multiuse trails. The role of the MPO in this area is principally that of coordinator and facilitator, and as a source of technical information and expertise. Furthermore, activities identified in the Unified Planning Work Program include consideration of bicycle and pedestrian issues to a level commensurate with the state-ofthe-practice, local priorities, and available MPO planning resources and capabilities.
7.
A discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the metropolitan transportation plan. The discussion may focus on policies, programs, or strategies, rather than at the project level. The discussion shall be developed in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies. The MPO may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this consultation;
Response: The requirements of this section are met by the narratives in the Transportation System chapter. The ITCTC has developed digital maps that detail the location of environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and natural habitats, in the county. This information will allow projects in every Transportation Improvement Plan to be considered in light of possible environmental impact. Most transportation investment in the Ithaca region involves maintenance and improvement of existing facilities. Severe environmental impacts, as associated with acquisition and development of large rights-of-way, are not planned for or reasonably anticipated. Pursuant to the SAFETEA-LU guidelines, the ITCTC is working with NYSDOT to implement procedures for meaningful consultation with resource agencies. These consultations will be focused on the environmental impacts of transportation projects. It is in the interest of the MPO and other agencies to better utilize and share existing information.
9.
Include, as appropriate, transportation and transit enhancement activities;
Response: Transportation enhancement activities, as currently proposed by the local sponsors, include development of multi-use trail facilities, pedestrian safety improvements, and streetscape improvements for central business district areas. The ITCTC works closely with local communities to help develop eligible projects for the transportation enhancement program. At the time of writing this document there were five transportation enhancement projects at different stages of implementation in Tompkins County the Cayuga Waterfront Trail-Phase 2; the Columbia Street Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation; the Forest Home Bridge Rehabilitation; Pedestrian Crossing of Rt.13 at Third and Dey St.; Pine Tree Rd. Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths.
Page 7.6
Additionally, TCAT is working to improve bus stop infrastructure throughout the County, though not as official federal enhancements. TCAT is continually reviewing its service and routing in the downtown Ithaca area in an effort to facilitate easier transfers and enhance passenger safety during boarding and alighting.
legislative or administrative actions), the FHWA and the FTA will not withdraw the original determination of fiscal constraint; however, in such cases, the FHWA and the FTA will not act on an updated or amended metropolitan transportation plan that does not reflect the changed revenue situation. Response: This requirement is addressed in the Financial section in the Transportation System chapter (Ch.4), and in the Projects for Implementation sections of this Plan.
10. Include a financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented. For purposes of transportation system operations and maintenance, the financial plan shall contain systemlevel estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). For the purpose of developing the metropolitan transportation plan, the MPO, public transportation operator(s), and State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support metropolitan transportation plan implementation, as required under 450.314(a). All necessary financial resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the transportation plan shall be identified. The financial plan shall include recommendations on any additional financing strategies to fund projects and programs included in the metropolitan transportation plan. In the case of new funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified. In developing the financial plan, the MPO shall take into account all projects and strategies proposed for funding under title 23 U.S.C., title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 or with other Federal funds; State assistance; local sources; and private participation. Starting December 11, 2007, revenue and cost estimates that support the metropolitan transportation plan must use an inflation rate(s) to reflect year of expenditure dollars, based on reasonable financial principles and information, developed cooperatively by the MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s). For the outer years of the metropolitan transportation plan (i.e., beyond the first 10 years), the financial plan may reflect aggregate cost ranges/cost bands, as long as the future funding source(s) is reasonably expected to be available to support the projected cost ranges/cost bands. For nonattainment and maintenance areas, the financial plan shall address the specific financial strategies required to ensure the implementation of TCMs in the applicable SIP. For illustrative purposes, the financial plan may (but is not required to) include additional projects that would be included in the adopted transportation plan if additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were to become available. In cases that the FHWA and the FTA find a metropolitan transportation plan to be fiscally constrained (i.e., by
Page 7.7
APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2030 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page A-1
ITCTC staff received comments throughout the Long Range Transportation Plan update process. The ITCTC collected public comments during three widely advertised public meetings held on October 15, 2008, May 26, 2009 and September 24, 2009. In addition, members of the public were encouraged to telephone, mail and email comments to the ITCTC office. A web site for the LRTP update was established early in the update process and was maintained with the latest drafts of the evolving plan (see www.tompkins-co.org/itctc). The public comments received by the ITCTC are listed below along with a response. The comments are listed alphabetically by the LRTP topic area addressed in the comment. Comments that were similar in content were combined and received a single response. In those cases individual comments are identified. Some comments were not legible or not applicable to the LRTP. Those comments were not included below. In general the comments are presented in their original form. Some minor editing was made by ITCTC staff to improve readability. All comments are available for review at the ITCTC office 121 E. Court St., Ithaca, NY (607-274-5570).
#1 Topic Comment Response
Connectivity Need sidewalks between Ithaca College and the Commons See: Chapter 3. Vision Statement, Sustainable Accessibility: Connectivity, pg. 3.2. See: Goals and Objectives, Connectivity: Goal, Goal: To maintain and improve transportation networks to enhance safety, multimodal and intermodal connectivity and facilitate the movement of people and goods. Objective G: Utilize sidewalks, multiuse trails and paths, pedestrian bridges, roadway shoulder improvements, and other pedestrian facilities to provide needed pedestrian network links. Chapter 4.Transportation System - A Sustainable View, The City of Ithaca is served by a comprehensive network of sidewalks, though gaps do exist in the system. The ITCTC supports efforts to maintain and enhance this network. The City possesses extensive GIS data on sidewalk facilities; a recent survey of this information by City staff identified four main areas lacking in pedestrian facilities or adequate network connections: West Hill lack of sidewalks, substandard conditions Old Elmira Road and Spencer Road corridors lack sidewalks East Hill and South Hill connections need improvement, lack of sidewalks in upper sections Residential neighborhoods need better connections to the waterfront. Pg. 4.17
#2
Topic Comment
Mobility
Thank you for the presentation and open discussion of the countys Long-Range Transportation Plan draft last Tuesday night. I came away having underlined a number of transportation-related thoughtswhat IS the potential number of bicyclists, considering physical capabilities? (I use that description rather than age, having observed Dr. Ed Hart cycling around town.) and how much can certain means such as bike racks on buses flatten the impact of topography? (knowing how much even short or modest slopes impact the siting of commercial ventures in Collegetown.) The piece that stumped me, however, was the isolated statement about freight growth of 70% by 2020. (I hope thats accurate enough.) What does that meanweight of freight? volume of freight? traveled freight miles? number of freight trips? a combination thereof? How does that all impact air quality, use of energy, demand on infrastructure? I think of freight when I think of purchases, as in Finger Lakes Fresh vs. California lettuce, or as in the recent campaign to "buy local." And then I wonder about the possibilities of rail. While most comment on rail passage through Ithaca bemoans the West End traffic tie-ups or the noise and pollution of idling engines near Nates, to cede coal delivery to trucks would outweigh the trash-hauling traffic in the public consciousness. I also think back to my review of the Citys existing comprehensive plan, A General Plan of 1971, when I remarked at a committee meeting about its 1968 data on annual rail car loads of lumber (416), bricks (52) and beer (52) delivered (cp. 15,600 to Miliken Station), but now wonder whether we should be looking at a rail freight opportunities beyond coal in and salt out. Anyway, thanks for hosting such a diverse community representation and for your continuing work in taking the draft plan on the road. Mary Related Goals and Objectives: INTEGRATION: Objective C,D,M MOBILITY: Objective A:, B, C
Response
Page A-2
CONNECTIVITY: Objective I: QUALITY OF LIFE: Objective E:
#3
Topic Comment Response
Connectivity On roads leading out of town ( like Coddington Rd.) make a separate bike path that is separated from the main road by non-road. If you make bike paths part of the road shoulder, cars just drive faster and bikes and walkers are not safe. See VISION STATEMENT Chapter 3, Connectivity, Goal: To maintain and improve transportation networks to enhance safety, multimodal and intermodal connectivity and facilitate the movement of people and goods. Objective F. Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. Connectivity Would it be possible to restore any passenger rail service to Syracuse? The 2025-2030 LRTP for Tompkins County does not address this form of passenger service within its time frame. Initiatives such as the restoration of rail passenger services require a State and National commitment. New York State does have a vision for Intercity passenger and freight rail service that will serve New Yorkers across the State. Although the State plan focuses on a 20 year planning horizon, it also contains a more near term vision for New York State's rail system that can be achieved by 2020. For a complete description of the NYS Department ot Transportation's Rail Plan you may go to their web site at: https://www.nysdot.gov/staterailplan. Connectivity Hello TCAT people, I live a relatively short way from routes 96/34 (Piper Rd - [is approximately = to] 2 miles before West Danby) & would love to leave my car parked at home & get on a bus to & from Ithaca with my bike (I'm 58 years old). So far there is only one bus to Ithaca (7am) &one back (4:45pm)- the bus to/from Waverly. But I do not need or want to go to town until early afternoon (noon - 1pm on), since I work there afternoons & evenings. A bus that (perhaps) connected Spencer to (or van) Ithaca that offered an early afternoon service to Ithaca & return at night, perhaps around 9:30pm, would allow me & others who work latter in the day or go to evening meetings, cultural events or see friends etc. to save gas, money & isolation in a car with less negative effects on our planet by taking public transportation. Perhaps this service would be in a smaller vehicle than bus to start with until demand increases &/or could happen when enough passenger call in advance to reserve a ride enough ahead of time (Service on demand like Gadabout) The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Connectivity Coordinate work schedules so car or van pooling becomes more practical. Too many workers hours are staggered in some industries 4. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the name given to a series of strategies that can be utilized singly or in tandem to create a program whose purpose is to alleviate traffic problems through reduction of automobiles on the road, especially single occupancy vehicles. The strategies include combinations of improved alternatives to driving alone, incentives to use alternative modes, disincentives for driving alone, along with work hour management. The ITCTC supports implementation of voluntary transportation demand management programs, which target major employers or employment areas, such as downtown Ithaca. See Chapter 4.Transportation System - A Sustainable View, pg. 4.26. Connectivity 2. I think the plan should identify a network of "complete streets" that should be priorities for infrastructure investment. Old Elmira Road and Hanshaw Road are good examples but I think that between the City, County and villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights it would be possible to put together a recommended network These streets would be likely priorities for the TIP. See VISION STATEMENT Chapter 3, Goal: To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance Mobility. Connectivity: Objective, B. Improve the existing and proposed road network to safely accommodate bicycling, pedestrian and transit uses. Objective G: Utilize sidewalks, multiuse trails and paths, pedestrian bridges, roadway shoulder improvements, and other pedestrian facilities to provide needed pedestrian network links. Also See: Fig.29 Cayuga Lake Scenic Byways.
#4
#5
Topic Comment
Response
#6
#7
Topic Comment
Response
Page A-3
#8
Connectivity Please make bike routes/paths that are more accessible to those of us who would like to bike more but don't feel safe sharing the road with cars. See VISION STATEMENT Chapter 3, Connectivity, Goal: To maintain and improve transportation networks to enhance safety, multimodal and intermodal connectivity and facilitate the movement of people and goods. Objective A: Consider safety as the base component of all infrastructure design decisions with an end objective of reducing fatal and injury crashes. Objective B: Improve the existing and proposed road network to safely accommodate bicycling, pedestrian and transit uses. Connectivity Soda tax for bike / ped projects As explained below and in Chapter 1, the bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation carry a significant percentage of the journey to work trips in the Tompkins County. To achieve the goals of the LRTP, reduce greenhouse gas production and dependency in fossil fuels every effort should be made to maintain and enhance the trip share of these alternative modes to the automobile. The presence of a dedicated full or part-time bicycle/pedestrian coordinator for Tompkins County would help achieve this outcome. Such a person would review projects for their multimodal impact, and coordinate training, education, and outreach and provide assistance to local municipalities. The ITCTC supports the creation of a bicycle/pedestrian coordinator position and will work with the County, City of Ithaca and other member agencies to determine the best administrative option to locate such a position and secure its funding. See: Chapter,4 Transportation System - A sustainable View pg. 4.15, 4.46, Chapter 6, Projects For Implementation, pg. 6.7.
#9
#10
Connectivity Shoulders for bike use are too big at 5', should be 4' to lessen impact on homeowners property. See VISION STATEMENT Chapter 3, Goal: To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance Mobility. Connectivity, Objective F. Connectivity How will future regional rail plans affect Ithaca/ Tompkins County? See: Chapter 4. Transportation System - A Sustainable View: The prospect for high-speed rail service in Upstate New York could stimulate demand for feeder bus service from Tompkins County. A regional bus plan would be needed to integrate new services with local transit and other modes. Both County and City economic strategies promote tourism, however, a plan is needed to enhance and manage bus tourism while mitigating potential negative impacts of congestion. Connectivity Connect areas outside of downtown with transportation other than personal car. Important because within Ithaca, it is now fairly easy to walk or bike, and it is people outside of downtown who use cars See: VISION STATEMENT Chapter 3, Connectivity, Goal: To maintain and improve transportation networks to enhance safety, multimodal and intermodal connectivity and facilitate the movement of people and goods. Objective F. Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. See: VISION STATEMENT, Proximity, Goal: To achieve land development patterns that enable the efficient provision of multimodal transportation services. Objective C: Link transportation investment with local and regional land use planning. See: VISION STATEMENT, Proximity, Goal: To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance mobility. Objective A: Promote pedestrian, bicycle, rideshare, carshare, para-transit, vanpools, public transit and new innovative alternatives to drive-alone automobile travel. The ITCTC will continue to work with local sponsors, TCAT and NYSDOT to implement a more robust regional park-and-ride system in Tompkins County. Chapter 4, Transportation System - A Sustainable View, pg. 33.
#11
#12
#13
Connectivity Map w / all walking trails in Ithaca In Chapter 4 Transportation System - A Sustainable View, see maps on figures 25, 26, 27.
Page A-4
#14
Connectivity Better public, pedestrian, bike, etc, to downtown from Danby, Lancing, etc. TCAT primarily provides bus service for day shift journey-to-work purposes especially journey-to-work to the principal employment centers in Tompkins County: Downtown Ithaca and Cornell University. Bus service however is much broader than just journey-to-work. service is provided throughout most of the day for use by all residents in Tompkins County. Chapter 4, Transportation System A Sustainable View. Pg. 4.6 Connectivity As density increases modal centers such as bus stations can improve services Chapter 2. Demographic Overview pg 2.1, Table 4. Connectivity 4. I didn't see any mention in the plan of the Corridor Plans for Route 13/366 and Route 96. I think they should be highlighted and the principles recommended for implementation on other State highways throughout the county. See: Scenario Analysis, Scenarios, pg. 5.1 for brief discussion of related issues of the 13/366 Corridor Study.
#15
#16
#17
Connectivity 2. Bike / running trails - non motorized between the Towns & Hamlets - safer for kids and bike See VISION STATEMENT Chapter 3, Connectivity, Goal: To maintain and improve transportation networks to enhance safety, multimodal and intermodal connectivity and facilitate the movement of people and goods. Objective F: Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. Objective G: Utilize sidewalks, multiuse trails and paths, pedestrian bridges, roadway shoulder improvements, and other pedestrian facilities to provide needed pedestrian network links. Objective H: Maintain a multiuse trail network plan for Tompkins County and provide assistance and incentives for its implementation. Connectivity Require developers to include sidewalks The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council also supports efforts to address pedestrian issues through design of the built environment. In particular the design of transportation facilities (i.e. roads, bridges, etc.) offer the opportunity to consider the needs of pedestrians. A number of intersection design treatments such as bulb-outs, raised crosswalks, pedestrian signals, etc. should be considered for incorporation into projects. Sidewalks should be provided at every opportunity. See: Chapter 4.Transportation System A Sustainable View pg. 4.17. Connectivity Trails in rural areas can be divisive - keep them in areas of high population An Important concept to consider in the development of Sustainable Transportation are the advantages of Connectivity. Connectivity refers to the different transportation networks serving an area and the density of connections between different origins and destinations. A well-connected area has transportation networks with many links, numerous modal options, and minimal service dead-ends. As connectivity increases, travel times decrease and route options and transportation mode options increase, allowing more direct travel between destinations, and creating a more accessible and resilient system. Connectivity is achieved through networks of infrastructure (i.e. roads & bridges, sidewalks, trails, etc.) and communications (wireless services, internet, etc.). Trails in this sense can be more inclusive and would be developed to offer greater access to rural communities the activities available in the more populated urban areas. See: Chapter 3. Vision Statement pg. 3.2
#18
#19
Page A-5
#20
Connectivity Density needs to be increased in urban design to be effective in improving transportation modes. As density increases in the urbanized increases transportation options can continue to improve; right now, TCAT provides commuter service from Watkins Glen in Schuyler County and Newark Valley in Tioga County. TCAT service is concentrated in the Ithaca urbanized area. Nearly 61% of Tompkins County residents live within one quarter () mile of a bus route, with 88% forurban and 31% for rural populations. (Source: Tompkins County Planning Department). See: Chapter 4 Transportation System A Sustainable View pg 4.5 Environment Anti-Idling Laws. I wake up most mornings to trucks idling on N. Aurora. This is an unnecessary pollution contributor, gas wasting and noise pollution causing problem which costs $ to fix See Chapter 6. Projects for Implementation pg. 6.8, II Enforcement Actions. Environment 9. The reference to the Tompkins County Conservation Plan should say that it was "developed" rather than "approved" in 2007. It did not go through any formal approval process. Corrected: See Chapter 4. Transportation System - A Sustainable View, pg 4.40
#21
#22
#23
Environment Need non-diesel buses See: Chapter 5. Scenario Analysis, pg 5.2 Moderate Alternative Vehicle Mix (AVM) Transit Buses: 80% diesel full hybrid AIC by 2030, 20% hydrogen hybrid-fuel cell by 2030 The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are
#24
Environment 1. I strongly recommend that a more urgent statement be made regarding the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and how this one issue makes all of the efforts on transportation planning much more urgent. A goal of reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled should be stated as an overarching See: Chapter 4.Transportation System - A Sustainable View, which incorporate the recommendations; also see: Chapter 3. Vision Statement, Environment: Goal: To work progressively towards a transportation system that will have zero-net negative impact on the environment, Objective A: Implement transportation initiatives that reduce or minimize the production of ozone precursors, small particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other greenhouse gases pg. 3.7 Environment 5. I think the "Environmental" section (p. 4.32) should stress up front, as mention above in #1, the overarching importance of the greenhouse gas emissions issue. This Comment has been addressed in the final draft Environment 7. The section on Scenic Resources (p. 4.37) should mention the County-wide Scenic Resources For details see the County-wide Scenic Resources Inventory. at www.tompkinsco. org/planning/nri/documents/TCSRreportJan17.pdf Environment Wildlife is negatively affected by trails See: Chapter 7. SAFETEA-LU Narrative pg.7.6 The ITCTC has developed digital maps that detail the location of environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and natural habitats, in the county. This information will allow projects in every Transportation Improvement Plan to be considered in light of possible environmental impact. Most transportation investment in the Ithaca region involves maintenance and improvement of existing facilities. Severe environmental impacts, as associated with acquisition and development of large rights-of-way, are not planned for or reasonably anticipated.
#25
#26
#27
Page A-6
#28
Environment 8. On page 4.38 it is incorrectly characterizes the UNAs as "protected" and "recreational' lands. Most of them are not. See, Chapter 4. Transportation System - A Sustainable View: pg 4.39, In addition, it is recommended that Tompkins County's Unique Natural Areas be protected to preserve their important ecological functions. These areas have been identified as having outstanding environmental qualities and deserve special attention. Scenic resourcesetc. (http://www.tompkinsco.org/planning/nri/nri.htm). Environment 10. The table on Greenhouse Gas emissions sources from the 1998 ICLEI inventory (p. 4.35) should be updated to reflect the more accurate assessment used in the 2008 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions element of the Comprehensive Plan. See: Chapter 4.Transportation System - A Sustainable View, which incorporate the recommendations; also see: Chapter 3. Vision Statement, Environment: Goal: To work progressively towards a transportation system that will have zero-net negative impact on the environment, Objective A: Implement transportation initiatives that reduce or minimize the production of ozone precursors, small particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other greenhouse gases pg. 3.7. Environmental We must get the 18 wheeler trucks hauling garbage off of Rt79 E. (green Street) We know carbon monoxide kills. & plus the noise, dirt, is harming our houses, our water system, our sanity, our health, they belong on the Thruways! See Chapter 6. Projects for implementation, III Freight Movement Environmental Power Plant Emissions - are they included in the calculations for emission analysis. The emissions included in the analysis are from transportation sources only. Integration Daily transportation to the hospital during change of shift times (half an hour before and after so 6:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m.; 2:30 p.m. etc. The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Integration 3. There is a section that addresses the speeding issue. I think a color-coded map of existing speed limits would be helpful here. The more I think about the expense and impact of upgrading roads to safely accommodate ambient speeds (e.g., Coddington) the more I think we should look at speed reduction and enforcement options (which are outlined quite well in the plan) as a more viable alternative See: Vision Statement, Chapter 3. Goal: To develop an integrated transportation system for Tompkins County that is seamless, multimodal and coordinated to achieve greater operational efficiencies and increase the safety and convenience of users. Objective J: Support enforcement of traffic laws by facilitating the use of advanced technologies and interagency cooperation. Integration Need a bus to Ellis Hollow at 2pm (for the school bus arrival) The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Integration Carshare car parked near Cayuga medical center or Finger Lakes School of Massage Carshare locations will be added as the service continues to grow. Check their Website for updated service locations. Contact: Ithaca Carshare at: info@ithacacarshare.org
#29
#30
#31
#32
#33
Topic Comment
Response
#34
#35
Page A-7
#36
Integration Mid-day regular service to Tburg. The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Integration Bus Routes - More out 79 way - Slaterville Springs etc. more time friendly The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide.
#37
#38
Topic Comment
Integration Coordinate work schedules so car or van pooling becomes more practical. Too many worker's hours are staggard in some industries. My Grandfather used to drive a bus for the Corona typewriter company. Address issues pertaining to Mess Travis as to why it is difficult to implement. Why the railroads went out of business. What happened to the Lehigh Valley? See: Chapter 6. Projects for Implementation, pg 6.7 # 7.Regional Transportation Initiatives, that can have future implications relating van -pooling. Integration Definition of "Nodal" as it relates to land development should be broadened to define the "compactness and walk-ability of an area, it should define a "sense of place" an area that has taken design into consideration including parking, streetscape etc., as opposed to nodal as a "single point use" Use the "Urban Thoroughfare Manual" as reference for retrofitting suburbs; Southwest Area in Ithaca and East Hill Plaza are examples of single use that would better serve as a mixed use area. The definitions for Nodal in the Plan are vague (Chapter 3. Vision Statement Pgs 3.1 and 3.5) The term "nodal" has been replaced by words that are descriptive of the design intent and therefore provide a broader expression of specific area. Integration Enhance the mobility (Transit) options by offering the public mobility options that are packaged in "Bundles" The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Integration Better modes of transportation must be convenient to access. See VISION STATEMENT Chapter 3, Integration: Goal: To develop an integrated transportation system for Tompkins County that is seamless, multimodal and coordinated to achieve greater operational efficiencies and increase the safety and convenience of users. Objective B: Promote the efficient and effective movement of people and goods by integrating and linking various Integration Increase one and two story dwellings within the City See; Chapter 2. Demographic Overview, for current Census data and analysis of status of housing trends affecting density and affordability in the City. Integration Work opportunities and affordable housing as incentives to return to the City See: Chapter 3 Vision Statement, Quality of Life; Goal: Develop a transportation system that sustains and enhances the quality of life for Tompkins County residents and visitors. Objective L, Support community-based discussions involving the relationship between transportation and affordable housing, community planning, and economic development and revitalization. Pg. 4.6
