Ithaca Bicycle Transportation Blueprint 12-19-2015

Ithaca Bicycle Transportation Blueprint December 2015

CRP 3072: Land Use, Envrionmental Planning, and Urban Design Workshop

I t h a c a B i c y c l e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n B l u e p r i n t | 1

This Blueprint was written by students in the City and Regional Planning 3072: Land Use, Environmental

Planning, and Urban Design Workshop taught by George Frantz at Cornell University in Fall 2015:

Akua Asare

Luke Baranek

Andrew Elliott

Dori Ganetsos

Imani Hall

Skye Hart

Yeo Jun Song

Margo Stokes

Michael Tate

Katrine Trampe

Editors include:

Fernando de Aragón (Executive Director of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council)

Karim Beers (Campaign Coordinator for Get Your GreenBack Tompkins)

Kent Johnson (Junior Transportation Engineer for the City of Ithaca)

Dave Nutter (former Chair of the City of Ithaca Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Council)


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Section 1: A review of existing planning documents.................................................................................... 4

Section 2: Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 10

Section 3: US Census Information on Current Bicycle Use and Bicycle Safety ........................................ 28

Section 4: Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................... 33

Section 5: Principles for an Effective and Sustainable Bicycle Transportation System in Ithaca .............. 41

Section 6: Solutions to Overcome Ithaca’s Obstacles to Bicycle-Friendliness .......................................... 42

Section 7: Street-Specific Suggestions ....................................................................................................... 47

Section 8: Recommendations for Implementation ...................................................................................... 54

Section 9: Policy Suggestions ..................................................................................................................... 56

Section 10: Summary .................................................................................................................................. 58

Section 11: Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................ 59

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................. 60

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................. 68

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................................. 70


INTRODUCTION

For the 2015 fall semester of CRP 3072: Land Use, Environmental Planning, and Urban Design

Workshop at Cornell University, our group was tasked with drafting a Bicycle Transportation Blueprint

for Tompkins County on behalf of Bike Walk Tompkins in partnership with the City of Ithaca

Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Council and other local administrations. We hope to promote bicycling as a

feasible form of transportation in the county.

Throughout the course of this document, we will:

Review existing planning documents and investments in bicycle transportation systems.

Develop a benchmark database of current information available for developing bicycle

infrastructure.

Review and assess existing bicycle facilities located throughout the county.

Share the results of various forms of public outreach.

Develop a set of principles for the future of bicycle infrastructure in Tompkins County.

Develop a local, prioritized palette of solutions for the City and Town of Ithaca for

addressing the obstacles to increasing the use of the bicycle for transportation.

Identify policies and procedures for implementing the Blueprint plan and maintaining

existing and future investments in bicycle transportation infrastructure.

The goal of this document is to effectively demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of current

bicycle planning initiatives in the county and to guide future bicycle policy and construction.


SECTION 1: A REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANNING DOCUMENTS

1. HISTORY OF BIKING IN ITHACA, NEW YORK

As early as 1975, the City of Ithaca has been adopting strategies and designing infrastructure to increase

cycling opportunities for citizens. This began with the development of a plan for proposed bike lanes in

the City of Ithaca by a class at Cornell University.1 Thereafter, a single signed bike route between the

Commons and Stewart Park was constructed.2 However, because this bike route failed to prevent or

reduce conflict between the automobile and bike, bikers did not view it as advantageous. Essentially,

using this bike route was not more enjoyable than riding on a normal street. Furthermore, the Stewart

Park entrance of this route was not paved, making it not accessible. As a result of such conditions, a town

meeting was called to discuss the dismal biking conditions in the City of Ithaca in 1989. Thereafter, the

Common Council created the Bicycle Advisory Council (BAC). The first accomplishment of the BAC

was convincing the City of Ithaca that 2% of the annual road budget should be spent on improving

cycling infrastructure. However, this was not as fruitful as expected; the $20,000 budget was only made

once, and there was no coherent plan on how to spend it.3

In 1993, the BAC completed a plan for 9.5 miles of bikeways. The plan would permit the development of

wide shared bike lanes, allowing motor vehicles and bikers to co-exist safely. While streets remained the

same size, parking was consolidated to make room for the bike lanes. Wide shared lanes were the most

inexpensive and implementable type of bike lane. Thereafter, the planning department applied for Federal