Response #39 Topic Comment
Response #40 Topic Comment Response
#41
#42
#43
Page A-8
#44
Integration More assisted living facilities like Kendal At Ithaca for the elderly. See Chapter x Quality of Life, Goal: Develop a transportation system that sustains and enhances the quality of life for Tompkins County residents and visitors. Integration Concentration County wide should be on reducing speed limits to solve a multitude of traffic and neighborhood problems - municipalities say its too hard to do. "There seems to be general agreement that traffic and traffic speed should be reduced in residential neighborhoods. This may be accomplished by implementing appropriate traffic calming techniques and/or increasing law enforcement efforts. On rare occasions there is an opportunity to re-route traffic around neighborhoods by favoring access to alternative routes that make "cut-through" trips less attractive. In all cases traffic must be managed based on the particular conditions of each neighborhood and considering the need and desires of the residents. There is no single strategy or recommendation that will serve all locations." LRTP 2030 Transportation System - A Sustainable View, Pg 4.38 Chapter 3, Vision Statement Goal: To develop an integrated transportation system for Tompkins County that is seamless, multimodal and coordinated to achieve greater operational efficiencies and increase the safety and convenience of users. See Objective H, J, See: Safety Element, Traffic Issues, p 4.46
#45
#46
Mobility Please support infrastructure that encourages bicycle commuting (bike paths etc.) See: Chapter 3. Vision Statement, INTEGRATION, Goal: To develop an integrated transportation system for Tompkins County that is seamless, multimodal and coordinated to achieve greater operational efficiencies and increase the safety and convenience of users. Objective C: Continue development of an integrated multimodal transportation system, including public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and networks, infrastructure and operations planning, construction and maintenance practices pg. 3.4 Mobility 11. Although bicycle use is important, given our topography and climate, I think that it may get too much emphasis relative to pedestrian and transit options, which I think are much more likely to have a major impact on SOV use. This Comment has been addressed in the final draft Mobility 1. Better Public transport to the rural areas, i.e. busses in mid day as well as commuting times. See: Chapter 2. Demographic Overview pg. 2.19 There is a strong demand in the community to expand services in all transit areas. An aging population, increasing energy costs, the demands of the current commute pattern and strong transit use by college students serve to fuel the demand for increased transit options. The ITCTC recognizes the critical role transit services play in providing adequate mobility to the residents of Tompkins County. Future adaptation to climate change and energy descent challenges will also be heavily dependent on the share transportation function of the transit system. The ITCTC will continue to work with transit and mobility partners to support the goal of providing sustainable accessibility to the Tompkins County community. See Chapter 4. Transportation System - A Sustainable View Mobility Tompkins County Bus transportation does not come to Brooktondale enough. The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility 6. I don't think that bicycle transportation to the Airport warrants special mention as an inter-modal connection. Air travelers are highly unlikely to use this mode and the Airport as an employment center is no more significant in its need for bike accommodations than anywhere else. Thank you for your comment, ITCTC will edit its discussion of bicycle transportation.
#47
#48
#49
#50
Page A-9
#51
Mobility Please make the SPCA an official bus stop so volunteers have easier access to the shelter The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility More buses, more often, to more places, later in evening. Return Floral buses; Lower fares to increase rider-ship The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility Concerned about the personal safety with pod cars - small, un-staffed vehicles. See: Chapter 6. Projects for Implementation, III. Promotional and Educational Strategies 1. Safety Education Implementation interval = Short To be jointly conducted by various participants. Cost: To be determined. General safety education has been identified as a priority. Education efforts may be low-cost to implement and can be directed towards a number of audiences. Audiences may range from elementary school programs to college level continuing education. The recommendation is for the ITCTC to establish a subcommittee on safety. This subcommittee would be charged with reviewing current efforts in the area, determining additional "target audiences", and investigating implementation mechanisms, pg 6.3 Mobility Provide backup rides for rural riders who only have access to to maybe four bus trips a day in their area; if they miss the bus it can be ours before another one - service to give those people a ride in The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility More information at bus stops and around the County about bus routes See: Chapter 3. Vision Statement, Goals and Objectives, Mobility, Goal: To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance mobility. Objective L: Support the provision of real-time system information to customers via the internet, wireless services and at bus stops, shelters, stations and other appropriate facilities. Mobility Put pressure on TCAT to make buses more attractive to encourage rider-ship The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility Focus of community is still the private auto See: Chapter 2.Demographic Overview Person Trips by Mode of Transportation figures are presented in TABLES 10 comparing 1995 and 2001 estimates. Some important trends from the comparison include a reduction in the use of Private Vehicles as a percentage of trips per day in Tompkins County, from 88.7% in 1990 to 83.2% in 1995 to 80.33% in 2001. In contrast, the national figures for this category changed from 87.1% in 1990 to 89.3% in 1995 to 86.5% in 2001 Mobility Think behind the consolidation of TCAT in its present form The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide.
#52
#53
#54
#55
#56
#57
#58
Page A-10
#59
Mobility Employer Incentives for use of TCAT and other transportation alternatives The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility Reconsider Organizational Structure of TCAT(I.e.,) authority, not, Not For Profit The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility When people need to bring their pet the veterinarian, pets not being allowed on most public transportation can be a problem The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility Need bike trails that are safe - not sharing road w/ Like Cyclovia in Bogota See: Chapter 3, Vision Statement, Goals And Objectives, Connectivity, Objective F: Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. Mobility Develop mechanisms to support TCAT The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility More Bike Lanes & car free bike routes See: Chapter 3, Vision Statement, Goals And Objectives, Connectivity, Objective F: Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. Mobility When will the bus come to my neighborhood - Coddington (Rd.) & Rich (Rd.) See VISION STATEMENT Chapter 3, Goal: To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance mobility. Mobility, Objective, H, Support public transit agencys efforts to provide services oriented to meet work trip demand beyond currently scheduled bus service, including the provision of multi-county regional service. Mobility Regional Transit - Tompkins - Cortland See VISION STATEMENT Chapter 3, Goal: To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance mobility. Mobility, Objective, J. Support regional connections for people traveling by bus.
#60
#61
#62
#63
#64
#65
#66
Page A-11
#67
Mobility How to encourage other Municipalities to contribute to TCAT The ITCTC fully supports enhancing the transit service provided by TCAT. TCAT must work with local governments and agencies to demonstrate the true value of an efficient transit system. Any efforts to expand the financial contributions to TCAT will also need substantial public support. Mobility Led rides for newbies to biking and the greater Ithaca area would be awesome. There are several bicycling organizations in the Tompkins County area that organized bicycle rides for groups. See http://bikeithaca.org/ . Also Way2Go (Way2Goinfo.org) serves as a single source for reliable information on all community mobility services and sustainable transportation alternatives for consumers, employers, human service agencies and community organizations. The Way 2Go program was developed by Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County starting in 2008. Providing travel training for individuals and creating a network of travel trainers, using professional practices, to train individuals how to use all community mobility services as needed (2009) pg.2.19 Mobility bike lanes in all streets traffic calming, designated car free roads more public bike racks (covered) car-free Ithaca by 2028! An electric TCAT fleet
#68
#69
See: Chapter 3, Vision Statement, Goals And Objectives, Connectivity, Objective F: Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. Mobility Bike year round - all errands, shopping, etc. very comfortable with the traffic - major problems to road conditions (potholes, uneven surfaces) See Chapter 6. Projects For Implementation, pg 6.9, 5. Improve Coordination Between Law Enforcement, Public Works And Planning Efforts. This project calls for law enforcement, public safety, transportation engineering and planning professionals to coordinate their efforts to report traffic accidents, dangerous infrastructure conditions and ideas for improvements in order to increase the safety of the transportation system. Currently, these public service providers dont have a well structured system to share data and information. Mobility We need to extend 4 - lane section of Route 13 from Warren Road to Route 366 at NYSEG. The overlap of 366 & 13 should be eliminated by separating the two roads at NYSEG. This would reduce morning CU commute congestion particularly. Thank you for your recommendation At present there are no planning initiatives related to Route 13 from Warren Road to Route 366 at NYSEG. One of ITCTC's initiatives in the LRTP is to provide daily commuters with information that analyzes the impacts of vehicular travel. The objective in mind is to promote alternative solutions to congestion of roadways other than road expansion. See: Chapter 2 Demographic Overview. On page 2.17 as a brief example, states, traffic congestion is a non-linear function, meaning that a small reduction in urban-peak traffic volume can cause a proportionally larger reduction in delay. For example, a 5% reduction in traffic volumes on a congested highway such as from 2,000 to 1,900 vehicles per hour may cause a 10-30% reduction in delay. As a result, even relatively small changes in traffic volume on congested roads can provide relatively large reductions in traffic delay And the same Chapter pg. 2.16 The 2000 journey-to-work data indicate that in Tompkins County 59.8% of the workforce drive alone to work, practically unchanged from 59.9% in 1990. The figures are further supported by the data from TABLE 13, where 57.4% of work trips are shown as drive-alone (a.k.a. single occupancy vehicles-SOV). The LRTP proposes to address congestion through programs that lead commuters to seek options other than drive-alone. Implementation of these solutions continue to grow in urgency due to severe restrictions in the funding of infrastructure improvements and the need to address environmental impacts of transportation.
#70
#71
#72
Topic Comment
Mobility Has the Plan considered mobility options for freight movement?
Page A-12
Response
See: Vision Statement, MOBILITY, Goal: To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance mobility. Objective G: Encourage expansion in the use of rail for freight movement, pg. 3.5 Mobility Consider Rail transport as a method of reducing freight traffic on state and county roads! See: Vision Statement, MOBILITY, Goal: To promote implementation of transportation services, programs and projects that enhance mobility. Objective G: Encourage expansion in the use of rail for freight movement, pg. 3.5 Mobility Driver Awareness See: Chapter 6. Projects for Implementation, III. Promotional and Educational Strategies 1. Safety Education Implementation interval = Short To be jointly conducted by various participants. Cost: To be determined. General safety education has been identified as a priority. Education efforts may be low-cost to implement and can be directed towards a number of audiences. Audiences may range from elementary school programs to college level continuing education. The recommendation is for the ITCTC to establish a subcommittee on safety. This subcommittee would be charged with reviewing current efforts in the area, determining additional "target audiences", and investigating implementation mechanisms, pg 6.3. Mobility We need buses to Ithaca that run more often. There seems to be only a few routes that have large time gaps in between. It creates scheduling transportation very difficult. Also buses that run to Cortland would also be available. The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility Cars think they own the road - up with other choices See: Chapter 3, Vision Statement, Goals And Objectives, Connectivity, Objective F: Create a county wide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones.
#73
#74
#75
#76
#77
Mobility We need more bike lanes and Dedicated Bike roads. One going from down town up the hill , One going (to) East Seneca, One going North South See: Chapter 3, Vision Statement, Goals And Objectives, Connectivity, Objective F: Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. Mobility Trail to Brooktondale See: Chapter 4. Transportation System - A Sustainable View Fig 25, Multi-Use Trails in Tompkins County, Proposed Coddington Trail. Mobility Need Bike trails that go places See: Chapter 7. SAFETEA-LU Narrative, Tompkins County has a substantial network of abandoned railroad corridors. The ITCTC is actively involved in advancing development of these right-of-ways into multiuse trails in conjunction with municipal partners countywide. Developing these trails efficiently preserves the corridors as transportation facilities. Multiuse trails encourage and facilitate safe and efficient non-motorized transportation, and thus provide a much-needed alternative to the automobile, pg.. 3. Mobility
#78
#79
#80
Topic
Page A-13
Comment Response
Finish Black Diamond Trail and other right of ways currently present but undeveloped See Chapter 6. Projects For Implementation, pg. 6.7 V. Assistance to Local Trail Development Efforts 1. Implementation of Trail Development Strategy Implementation interval - ongoing. To be conducted by ITCTC staff, in coordination with the Tompkins County Planning Department, in support of local trail development efforts. Mobility we need bike lanes! See: Chapter 3, Vision Statement, Goals And Objectives, Connectivity, Objective F: Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. Mobility Tompkins County's aging population is increasing, how will this impact mobility options? See: Chapter 2. Vision Statement, pg. 2.19 Tompkins County is fortunate to have a robust public transportation system, but also one that is working at close to capacity. There is a strong demand in the community to expand services in all transit areas. An aging population, increasing energy costs, the demands of the current commute pattern and strong transit use by college students serve to fuel the demand for increased transit options. The ITCTC recognizes the critical role transit services play in providing adequate mobility to the residents of Tompkins County. Future adaptation to climate change and energy descent challenges will also be heavily dependent on the share transportation function of the transit system. The ITCTC will continue to work with transit and mobility partners to support the goal of providing sustainable accessibility to the Tompkins County community. Mobility Concerns of safest way to bike to Ithaca from Danby for middle school kids. Is there a bike rack on the bus to Danby & how many bikes does it hold The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide.
#81
#82
#83
#84
Mobility Bus 65 to Danby! We would love a time between 8am & 2pm and or (more importantly a latter bus time!!! Also if it could go out to the County Line The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility Mobility Equity, Transportation Planning should apply Environmental Justice principles when addressing transportation options for Minority and Low Income Populations. See: Chapter 3. Vision Statement, pg. 3.1 Sustainable Accessibility can be defined as the ability to get to a destination or complete a task in an efficient, convenient, and reliable way, while using technologies and services that minimize environmental impacts, promote economic vitality and ensure equity in the provision of transportation to the community. Mobility I bike to work Freeville to Cortland on Fall Creek / Mclean Road. The section from Freeville to a bit past Malloryville Road has suffered greatly (road & side). This section is currently listed as "Fair" on the Bicycle Map. It has degraded a couple of levels below that & needs repaving with good shoulders. See Chapter 6. Projects For Implementation, pg 6.9, 5. Improve Coordination Between Law Enforcement, Public Works And Planning Efforts Implementation interval = short/ongoing To be conducted by the ITCTC in cooperation with the local law enforcement, public works and planning participants, and other affected parties. cost: To be determined. This project calls for law enforcement, public safety, transportation engineering and planning professionals to coordinate their efforts to report traffic accidents, dangerous infrastructure conditions and ideas for improvements in order to increase the safety of the transportation system. Currently, these public service providers dont have a well structured system to share data and information.
#85
#86
Page A-14
See: Chapter 3, Vision Statement, Goals And Objectives, Connectivity, Objective F: Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones.
#87
Mobility Intelligent information systems located in transportation centers to improve availability of schedules and travel options for public transit users. The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide. Mobility Pod Cars is a good idea. ITCTC will continue to support innovative transportation solutions. Mobility Need Bike Lanes See: Chapter 3, Vision Statement, Goals And Objectives, Connectivity, Objective F: Create a countywide system of bikeways utilizing roadway shoulder improvements, repainting shoulder stripes, and resizing lane widths; and/or building multi-use trails, dedicated bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle priority zones. N/D 1) Change the word "nodal" on pages 3.1 and 3.5 to "compact, walk-able." Node is a technocratic term that does not convey any information on the character of a place. The term I suggest conveys more clearly what you are after. This comment has been incorporated into the final draft of the Long Range Transportation plan.
#88
#89
#90
#91
N/D Comprehensive, but where are the dates for completing specific projects? Since there are no dates, this all seems like "pie in the sky' with admirable but vague goals & objectives See: Chapter 1. The Long Range Transportation Program The core functions that the MPO must carry out include developing and monitoring both a long Range Transportation Plan and a Transportation Improvement Program of transportation planning and capital projects. During the process of developing these planning documents the MPO informs the public of the activities and encourages their participation pg 1.1. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the agreed-upon five-year list of specific projects for which federal funds are anticipated. The TIP represents the transportation improvement priorities of the Tompkins County Transportation Area. The list of projects is multi-modal and includes highway and public transit projects, as well as bicycle, pedestrian, and freight-related projects. The projects listed in the TIP are funded and have specific dates for implementation. A copy of the TIP may be viewed at the ITCTC offices or it may be accessed on line at http://www.tompkins-co.org/itctc.
#92
N/D On Goal & Objectives, Plan needs a priority list & time line to implement - without this it doesnt have any impact. Good compilation of data. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the agreed-upon five-year list of specific projects for which federal funds are anticipated. The TIP represents the transportation improvement priorities of the Tompkins County Transportation Area. The list of projects is multi-modal and includes highway and public transit projects, as well as bicycle, pedestrian, and freight-related projects. The projects listed in the TIP are funded and have specific dates for implementation. A copy of the TIP may be viewed at the ITCTC offices or it may be accessed on line at http://www.tompkins-co.org/itctc. See: Chapter 6. Projects for Implementation, list projects intended to help achieve a portion of the community's vision as expressed in the Goals and Objectives pg.6.1.
#93
Topic
N/D
Page A-15
Comment Response
Please use intelligence and don't waste money. I have many ideas; doesn't Cornell University? See: Chapter In 1.Backgroud- The MPO & The Long Range Transportation Plan. In the broadest sense, transportation in its many forms affects our common future and what our community will be like as it evolves. The LRTP looks at a developmental path that makes strategic choices, which have a positive impact on the overall quality of life. The LRTP assumes the position of reducing the negative impacts of transportation on the immediate environment seeks to involve the public in participating in making choices that contribute towards improving the quality of life in Tompkins County, pg. 2 N/D 12. Finally, I know the plan is not yet complete, but I would like to see a specific, achievable list of action items that would identify and provide focus on the most important initiatives that the ITCTC should provide leadership on over the next 5 to 10 years. See: Chapter 1. The Long Range Transportation Program The core functions that the MPO must carry out include developing and marinating both a long Range Transportation Plan and a Transportation Improvement Program of transportation planning and capital projects. During the process of developing these planning documents the MPO informs the public of the activities and encourages their participation pg 1.1. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the agreed-upon five-year list of specific projects for which federal funds are anticipated. The TIP represents the transportation improvement priorities of the Tompkins County Transportation Area. The list of projects is multi-modal and includes highway and public transit projects, as well as bicycle, pedestrian, and freight-related projects. The projects listed in the TIP are funded and have specific dates for implementation. A copy of the TIP may be viewed at the ITCTC offices or it may be accessed on line at http://www.tompkins-co.org/itctc.
#94
#95
Proximity Nodal Development...Key The term "Nodal' has been expanded to define a broader range of criteria for example; "compactness and walk-ability of an area. Nodal should define a "sense of place" an area that has taken design into consideration including parking, streetscape etc., as opposed to nodal as a "single point use"
#96
Proximity Redesign roadways in the City to increase population density and increase the amenities that are available within walkable distances. See: Chapter 6.Projects For Implementation. PLANNING EFFORTS: I. Land Use Planning and Policies:1. Review of Local Development Regulations Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by municipalities. Cost: To be determined. Local development regulations should contribute to the solution of transportation issues and not unnecessarily degrade the performance of the transportation system. For example, the number of parking spaces required by zoning regulations should not be excessive; site design requirements should adequately address pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities; new developments should be "transit-oriented" in order to encourage and accommodate transit use; commercial access to arterial facilities must be carefully reviewed and controlled; and on-site circulation should be adequately studied and addressed. Further, local regulations should be considered on a regional scale and work to support the Principles and Policies included in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, pg.6.2
#97
Proximity Present Zoning codes are restraining certain types of development that could increase density in Urban See: Chapter 6.Projects For Implementation. PLANNING EFFORTS: I. Land Use Planning and Policies:1. Review of Local Development Regulations Implementation interval = Intermediate To be conducted by municipalities. Cost: To be determined. Local development regulations should contribute to the solution of transportation issues and not unnecessarily degrade the performance of the transportation system. For example, the number of parking spaces required by zoning regulations should not be excessive; site design requirements should adequately address pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities; new developments should be "transit-oriented" in order to encourage and accommodate transit use; commercial access to arterial facilities must be carefully reviewed and controlled; and on-site circulation should be adequately studied and addressed. Further, local regulations should be considered on a regional scale and work to support the Principles and Policies included in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, pg.6.2
#98
Topic Comment
Proximity Nodal recognition that exists now
Page A-16
Response
The term "Nodal' has been expanded to define a broader range of criteria for example; the "compactness and walk-ability of an area. Nodal should define a "sense of place" an area that has taken design into consideration including parking, streetscape etc., as opposed to nodal as a "single Proximity Global warming is affecting the need for changes in approach to design of transportation modes, infrastructure and urban densities. See: Chapter 5. Scenario Analysis, pg.. 5.20 Federal and State policies and programs that promote and fund transit and other alternative modes and encourage a mode shift away from SOVs will help drive local action. National and State leadership and support will be essential to allow those at the local level to accomplish the significant transformation of the transportation system that will be required to meet the challenges of global warming and energy descent. Proximity Centrality of Proximity to Transportation Issues There is general agreement with the observation of the relationship between centrality and proximity; See Chapter 3.Vision Statement, Proximity: Refers to the location of different trip origins and destinations. Proximity is considered greater in areas with mixed land uses (i.e. residential close to shops and employment) and higher development densities. As proximity increases, travel times decrease and transportation options other than car use increase. Higher proximity allows for more efficient use of transit (including fixed-route service, car share and vanpools), bicycling and even walking, resulting in a more accessible and resilient transportation systems.
#99
#100
#101
Topic Comment
Proximity 2) The section on design could be strengthened. This is not just about scenery, although that's important. Design of thoroughfares can alter development patterns, and ultimately, reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve quality of life. Design of a road as a commercially oriented arterial, for example, will result in single-use development, massive parking lots, and a road that is unfit for anything but driving. With a redesign, the road can have the same capacity but welcome pedestrians, bicyclists, and mixed-use development. Example, Route 13 in This comment has been addressed in the final draft of the Long Range Transportation Plan Quality Of Life Consider using existing infrastructure to promote bikes and trails rather than taking new land See: Chapter 3.Vision Statement; The vision of Sustainable Accessibility will integrate transportation with land use planning to promote land use development patterns that reduce dependency in the automobile as a sole source of transportation. With sustainable accessibility at its core the transportation network will integrate multiple modes of transportation so that traveling by transit, walking, bicycle, car share, car pool, etc. becomes as attractive, convenient and cost effective as private car ownership and use were in the second half of the 20th century. By bringing all modes to bear, the transportation system becomes more efficient and more resilient. A vision of Sustainable Accessibility will also embrace new transportation options and technologies, which will emerge as more investments are made to address the challenges of energy descent and climate change.
Response #102 Topic Comment Response
#103 Comment Response
Topic
Quality Of Life
Infrastructure upgrades take too long - Route 13, 79. Negative impact on neighborhoods See: Chapter 7. SAFETEA - LU Narrative. The 2030 LRTP recognizes the importance of transportation system management (TSM) and operations initiatives in securing the integrity of the transportation system in Tompkins County. TSM strategies can also help expand the effective service life of valuable transportation infrastructure assets. Specific goals and objectives and recommendations for projects for implementation seek to improve efficiency through TSM options, pg. 3. See: Chapter 5 Scenario Analysis for an overview of issues related to Route 13 and 79.
#104
Quality Of Life May need to Prioritize given number of goals See Chapter 6. Projects For Implementation
Page A-17
#105
Quality Of Life Create opportunities for citizens to use policies to influence local projects See: Chapter 1.BACKGROUND The MPO & The LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. The MPO holds a series of meetings during each calendar year that are open to the public and where the public may opine on issues taken up by the Committees. The Policy and the Planning Committees meet alternately during the year, holding two joint committee meetings in June and December where both are present . Quality of Life Very Nice Thank you Quality Of Life Put Links on website to examples of communities doing it right ITCTC will be updating the link portion of its Website to include additional transportation related websites. A range of transportation issues and approaches that deal with mobility, connectivity and proximity may be found in the included websites links. Each Region, Metropolitan Area, City, and Town will have its own solutions to specific problems some of which may have some related application in Tompkins County See: Appendix C, Transportation Related Web Pages.
#106
#107
#108
Quality Of Life Shift Balance of power from DOT to local decision makers lower default speed limits See: Chapter 1. Background - The MPO & The Long Range Transportation Plan pg1.; as presently structured "power" is shared amongst the New York State Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, Cornell University, and Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) and the other local government officials in Tompkins County. Mandated by law to function under specific guidelines and written agreements MPO's must fulfill their missions under the current legal structure. Quality Of Life How can citizens influence local projects See Chapter 1. Background - The MPO & The Long Range Transportation Plan, Public Involvement. In the broadest sense, transportation in its many forms affects our common future and what the future of our community will be like as it evolves. The LRTP looks at a developmental path that makes strategic choices, which have a positive impact on the overall quality of life. The LRTP assumes the position of reducing the negative impacts of transportation on the immediate environment and seeks to involve the public in participating in making choices that contribute towards improving the quality of Life in Tompkins County. Please contact the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council for details.
#109
#110
Quality Of Life Expand the Commons On October 21, and October 22, 2009, the City of Ithaca held a public information sessions to present preliminary options for the design of the utility, surface, and amenity repair and upgrade project for the Commons. The City has been working with Sasaki Associates, a Boston-based design firm, to evaluate the Commons current conditions and future needs and to provide a design for the repairs and upgrades. The Consultant has been charged with preparing three conceptual design options for this project. Please contact the City of Ithaca Planning Department at 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 for updated developments. This project is ongoing at the time of 2030 LRTP approval. Quality of Life County Routes tend to be routes through residential communities, resulting in high volumes of traffic. See: Chapter 3. Vision Statement, Vision Statement, QUALITY OF LIFE, Goal: Develop a transportation system that sustains and enhances the quality of life for Tompkins County residents and visitors. Objective J: Support programs and strategies that reduce demand for through-motor vehicle trips in residential areas. See p 4.38 1st pp. Quality of Life Smoke Free Bus Stops
#111
#113
Topic Comment
Page A-18
Response
See: Chapter 3, Vision Statement; Objective L, Encourage the provision of safe and comfortable environments for public transit employees and passengers on vehicles and at shelters, stops and stations. The ITCTC acknowledges the importance of the travel issues raised in your comment, therefore the ITCTC has forwarded your comments directly to TCAT for their evaluation and actions that are possible within the services that they provide.
#114
Topic Comment
Quality Of Life I have been informed that in your future plans you are considering the Coddington Trial again. As a property owner who will be greatly affected by this venture I hope that as a group you will recognize that all of the property owners along this trail do not want it. I will not give my approval to NYSEG to have the trail divide my land and make it useless. Please support the property owners at this meeting and not include any long range plans for the trail through the Town of Caroline. Thank you for your participation in helping the Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) in updating the 2025-2030 Long Rang Transportation Plan (LRTP). Your comments are a valuable contribution towards reaching a future vision of a transportation system that meets the needs of all Tompkins County residents. Mandated by federal law the ITCTC is responsible for the process of multi -jurisdictional planning and coordination to implement activities that support the monitoring, revision, implementation and update of the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and its goals, objectives, and other recommended actions. The recommended actions that are made by individual municipalities are included in the LRTP as information gathered as part of the planning process and ITCTC's mandate to implement research, public outreach. In direct response to the issue you raise in your comments and keeping in mind that ITCTC's function is to provide where possible multi -jurisdictional planning coordination when requested by municipalities in Tompkins County, that, the Town of Caroline submitted a letter stating that" there is considerable interest in our Town in extending the South Hill Recreation way along the former Lackawanna Railroad line through Caroline to the Tompkins County Line" (1/8/09 from supervisor, Town of Caroline). As part of the planning process the letter requested ITCTC to" add this trail extension to the Tompkins County Trails Transportation Plan Map". The Town of Caroline submitted along with the letter, Resolution 1-33 of 2008, "Support for Coddington Trail Initiative by the Natural Areas and Trails Working Group." ITCTC is cognoscente of the fact that there are varying views on the Coddington Trail Initiative and ITCTC has included the Coddington Trail Extension on the trail map based on the specific request made by the Town of Caroline.
Response
#115
Topic Comment
Quality Of Life Dear Mr. de Aragon, Please consider the following my official written comment regarding the Draft 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan: I am writing to express my great opposition to the proposed "Coddington Trail" included in the Draft 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. I am an adjacent landowner who would be directly affected by the proposed trail. I have sincere concerns about what a trail might bring to our community including ones that directly affect my property at 100 and 101 Caroline Depot Road. My property would be directly affected by the trail as it would run literally within 20 yards of my home and would result in complete loss of any privacy, liability issues, safety, parking issues, potential crime, littering and noise, to name just a few. My property was the former train depot, post office, and general store and remnants of the former depot still remain in my front yard on both sides of the street (I own the two properties and the property at 101 is the former depot, etc). Questions have not been answered regarding ownership of the former railroad bed, liability questions, maintenance costs, and safety issues. NYSEG who claims to own the former railroad bed has written a letter to the Town of Caroline dated January 2008 in which it they expressly condition their approval of the use of the former railroad bed by the Town of Caroline by saying that the Town must obtain 100% full support from all adjacent landowners before it will grant permission for the trail to be construction through the former railroad bed. The majority of adjacent landowners are in opposition to the trail. The adjacent land owners contacted Senator Seward regarding our concerns about the proposed trail. Senator Seward wrote a letter in support of our efforts to stop any trail from being built. I have attached it for your record. I have also attached information that I obtained from the City of Ithaca Police Department regarding reported crimes on the South Hill Rec Trail as an example of what the residents are concerned would happen should the Coddington Trail be constructed. The Town of Caroline residents do not want to financially support the construction and maintenance of the proposed "Coddington Trail". The majority of residents would rather see the money spent in improving roads in the Town of Caroline that could include bicycle/pedestrian
Page A-19
accommodations. I, personally, would not feel safe using the trail and prefer to walk as I do routinely out in the public on the shoulder of the road, where should the need arise, I would be visible to everyone including my neighbors to enlist their aid should I require it. I sincerely hope that you will consider my comments and those of my neighbors carefully before approving and or proposing funding for the construction of the proposed "Coddington Trail. "Thank you for your time. I hope that decisions makers will consider carefully the concerns of those property owners that will be directly affected by such a trail, and who do not support it. If you have questions, please feel free to Response after #116.
#116
Topic Comment
Quality Of Life Dear Mr. Dearagon, I received your name from Sarah Meyers as a contact for the ITCTC Long Range Transportation Plan, and tonite's public meeting. Due to illness I will be unable to attend the meeting tonite, but as a land owner in the Town of Caroline who will be immediately and disastrously affected by any trail proposed to utilize the NYSEG right of way Lackawanna rail bed -- I need to strongly voice my opposition to a plan that involves revitalizing that rail bed for public use. The trail will cut through, alongside, behind, or in front of at least 68 land owner properties in the Town of Caroline. All of whom are vehemently opposed to this development. In my case, the proposed trail will extend the entire 3 acre length of my property, not only cutting through what is now lawn and within 15 feet of my house, but will also require the removal of my shed, and will extend down an acre of protected wetlands which cap my property line. This is property that has been maintained as manicured lawn for over 60 years. I would quite literally have a trail in my yard, along side my pond, and my garden. Personally, if the trail goes through I will most certainly lose significant property value and undoubtedly find it difficult-to-impossible to sell my house with a public access trail running the entire length of the property. I will lose all privacy on my property as there is no amount of planting or fencing that will suffice to make this an acceptable, safe environment. More significantly -- I will completely and totally lose any sense of security living in that rural location with untold strangers going through my yard at all hours of the day and night. I know that others feel as strongly about the loss of peace, privacy, and safety as I do. We have chosen to live in a rural location for good reasons -- and would be unjustly subjected to losing all that we hold dear. I thoroughly support improved transportation access to Ithaca and an increase and extension of public transportation, particularly at reduced cost. However, spending tax payer money on building a hike/bike trail that would only be used sporadically at best from the rural areas of the county would be a senseless waste of valuable resources in more ways than one. Your time and money would be better spent on improving the existing roads and shoulders for designated bike lanes and/or sidewalks, and subsidizing the use of public transportation. I ask that your committee be reasonable in their judgement, and to realistically recognize there are but a handful of people who would honestly and consistently use such a trail as an alternative means of transportation into and from Ithaca. Not to mention the limited number of truly weather-friendly days the trail could be used! I also ask that your committee seriously consider our rights as citizens and landowners, and not dismiss our concerns using the tired argument of "for the better good of the community". We are a community and are a part of the community, but our rights to privacy, safety, land ownership should be as protected as those of community members living in the middle of Ithaca. I cannot support any plan that will disrupt my right to privacy, or cause the loss and devaluation of my property. And, I will not provide NYSEG with my approval to move forward with such a plan. Thank you kindly for the opportunity to share my concerns. Sincerely, For Comments 115 and 116 Thank you for your participation in helping the Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) in updating the 2025-2030 Long Rang Transportation Plan (LRTP). Your comments are a valuable contribution towards reaching a future vision of a transportation system that meets the needs of all Tompkins County residents. Mandated by federal law the ITCTC is responsible for the process of multi -jurisdictional planning and coordination to implement activities that support the monitoring, revision, implementation and update of the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and its goals, objectives, and other recommended actions. The recommended actions that are made by individual municipalities are included in the LRTP as information gathered as part of the planning process and ITCTC's mandate to implement research, public outreach. In direct response to the issue you raise in your comments and keeping in mind that ITCTC's function is to provide where possible multi -jurisdictional planning coordination when requested by municipalities in Tompkins County, that, the Town of Caroline submitted a letter stating that" there is considerable interest in our Town in extending the South Hill Recreation way along the former Lackawanna Railroad line through Caroline to the Tompkins County Line" (1/8/09 from supervisor, Town of Caroline). As part of the planning process the letter requested ITCTC to" add this trail extension to the Tompkins County Trails Transportation Plan Map". The Town of Caroline submitted along with the letter, Resolution 1-33 of 2008, "Support for Coddington Trail Initiative by the Natural Areas and Trails Working Group." ITCTC is cognoscente of the fact that there are varying views on the Coddington Trail Initiative and ITCTC has included the Coddington Trail Extension on the trail map based on the specific request made by the Town of Caroline.
Response
Page A-20
#117
Quality Of Life Trails: bad for homeowners, should be in the front not back of properties and not use private property; municipalities harass homeowners for Right Of Way's See: Chapter 3. Vision Statement; Objective H: Maintain a multiuse trail network plan for Tompkins County and provide assistance and incentives for its implementation. Quality Of Life Allow input on this, e.g., (examples of communities doing it right) from the public. A range of transportation issues and approaches that deal with mobility, connectivity and proximity may be found in the included websites links. Each Region, Metropolitan Area, City, and Town will have its own solutions to specific problems some of which may have some related application in Tompkins County See: Appendix C, Transportation Related Web Pages.
#118
Page A-21
APPENDIX B INVENTORY OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS
2030 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
Page B-1
INVENTORY OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DOCUMENTS The list of documents included in this appendix is meant to serve as resource to readers. It includes a variety of reports, plans and studies that have an impact on transportation in Tompkins County. Although every effort was made to identify appropriate documents, this should not be considered an exhaustive list.
Indicators of Success: Achieving the Policies of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (2008), Tompkins County Planning Department, December 2009 The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, provides that the Planning Commissioner will report annually to the County Legislature on progress in implementing the Plan. DRAFT: 2009 Tompkins County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan: Annex 17, Transportation, November 2009 Purpose: To ensure effective utilization of all available transportation resources and systems during emergencies and disasters. Town of Ulysses Comprehensive Plan, Town of Ulysses Comprehensive Plan Committee and Planning Board, April 1999. Revised September 2009. This comprehensive plan includes a section on transportation. It recommends developing a diversified transportation system and an appropriate transportation network New York State Energy Plan, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), June 2002. Revised DRAFT August 2009. The 2002 State Energy Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Energy Plan) encompasses policies designed to keep New York at the forefront among the states in providing its citizens with fairly priced, clean, and efficient energy resources. This Energy Plan positions New York to take advantage of technological developments among the most advanced uses of energy, and to participate in emerging markets for valuing and trading environmental attributes associated with energy use. In addition, implementation of this plan will stimulate job growth associated with the development of new technologies for the efficient production and use of a variety of energy resources and the expanded use of indigenous sources of power. The Energy Plan is a blueprint to inform energy decision making and help ensure that: customers have the ability to choose the energy products and services that best suit their needs; a secure and well-maintained energy infrastructure is provided; the State's transportation system becomes more energy-efficient; and, adequate energy supplies that are critical to the State's stability are available. Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan, Town of Ithaca Planning Department, July 9, 2009 The overall mission of the Transportation Plan is to foster a transportation system that enhances the quality of life in the Town. The Plan envisions a multi-modal transportation system that is compatible with the Towns growth objectives as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, sensitive to the built and natural environments, and accessible to all. Page B-2
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) Transit Development Plan / Route Study, Approved by the TCAT Board of Directors - May 5, 2009 The Transit Development Plan (TDP) considered four main areas: Simplification and clarification of the fixed transit route system Introduction of alternative transit services (for example, demand-responsive transit or Park-and-Rides) Improved use of technology Better use of existing financial, capital, and human resources and identification of opportunities to receive additional funding or other resources NYS Route 96 Corridor Management Study, Tompkins County Planning Department, April 2009 The Route 96 Corridor Management Study evaluates traffic impacts associated with development along the corridor from the Village of Trumansburg to the junction of NYS Routes 96 and 13, and provides recommendations and mitigation strategies. The Study quantifies existing and projected traffic and levels of service and evaluate how a nodal development pattern with mixed uses, enhanced transit service, access management, and additional transportation system improvements, including bike and pedestrian facilities, could mitigate the impacts of this traffic. The Study examines the option of promoting development nodes in the vicinities of Cayuga Medical Center and the Hamlet of Jacksonville as well as considering the impacts of anticipated development in the City of Ithaca and Village of Trumansburg, as an alternative to a sprawling suburban and rural development pattern. The final product defines the extent of nodal development and identifying specific access and corridor management improvements that could be made to mitigate traffic impacts. Key considerations include identifying multi-modal options in the corridor and protecting livability of impacted areas. The Study recommends specific land use regulatory changes and transportation system improvements that would have the effect of reducing the traffic impacts of future development in the corridor. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan 2008 Amendment Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Element, Tompkins County Planning Department, Adopted by the Tompkins County Legislature - December, 2008 This amendment sets in motion a multi-faceted plan for the Tompkins County community to reduce energy demand, improve energy efficiency, make the transition to renewable sources of energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The overarching goal of the Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Element is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Tompkins County by at least two percent annually for the next 40 years, achieving at least an 80 percent reduction from 2008 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. This goal is tied to the greenhouse gas emissions reductions target proposed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which asserts that this stated decrease in greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in order to mitigate human impact on climate and to avoid the worst effects of global climate change. NYS Route 13 / 366 Corridor Management Plan, Tompkins County Planning Department, (Revised June 2008)
Page B-3
The Route 13 Corridor Management Plan will develop land use and access management recommendations that maintain the primary function of NYS Routes 13 and 366, Tompkins Countys only principal arterial connecting Tompkins County with points north and east, and with Interstate 81. The study area is located in the Town of Dryden and extends along NYS Route 13 from the Cortland County border westward to the western intersection with NYS Route 366 and, following NYS Route 366, to the Town of Ithaca border. The project will explore the feasibility of promoting a nodal development pattern along this major highway corridor and implementing access management techniques in order to, among other goals, preserve the functions of these highways. Northside Waterfront Circulation Plan Tompkins County Planning Department, Draft Document: March 2008 The Northside Waterfront Circulation Plan will take a close look at the entire traffic and transportation system serving the area, including automotive, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic and parking. The study area is located in the City of Ithaca and is bounded by Route 13/Fulton Street on the east, Cayuga Inlet on the West, Dey Street on the north, and Buffalo Street on the south. The study will take into account a number of existing and proposed projects, such as expansion of the Ithaca Farmers Market, construction of Phase II of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, development of Carpenter Business Park, redevelopment of the NYSDOT Maintenance Facility site, and expansion of the Cornell University and Ithaca College boathouses. Cornell Master Plan for the Ithaca Campus, Cornell University, Approved by the Board of Trustees on March 7, 2008 A campus master plan is a living document that weaves together the functional relationships, environmental issues, landscaping, recreational space, vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns, architectural character and future possibilities into a whole sufficiently capacious to realize the aspirations of the university. Village of Trumansburg Comprehensive Plan, Adopted by the Trumansburg Village Board of Trustees February 2008. 20-Year Vision: In 2027, Trumansburg is a community that values safety, economic and cultural diversity, and local cultural history residents actively plan to protect the Villages rural and friendly nature. Visitors feel a sense of community pride because of the welcoming entrances, and the well-maintained walkways and tree-lined streets. As a quiet, rural upstate New York village, with an accessible and attractive commercial center, Trumansburg is a place where people of all ages can freely engage in community life. Tompkins County Walkability: Final Report, Tompkins County Planning Department, June 16, 2007 The intent of the project was to develop a methodology that could be used to help other interested communities evaluate and improve their walking conditions by outlining a method, or methods, for collecting information on existing walking conditions and for developing recommendations and implementation strategies for improving walkability.
Page B-4
The two communities selected for this project are the Village of Trumansburg and Northeast Ithaca, which consists of parts of both the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights. Both communities are located within Tompkins County, New York. Transportation Focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (TGEIS), Town of Ithaca - Cornell University, October 2006 Cornell University, in conjunction with the Town of Ithaca, prepared a transportationfocused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS) to identify and evaluate the transportation-related impacts, on transportation systems and neighborhoods, of hypothetical university population growth scenarios over the next decade, and identify potential mitigation strategies for those impacts. This will result in a set of strategies intended to improve transportation options for the entire Cornell community and reduce adverse transportation impacts on the community. The primary emphasis will be on identifying ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods to and from Cornell. It will identify ways of getting people, not vehicles, to campus, and will include recommendations for transportation demand management, multi-modal transportation strategies including pedestrian, bicycle, transit and parking, safety, access and circulation modifications, such as traffic calming, zoning changes and other measures. Village of Dryden Comprehensive Plan, Village of Dryden formally adopted its Comprehensive Plan September 2006. Year 2025 Vision: The Village of Dryden, enriched by its past, will have a healthy small town atmosphere where attractive residences and vibrant businesses co-exist. The quality of life for our diverse and involved population is sustained by a sound infrastructure of roads, systems, and services. To achieve this quality of life, and to preserve and enhance our community, we will have reasonable and enforceable policies. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Tompkins County Planning Department, April 2006 In response to the requirements and deadlines of DMA 2000, Tompkins County and seven towns located in the county (Caroline, Danby, Enfield, Groton, Ithaca, Lansing, and Ulysses) have developed this Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard Mitigation Plan (mitigation plan). The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) amends the Stafford Act and is the most recent legislation designed to improve planning for, response to, and recovery from disasters by requiring state and local entities to have all hazard mitigation plans in place by November 2004. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has issued guidelines for all hazard mitigation plans under DMA 2000 regulation. The New York State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) is also supporting local implementation of the plan. Tompkins County / Cornell Employee Commuter Survey: Phase 2 Downtown Business Employees, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), February 2006 The main purpose of this survey was to understand more clearly how members of the Tompkins County/Cornell community get to work, why they choose one transportation mode over another, and what other options might be considered, if they were available.
Page B-5
Tompkins County / Cornell Employee Commuter Survey: Phase 1 Cornell Employees, IthacaTompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), June 2005 The main purpose of this survey was to understand more clearly how members of the Tompkins County/Cornell community get to work, why they choose one transportation mode over another, and what other options might be considered, if they were available. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, Tompkins County Planning Department, Adopted by the Tompkins County Legislature - December 21, 2004. This comprehensive plan includes a section on transportation choices recommending the following action items: (1) developing a bicycle suitability map, (2) developing a Route 13 corridor access management plan, (3) completing a traffic signal upgrade and intersection evaluation program, (4) developing a centralized and uniform accident reporting system, (5) conducting a transportation infrastructure needs assessment, (6) implementing Freight Transportation Study recommendations, and (7) developing a countywide comprehensive park and ride plan. Future growth and development to the year 2020 and beyond are discussed. Fewer Cars in Ithaca! Recommendations for Transportation Demand Management Strategies for Ithaca, NY, a Professional Report to Cornell University by Gloria Lau, September 2004. Discusses need for transportation demand management for City of Ithaca employees, ridesharing, park-n-ride lots, parking improvements, transit improvements, and education/ marketing needs. Park and Ride for Tompkins County: White Paper, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), Tompkins County, September 2004. This paper presents the concept of Park and Ride as a transportation system component and how it can be applied in the County. DRAFT Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan, Town of Dryden Planning Board, November, 2003. This comprehensive plan includes a section on transportation. It recommends controlling traffic congestion along NYS Rte 13, limiting traffic volumes within the hamlets and villages, and providing alternatives to the automobile as a means of transportation. Future growth and development to the year 2020 and beyond are discussed. Report of the Mayors Task Force on the Selective Implementation of a 25 Mile-Per-Hour Speed Limit, City of Ithaca, November 2003. Recommends a first round list of eligible streets in the City of Ithaca that should be considered for reducing speed limits to 25 miles-per-hour. Speed reductions to 25 milesper-hour would improve pedestrian safety and quality of life in the neighborhoods. Enhancing Pedestrian Access in Tompkins County: a Guidebook on Sidewalk Improvements, a Professional Report to Cornell University by Brian J. Varricchione, May 2003. This report analyzes the location and condition of sidewalks in the towns and villages of Tompkins County. It discusses the adequacy of existing pedestrian transportation networks and identifies potential areas for improvement. Implementation mechanisms are