Transportation Enhancement funding that would grant a $100,000 budget for the City of Ithaca. This

allowed for the implementation of the BAC’s 1993 bike plan, as well as the creation of a map of the City

of Ithaca that included useable street width, traffic speed, traffic volume, gradient, stop signs, and traffic

signals.4

In 1997, after receiving this grant, Ithaca became serious about promoting bike usage as a practical means

of transportation. Thereafter, a consultant of Trowbridge & Wolf held a number of public meetings to

write the 1997 Bike Plan. Building on previous developments, this plan called for the increase in bike

lane infrastructure, rather than wide shared lanes, as it was favorable among the bike-riding public.

Furthermore, the plan included legislature on recommended policies, including ideas on education, law

enforcement, and traffic calming.5

Although the plan was developed, it was difficult to implement, as there were many opponents of the

plan. These opponents included the Engineering Department, who argued that it was legal to ride your

bike on the existing streets. Hence, creating bike lanes would be a waste of time and money. This

ideology failed to recognize the danger bikers encounter when using city streets, specifically encounters

with the automobile. It was not until a new transportation engineer was hired that progress was made on

implementing the 1997 Bike Plan.6

In 2010, the Bike Park Ordinance was created to further encourage the creation of more bicycle parking

while setting high standards for these to be located at businesses, apartments, schools, and offices.7 In

2012, Ithaca created the Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan as an effort to improve current conditions of

1 Dave Nutter, Former Chair of Bicycle Advisory Committee 2 City of Ithaca. “Transportation.” Accessed November 30, 2015. http://www.cityofithaca.org/423/Transportation 3 Dave Nutter, Former Chair of Bicycle Advisory Committee 4 Dave Nutter, Former Chair of Bicycle Advisory Committee 5 Dave Nutter, Former Chair of Bicycle Advisory Committee 6 Dave Nutter, Former Chair of Bicycle Advisory Committee 7 City of Ithaca. “Transportation.” Accessed November 30, 2015. http://www.cityofithaca.org/423/Transportation


bicycling infrastructure, including repainting and improving existing infrastructure and conducting

research into more resourceful expansion methods.8

In 2011, work began on the Black Diamond Trail, a dedicated bicycle path that will connect the City of

Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca, and the Town of Ulysses. In 2013, two of its bridges had been completed, as

well as a section of the trail between them.9 The 15-mile trail will pass Robert H. Treman State Park,

Buttermilk Falls State Park, Allan H. Treman State Marine Park, and Taughannock Falls State Park. In

addition, it will provide linkage to popular destinations in Ithaca, such as Cayuga Medical Center, as well

as in Trumansburg. It aims to increase connectivity while encouraging bicycling and walking.10 The trail

has the potential to create a safe bicycle route to the big box retail in South Ithaca, especially for those

living in the West Hill area, which is underserved when it comes to bicycle infrastructure.

2. ITHACA BICYCLE PLAN OF 199711

The Ithaca Bicycle Plan of 1997 was created as a comprehensive planning document to develop a

foundation for the creation of cycling infrastructure. The goals of the plan are to stimulate bicycle usage

in the city of Ithaca while creating a safer environment for bicyclists. There are a myriad of considerations

that must be addressed. These include the cost of creation and maintenance; conflicts with snow

emergency routes, road traffic levels, and the availability of on-street parking versus bike lane. While

respecting these limitations, the plan was granted $80,000 in enhancement funds from the New York

Department of Transportation. Furthermore, the City of Ithaca granted the plan $20,000 to ensure the

hiring of an experienced consultant. With the adequate and necessary funding, the planners involved

ensured the project maintained a degree of community engagement by holding several public workshops.

A section of the plan dedicated to providing education on bicycling to the community. The use of public

education is a thoughtful and proactive means to encourage more Ithacans to bike. Appendix A is a table

showing proposals for bicycle infrastructure from the 1997 plan and whether they were implemented.