Page B-6
discussed to improve the condition and number of sidewalks along with suggested sources of federal and state funding and grantmaking foundations. Town of Danby Comprehensive Plan, Danby Town Board and Planning Board, September 2003 This comprehensive plan includes a section on transportation. It recommends developing a safe and adequate system of roads to minimize traffic impacts, developing a variety of transportation options, and performing road related construction that minimizes negative impacts on neighborhoods and natural resources. The Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) Transit Planning Project, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, Northeast Subarea (City of Ithaca extending north and east), Tompkins County, February 2003. Summary Report of Market Research: Results of fifteen-minute telephone survey in the study area. The questions were designed to survey both regular users and non-users of the transit system. A total of 500 households were contacted regarding questions about age, marital status, income, gender, journey-to-work mode, and advantages / drawbacks of using public transit. Final Report: Determined feasibility of encouraging people who currently drive in the northeast subarea to use transit instead. Service coverage and the frequency of service were determined as the most important factors. Parking cost was also a significant factor. Three new transit routes, four with significant modifications, six with slight modifications, and one eliminated route were recommended. Technical Appendices to the Final Report: Describes the methodology used to determine what it would take to shift 3%, 5%, or 10% of person-trips in automobiles onto the transit system. Also discusses potential technologies that Cornell could employ if it chose to move from its current annual parking permit program to a daily fee program. DRAFT FINAL REPORT: Parking Garage Feasability Study, City of Ithaca, January 2003. Discusses parking garages located in Downtown Ithaca, Collegetown, and West End / Inlet Island. Includes repair recommendations, cost estimates, structural expansion studies, and parking management analysis. Discusses long-term parking, meter rates, parking fines, and alternative transportation choices. North Campus Circulation Study, Cornell University, May 2002 The purpose of this study is to recommend circulation and site improvements for the Thurston Avenue Bridge and its north and south approaches in association with the City of Ithacas Thurston Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation Project. The goals of the study are to: Improve pedestrian safety and capacity in and around the bridge. Accommodate bicycles on the bridge. Create a coherent unified image appropriate for the major northern gateway to the University. Ithaca College Master Plan Report, Ithaca College, September, 2002. This report discusses pedestrian / vehicular conflicts, the need to expand parking on the periphery and the need to remove some parking at core campus. Providing a more pedestrian-friendly, green environment is stressed.
Page B-7
Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), Tompkins County, April 2002. Identified as needed by ITCTCs 2020 Long Range Plan and the Northeast Subarea Transportation Study, this study obtained new data on freight movements in and through the County, accessed existing travel routes, developed alternative routes, and accessed alternative route impacts. Recommendations were made regarding nine routes / areas throughout the County. These recommendations included new signage, meetings with major shippers / receivers, and functional classification changes. Evaluation of a Six Point Traffic Plan Final Report, City of Ithaca, October 2001 To estimate future traffic projections, Southwest Area Development generated trips were added to the Year 2001 trip tables in the Transportation Demand Model. Four alternative packages were developed in this study, each containing a combination of Six Point Plan Improvements. The future traffic resulting for alternative was generated including increased traffic counts and projected changes in road segment levels-of-service. City of Ithaca: Downtown Traffic Circulation Study, City of Ithaca, July 2001. Evaluates the following: restoration of two-way traffic on Aurora and Cayuga Streets; reduced travel width and angled parking on Green and Seneca Streets; relocation or addition of traffic signal on Green Street; and realignment of East State Street @ Aurora Street to create a pedestrian plaza. Collegetown Parking Study: Ithaca, NY, a Professional Report to Cornell University by Jessica Greig, July 2000. Provides parking space inventory, and includes residential survey, business survey, public parking survey, and license plate survey. Program Development and Pilot Project for the City of Ithaca Citywide Traffic Calming Program: Working Paper, City of Ithaca, April 2000. Discusses the traffic calming program, which is currently under development for the City of Ithaca. Includes overview of the entire process, tasks accomplished to-date, and planned future tasks. The Millenium Report: Status of Seniors in Tompkins County, Office of the Aging, Tompkins County, October 1999. The Tompkins County Office for the Aging convened a Steering Committee to assemble Task Forces in the categories of health care financing, health status, housing, income and employment, leisure and volunteerism, long term care, mental health and transportation. These Task Forces were charged with assessing the status of the Countys seniors, identifying needs, issues and highlights, and recommending some action steps, which could realistically be tackled within the first few years of the New Millennium. The Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) Transportation Plan, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, Tompkins County, Village of Cayuga Heights, Village and Town of
Page B-8
Lansing, Cornell University, Towns of Ithaca and Dryden, New York State Department of Transportation, July 1999. Transportation plan resulting from a public participation planning process aimed at developing recommendations for improving the local transportation network in the northeast area of Tompkins County. The recommendations from this study address the future of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems in the study subarea which includes the Town and Village of Lansing, the Village of Cayuga Heights, Cornell University and parts of the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden. Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Town of Ithaca Planning Department, December 1997. Provides the Town of Ithaca with a blueprint by which it can develop a comprehensive park system for all residents. Also provides a means by which the Town can protect its unique ecological, agricultural and scenic resources for future generations. City of Ithaca Bicycle Plan, Ithaca Bicycle Advisory Council, March 1997 This Plan, created by a citizen advisory committee appointed in 1990, presents a proposed framework for making the City of Ithaca a "bicycle friendly" community. Of particular interest are the maps of existing and proposed bikeways. In 1995, it served as the basis for a successful project application under the ISTEA Enhancement program. The final plan identifies a Phase One Bikeway Route Network north-south and eastwest routes through the town of Ithaca and routes up East Hill, South Hill, and West Hill. Its Long Term Bikeway Route Network would build on Phase One and increase bicycle lane numbers on commercial / arterial streets and propose traffic calming on residential streets. Tompkins County Waterfront Plan, Tompkins County Planning Department, City of Ithaca Department of Planning and Development, Town of Ithaca Planning Department, Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, and Cornell University, January 1997 This Waterfront Plan was developed to increase public access, improve waterfront parks, improve boating facilities and operations, encourage appropriate economic development, including tourism, and improve linkages between waterfront destinations, existing residential neighborhoods and business districts. Five goals were adopted to help achieve the vision of the waterfront expressed at the public workshops. They were to increase public access and improve waterfront parks; improve boating facilities and operations; encourage appropriate tourism, improve linkages between waterfront destination, existing residential neighborhoods and business districts; and conserve and interpret natural and cultural resources. East Ithaca Recreation Way - a Local Commuter Linkage, A Schematic Proposal. Town of Ithaca. Abandoned railroad rights-of-way are increasingly being recognized as a valuable community resource. The town of Ithaca proposes to upgrade the existing abandoned Lehigh Valley Railroad right-of-way, which stretches for approximately one-half mile between Honess Lane and Maple Avenue in the eastern portion of the Town. This report is a schematic proposal, which illustrates the location, potential linkages, and specifications of the plan.
Page B-9
Request for Proposal to Operate the Ithaca-Dryden Corridor Transit System This document contains three sections: 1) Solicitation, Offer and Award/Contractual Provisions, 2) Technical Specifications, and 3) Federal Section 18 Legal Requirements. The document is intended to be used as a service agreement for operation of the IthacaDryden Corridor Transit System. Building Greenways for Tompkins County, Tompkins County Greenway Coalition, July 1995 The Greenways Coalition identified the recreational needs of county residents and addressed local conservation concerns. This report encourages municipal planners and community organizations to build greenways. By highlighting local resources and presenting ideas for a flexible countywide greenway plan. Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan, Town Planning Board, December 1994. The comprehensive plan includes sections on future road and intersection improvements, off-street parking, and public transit, bicycle and foot paths. It discusses Lansing 15 to 20 years in the future. Mass Transit Development in Tompkins County, Submitted by Cornell University, Prepared for the U.S.DOT Office of University Research. This proposal is concerned with improving and expanding the public transit system in Tompkins County. The primary objective is to generate the basis for implementing a balanced transportation system in the Ithaca area. In order to accomplish this the report indicates a need for a transit system which offers service to a much larger proportion of the county population, and which provides an attractive level of service to people who have an automobile available. The document discusses objectives and a research plan. The National Bicycling and Walking Study: Transportation Choices for a Changing America, Federal Highway Administration, final draft 1994; interim report November 1991; case studies 1994 This report provides a national "plan of action to promote bicycling and walking as viable transportation options for more Americans". The report provides national goals, background data and information, and recommendations for actions at the state and local levels. The case study series provides substantial technical information on a wide variety of bicycling and walking issues. Finger Lakes Canal Planning Region - Tompkins County, Tompkins County Planning Dept, July 1994. This is an issue paper prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department as part of the County's participation in the Canal Recreationway Plan. The document specifies a number of goals that relate to the use and preservation of Cayuga Lake and its immediate surrounds. Tompkins County Public Transportation Needs Assessment, Susan Muckle and Jennifer Strazza, June 1994. This analysis of the "traditionally underserved" populations in Tompkins County, as defined by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, was conducted on behalf of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council. The report uses 1990 Census data to analyze and identify locations where underserved populations may be located (i.e.,
Page B-10
households below the poverty level and elderly persons). The report identifies frequency of urban service, rural connectivity, inadequate schedule information, and the need for enhanced interagency communication/cooperation as significant problems that may limit the ability of certain populations to utilize existing transit services. Final Report - Task Force on Traffic Issues, City of Ithaca, April 1994. The report of this ad hoc committee includes an analysis of traffic flow through specific neighborhoods, enforcement issues, and discussions of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit needs. The report provides recommendations to mitigate the impacts of existing traffic (through a variety of capital and other means) and calls for more detailed studies of traffic patterns. The Road to 2012: Looking Toward the Next Two Decades, John L. Peterson, 1993. This book was produced for the U.S. Department of Transportation (Coast Guard Strategic Planning Staff) in order to provide a conceptual framework by which the reader can begin to formulate thoughts and a vision of the future. The book provides a "scan" of emerging technologies, economics, politics, health and more. Village of Lansing Land Use Impact Analysis, Tompkins County Planning Department, December 1993. The purpose of this study was to assess the impacts of regional development on the Village of Lansing's transportation network. The analysis looks at land use, potential growth, and local traffic circulation. Crossing Tompkins County's Borders: Trip Patterns and Inter-County Transit Alternatives, Matthew McDonald, December 1993. This analysis, conducted at the request of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, utilizes 1990 Census data and the National Personal Transportation Survey to synthesize trip data (by trip type) and mode choice. This information is then used to analyze inter-county transportation services. A cost analysis of potential rail service reveals a minimal annual loss of $769,190 (not including initial line rehabilitation costs). Town of Groton Comprehensive Plan, Tompkins County Planning Department, November 1993. Update to the 1972 General Development Plan. Includes basic inventories and analyses. Recommends amendments to zoning regulations, development of a capital improvement program, and the development of a joint economic development plan with the Village of Groton. The Climate Change Action Plan, William J. Clinton, Albert Gore, Jr., October 1993. President Clinton's plan to meet the challenges of responding to the threat of global warming and strengthening the nation's economy. This document includes specific administrative directives of the President and narratives describing specific actions that reduce "greenhouse gases" through efficient energy use, transportation actions, energy supply actions, methane reduction and recovery actions, forestry actions, and reductions in HFC/PFC and Nitrous Oxide levels. Transportation actions include: reforming the Federal tax subsidy for employer-provided parking ("cash-out" options), transportation system
Page B-11
efficiency strategy (i.e., reduce growth in VMT), increased use of telecommuting, and development of a fuel-economy labeling system for tires. Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, Town Planning Board, September 1993. The comprehensive plan includes sections on transportation inventories as well as transportation goals, objectives, strategies, and actions. Economic Adjustment Strategy for the Southern Tier Region of New York State, Economic Research Associates, August 1993. Prepared for the New York State Department of Economic Development, this report covers the nine-county Southern Tier Region. This report provides a comprehensive assessment of the region's economic characteristics and offers several strategies to address current weaknesses. A separate volume addresses Tompkins County. This volume contains useful information on local employment and economic development efforts. With regard to transportation the report states "Tompkins County's transportation linkages are poor; many residents like it that way". Potential Consolidation Options for the Public Transportation System in Ithaca, New York, Francesca Forestieri, May 1993. This report examines the history of the current transit services in the Ithaca metropolitan area and considers various options available to achieve the consolidation of transit services. Village of Lansing Greenway Plan, Village of Lansing Greenway Committee, May 1993 draft. This report was prepared for the Village of Lansing with the intention of creating a "walking village". Various surveys are used to assist in the development of short- and long range strategies to develop and maintain greenway trails and associated park/recreation space. Ithaca-Tompkins County Bike Network, Tompkins Coalition for Bicycle Transportation, February 1993. A proposal for the development and maintenance of a countywide, radial bike route network within Tompkins County. This report was completed by a coalition of local cycling advocates and planning professionals in order to identify low cost improvements that will facilitate and enhance bicycle travel in the County. New York State Scenic Byways Program, New York State, 1992 This nomination handbook provides a process that is intended to coordinate the efforts of private citizens and business owners, local and county governments, not-for-profit organizations and state agencies. Scenic Byways additionally provides numerous benefits such as economic development and resource management. Therefore, the legislation encouraged communities to make nominations to the Scenic Byways Advisory Board for additional designations. New York State Air Quality Report Ambient Air Monitoring System, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 1992 Annual Report This document provides the 1992 data summaries and analysis of the NYS ambient air monitoring program. The document includes extensive information on air pollutant
Page B-12
characteristics, sources, and health effects, as well as collection and evaluation methodologies. Downtown Design Plan, City of Ithaca, September 1992. This report, prepared by Roger Trancik, FASLA, contains an inventory and analysis of existing conditions, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and the general physical form of the downtown area. The report provides significant detail and recommendations on general design and aesthetics, pedestrian circulation, and land use. Biking Up East Hill: the Cornell-Downtown Connection, Dave Nutter, 1992 A brief booklet describing several suggested bicycling routes for commuters, shoppers, and recreational cyclists riding in the City of Ithaca-Cornell University areas. Living in Tompkins County: Housing Market Study Data, Tompkins County Planning Department, June 1992. Includes Census data and narrative analyses of demographic and housing stock information for Villages and Towns in Tompkins County. Provides some comparative analyses with adjacent counties. Tompkins County Water Quality Strategy Plan, Tompkins County, June 1992. This plan provides a description of the various agencies involved in efforts to protect and improve the quality of surface and ground water in Tompkins County. Goals and objectives address the areas of public information, water quality monitoring and assessment, technical assistance, and watershed specific and countywide issues. Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy - Phase I: Database and Comparisons, Xavier Morales, March 1992 Prepared for Tompkins County Area Development, Incorporated and the Tompkins County Planning Department. This report provides an extensive analysis of the demographic and economic characteristics of Tompkins County, based primarily on historic Census data (1940-1990). Comparisons are then made to adjacent counties, the national and state patterns, and to seven similar "university-oriented" counties. West Hill Master Plan, City of Ithaca, March 1992. This document provides a general guide for the development of West Hill. The document includes analysis of natural features, open space/recreation areas, land use, and infrastructure. The plan makes specific recommendations for the development of local circulator roads and sidewalk system improvements. Cornell Cycles: A New Call for Transportation Alternatives, Cornell University Office of Transportation Services, March 1992. A comprehensive study of bicycling needs and facilities for the Cornell campus. The planning process included an extensive survey, analysis of current conditions, and offers specific recommendations for system-wide improvements. Report of the Inlet Island Land Use Committee, City of Ithaca, February 1992.
Page B-13
This report provides an interesting and useful history of the development and land use patterns of the Inlet Island area of the City. The report discusses the history and future of transportation in the area from the impacts of the NYS Barge Canal activity to the current Route 96 "Octopus" project. The report includes a proposed land use plan for the area. Downtown Vision Task Force, City of Ithaca, February 1991. The final report of the Downtown Vision Task Force, created in July of 1990. The document provides background data, analysis, and recommends actions intended to maintain a vital downtown as "the center of the county's economic, social, and cultural life". Includes recommendations on parking and public transit. Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities, U.S. Department of Transportation, February 1990. This document provides a statement of national transportation policy and strategies for action (Samuel Skinner, Secretary, USDOT). Joint Maintenance Facility Conceptual Plan, City of Ithaca, Cornell University, Tompkins County, and GADABOUT Transportation Services, Inc., January 1990. This plan indicates the need for the City of Ithaca, Cornell University, Tompkins County, and GADABOUT Transportation Services, Inc. to have a joint maintenance facility plan. Existing shops are duplicative, small, and inadequate for the existing and future transit fleet. Benefits, plans, management structures, and cost estimates for the maintenance facility are discussed. Parking Study Final Report, for the City of Ithaca by Rich and Associates URS Consultants, August 1989. The purpose of this report was to; determine current parking demand and parking characteristics, quantify demand for future parking, assess the operation of the City's parking system, determine location of potential new parking areas, and review traffic flow within the study area. Water Quality Report for PIN 3047.04 Relocated Route 96 Ithaca - Trumansburg Tompkins County, for NYSDOT prepared by Robert E. Smith, Consulting Engineer, Rochester, NY, August 1998. This is a technical report which supplements the Design Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and Section 4 (f) Evaluation for the Route 96 Improvement to Meadow Street. The report reviews existing water quality, build alternatives, and water quality concerns. Air Quality Report for PIN 3047.04 Relocated Route 96 Ithaca - Trumansburg Tompkins County, for NYSDOT, prepared by Robert E. Smith consulting engineer, Rochester, NY, August, 1988. This is a technical report which supplements the Design Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and Section 4 (f) Evaluation for the Route 96 Improvement to Meadow Street. The report explains general methodology for three different levels of analysis which include Hot Spot Verification and the IMM Model. The report summarizes air quality results for these analyses.
Page B-14
Strategic Housing and Neighborhoods Plan, City of Ithaca, December 1987. This plan details strategic public body actions to address specific problems facing Ithaca's neighborhoods. The report primarily focuses on the availability of affordable housing, neighborhood conflict resolution, building and grounds maintenance, community input, and traffic and parking. Site Traffic Analysis Sun Down Farms Mixed Use Development Lansing, NY, DRAFT, BartonAschman Associates, Inc., October 1987. A site traffic impact analysis was conducted due to the proposal of the Sun Down Farms mixed-use development. This is a report compiled by Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., and includes the following surveys and analyses: data collection, directional distribution analysis, traffic generation analysis, traffic assignment, testing and evaluation, and, recommendations. The site is located in the area bounded by North Triphammer Road to the east, Cayuga Heights Road to the west, Burdick Hill Road to the north, and Oakcrest Road to the south. Update of Airport 1974 Master Plan, Calocerinos & Spina, September 1987. The plan assesses demand/capacity and facility requirements, runway length, airport noise analysis, and presents a phased airport development plan, approach and obstruction plan, and evaluates costs. Proposal for a Transportation Management Information System, Anthony Richardson and Arnim Meyburg, May 1987. Proposal addressed to the Ad Hoc East Ithaca Land Use/Transportation Study Committee to survey travel patterns through use of a household survey and development of the MacTrans Modeling Package. An Analysis and Evaluation of Octopus/Route 96 Alternative Plans, Planning/Environmental Research Consultants, Ithaca, NY, May 1987. Report examines select concerns of the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County of proposed NYSDOT planning alternatives. Impact of null alternative, land use impacts on West Hill, adequacy of West Hill Circulation, project impacts on Cass Park & the Island, one way pair of Meadow and Fulton Streets, traffic impacts east of Meadow Street, impact on CONRAIL trains, aesthetic/visual impacts, and assessing the mitigation potential of highway alternatives. The report is confined to analysis, no recommendations are made. Recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee: A Report to the Planning Board and Common Council in Support of the City of Ithaca's Strategic Housing and Neighborhoods Plan, City of Ithaca, April 1987. This report contains informational reports on the activities of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC consisted of various community, neighborhood, and business leaders. The purpose of the TAC was to identify the strategic issues facing Ithaca's neighborhoods. A survey of TAC members resulted in identifying "Neighborhood parking and traffic issues" as the top problem. The TAC focused on the development of strategic objectives and actions to implement the objectives. "Affordability of Housing",
Page B-15
Availability of Housing", Traffic and Parking", "Neighborhood Conflicts", "Building and Grounds Maintenance", and "Input by Neighborhood Residents" were all examined. Final Report to the ARC, TOMTRAN: Tompkins County Transportation Services Project, January 1986. This is the final report in the TOMTRAN Project to the ARC. The principal purpose of this document is to report on the implementation of the TOMTRAN Project during the period of September 30, 1981 to September 30, 1985. The report contains an overview, program budget, the progress made towards implementing programs, presents evaluations of the project components, and provides information on the future development of TOMTRAN. Design Report, Town of Newfield, Route 13 Bridge Replacement Projects, NYSDOT PIN 3314.16.121, BIN 1023270, 1985. Project: Replacement of one bridge over the CONRAIL track and Cayuga Inlet in the Town of Newfield. Conclusion: replace existing bridge on a new alignment slightly west of existing is the only reasonable solution. Design Report, Town of Newfield, Route 13 Bridge Replacement Projects, NYSDOT PIN 3314.15, BIN 1023240, BIN 1023250, BIN 1023260, 1985. Project: Replacement of three bridges along routes 34/96 in the Town of Newfield. Conclusion: the replacement of existing structures on existing alignments is the only reasonable solution to correct problems of structure deficiencies and deterioration. Suburban Transit Program: East Ithaca Transit System, 1981 Annual Report and 1982 Program and Budget This report includes an assessment of East Ithaca Transit operations for 1981 and proposes a program and budget for 1982. Ridership, expenditures, revenues, service expansion, relationship to TOMTRAN, and status for Cornell as East Ithaca Transit operator are detailed in the document. The 1982 Program and Budget calls for an increase in the number of service hours, projects ridership to 60,000, and reports a ten percent increase in hourly contract cost. The program also proposes several capital improvements. Recommendations are made regarding the adoption of the 1982 East Ithaca Transit Program and Budget by the East Ithaca Transit Study Committee. TOMTRAN I and II Project Revision, TOMTRAN: Tompkins County Transportation services Report, August 1982. TOMTRAN I is a comprehensive, multi-modal, rural transportation project including operating and capital components. TOMTRAN II is a request for $156,800 ARC Capital Grant to expand and improve the level of transit service initiated by the TOMTRAN I Ithaca-Dryden Corridor Transit Program. The present scope of services of the transit program requires a total of 5 transit buses. The report explains the need for revision. The report details TOMTRAN budgets, operating programs, and project management. Truck Traffic and Vehicular Noise, Tompkins County Planning Department, June 1981. The report evaluated the noise impacts of truck traffic on Route 79, east State Street and through Ithaca. The Bryant Park Civic Association petitioned the NYSDOT, City, and County to implement a truck ban on East State Street in the City. The report evaluates the
Page B-16
legal problems and concludes that truck exclusion is not feasible. NYSDOT evaluated accidents and concluded that the accident rate was within state averages and did not warrant special regulation. The East Ithaca Transit Rider Survey, David Arbeit, Tompkins County Planning Department, June 17, 1981. The East Ithaca Transit (EIT) Rider Survey was designed to be simply administered and evaluated while providing information about the characteristics of the riders, their use of the EIT, and their satisfaction with the new service. The survey indicates that EIT provides a service that both satisfies previously unmet travel needs and adds convenience to residents of Tompkins County. The report indicated that the results of the survey should be interpreted in conjunction with a more extensive analysis of ridership data and operating costs in order to provide a thorough evaluation of the EIT demonstration period.
East Ithaca Connector, East Ithaca Circulation Study, O'Brien Taube Associates, May 1981. A committee from the County, Town of Ithaca and Cornell University began working in 1980 on creating a proposal for a new East Ithaca Connector. The arterial was broken into phases. Phase I considered a new corridor connecting Pine Tree Road by East Hill Plaza in the south to Route 366 in the north. Phase I spanned Cascadilla Creek, traversed the Orchards and provided a new gateway to the Cornell campus. Judd Falls Road would be replaced as an arterial by Phase I. Phase II connected Route 366 in the south to Freese Road in the north by spanning Fall Creek with a new bridge. Further north, a new arterial would link Hanshaw Road with Route 13 east of Sapsucker Woods Road. An environmental assessment form for the project is included in the report. Interim Countywide Public Transportation Service Plan, Tompkins County, March 1980, revised May 1980, and Revised February 1981. This plan was prepared to help guide efforts within Tompkins County which aid in the improvement of transportation services. The plan reviews demographic characteristics as they influence transportation needs, provides an inventory of existing transportation services, evaluates unmet transportation needs, describes local coordination activities, and includes proposals to improve transportation services within Tompkins County. Environmental Impact of East Ithaca Connector and Low Impact Plan, Ecology Action Plan, 1980's. Plan evaluates environmental impacts of the complete connector proposal and recommends this alternative to re-align Pine Tree Road to Judd Falls Road as an alternative. Report on the Development of the Cornell Research Park Utilities, Edward Rosic, Carol Majdalany, and Stephen Dove, 1980. The report discusses the utilities in general as they apply to the park and then addresses each type of system individually. An inventory of the utility systems is provided as well as an estimation of the costs that may be encountered in their extension into the park. The authors make recommendations for utility development which attempt to increase the marketability of the park land to benefit the surrounding community.
Page B-17
Warren Road Industrial Park Access Road Project, NYSDOT PIN 3750.44, May 1980. This road project realigned Warren Road to permit future runway expansion of the Tompkins County Airport. The project report describes the design and evaluation in support of the project. The Warren Road project was the only highway project constructing new alignment in the 1980's.
Cornell Research Park Road Systems Group: The Route 13/Warren Road Intersection Analysis, Lynn R. Adamson, Darlene A. Lachman, and Paul V. Sheridan, April 25, 1980. A comprehensive study of alternative interchange designs for the intersection of Warren Road and Route 13. The goal of the study was to propose a most desirable interchange configuration while keeping costs down, reducing the impact on the surrounding land, and enhancing the potential value of development land in the Cornell University Research Park. The methodology for analyzing the intersection contains five sections: Selection of Alternative Designs, Calculation of the Geometric Configurations of the Interchanges, Level of Service Calculations for Each Alternative Design, Other Considerations, and Conclusions. The authors conclude that the half-cloverleaf configuration is clearly superior in satisfying the broad requirements of this study. Ridesharing Manual for Employees, Tompkins County Ridesharing Program, October 1979. This manual outlines an approach recommended to middle and large sized employers for encouraging ridesharing among their employees. It outlines the benefits of ridesharing and the elements of a coordinated ride-matching system. A survey instrument with instructions, data about potential savings, guidelines for carpoolers, and other useful material are included in appendices. Proposals for Route 96 Improvements, Report to the County Board of Representatives, TCDP VII 280.70, Tompkins County Planning Department, June 1978. Report is Phase VII of the transportation component of the Comprehensive Planning Program (701). The report suggests community transportation objectives, assesses traffic flows and studies problems in the West End of the City of Ithaca. Highway solutions are proposed to the community and state. Ithaca Street Railway Study, Ithaca Street Railway Ad Hoc Committee, 1976 Citizen study group to plan development of a light rail (trolley) system connecting downtown Ithaca, Collegetown, and the Cornell Campus. Mass Transit Development for Small Urban Areas: Tompkins County, NY, UMTA, DOT-OST-40003, Arnim Meyberg, et. al., November 1976. Second year study results. Concentrates on obstacles to coordination, marketing and evaluation program for public transportation. The report presents a comprehensive discussion of service management issues.
Page B-18
Framework for Development, Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan Studies, August, 1975. This study briefly describes present trends and patterns of development and some of the problems created by sprawl. Three alternative patterns for future development are presented. Socio-Economic Impact Analysis for Cayuga Station, Reimann-Buechner Partnership, June 1975 Prepared for Tompkins County and the Town of Lansing as a requirement under Article VIII of the New York Public Service Law, based on the proposed construction of an 850MW generating plant in the Town of Lansing by NYSEG Corporation. An assessment of impacts on Transportation, Land Use, Recreation, Social & Economic, and Aesthetics of the area. Ithaca's Bikeway, Landscape Architecture Graduate Program of Cornell University, Spring 1975. A summary of the Ithaca Area Bikeway Study. Report includes a description of the planning process and how to get it done.
Airport General Master Plan, Arnold Thompson Associates, December 1974. Includes: inventory, air travel forecasts (demand), airfield planning, terminal area planning, development alternatives, airport plans including facility layouts, cost estimates and environmental impact assessment. Scope of planning covers 1975-1995. Ithaca-Cortland Economic Growth Center Study, Tompkins County Planning Department, November 1974. Prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation, this is an analysis of the potential economic impacts associated with improvements to the "existing" Route 13 or with a "Dryden By-Pass". Mass Transit Development for Small Urban Areas: Tompkins County, NY, UMTA, DOT-TST-75-48, Arnim Meyburg, et. al., October 1974. First year results to develop a transportation planning methodology for small urban areas. The report uses Tompkins County as its case study. A plan for the expansion of public transportation is presented. Feasibility Study, Cross Town Road, John S. MacNeil Jr., August 1974. Report to the County Planning and Public Works Committee to identify the most feasible route to construct a new arterial linking Route 13 south of the City to Route 13 in the vicinity of the airport. Report includes a conceptual plan, an evaluation of alternative corridors and their environmental impacts, an evaluation of the impact on traffic, cost estimates and recommendations for a new corridor. The report envisions NYSDOT to build the project. Project Location Report: Conclusions and Recommendations - Route 13, Ithaca to Cortland, NYSDOT PIN 3057.08, 1973.
Page B-19
NYSDOT's conclusion and recommendations for a new Route 13 between Ithaca and Cortland. Documents economic and social factors supporting their recommendation. Documents agency and public comments on the project. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Route 13/96 Combined Corridor Project, NYSDOT PIN 3047.04, 1973. Presents the final EIS accepted by NYSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Location Report, Conclusion and Recommendations, Route 13/96 Combined Corridor Project, NYSDOT PIN 3057.13 & 3047.04, 1973. Presents NYSDOT's conclusions for 15 mile portion of Routes 13 and 96 between Newfield Hill and Trumansburg. Planning began in 1957 with alignments developed in 1965 and 1967. Documents public/agency/municipal/ comments and public participation regarding the project. Prospectus for a Comprehensive Transportation Study in the Ithaca Area, Planning and Research Bureau NYSDOT, January 1971. Proposal for a transportation study for the Ithaca urban area. The study would include an inventory of the road network, travel demand analysis, a cordon survey, and present recommendations for improvements. Transportation Systems in Tompkins County, Mayor's Citizen Advisory Committee of Ithaca, NY, and Graduate School of Business, and Public Administration Cornell University, December 1970. This committee identified four broad committees which addressed the following topics: traffic flow in the Ithaca business district, the community transit system, the expansion of state highway Route 13, and air transportation facilities in Tompkins County. The traffic flow sub-committee concluded that the business district of downtown Ithaca has a serious problem of traffic congestion, and proposes several recommendations: the creation of a mall shopping area for downtown Ithaca, additional parking restrictions, designation of several one-way street segments, left turn limitations, and the conduction of a thorough traffic study of the City of Ithaca. The community transit committee recommends: the expansion of weekend\evening service, alteration of several existing routes, and providing the public with better information about routes and schedules. The Route 13 expansion committee concluded that an improved highway would lead to substantially more tourism, which would be economically attractive. The committee recommends selecting one of the three alternatives proposed by the state highway planners and then fully exploit the development opportunities. The airport committee found that the slow growth of the Tompkins County Airport can be attributed to the increased ease of obtaining the high priority factors at nearby airports. Recommendations include: increasing non-stop flights, providing a greater frequency of departures, and improving same day round trip service to major cities. Project Information Report II, Ithaca to Cortland, NYSDOT PIN 3057.08, September 1970. Report summarizes results of social, economic and environmental studies for project alternatives. Documents comments.
Page B-20
Project Information Report I, Ithaca to Cortland, NYSDOT PIN 3057.08, September 1970. Project narrative on NYSDOT proposal, need for project, criteria for selecting alignments, and presented alternative corridors. Report was to serve as a "starting point" for planning by NYSDOT, Tompkins and Cortland Counties, and various federal, state and local agencies and the public. Project Information Report II Route 13/96 Combined Corridor Project, NYSDOT PIN 3057.13 & 3047.04, June 1970. Introduces project alternatives, identifies social, economic and environmental objectives, evaluates traffic volumes, presents engineering and cost data for alternatives for: do nothing, reconstructing on existing ROW, and changing transportation modes. Conventional NYSDOT impact study. Project Information Report I: Route 13/96 Combined Corridor, NYSDOT PIN 3275, March 1970. Project narrative on NYSDOT proposal for bypass alignments from Newfield to Ithaca to Trumansburg. Emphasis is placed on high speed rural highways and intercity travel. Airport Master Plan Tompkins County Airport Terminal Area Complex, Teetor-Dobbins, June 1969. Plan evaluates passenger handling facilities at airport, and recommends building a new terminal. Evaluates travel demand and financial feasibility for a new terminal. Scenic Roads in Tompkins County, NY. Tompkins County Scenic Roads Committee, 1969. Report recommends five sites along state highways as the most scenic locations in Tompkins County. Sites were officially designated by Tompkins County Board of Supervisors on June 23, 1969. Recommends to the NYS Natural Beauty Commission sites for scenic views, rest areas, etc.
Page B-21
APPENDIX C GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS, DEFINITIONS, AND TRANSPORTATION RELATED WEB SITES
2030 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
Page C-1
APPENDIX C TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... C-3 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... C-9 Transportation Web Sites .............................................................................................................. C-30
Page C-2
ACRONYMS
AASHTO AADT AAR AC ACS ACS ADA ADT ADP AE AFC AFDC AFV A/I AICP AMFA APA AQMP APTA APTS ARTS ARC ARRA ASCE ATMS ATS ATIS ATV AVCS AVI AVO BAC BFU BPM BMS BNAM BPAC BSA BTP BTS CA CAA CAAA CADD American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Average Annual Daily Traffic American Association of Railroads Aircraft Advanced Communication System American Community Survey Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Average Daily Traffic Advance Detail Plans Annual Element Automated Fare Control Aid to Families with Dependent Children Alternative Fuel Vehicle Accident Incident American Institute of Certified Planners Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 American Planning Association or Adirondack Park Agency (New York State) Air Quality Management Plan American Public Transit Association Advanced Public Transportation System Advanced Rural Transportation Systems American Recreation Coalition American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers Advanced Traffic Management System American Travel Survey Advanced Traveler Information System Accurate Traffic Volume Advanced Vehicle Control System Automated Vehicle Identification Average Vehicle Occupancy Bicycle Advisory Council Bicycle Facilities Unit Best Management Practice Bridge Management System Bridge Needs Assessment Model Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee Bridge Safety Assurance Bicycle Transportation Plan Bureau of Transportation Statistics (USDOT) Certification Acceptance Clean Air Act of 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (previously 1977) Computer Aided Design and Drafting
Page C-3
CAFE CBD CBO CBP CDL CDBG CE CFC CH4 CHAS CIP CMAQ CMP CMS CNEL CNG CO CO2 COG COFC CPI CPM CPMIS CRA CRP CSS CSSQ CSSQA CTAA CTPP CVO DA DBA DAD db DBE DDR DEC DEIS DNL DOB DOD DOE DOT DPFT DQAB DRMP DTM
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Central Business District Community-Based Organization Comprehensive Business Plan Commercial Driver's License Community Development Block Grant Categorical Exclusion Chloroflourocarbon Methane Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Capital Improvements Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program Congestion Management Plan Congestion Management System Community Noise Equivalent Level Compressed Natural Gas Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Council of Governments Container on Flat Car Consumer Price Index Critical Path Method Capital Program Management Information System Community Redevelopment Agency Combined Road Program Context Sensitive Solutions Cost, Schedule, Scope and Quality Cost, Schedule, Scope and Quality Agreement Community Transportation Association of America Census Transportation Planning Package Commercial Vehicle Operations Design Approval Doing Business As Design Approval Document Decibels Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Draft Design Report New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Day-Night Average Sound Level Division of Budget U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Department of Energy Department of Transportation Draft Project Feasibility Report Design Quality Assurance Bureau Development Resource Management Plan Digital Terrain Model
Page C-4
EA EAP EC ECO ECPC EDPL EIS EPA EPP EV FAA FARS FAUS FDR FEIS FERC FFY FHWA FIPS FM FMIS FONSI FRA FS FTA FTIP FTS FY GAO GBF/DIME GDP GHG GIS GNP GPS HBRR HBW HC HCM HEV HES HNW HOT HOV HPMS HRDB HUD I/M
Environmental Assessment Environmental Action Plan Environmental Capacity Employee Commute Options Executive Capital Program Committee Eminent Domain Procedure Law Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Expanded Project Proposal Electric Vehicle Federal Aviation Administration (USDOT) Fatal Accident Reporting System (USDOT) Federal Aid Urban System Final Design Report Final Environmental Impact Statement Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Fiscal Year Federal Highway Administration (USDOT) Federal Information Processing Standards Functional Manager Financial Management Information Systems Finding of No Significant Impact Federal Railroad Administration (USDOT) Feasibility Study Federal Transit Administration (formerly UMTA, USDOT) Federal Transportation Improvement Program Freight Transportation Study Fiscal Year General Accounting Office Geographic Base File/Dual Independent Map Encoding Gross Domestic Product Green House Gas Geographic Information Systems Gross National Product Global Positioning Satellite Highway Bridge Rehabilitation & Replacement Home Based Work (trip type) Hydrocarbons Highway Capacity Manual Hybrid Electric Vehicle Hazard Elimination and Safety Program Home Non Work (trip type) High Occupancy Toll Lane High Occupancy Vehicle Highway Performance Management System Human Resource Development Bureau U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Programs
Page C-5
ICC IM IMS INAM IPA IPP ISTEA ITAC ITCTC ITE ITIP ITS JM JTW KPH LHI LNG LOS LPG LRP LRPCF LRRT LRTP LTC LULU MAB MSA MIS MOA MOVES MOU MPG MPH MPO MTIS MTP MUTCD N2O NAAQS NEPA NESTS NHB NHPA NHS NHTSA NIMBY NOx NPIAS
Interstate Commerce Commission Interstate Maintenance Intermodal Management System Infrastructure Needs Assessment Model Individual Project Assessment Initial Project Proposal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 Interagency Technical Advisory Committee Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council Institute of Transportation Engineers Interregional Transportation Improvement Plan Intelligent Transportation System Job Manager Journey-to-Work (US Census survey) Kilometer Per Hour Local Highway Inventory Liquefied Natural Gas Level of Service Liquefied Petroleum Gas Long Range Plan Long Range Plan Conceptual Framework Light Rail Rapid Transit Long Range Transportation Plan Local Transportation Commission Locally Unwanted Land Use Metropolitan (Planning) Area Boundary Metropolitan Statistical Area Management Information System Memorandum of Agreement Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator Memorandum of Understanding Miles Per Gallon Miles Per Hour Metropolitan Planning Organization Major Transportation Investment Study Metropolitan Transportation Plan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Nitrous Oxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Environmental Policy Act North East Subarea Transportation Study Non Home Based (trip type) National Historic Preservation Act National Highway System National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (USDOT) Not In My Back Yard Nitrogen Oxides National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
Page C-6
NPS NPTS NSDI NTPP NTS NYPTA NYSDOT O3 OCST OMB OPP OPPM OPRHP OST OTAQ PAC PBC PCF PD PE PFIF PFR PIL PIN PIP PIR PM PMP PMS PMSA PMT PNRS PPMG PRT PS&E PSP PSP PTA PTMS R/W RAA RCPC RE RFB RFP RFQ RHME ROD
National Park Service National Personal Transportation Survey National Spatial Data Infrastructure NESTS Transit Planning Project National Transportation System New York Public Transit Association New York State Department of Transportation Ozone Office of Commercial Space Transportation (USDOT) Office of Management and Budget One Person Plowing (Highway Maintenance) Office of Planning and Program Management (NYSDOT Main Office) New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Office of the Secretary (USDOT) Office of Transportation and Air Quality Program Analysis Control Public Benefit Conveyance Primary Collision Factor Project Developer Preliminary Engineering Public Facilities Implementation Plan Project Feasibility Report Priority Investigation Location Project Initiation Number Public Involvement Procedures Project Initiation Report Project Manager Project Management Plan Pavement Management System Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area Person Miles of Travel Project Notification and Review System Planning & Program Management Group Personal Rapid Transit Plans, Specifications and Estimate Public Services Plan Project Screening Process Public Transportation Account Public Transportation Management System Right of Way Regional Analysis Area Regional Capital Program Committee Resident Engineer Request For Bids Request For Proposals Request For Qualifications Regional Highway Maintenance Engineer Record of Decision
Page C-7
ROW RPM RPPM RREGGAE RSTP RTIP RTPA RTPE RTP R&P SAFE SAFETEA-LU SDF SDL SEQR SEQRA SFY SHPO SHOPP SIC SIP SMPG SMS SMSA SOV SOx SPDS SRTP SSM SSTAC STA STIP STP STPP SWS TAC TCI TCM TDA TASS TAZ TCAT TCM TCRP TDC TDM TEA-21 TEA
Right of Way Revenue Passenger Mile Regional Planning and Program Manager Roadway & Rail, Energy& Greenhouse Gas Analysis Extension Regional Surface Transportation Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Planning Agency Regional Transportation Entity Regional Transportation Plan Restoration and Preservation Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users State Dedicated Fund Safety Deficient Location New York State Environmental Quality Review Act New York State Environmental Quality Review Act State Fiscal Year (April 1 - March 31) State Historic Preservation Officer State Highway and Operational Protection Program Standard Industrial Classification State Implementation Plan (under CAAA) Seat Miles Per Gallon Safety Management System Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Single Occupant Vehicle Sulfur Oxides State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Short Range Transit Plan Scope Summary Memorandum Social Services Transportation Advisory Council State Transit Assistance State Transportation Improvement Program Surface Transportation Program (part of ISTEA) Surface Transportation Policy Project Statewide Significant Technical Advisory Committee (part of MPO) Transit Capital Improvement Transit Control Measure Transportation Development Act Term Agreement for Surveying Services Traffic Analysis Zone (see TSZ) Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Transportation Control Measure Traffic Congestion Relief Program U.S. Travel Data Center Transportation Demand Management Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century Transportation Enhancement Activity (part of STP)
Page C-8
TIA TIF TIGER TIGER TIP TMA TMA TOD TOS TP TPA TPB TQM TRB TSM TSZ UA UBC UMTA UNIPCC UOP UPWP USC USDOT USGS USTTA UZA V/C VHT VKT VLS VMT VNTSC VOC VPD VPH VPHH VOC WBE WIC WIM
Transportation Improvement Area Transportation Improvement Fund Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Reference System Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (Federal grant program) Transportation Improvement Program Transportation Management Area (metropolitan areas over 200,000 pop.) Transportation Management Association Transit Oriented Development Traffic Operation System Total Particulate matter Transportation Planning Agency Transportation Planning Board Total Quality Management Transportation Research Board Transportation System Management Traffic Survey Zone (see TAZ) Urbanized Area (Census Bureau) Uniform Building Code Urban Mass Transportation Administration (now FTA, USDOT) United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Unified Operations Plan Unified Planning Work Program United States Code U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Travel and Tourism Information Association Urbanized Area (FHWA, revised) Volume to Capacity Vehicle Hours Traveled Vehicle Kilometers Traveled Vehicle Location System Vehicle Miles Traveled Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Volume Over Capacity Vehicles Per Day Vehicles Per Hour Vehicles Per Household Volatile Organic Compounds Women (owned) Business Enterprise Women, Infants and Children Weight In Motion
Page C-9
DEFINITIONS
Accelerated Retirement of Vehicles (a.k.a. "Cash for Clunkers") - A program of the Environmental Protection Agency which allows industries that exceed federal emission standards to purchase older model vehicles from the general public to remove them from the road (for air quality and energy reasons). Access, Accessibility - The opportunity to reach a given destination within a certain time frame, or without being impeded by physical or economic barriers. Accessible also means, with respect to vehicles and facilities, complying with the accessibility requirements of 49 CFR parts 37 and 38 (ADA transportation provisions). Aggregate Demand Model - Model obtained by combining travel observations for individuals into geographic zones. Air Quality Conformity Analysis - Analysis that determines if certain transportation plans and programs conform to federal air-quality goals, namely that the plans and programs won't increase vehicular emissions. Federal Clean Air Act requires these analyses. Allocation - An administrative distribution of funds among the States, done for funds that do not have statutory distribution formulas. The State of New York also allocates funds among its eleven administrative regions. Alternative Fuels - Any motor fuel other than ordinary gasoline which generally results in lower levels of air pollutants (e.g., reformulated gasoline, methane, ethanol, natural gas, liquid propane, and vegetable oils). See "Clean Fuels" and "Oxygenated Fuels", below. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) - Federal Law which requires accessible public transportation services for persons with disabilities, including complementary or supplemental paratransit services in areas where fixed route transit service is operated. Expands definition of eligibility for accessible services to persons with mental disabilities, temporary disabilities, and the conditions related to substance abuse. The Act is an augmentation to, but does not supersede, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability against otherwise qualified individuals in programs receiving federal assistance. Analysis Area - Any geographic area such as a zone or group of zones combined for the purpose of making an analysis. Analyst - In the transportation planning field, a title likely pertaining to a position having to do with quantitative information management and analysis. Annual Element (A.E.) - The section of the Transportation Improvement Program which lists all transportation improvement projects proposed for the first year of the program. Apportionment - A term that refers to a statutorily prescribed division or assignment of funds. An apportionment is based on prescribed formulas in the law and consists of dividing authorized obligation authority for a specific program among the States.
Page C-10
Appropriations Act - Action of a legislative body that makes funds available for expenditure with specific limitations as to amount, purpose, and duration. In most cases, it permits money previously authorized to be obligated and payments made, but for the highway program operating under contract authority, appropriations specify amounts of funds that Congress will make available to liquidate prior obligations. Arterial - Roadways designed to carry large volumes of traffic to and from collector streets. The emphasis is on mobility, not access to adjoining land uses. Assignment - The last step in a transportation model in which the estimated trips are loaded on to the simulated travel network (e.g., highway or transit). Attached/Detached - Used in reference to sidewalks as physically connected or not physically connected to a street. Attainment Area - An area considered to have air quality that meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for a given pollutant. An area may be in attainment for one pollutant while being in nonattainment for others. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) - The average number of vehicles passing a fixed point in a 24-hour time frame. A convention for measuring traffic volume. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) - The total number of vehicles passing a fixed point in a 365 day time period divided by 365. AADT figures may also be derived from ADT counts using monthly adjustment factors derived from continuous count station readings. Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) - A measure of the number of people using each automobile. A higher AVO assists in the reduction of traffic congestion and improving air quality. Base Year - The first year of data and analysis used in a study (usually the current year). Bicycle Boulevard A roadway that has been modified to enhance bicyclists safety and convenience. Bicycle Boulevards are ideally incorporated into a network that allows bicyclists to ravel between major points activity. Bicycle Boulevards frequently incorporate traffic calming strategies to enhance multi-modal transportation, especially bicycling. Berkeley, CA, has one of the first and most exemplary models of Bicycle Boulevards. Bikeway - Any road, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated as being open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Bike Facilities - A general term denoting improvements and provisions made by public agencies to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking facilities, mapping all bikeways, and shared roadways not specifically designated for bicycle use. See "Shared Roadway", below. Bike Lane - A portion of a roadway, which has been designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.
Page C-11