3. CITY OF ITHACA BICYCLE BOULEVARD PLAN12

Since the Bicycle Plan of 1997, the latest innovation in Ithaca’s infrastructure is the City of Ithaca Bicycle

Boulevard Plan. Created by the city’s engineering office, the plan suggests that to enable bicyclists,

boulevards must be created that permit biking in same lanes as automobiles. In that sense, bicyclists and

automobiles will be sharing the roads. The purpose of this development is to ensure that all available

space in Ithaca is efficiently used. The proposed routes are two primary north and south routes, including

Tioga St. and Plain St., as well as low-traffic or traffic-calmed connectors in the Northside neighborhood

area and south of the Fall Creek neighborhood area. The physical infrastructure required for these lanes

include signs and pavement markings, 25 mph speed limits, traffic-calming measures, and revised stop

sign orientations. The cost of fully implementing this plan is estimated at somewhere between $90,000

and $200,000. . The benefits of bicycle boulevards include creating a system that collaborates with the

public, city, stakeholders, and organizations. Bicycle boulevards are a compromise between the bicycle

and automobile. This type of plan envisions a street with signs and stencils to direct bikers to ride in the

middle of the lane, while cycling in front of or behind automobiles.13 However, the hope remains that

fewer cars will use these streets.

8 City of Ithaca Engineering Office, City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan. Ithaca, NY: 2012. 9 Black Diamond Trail. “History.” Accessed December 18, 2015. http://blackdiamondtrail.org/?page_id=8 10 Black Diamond Trail. “The PLAN.” Accessed December 18, 2015. http://blackdiamondtrail.org/?page_id=25 11 Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, IMC Consulting Group, Ithaca Bicycle Plan. Ithaca, NY: 1997. 12 City of Ithaca Engineering Office, City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan. Ithaca, NY: 2012. 13 Dave Nutter, Former Chair of Bicycle Advisory Committee


4. PLAN ITHACA’S MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION SECTION14

In 2015, the City of Ithaca adopted a comprehensive plan for its future development. Its mobility and

transportation section states that Ithaca will have an “exceptional multi-modal transportation system.”15

The plan repeatedly mentions that Ithaca hopes to create new bicycle infrastructure that will seamlessly

connect the city. This would also promote bicycling as a mode of transportation. The plan identifies three

major roadway corridors that are not suited for bicycle or pedestrian use. These are NYS Route 13, NYS

Route 79, and Route 96/96B. Adding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to these routes would create

more and more direct routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. Because this plan has been adopted by the

City, it serves as a reminder of Ithaca’s goal of becoming bicycle-friendly.

5. REVIEW OF OTHER BICYCLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Chicago’s Bikeways for All states that Chicago needs bikeways that are “comfortable and lower-stress for

people of all abilities”, thus rejecting:

“Conventional” bike lanes that are generally two solid white lines 3-4 feet apart on the right side

of the road.16

14 City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee, “Mobility and Transportation.” In Plan Ithaca: A Vision for Our Future. Ithaca, NY: 2015. 15 City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee, “Mobility and Transportation.” In Plan Ithaca: A Vision for Our Future, 88. Ithaca, NY: 2015. 16 Image source: Piana, Melanie, “Melanie Piana Explains Ferndale’s New Bike Lanes (video).” Ferndale, CA: 2014.


Streets that are solely marked with chevrons and bike symbols that encourage people who are

driving to share the road.17,18

The US Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices explains the main use of shared-lane street markings

to:

Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to

reduce the chance of a bicyclist impacting the open door of a parked vehicle.

Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a

bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane.

Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists.

Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling.

As seen in survey results in Section 4, many bicyclists in Ithaca worry about being hit by people opening

car doors because bike lanes are often next to parking; bike lanes being too narrow; and aggressive or

otherwise unsafe passing by drivers, often due to the narrowness of bike lanes.