Bike Path - A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right of way or within an independent right of way. Bike Route - A segment of a system of bikeways designated by the jurisdiction having authority with appropriate directional and informational markers, with or without specific bicycle route number. Budget Authority - Empowerment by the Congress that allows federal agencies to incur obligations to spend or lend money. This empowerment is generally in the form of appropriations. However, for the major highway program categories, it is in the form of "contract authority." Budget authority permits agencies to obligate all or part of the funds that were previously "authorized." Without budget authority, federal agencies cannot commit the Government to make expenditures or loans. Bus Lane - A lane reserved for bus use only. Also known as a "diamond lane." Capacity - The maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a lane or roadway in one direction (or in both directions for a two-lane or three-lane highway) during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. It is the maximum rate of flow that has a reasonable expectation of occurring. In the absence of a time modifier, capacity is an hourly volume. Capacity Restraint - The modeling process by which the assigned volume on a link is compared with the practical capacity of that link and the speed of the link adjusted to reflect the relationship between speed, volume, and capacity. The procedure is iterative until a realistic representation of traffic flow is achieved. Carbon Monoxide (CO) - A colorless, odorless gas emitted primarily from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO is absorbed into the bloodstream through the respiratory tract and reacts primarily with the hemoglobin in the red blood cells, decreasing the blood's oxygen carrying capacity. Carsharing - A model of car rental where people rent cars for short periods of time, often by the hour. They are attractive to customers who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day. Catenary - The overhead power line system for electrically propelled rail vehicles, including light-rail cars. Central Business District (CBD) - The most intensely commercial sector of a city. Clean Air Act (CAA) - Originally adopted in 1970, substantially amended in 1977. The act established maximum allowable emission levels for various pollutants and required the development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that monitor air quality and enforce emission standards. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) - Federal law establishing criteria for attaining and maintaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards. A nonattainment area is a region that fails to meet one or more of the standards. The CAAA have shifted the emphasis of conformity analysis from a systemlevel review of the SIP towards a more project-oriented approach. Transportation agencies are concerned with projects that help to reduce pollutant levels by reducing vehicle congestion and vehicle miles of travel. Clean Fuels - Blends and/or substitutes for gasoline. Compressed natural gas (CNG), methanol, ethanol, and others are considered clean fuels. The addition of oxygenated compounds directly to gasoline can improve the efficiency of combustion and lower the output of CO and reactive organic emissions. See "Alternative Fuels", above and "Oxygenated Fuels", below. Page C-12
Closed Barrier System - A type of toll collection system in which vehicles pay at toll booth "barriers" across the highway, rather than at toll booths at each exit from the highway. Collector - A roadway that both provides access to adjoining land uses, as well as conducts traffic from local streets to arterial streets and freeways. Commercial Driver's License (CDL) - A standard state requirement for trucking, bus, and some for-profit passenger bus services. The CDL is becoming a standard driver qualification for employment in professional paratransit organizations. Commuter Rail - Local and regional passenger train operations between a central city, its suburbs, and/or another central city. Commuter rail usually has only one or two stations in the CBD. Also known as suburban rail. Complete Streets - In urban planning and highway engineering, roadways designed and operated to enable safe, attractive, and comfortable access and travel for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transport users of all ages and abilities are able to safely and comfortably move along and across a complete street. Conformity - Process to assess the compliance of any transportation plan, program, or project with air quality control plans. The conformity process is defined by the Clean Air Act. Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) - A new categorical funding program created by ISTEA. CMAQ directs funding to projects within air quality nonattainment areas which contribute to meeting the national air quality standards. CMAQ funds generally may not be used for projects which result in the construction of new capacity available to SOVs (single occupant vehicles). Congestion Management System (CMS) - ISTEA requires that each Transportation Management Area (see "TMA", below) develop a CMS that provides for effective management of new and existing transportation facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies. Unless included in a CMS, future highway projects which significantly increase capacity for single occupant vehicles (SOVs) may be ineligible for federal funding. Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) - A metropolitan statistical area having 1 million or more in population in which two or more primary metropolitan statistical areas are identified. See "Metropolitan Statistical Area", "Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area", and "Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area", below. Consolidation - Restructuring transportation services to serve the same market with fewer service providers. Consultation - One party confers with another identified party and, prior to taking action(s), considers that party's views. Context Sensitive Solutions - A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS is an approach that considers Page C-13
the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist." Federal Highway Administration Contract Authority - A form of budget authority that permits obligations to be made in advance of appropriations. The Federal-Aid Highway Program operates mostly under contract authority rules due to the existence of a dedicated trust fund. Controlled Access - A roadway design that permits no access to adjoining land, just access to other public roads. Coordination - When agencies share responsibilities related to transporting clients (e.g., carrying other clients, arranging with other agencies to carry clients, sharing vehicles or vehicle support services including maintenance, etcetera). For example, a provider whose major activity is transporting elderly clients may make mid-day schedule space to serve clients of an AFDC, WIC, or substance abuse prevention program. Cordon Line - An imaginary line enclosing a study area, along which external interviews are conducted for the purpose of conducting model validation. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) - Refers to the federal fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Corridor - A service or planning area through which a major transportation route passes. Crosswalk A point along a street that is identified by striping, sinage, and/or signal lights that designate it as a spot for pedestrians to cross the street. Curb Cut - a ramp leading smoothly down from a sidewalk to a street, rather than abruptly ending with a curb and dropping roughly 46 inches. Cutline - An imaginary line placed at strategic location to intercept all the links in an identified corridor. Traffic counts and trips assigned to the corridor are compared as a check of survey accuracy or model calibration. See "Screenline", below. Deadhead - Refers to bus travel between a garage and a passenger route. Less deadhead time means more efficiency. Demand-Responsive System - Any system of transporting individuals, including the provision of designated public transportation service by public entities and the provision of transportation service by private entities, including but not limited to specified public transportation service, which is not a fixed route system. Trips are usually requested and scheduled in advance by the trip maker. See "Dial-A-Ride" and "Paratransit", below. Desire Line - The straightened path between the origin and destination of a trip. Desire lines are mapped by analysts, where the width of the line is correlated to the patterns of travel intensity. Dial-a-Ride - A door-to-door, demand responsive transit operation similar to a taxicab (zone cab) service. Advance reservations may be required. See "Demand-Responsive", above and "Paratransit", below.
Page C-14
Discretionary Funding - Projects are selected for construction or reconstruction at the discretion of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. These projects usually involve high cost or require long periods of construction time. Ecological Sustainability - Based on the principles of ecology which recognize the connectedness and interrelationship of all living things. Long-term survival (sustainability) of any species in an ecosystem depends on a limited resource base. See "Sustainable Society", below. Energy Descent - is the post-peak oil transitional phase, when humankind goes from the ascending use of energy that has occurred since the industrial revolution to a descending use of energy. Commonly used to refer to the retraction of oil use after the peak oil availability. Environmental Action Plan (EAP) - FTA and FHWA have designated three classes of action (refer to 23 CFR Part 771): - EAP I / CLASS I: Actions that may significantly affect the environment require an Environmental Impact Statement. - EAP II / CLASS II: Categorical exclusion, no significant impact. - EAP III / CLASS III: Environmental Impact not established; Environmental Assessment needed to determine if an EIS is needed. Environmental Capacity - Environmental capacity (EC) quantifies the impact that traffic has on the human environment (noise, annoyance, air pollution, vibration, pedestrian safety, etcetera). It was first quantified by Buchanan (Traffic in Towns, HMSO,1963, London), and has been expanded and refined by many authors since. A road's environmental capacity is determined by both the physical environment through which the road passes (land use, building set-back, vegetation, etcetera) and by the characteristics of the road itself (width, number of lanes, traffic speed, percent trucks, etcetera). As a general rule, roads in residential areas have a low EC (200-300 vph, 800-1200 vpd), while commercial areas have higher ECs (perhaps twice as high). Environmental capacity is rarely a limiting factor in undeveloped or heavy industrial areas. Many methods can be used to keep a road operating within its EC: reduce the amount of traffic, reduce vehicle speeds, reduce pavement width, plant trees and shrubs along the road, or move the road further from the land-use focal point (e.g., building, playground, etcetera). While it is possible to modify a road so as to make it operate within its EC without necessarily decreasing the amount of traffic, typical carrying capacity improvements (e.g., wider, straighter, faster) actually decrease the road's EC. Local examples of successfully implemented measures to improve EC include: prohibiting through-trucks in some residential areas, reducing speed limits near schools, restricting through-traffic from the Cornell University campus, and eliminating all traffic from the Ithaca Commons. [Source: Bruce Brittain] Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) A written report that (1) details any adverse economic, social, and environmental effects of a proposed project for which federal funding or approval is sought, (2) examines alternatives to the project, and (3) discusses possible mitigation measures for the negative impacts of the project. It is intended to be a disclosure document, to provide decision-makers with necessary information to make an informed decision. Adverse effects could include air, water, or noise pollution; destruction or disruption of natural resources; adverse employment effects; injurious displacement of people or businesses; or disruption of desirable community or regional growth. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 implemented the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for highways requiring the Secretary of Transportation to "promulgate guidelines designed to assure that possible adverse economic, social, and environmental effects" be fully considered.
Page C-15
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - EPA is the source agency of air quality control regulations affecting transportation. Expenditures (outlays) - A term signifying disbursement of funds for repayment of obligations incurred. An electronic transfer of funds, or a check sent to a state or local transportation agency for voucher payment, is an expenditure or outlay. Expressway - A divided arterial highway for through traffic with controlled access, the intersections of which are usually separated from other roadways by differing grades. Federal-Aid Highway Program - An umbrella term generally referring to all activities funded through the FHWA and administered by the States' highway/transportation agencies or, in some cases, by local transportation agencies. While there are many components to the Program, the principal categories are: (1) The Interstate Maintenance Program, (2) the National Highway System (NHS), (3) the Surface Transportation Program (STP), and (4) the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). Projects are reviewed for eligibility on the basis of an approved functional classification system. [note: The ISTEA legislation repealed the previous Federal-Aid programs (primary, secondary, and urban systems) and declared the final authorizations and appropriations for the completion of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.] Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) - Since FFY 1977, the yearly accounting period beginning October 1 and ending September 30 of the subsequent calendar year. Prior to FFY 1977, the federal fiscal year started on July 1 and ended the following June 30. Fiscal years are denoted by the calendar year in which they end (e.g., FY 2001 began October 1, 2000, and ended September 30, 2001). See "Fiscal Year" and "State Fiscal Year", below. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - The agency within of the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for the administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - The agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for administering the provisions of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (as amended). Formerly named the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA). Financial Capacity, Capability - Refers to U.S. Department of Transportation requirement that an adequate financial plan for funding and sustaining transportation improvements be in place prior to programming federally-funded projects. Generally refers to the stability and reliability of revenue in meeting proposed costs. Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI) - A FONSI results from the determination that a EAP III/CLASS III action will not significantly affect the environment. Fiscal Year - The program and budget year of a given business, agency, or other enterprise. See "Federal Fiscal Year", above and "State Fiscal Year", below. Fixed Route - A system of transporting individuals (other than by aircraft), including the provision of designated public transportation service by public entities and the provision of transportation service by private entities, including, but not limited to, specified public transportation service, on which a vehicle is operated along a prescribed route according to a fixed schedule.
Page C-16
Fragmentation - A situation stemming from the lack of effective and efficient integration of programs, facilities and services. Freeway - A divided arterial highway designed for the unimpeded flow of large traffic volumes. Access to a freeway is rigorously controlled; grade separated intersections are the rule. Funder - Organization that purchases transportation service, and/or related programs or work from another or other agencies. Gasohol - A special motor fuel that is a blend of 90% ordinary gasoline and 10% ethanol which is fermented from biomass (e.g., corn). Gravity Model - A mathematical model of distribution based on the premise that trips produced in any given area will distribute in accordance with the accessibility of other areas and the opportunities they offer. Distribution is a function of the relative attractiveness of the activity in a given area as a proportion of total activity and as acted upon by a friction factor (such as travel time). Headway - Time spacing between transit vehicles (e.g., 10 minute headways means a bus comes by a particular location every 10 minutes). High Accident Location - A location that has experienced eight or more accidents within the previous three years and that has a "critical rate" of accidents greater than 1. "Critical rate" is a statistic that compares the accident experience among similar locations. A "critical rate" greater than 1 indicates a higher than average rate of accidents for the location given its traffic volume and other characteristics. High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) - Generally applied to vehicles carrying three or more persons. Freeways, expressways and other large volume roads may have lanes designated for the exclusive use of HOVs (carpoolers, vanpools, and buses). The term HOV is also sometimes used to refer to high occupancy vehicle lanes themselves. Highway - Term applies to roads, streets, and parkways, and also includes rights-of-way, bridges, railroad crossings, tunnels, drainage structures, signs, guard rails, and protective structures in connection with highways. Home-Based Work (HBW) - A trip for the purpose of one's employment, with either trip end being one's home. Home Non-Work (HNW) - A trip for a purpose other than employment (e.g., shopping, recreation, social, school, etcetera), with either trip end being at one's home. Import Substitution - An economic policy or practice whereby the use of locally/regionally produced goods or services are preferred to similar goods or services produced outside of the region. See "Regional Self-Sufficiency", below. Infrastructure - A term connoting the physical underpinnings of society at large, including, both human made -- including, but not limited to: roads, bridges, transit, water systems, public housing, sidewalks, utility installations, parks, public buildings, and communications networks -- and the natural (environmental) infrastructure of land, water, air, and life-forms.
Page C-17
Initial Project Proposal (IPP) - The first step in developing NYSDOT capital project, the IPP begins as a two-page form that provides a thumbnail sketch of the proposed improvement. The IPP describes the specific problem, possible solutions to it, and the possible benefits and costs resulting from the project's implementation. It serves as the point of departure for subsequent planning and design. Intelligent-Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS) - Uses computer and communications technology to provide information to travelers about road and transit conditions and to monitor, guide, or control the operation of vehicles. Included concepts such as "freeway management systems," "urban signal control systems," and "automated highways." ATMS, ATIS, APTS, AVCS, CVO, ARTS, and VLS are all examples of specific IVHS applications. Similar to Intelligent Transportation System. Intermodal - A term that refers to connectivity between modes as a means of facilitating linked trip making. It emphasizes connections (transfers of people or freight in a single journey), choices (provisions of transportation options to facilitate trip making), and coordination and consolidation (collaboration among transportation organizations). Intermodal Facility - A transportation element that accommodates and interconnects different modes of transportation and serves intrastate, interstate, and possibly international movement of people and goods. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) - Landmark federal legislation that substantially revises the pertinent transportation codes governing the planning for and funding of mass transit, highways, and highway safety, research, and aviation projects. It replaced the old Federal-Aid Highway Program with a new series of Federal-Aid programs, including a block grant program in which the State and local governments are given flexibility to determine transportation solutions that best meet their needs. Interstate System - That system of highways which connects the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers of the United States. The interstate system also connects at suitable border points with routes of continental importance in Canada and Mexico. The routes of the interstate system are selected by joint action of the state highway department of each state and the adjoining states, subject to the approval of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. May be referred to as the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Land Use - The way specific portions of land or the structures on them are used. Basic land use categories are: single family residential, multi-family residential, retail, commercial/office, industrial, agricultural, recreation, and so on. Laneage - The number and configuration of travel lanes. Letting - The term used to describe the acceptance of a contract bid. The letting date follows or coincides with the obligation of funds and is followed by a notice to proceed. See "Obligation Date", below. Level of Service (LOS) - A qualitative measure of the degree of mobility on a roadway. There are six levels of service defined, ranging from LOS "A" to LOS "F": - LOS A: free-flow conditions; delays are minimal or nonexistent - LOS B: stable flow, but motorists begin to experience some delays - LOS C: flow is still stable, but delays lengthen and maneuvering within the traffic stream is noticeably more difficult
Page C-18
- LOS D: - LOS E: - LOS F:
flow is still stable, but speed and maneuverability are severely restricted; moderately long delays (25 to 40 seconds per vehicle) at intersection road is at or near capacity; speeds are reduced to low, uniform flow; delays at intersection of 40 to 60 seconds per vehicle roadway is operating under "breakdown" conditions; intersection delays of more than 60 seconds per vehicle
Limitation on Obligations - Any action or inaction by an officer or employee of the United States that limits the amount of Federal assistance that may be obligated during a specified time period. A limitation on obligations does not affect the scheduled apportionment or allocation of funds, it just controls the rate at which these funds may be used. Link - The abstract representation of a discrete roadway or transit route segment in a travel demand model network. See "Network", below. Local Street - A street intended only to provide access to abutting properties. Long-range - Typically, long-range plans address a period of at least twenty years. The ISTEA regulations specify that transportation plans must address "at least a twenty year planning horizon". See "Metropolitan Transportation Plan", below. Long Range Conceptual Framework - A document created for the sole purpose of specifying the procedures and schedule to be followed in order to complete a long-range planning process; a "plan to plan". Maintenance area - Any geographic region of the United States designated nonattainment pursuant to the CAA Amendments of 1990 (Section 102(e)), 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq., and subsequently redesignated to attainment subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance plan under section 175A of the Clean Air Act as amended (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq. Major Metropolitan Transportation Investment - A high-type highway or transit improvement of substantial cost that is expected to have a significant effect on capacity, traffic flow, level of service, or mode share at the transportation corridor or subarea scale. Management System - A systematic process, designed to assist decision makers in selecting cost-effective strategies/actions to improve the efficiency and safety of, and protect the investment in, the nation's infrastructure. The ISTEA legislation mandates the establishment of separate management systems that specifically address safety, pavements, bridges, congestion, intermodal needs, and public transportation. A seventh informal management system, the metropolitan transportation system, concentrates on traditional traffic data collection/analyses. Matching Funds - Funds which one funding source requires from others as a condition of receiving the funds from that funding source. Generally, the match is set as a percentage of the total project, or project phase, cost. The ISTEA legislation established a 20% matching share for nearly all federal-aid transportation programs. Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary (MAB) - The geographic area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process required by 23 U.S.C. 134 and section 8 of the Federal Transit Act must be Page C-19
carried out. This area must, at minimum, include the Census defined Urbanized Area and the area expected to be urbanized within twenty years. The MAB may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical or consolidated metropolitan statistical area (defined by the Census Bureau), and shall include the boundaries of air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, if applicable. In addition, the MAB should be defined so as to reflect a comprehensive and the most effective transportation planning process that ensures connectivity between modes, reduces access disadvantages experienced by modal systems, and promotes efficient overall transportation investment strategies. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - The organizational entity designated by law with lead responsibility for developing transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of 50,000 or more in population. MPOs are established by agreement of the Governor and units of general purpose local government which together represents 75% of the affected population of an urbanized area. Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) - An area defined by the Census Bureau for statistical reporting purposes. Such areas have a core City of 50,000 persons or more and a Urbanized Area of 50,000 persons or more (provided total county/counties population is 100,000 persons or more). MSAs may also be designated on the basis of various economic variables (i.e., regional employment destinations). See "Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area", above and "Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area" and "Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area", below. Metropolitan Transportation Plan - A long-range transportation plan, which the federal ISTEA legislation requires be completed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). See "Long-range", above. Mobility - The ease with which desired destinations can be reached. Mobility Impaired - A descriptive, non-regulatory definition that generally applies to those persons who, for one reason or another (e.g., age, physical, economic, or other), do not have personal access to or the ability to use an automobile. In general, these persons are elderly, disabled, youths, or economically disadvantaged. Modal Balance - The percentage of all forms of transportation in use (e.g., 85% autos, 7% pedestrian, 5% bus, 3% bicycle) that represents an optimal mix of modes. Modal balance is influenced by such factors as price, speed, ease of access, demographics (age, economics, education, occupation, etcetera), and land use composition. Modal Interface - The interaction between two or more modes of transportation (e.g., the ability to change from the pedestrian to bicycle to bus modes in order to complete a trip). Mode - Means of travel, whether by automobile, transit, bicycle, walking, or other available methods of transportation. Modes also apply to freight movements. Mode Choice Model - A mathematical model used as part of the transportation modeling process to determine what mode of transportation (principally automobile or mass transit) a specific trip is inclined to use. May also be referred to as "mode split". Model - A mathematical and geometric projection of activity and the interactions in the transportation system in an area. This projection must be able to be evaluated according to a given set of criteria which typically include criteria pertaining to land use, economics, social values, and travel patterns. The Page C-20
transportation planning process relies heavily on the use of travel demand models that predict travel behavior in order to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and efficiency of current and future transportation alternatives. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - Those standards established pursuant to section 109 of the CAAA and included standards for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. National Highway System (NHS) - The ISTEA legislation specifies that "the purpose of the National Highway System is to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations; meet national defense requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel". The NHS is comprised of the Interstate Highway System, urban and rural principal arterials, and the strategic defense highway system. The NHS is limited to 155,000 miles (+/- 15%) and must be approved by Congress prior to September 30, 1995. Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS)- The Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) was a public participation planning process initiated in 1997 and completed in 1999. The purpose of the NEST study was to develop recommendations for improving our local transportation network. The recommendations of the study are multimodal in nature and stress the maintenance and improvement of livability in the study area. This study was coordinated by the ITCTC, sponsored by the Town and Village of Lansing, the Village of Cayuga Heights, and the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden, with additional participation by Cornell University and NYSDOT. Northeast Subarea Transportation Study Transit Planning Project (NTPP) A follow-up study to NESTS which studied transit service in the northeast area of Tompkins County. The study made specific recommendations for transit improvements and addressed the requirements to increase the transit share of modal split in the area. Network - A graphic and/or mathematical representation of multimodal paths in a transportation system. Highway network representations used in travel demand modeling are comprised of "links", representing the discrete roadway or transit route segments, and "nodes", representing roadway intersections or activity locations. Node - Designates intersections or changes in characteristics/attributes in a network representation. Nodes may also represent areas of concentrated activity in both network or land use terms. Nonattainment Area - Any geographic region of the United States that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated as a nonattainment area for transportation related pollutant(s) for which a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) exists. Nonattainment is generally declared when air quality monitors reveal that the NAAQS levels have been exceeded for one or more hours on two or more separate days. Non Home-Based (NHB) - A trip that takes place between two points, neither of which is the home end of the trip-maker. Obligational Authority - See "Limitation on Obligations", above.
Page C-21
Obligation Date - The point in the life of a project at which the administering agency (usually the state DOT) commits a portion of its allocated federal funds to a project. See "Letting", above. Obligations - Commitments made by Federal agencies to pay out money as distinct from the actual payments, which are "outlays." Generally, obligations are incurred after the enactment of budget authority. However, since budget authority in many highway programs is in the form of contract authority, obligations in these cases are permitted to be incurred immediately after apportionment or allocation. The obligations are for the Federal share of the estimated full cost of each project at the time it is approved regardless of when the actual payments are made or the expected time of project completion. Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) The branch of the EPA that Operating Cost - The costs of actually operating a transportation system. These are separate from capital costs, and include such items as: wages, fuel, oil, maintenance, etcetera. Operating Revenues - Money received from users of a transportation system such as fares, tolls, charter fees, etcetera. Origin - The point or locale where a trip begins. Origin-Destination Survey (O-D Survey) - A survey typically undertaken of travelers (motorists or transit passengers) to identify travel patterns, habits and needs. Oxygenated Fuels - Gasoline blended with alcohol or ether containing oxygen. Use of such fuels reduces carbon monoxide production and other emissions. See "Alternative Fuels" and "Clean Fuels", above. Paratransit - Comparable transportation service required by the ADA for individuals with disabilities who are unable to use fixed route transportation services. See "Demand-Responsive System" and "Dial-ARide", above. Park-and-Ride Lots - Commuter parking lots located on the periphery of the urban area adjacent to major travel corridors, where commuters may park their cars and ride transit to the CBD or other major employment centers/destinations. Peak Hour - The sixty minute period observed during either the AM or PM peak period that contains the largest amount of travel. Peak-Hour Factor - The fraction of the average daily traffic volume occurring during the highest volume sixty minute period during the day. Peak Hour-Peak Direction - The travel direction which, during the sixty minute peak hour, contains the highest percentage of travel. Peak Period - The two consecutive AM or PM sixty minute periods which collectively contain the maximum amount of AM or PM travel. Peak period can be associated with person-trip movement, vehicle trip movement, or transit stops. Pedestrian Walkway - Secured walkway provided as an alternate to auto travel. Sidewalks.
Page C-22
Penalty - An action that does not allow a State to use the full amount of its apportioned funds. The action may be a withholding of project approvals or withholding of a percentage of the State's apportionment. The action, usually a specific percentage of withholding, may be taken when the State does not comply with a required provision of law (e.g., non-enforcement of national maximum speed limit, national minimum drinking age, use of safety belts and motorcycle helmets, etcetera). Person-Trips - The sum of trips made as passengers of an automobile, bus, taxi, truck, and the like, plus as an automobile driver. Auto person-trips are trips made as a passenger or driver in an automobile. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) - A public transportation concept that offers on-demand, non-stop transportation, using small, automated vehicles on a network of specially-built guideways. Planner - In the transportation field, a title likely having to do with the management and analysis of data which directly supports qualitatively oriented, strategic, or "macro" decision-making. Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) - The preliminary data submitted by the state to FHWA so that federal funds are set aside for a specific highway project. Podcars see Personal Rapid Transit Preliminary Engineering (PE) - The cost of preparing the detailed design of a project. PE entails surveying, mapping, preparation of plans and contract documents, environmental analyses, all required public hearing, and any other required state or federal procedures. In addition, PE may include "right-ofway incidental activity" which is the field and office work preparatory to the actual purchase of property. President's Budget - A document submitted annually (due by the first Monday in February) by the President to Congress. It sets forth the Executive recommendations for the Federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) - Any group of cities and towns that was recognized as a standard metropolitan statistical area on January 1, 1980 or a group of cities/towns that contain: (a) a population of 75,000 or more; (b) a city with at least 15,000 persons, an employment/residence ratio of at least .75, and at least 40% of its employed residents working in the city; (c) core communities with at least 50% of its population living in the urbanized area and which together have less than 40% of their resident workers commuting to jobs outside the core; and (d) each community in the core also has at least 5% of the resident workers working in the component core city or at least 10% working in the component core city of places already qualified for this core, and at least 20% commuting interchange with the component core city together with other cities and towns already qualified for the core. See "Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area" and "Metropolitan Statistical Area", above and "Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area", below. Privatization - Concept or theory having to do with for-profit business supplying goods and services for government, public programs or systems, with the intent of enhancing cost efficiency. Project Identification Number (PIN) - Identification number given to each project by NYSDOT. Programmed Funds - Funds proposed for use on the transportation improvement projects which appear in the Transportation Improvement Programs of the State and/or MPOs.
Page C-23
Provider - An agency that provides services that causes clients to be transported, as opposed to an agency whose role is limited to funding programs. Public Authority - A Federal, State, city, county, town, township, Indian tribe, municipal or other local government or instrumentality with authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain toll or toll-free transportation facilities. Authorities usually have some type of enabling legislation and are usually authorized to fund projects through the sales of bonds with its dedicated revenue stream (tolls, taxes, etcetera) pledged to repayment of the bonds. Public Participation - The active involvement of the public in the development of transportation plans and improvement programs. The ISTEA requires that state departments of transportation and MPOs "shall provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the development of the long-range plan and the TIP". Public Road - Any road or street open to public traffic, which is under the jurisdiction, ownership, and maintained by a public authority. Purchase of Service - Term in social services field referring to purchase of program services from other agencies. One such service is transportation. Regional Self-Sufficiency - A term that refers to local economic policies and practices that focus on the priority use of internal resources. See "Import Substitution", above. Regionally Significant Project - A project (other than projects that may be grouped in the STIP/TIP pursuant to Sec. 450.216 and Sec. 450.324) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etcetera, or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including, as a minimum, all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer a significant alternative to regional highway travel. Request for Bids, Proposals, Qualifications (RFB, RFP, RFQ) - Preliminary stages of a competitive procurement process, most commonly associated with procurement of capital items or consulting services. The RFP is a request for project proposals and includes a description of cost and methodology; the RFQ is a request for information on the qualification of the proposing firm; the RFB is a request to receive project bids. Rescission - A legislative action to cancel the obligation of unused budget authority previously provided by Congress before the time when the authority would have otherwise lapsed. Rescission may be proposed by the executive branch but requires legislative action to become effective. Ridesharing - Sharing a ride (and related costs), usually to an employment location, with other commuters, usually by carpooling or vanpooling. Right-of-Way (R/W or ROW) - (1) Priority paths for the construction and operation of transportation facilities (highways, light and heavy rail, railroads, etcetera). Right-of-Way is usually acquired by the public authority either by fee title or by easement real estate transactions. (2) Priority use of a facility granted to one user over other(s) such that the others must yield. Page C-24
SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users) The federal legislation that replaces the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the earlier Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Scenic Byway Program - Roadways that provide an enjoyable and relaxing experience or that offer cultural or historical enrichment to travelers are legislatively designated as part of a Scenic Byway System. Scenic byways are typically secondary roads having significant cultural, historic, scenic, geological, or natural features. They often include vista, rest areas, and interpretive sites in harmony with the scenic characteristics of the road. The Federal-Aid Highway Program includes limited funding for such statewide systems. Screenline - An imaginary line, usually along a physical barrier, such as a river or railroad tracks, splitting the study area into a few parts. Traffic counts and possibly interviews are conducted along this line, and the crossings are compared to those calculated from the interview data as a check of survey accuracy. Shared Roadways - Any roadway upon which a bicycle lane is not designated and which may be legally used by bicycles regardless of whether such facility is specifically designated as a bikeway. Shuttle - Usually a service provided with a 20-or-less passenger vehicle connecting major trip destinations and origins on a fixed- or route-deviation basis. Shuttles can provide feeder service to main transit routes, or operate in point-to-point or circular fashions. Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs) - A SOV is a vehicle used to get just one person to a destination. Social Equity, Justice - The provision of affordable, efficient and accessible transportation services to all people regardless of race, ethnicity, income, gender, or disability. A socially equitable transportation system provides all people with convenient access to meaningful jobs, services and recreational opportunities. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) - The term used from 1959 to 1983 to describe the statistical system of metropolitan areas, and the areas as individually defined. It was preceded by Standard Metropolitan Area (SMA) from 1950 to 1959, and superseded by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 1983. The term was adopted when the current system formally recognizing consolidated metropolitan statistical areas and their component primary metropolitan statistical areas was put in place. The term Metropolitan Area (MA) is now used to describe the system and the areas collectively, but the individual areas will retain the MSA, CMSA, and PMSA nomenclature. State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR or SEQRA) - New York State law and regulations (Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Part 617 of 6NYCRR) that requires that every state and local agency examine the environmental impacts (including social and economic factors) and mitigation methods in agency decision making. State Highway Department - That department, commission, board, or official of any State charged by its laws with the responsibility of highway construction. See "State Transportation Department", below. State Implementation Plan (SIP) - A portion (or portions) of an applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated, or the most recent revision thereof, under sections 110, 301(d) and 175A of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409, 7601, and 7505a). The SIP establishes emissions budgets, monitoring and Page C-25
enforcement procedures, and other procedures designed to control air pollution in order to meet the national air quality standards established by the Clean Air Act. State Transportation Department - Similar to a State Highway Department, except that its mission and jurisdiction has been broadened to include all modes of transportation. See "State Highway Department", above. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) - Required by the ISTEA legislation as a prioritized, fiscally constrained list of transportation projects that covers at minimum a three year period. STIPs are compiled by the state DOT in order to program authorized levels of federal funding. Study Area - The area delimited for the purpose of data collection by a transportation study. This area contains the central city and surroundings, which will become urbanized in 20 to 30 years and is the area for which forecasts of travel are made. See "Subarea", below. Subarea - A focused or windowed section of a study area used to conduct more detailed analyses. Surface Transportation Program (STP) - A new categorical funding program created by ISTEA. Funds may be used for a wide variety of purposes, including: roadway construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation; roadway operational improvements; capital costs for transit projects; highway and transit safety improvements; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; scenic and historical transportation facilities; and, preservation of abandoned transportation corridors. See "Federal-Aid Highway Program", above. Sustainable Society - A society that can persist over generations, one that is far-seeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or social systems of support. In order to be socially sustainable, the combination of population, capital, and technology in the society would have to be configured so that the material living standard is adequate and secure for everyone. The rate of use of renewable resources does not exceed their rates of regeneration; the rate of use of nonrenewable resources does not exceed the rate at which sustainable renewable substitutes are developed; and the rate of pollution emission does not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment. See "Ecological Sustainability", above. State Fiscal Year (SFY) - The State of New York operates on a fiscal year beginning April 1 and ending March 31. This period may be referred to by the two affected years (e.g., SFY94-95 began April 1, 1994 and will end March 31, 1995) or by the calendar year in which it ends. See "Federal Fiscal Year" and "Fiscal Year", above. Tax incentives A means of employing the tax code to stimulate investment in or development of a socially desirable economic objective without the direct expenditure from the budget of a given unit of government. Such incentives can take the form of tax exemptions or credits. Title I - Refers to the first title of the ISTEA legislation which amends the surface transportation programs (i.e., highway programs) of Title 23 of the United States Code (USC). Title III - Refers to the third title of the ISTEA legislation which amends the Urban Transportation Act of 1964 (i.e., transit programs), Title 49 of the United States Code (USC).
Page C-26
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) Authorized by New York State Legislature in 1996, to combine Tompkins County transit into one service. Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) - The smallest geographically designated area for analysis of transportation activity. Zones vary greatly in size depending on such factors as: homogeneity of land use, amount of transportation network, level of analysis desired, and physical geography. Zones can range in size from a city block to very large rural areas (census tract size). Traffic Calming - A variety of techniques designed to reduce the speed of motor vehicles by affecting driver behavior rather than through enforcement. Traffic calming creates an environment that facilitates the mix of different transport modes and allows a form of "peaceful coexistence" between them. Examples traffic calming strategies and techniques include: Pedestrianization: (Europe, 1960's) Short stretches of streets (300-1,000 ft.) reserved for the exclusive use of pedestrians, usually located in central city/shopping areas (i.e. the Ithaca Commons). Woonerven: (Holland, 1970's) Woonerf literally means "living yard". No segregation between motorized and non-motorized traffic (i.e., no sidewalks), but pedestrians have priority. Playing is also permitted. Drivers may not drive faster than a walking pace. Parking allowed only at specified locations, which is screened by plantings and alternates from side to side creating a nonlinear travel line. Informational signs tell drivers they are entering a Woonerf. Verkehrsberuhigung: (Germany, 1980's) Similar to Woonerven. Traffic speeds controlled at 18 miles per hour (30 kph). Safe Routes to School: (Denmark, 1980's) City of Odense has a ten-year program to implement "slow speed areas" of 13-30 mph (20-25 kph), along with various other calming techniques, in areas close to schools or on popular school routes. Community Street: (Japan, 1980) Similar to Woonerven. Road-Pia: (Japan, 1984) Areawide traffic calming resulted in reduced vehicular traffic volumes/increased bicycle and pedestrian traffic, reduction in accidents and average vehicle speeds. Traffic Cells: (Sweden, 1969) City of Gothenburg divided itself into five cells. Auto traffic was prevented from crossing the boundaries between cells except at specific ring-roads. Transit, bicycles, and pedestrians were allowed to cross. Parking was reduced and public information efforts increased. Auto-free Zones: (Italy) Florence and Milan have instituted (following citizen referenda) a permit process that limited all but essential traffic. Traffic volumes were reduced by 50%. Bologna tightened access restriction to streets in the historic central district while improving bus, trolley, and metro services.
Page C-27
Road Humps and Speed Tables: Raising the surface of the road over a short distance, generally to the height of the adjacent curb. Humps can be round or flat-topped. The latter being known as speed tables, which can extend over many feet. Chicanes: Physical obstacles or parking bays, staggered on alternate sides of the highway so that the route for vehicles is tortuous. Traffic Throttles (pinch points): The narrowing of a two-way road over a short distance to a single lane. Sometimes these are used in conjunction with a speed table and coincident with a pedestrian crossing. Curb Extensions (sidewalk widening): The sidewalk on one or both sides of the road is extended to reduce the highway to a single lane or minimum width for two-lane traffic. This reduces crossing distances and discourages parking close to intersections and crosswalks. Central Refuges (medians): Islands situated in the middle of the road to reduce lane widths and provide a refuge for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing major roads. Mini-Roundabouts (traffic circles): Small roundabouts situated at an intersection. Some have raised centers, others are just painted circles on the road. Raised Intersections: The highway is raised at an intersection, usually by brickwork or a plateau with a ramp on each approach. The platform is at curb level and may well have distinctive surfacing. Entry Treatments Across Intersections: Surface alterations at side road intersections, generally using brickwork or other textured surface materials. The level of the road may be raised to the level of the sidewalk. Environmental Road Closures: Road closures, generally in residential streets, designed to remove through traffic or prevent undesirable turns. No entry - with "cycle slip": Access to a road is barred in one direction by a No-entry sign. The rest of the road remains two-way, and bicyclists and pedestrians can pass the No-entry sign. Textured Surface: The use of nonasphalt surface, such as brickwork, paving or cobbles to reinforce the concept of a traffic restricted area. Shared Surfaces: The traditional distinction between sidewalk and pavement is removed, leaving pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles to share a common space. Tortuous Roads: Roads that are designed to meander, occasionally quite sharply, reducing the view of any stretch of "open road" and thereby encouraging lower vehicle speeds. Rumble Strips: Lines of cobbles or other raised surfacing designed to warn drivers of excessive speed or of the proximity of a hazard area where lower speeds are desirable.
Page C-28
Transverse Bands: Painted lines oriented as transverse bands across the highway at decreasing intervals. They are intended to give drivers the impression they are traveling with increasing speed, so they will react and slow down. Channelization Changes: Changing the lane configuration of a street to create more space for bicycle traffic. For example, Seattle, Washington has converted several streets from 4lanes to 2-lanes with a center turn lane (some of which have later been changed to planted medians). Slow Streets: Various efforts have been made to slow sections of specific streets. For example, Berkeley, California has used a combination of speed humps, shifting travel lanes, and channelization to achieve a six block long slow street. Transit Street and Pedestrian Zones: Motor vehicle traffic is limited to commercial deliveries while transit "circulators" act as "horizontal elevators". This concept has worked well in Madison, Wisconsin and Denver, Colorado (note: bicycles are prohibited in the Denver example). Signing Techniques: Informational signs, such as "residential street", "local access only", "no through traffic" are in common use. Stop signs placed frequently throughout a residential area can significantly slow traffic. The City of Saint Paul, Minnesota employs a "basket weave" pattern whereby stop signs are placed in such a way that the only unimpeded path is quite circuitous. Bicycle Boulevards: Barriers are used to restrict or prohibit through motor vehicle traffic, but allow through bicycle traffic. Stop signs are often removed to make this route more attractive to cyclists. A local street parallel to an arterial street is best for this application. Bryant Street is a two mile example in Palo Alto, California. Traffic Diverters: Traffic diverters, curb extensions, cul-de-sacs, and neckdowns are used to discourage cut-through traffic in residential areas. Curb extensions (which change the end of a two-way street to a one-way street) and neckdowns (provide "pinch points", but allow two-way traffic) are used at entrances to neighborhoods to discourage/slow motor vehicle traffic from entering. Traffic diverters and cul-de-sacs are placed to prevent through traffic. Traffic diverters may be diagonal (allowing only a single 90 degree turn from all approaches) or truncated (allows a right turn movement around one end of the diverter). Corner Radii Treatments: Normal curb radii (20-24 ft.) have been designed to facilitate turning movements by trucks and larger vehicles, allowing faster automobile movements as a side-effect. Reducing the size of the radii (7-15 ft.) can significantly slow traffic and increase pedestrian safety. (Source: Traffic Calming, Auto-Restricted Zones and Other Traffic Management Techniques, A. Clarke and M. Dornfeld) Transit - Public mass transportation such as buses. Transit Dependent - Persons who must rely on public transit or paratransit services for most of their transportation. Typically refers to individuals without access to a personal vehicle. Page C-29
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) - is a mixed-use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transport, and often incorporates features to encourage transit ridership. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) - Local actions to adjust traffic patterns or reduce vehicle use in order to reduce air pollutant emissions and ease congestion. These may include: transportation system management techniques (e.g., signal optimization, ramp metering, incident detection, special events planning, etcetera), transportation demand management techniques (e.g., reduced transit fares, preferential parking, telecommuting, compressed work hours, etcetera), facilities development (e.g., HOV lanes, fixed guideway transit, on-site child care facilities, etcetera), or growth management policies (e.g., mixed use developments, transit corridor development, job/housing balances, etcetera). Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - The reduction of traffic congestion by reducing the number of automobiles, especially SOVs, on the road. Measures that can reduce demand include: ridesharing, mass transit, "flex" time, telecommuting, employer incentives to use alternative modes, and restriction on the amount of free or cheap parking, among others. Transportation Enhancement Activities - The TEA-21 legislation mandated that a minimum of 10% of each state's allocation of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds must be used for transportation enhancement activities. The legislation established an exclusive list of these activities: "The term 'transportation enhancement activities' means, with respect to any project or the area to be served by the project, provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic or historic highway programs, landscaping and other scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals), preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails), control and removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and research, and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff." (23 USC 101(a), as amended). Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) - Required by the ISTEA legislation as a prioritized, fiscally constrained list of transportation projects that covers at minimum a three year period. TIPs are compiled by the MPO in order to program authorized levels of federal funding. The state DOT is responsible for creating a statewide version of the TIP called the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Transportation Management Association (TMA) - A voluntary association of public and private agencies and firms joined to cooperatively develop transportation-enhancing programs in a given area. TMAs are appropriate organizations to better manage transportation demand in congested suburban communities. Transportation Modeling - A computerized procedure to predict future trip making. Also referred to as a travel demand model. The traditional model has four steps: trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and assignment to a simulated transportation network (e.g., highway or transit). Transportation System Management (TSM) - The concept of managing the existing transportation system for increased efficiency through the use of generally lower cost projects such as exclusive bus lanes, improved traffic signal systems, improvements to increase capacity of the facility, intersection channelization, and provisions for parking.
Page C-30
Trip Distribution - The process by which the movement of trips between zones is allocated in a travel demand model. Trip distribution is generally based on a gravity model. Trip Length Frequency Distribution - The array which relates the trips or the percentage of trips made at various time intervals or various trip distances. Trust Funds - Accounts established by law to hold receipts that are collected by the Federal Government and earmarked for specific purposes and programs. These receipts are not available for the general purposes of the Federal Government. The Highway Trust Fund is comprised of receipts form certain highway user taxes (e.g., excise taxes on motor fuel, rubber, and heavy vehicles) and reserved for use for highway construction, mass transportation, and related purposes. Trip Generation - The process by which the number of trips within each analysis zone are estimated in a transportation model. Trips are generated on the basis of demographic (number of households, household size, income, etcetera) and economic (number and type of employers, commercial activities, etcetera) attributes, and are given in the form of attractions and productions. Unified Operations Plan (UOP) - The by-laws of an MPO. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) - A document describing the transportation planning activities for an urbanized/metropolitan area. ISTEA requires that each MPO develop this document as a prerequisite for obtaining federal planning funds. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) - The principal direct federal funding and regulating agency for transportation facilities and programs. Contains FHWA and FTA. Urban - The Census Bureau defines urban as: (a) the population living in urbanized areas; plus (b) the population in other incorporated or census designated places of at least 2,500 population at the most recent national census. Urbanized Area (UA) - An area defined by the Census Bureau according to specific criteria, designed to include the densely settled area around a large place. The definition is based primarily on density (i.e., a contiguous area having 1,000 persons/mile2) rather than governmental unit boundaries. An urbanized area must have a total population of at least 50,000 persons. Under the ISTEA regulations, local areas are asked to make minor revisions to the UA boundary in order to smooth the census lines and to facilitate planning activities (e.g., data collection, etcetera). This revised urbanized area is noted by the acronym UZA. Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) - A measure of motor vehicle use over some period of time, usually a day or a year. It represents the total time spent on the roadway system by all vehicles combined, over the specified period of time. Vehicle Location System (VLS) - Information Technology enabling the ever-changing locations of vehicles to be monitored at a central location. For public transit, VLS enables passengers waiting for rides to continuously be informed of the status of service. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) - An areawide measure of motor vehicle use. VMT is calculated by summing data on a link basis or by multiplying average trip length (in miles) times the total number of vehicle trips.
Page C-31
Transportation Related Web Pages