17 Active Transportation Alliance, Bikeways for All: Envisioning Chicago’s Bike Network. Chicago: 2015. 18 Image source: Harrisburg, VA. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed November 28, 2015. http://www.harrisonburgva.gov/faq


The US Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices proposes:

Protected Bike Lanes, which are bicycle corridors that are protected, usually by a physical

barrier, that directly connect neighborhoods. Bicyclists should feel like they are riding on a

bicycle-only trail. This system would allow people of all ages and abilities to get around

efficiently and comfortably on a bike.19

Neighborhood greenways, which are street networks in neighborhoods where bicyclists and

automobiles share the road. These streets are clearly marked with painted symbols on the street or

with signs. Traffic is calm or calmed through treatments such as speed humps. In Ithaca,

greenways are referred to as bicycle boulevards.20

19 Image source: Krueger, Paul, in “Where Should We Put Bike Lanes? (Part 2 of 3)” by Peter Bird, DenverUrbanism, 2015. 20 Image source: Bicycle Transportation Alliance. “Vision.” Copyright 2015. https://btaoregon.org/blueprint/


Urban Trails, which are off-street paths that form a system. They provide the ultimate low-stress

biking experience.21,22

21 US Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration. “Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities.” In Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices, 789-816. 2009. 22 Image source: Ramos, Rene. “The Underline: A Proposed 10-mile Linear Park and Urban Trail for Miami.” Last modified January 22, 2015. http://learningfrommiami.org/?p=2545


SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

1. EXISTING BICYLCE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CITY AND TOWN OF ITHACA

Zoomed Out

Zoomed In


As is emulated in this map, the current bicycling infrastructure in Ithaca has rather low connectivity and

appears to have been developed in an almost random fashion with little to no network connectivity in

some instances.

Bikers in the City and Town of Ithaca are permitted to use all roads besides Meadow Street/Route 13

North of Dey Street. Currently the infrastructure is well developed for north-south bicycle travel but

lacking in east-west connectivity.

2. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND POPULAR DESTINATIONS IN THE CITY OF

ITHACA

Key Bike Boulevard

Bike Lanes

Recreational (No Traffic)

Bikeable Shoulders (Not Designated as Bike Lanes)

= Most Popular Destinations

= parks

= Shopping

= Education

= Other

Key Bike Boulevard

Bike Lanes

Recreational (No Traffic)



This map focuses on the City of Ithaca, given its density in relation to the Town of Ithaca. The most

popular destinations (indicated by hearts) are based on results from the survey we conducted at Streets

Alive in September. Other locations are noted green spaces, shopping centers, and education facilities.

The goal for this Bicycle Blueprint is to connect these locations in the safest, fastest way possible. Our

proposals consider the existing infrastructure and the needs of the City and Town.

3. BIKE LANES INVENTORY

Existing Features:

Hudson Street

119 ←→ Hillview Pl.

Prospect Street

Hudson St. ←→ Cayuga St.

W. Spencer Street / Old Elmira Road

Roundabout ←→ Old Elmira Rd. until 34/S. Meadow St.

State Street ←→ Green Street

Mitchell Street

State St. ←→ College Ave.

Cayuga Street

Farm St. ←→ City Limits (near Ithaca High School)

In cooperation with the existing topography, the city is naturally carved into neighborhoods and districts.

The bike lanes provide efficient and safe routes which often have higher car traffic. In cases where

heavier traffic does exist—State St., parts of Green St., W. Spencer St., Prospect St., and Old Elmira

Rd.—there are clearly marked bike lanes. Bike lanes serve Ithaca College/South Hill neighborhood,

Cornell Campus/Collegetown neighborhood, Downtown Ithaca/Commons/surrounding housing, and the

big box retail in South Ithaca. The bike lanes work effectively for commuting and running errands.

These districts are loosely defined, and are mostly shaped by edges created by steep gradients and/or

bodies of water. However, by using the existing Ithaca grid, and making all four districts accessible to one

another, bike lanes placed on moderately congested roads can enable an individual to use their bike as a

viable and punctual transit option.


4. SURVEY OF BICYCLE BOULEVARDS

The start and end points of the bike

boulevard are clearly labeled with

blue signs.

There were some, but not many, cars

using street parking on the arterial

and main bicycle boulevards.

Bike racks are available at several

locations along the bike boulevard.

Pictured is a rack outside of Fall

Creek Elementary School that was

being heavily utilized during school

hours. Other racks are available

outside private businesses and in

public park areas.

The Boulevard is clearly labeled with

blue signs at almost every

intersection. The signs labeled the

boulevard route and gave directions

and distances. One issue with the

signs is that they were not very eye-

catching unless a biker was

specifically looking out for them.


In addition to the blue signs, the

boulevard is clearly labelled with the

same street paint that also labeled

speed bumps and bike lanes. The

combination of the street paint and

the blue signs creates a very cohesive

sense of the bike boulevard as a

system.


5. SURVEY OF BICYCLE LANES

This is a photo of Cayuga Street,

heading north toward Ithaca High

School. Although the bike lane is

well defined, the leaf litter poses not

only a safety hazard but also a

hindrance to bikers wishing to use

this bike lane. This may be due to

homeowners raking the leaves on

their lawns into the streets, which is

illegal.

Heading south on Cayuga Street,

away from Ithaca High School, the

end of bike lane sign was confusing

but has since been removed. The sign

declared the end of the bike lane;

however, the bike lane continues past

the sign. This was confusing for both

cyclists and drivers. There needs to

be a readable and logical

standardization of signage.


At the intersection of Cayuga Street

and Clinton Street there is a visible

disintegration of biking road signage.

This appears to be lack of

maintenance but actually is a

remnant of a discontinued sharrow.

This is an example of a well painted

bike lane. It is noticeable to bikers

and drivers. Using this as an

example, all new bike lanes should

follow NACTO standards and all

existing bike lanes, if possible,

should be upgraded to NACTO

standards to ensure maximum safety

for both cyclists and drivers.


The bike lane existing on State St. is

clearly marked near Mitchell St.

Particularly good is the turning lane

created at the intersection of State

and Mitchell. This is important when

considering the heavy volume of

traffic on State St. Furthermore, it is

important in connecting Cornell’s

campus/Collegetown to the rest of

the city’s marked bicycle

infrastructure with a securely painted

out turn lane at the intersection.

Unfortunately, most of State St.’s

markings are wearing away.

The bike lane that appears on State

St. is inconsistent. From the

convergence of Green St. and State

St. until Stewart Ave. in

Collegetown, the marking is hardly

visible. There are some images of

painted bikes. However, many of

these have not been maintained. This

is dangerous because State St. is a

main arterial not only from

Collegetown to the rest of Ithaca, but

also for regional traffic entering and

exiting the city. There is only a

climbing bike lane because bicyclists

can share the road with automobiles

when traveling downhill.


The bike lane on Green St. is

inconsistent. Traversing under the

Aurora St. tunnel and heading east

on Green St., there is a nicely

marked section where the lane

converges onto State St. The bike

lane placed near retail and transit

centers on Green St. is not

sufficiently visible, nor does it

appear user-friendly. The marks are

not clear, and they do not run

straight. Green St. has a moderate

amount of motor traffic. TCAT buses

cross over the bike lane lines to pull

up to the Green St. bus stop, making

bicyclist safety questionable.

The bike lanes marked on Old Elmira

Rd. are in excellent condition. They

appear on both sides of the road.

However, they do not connect to bike

lanes on Routes 13, 34, and 96

because these routes do not have bike

lanes.


Poor road conditions and improper

street sweeping has serious

implications for the safety of the

cyclist.

The Hudson St. bike lane (uphill

climbing lane only) links Ithaca

College and the South Hill

neighborhood down the hill, and

furthermore establishes a route to the

Prospect St. bike lanes, where from

there on, one can quickly access the

W. Spencer/Old Elmira bike lane to

South Ithaca retail, or the commons

from Cayuga to Green, and onto

Cornell/Collegetown via State St.

Primary issues that exist are faded

paint, but perhaps more troublesome

is the steep gradient that exists all the

way up the hill. It intersects Aurora

St., connecting bikers to the Old

Elmira bike lane. The markings are

visible. It is an intelligent street to

use as a bike lane; however, it is

problematic due to its steep gradient

and the uniformity of Ithaca’s

designated bike lanes (which differ

from bike boulevards and other

programs in place).


6. SURVEY OF THE CAYUGA WATERFRONT

TRAIL: CASS PARK

The Cayuga Waterfront Trail is a

wide, paved trail for pedestrians and

bicyclists. It connects Cass Park, the

Farmers’ Market, and Stewart Park.