There are too many transportation related web sites to include them all in a document such as the LRTP. The list below includes some of the organizations and agencies that ITCTC staff has found useful sources of information, and others that address different transportation components in Tompkins County. 1. American Public Transportation Association www.apta.com 2. Americas Byways National Scenic Byways - http://www.byways.org/ 3. Car Sharing Network - http://www.carsharing.net/ - includes links to car sharing programs nationwide and international. 4. Cayuga Waterfront Trail - http://cayugawaterfronttrail.com/ 5. Center for Neighborhood Technology http://www.cnt.org/ - "The Neighborhood Works" site 6. Center for Transportation Excellence www.cfte.org 7. Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/ 8. Congress for New Urbanism - http://www.cnu.org/ 9. Cornell Bicycles information about bicycling at Cornell University http://www.bike.cornell.edu/ http://www.parking.cornell.edu/
10. Federal Register http://gpoaccess.gove/fr/ 11. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ - FHWA Home Page web site 12. FHWA Office of Environment and Planning http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment 13. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - http://www.fta.dot.gov/ - FTA Home Page web site 14. Finger Lakes Cycling Club - http://www.flcycling.org/ 15. Finger Lakes Trail Conference - http://www.fingerlakestrail.org/ 16. ITE http://www.ite.org - Institute of Transportation Engineers 17. Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport - http://www.ithaca-airport.com/ 18. Ithaca Car Share - www.ithacacarshare.org 19. National Association of MPOs www.ampo.org 20. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ 21. National Transportation Library-bts RITA (Reasearch and Innovative Technology Administration - http://ntl.bts.gov / 22. New York State Association of MPOs http://www.nysmpos.org/ - links to all New York State MPOs. 23. NTI, Rutgers http://www.ntionline.com/ - National Transit Institute at Rutgers University 24. NYSDOT http://www.dot.state.ny.us / - New York Department of Transportation web site Page C-32
25. Rails to Trails Conservancy - http://www.railtrails.org/default.asp 26. Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Inc. (TCAT) - http://www.tcatbus.com/ 27. Tompkins County www.tompkins-co.org 28. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan www.tompkins-co.org/planning/compplan 29. Tompkins County Planning Department www.tompkins-co.org/planning 30. Transportation and Land Use Coalition - http://www.transcoalition.org/ 31. Transportation Research Board http://trb.org 32. Transportation Information and Decision Engineering (TIDE) web site www.njtide.org/links/ Transportation Related Links 33. Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) http://tmip.tamu.edu - a service of the U.S. Department of Transportation 34. Surface Transportation Policy Project http://www.transact.org/ - Information on transportation alternatives and sustainable communities 35. USEPA http://www.epa.gov/ - extensive resources on environmental issues from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 36. Victoria Transport Policy Institute http://www.vtpi.org - an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative and practical solutions to transportation problems 37. Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor http://www.doleta.gov/ DOL regulations and resources, and other information dealing with employment and training
Page C-33

2030 Long Range Transportation Plan For The Ithaca Metropolitan Area Published by The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, December 2009

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2030 Long Range Transportation Plan For The Ithaca Metropolitan Area Published by The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, December 2009

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ABSTRACT

2030 Long Range Plan

Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council

_______________________________ Carolyn K. Peterson, Chair

_______________________________ Carl Ford, Secretary

*signed original available for review at the ITCTC offices.

ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL

Emily Hunter, Intern Anna Stokes, Intern

2. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW ..........................................................2.1

4. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM A SUSTAINABLE VIEW

6. PROJECTS FOR IMPLEMENTATON

LIST OF FIGURES continued

1. BACKGROUND The MPO & The LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council