A bicycle lane on Taughannock

Boulevard runs next to parts of the

Cayuga Waterfront Trail in Cass

Park. This reflects that the Cayuga

Waterfront Trail is primarily

intended for recreation and

commutes between specific places. If

a bicyclist wants to go elsewhere,

there is a bike lane.


Boxes along a bridge are supposed to

provide information about the

Cayuga Waterfront Trail, but both

boxes were out of brochures. This

raises the question of how often this

trail is maintained.

Not all parts of the trail (in particular,

the bridges) are maintained in every

type of weather. Additionally, many

signs are difficult to read either due

to obstructions (usually plants) or

poor positioning.


7. SURVEY OF THE CAYUGA WATERFRONT

TRAIL: STEWART PARK TO THE FARMERS’

MARKET

Maps of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail

are present at the destinations that it

links. This map at Stewart Park lacks

a key and also indicates that the user

is at Cass Park instead of Stewart

Park.

Bicycle racks are provided in Stewart

Park and the Farmers’ Market. Some

racks were not grounded and could

be moved around, posing a theft risk

to bicyclists who use such racks.

Pictured is one of many locations of

bicycle racks at the Farmers’ Market.


The first two suspension bridges in

Stewart Park along the Cayuga

Waterfront Trail require bicyclists to

dismount for safety reasons. None of

the bridges along the trail receive

winter maintenance.

Parts of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail

cross roads, so crosswalks are an

integral part of the trail. Some

intersections have a fair bit of

automobile traffic.


The Dey Street crossing is currently

incomplete. Bicyclists will have to

walk across the railroad tracks and

wait for the pedestrian lights to allow

them to cross.


8. SURVEY OF THE VINCENT AND HANNAH

PEW TRAIL AND THE EAST ITHACA

RECREATION WAY

Pictured is the Pew Trail, part of the

East Ithaca Recreation Way that

serves the eastern part of the town.

This trail is valuable in that it runs

through a neighborhood, giving

residents easy access to the trail and

its amenities. This photos shows how

valuable the trail is to residents. This

homeowner constructed their own

makeshift bridge from their backyard

to the trail so they could roll their

bike over and increase their

connectivity.

This photo shows an example of the

gates that citizens pushed for once

the trail was constructed. They

originally asked for fences to protect

their homes from the strangers that

the trail would bring, but later

lobbied for gates so that they could

stay protected from outsiders but

remain connected to the RecWay

itself by creating a permeable wall,

not a static gate.

Pictured is an example of another

method of separating bike trails from

neighborhood parcels via

impermeable fences instead of gates.

This will most likely be most

effective in neighborhoods with more

suburban forms as opposed to more

rural / spread out areas.


9. SURVEY OF THE SOUTH HILL

RECREATION WAY

This is an example of the clear and

effective signage that the Town

utilizes to announce/publicize its

bicycle infrastructure (in this case, in

the South Hill neighborhood). Our

group really liked the color utilized

in the signs and the fact that they

coupled maps with informative text.

This is another example of the gates

that citizens prefer to use to protect

their property from bike trail traffic

and strangers. They like the gates

because they protect their homes

while still giving them personal

access to the trails.

This trail has multiple uses,

especially in neighborhood areas.

This might create a safety hazard that

might need to be remedied if these

bike lanes continue to gain

popularity and receive more traffic.


10. SURVEY OF BICYCLE RACKS

During the winter in Ithaca, snow

and rain often continue for more than

3 days. Due to these weather

conditions, many bicyclists avoid

using their bikes to commute because

bicycles are very weak against the

harsh weather. The bicycle rack

under Cornell’s Milstein Hall is a

good example of a covered bike rack.

For bike riders in the winter, Ithaca

should have more covered bike

racks.

While taking photos of bicycle

infrastructure, we noticed that

Cornell University’s bike racks are

usually over 60% occupied. Because

of the size of the campus and the

distance between residential areas

and the university buildings, students

often bike to their classes.

Even though there are bike racks

throughout Ithaca, there are many

bikes attached elsewhere, which

could pose a security risk to these

bicyclists. This may be because

people do not know of a nearby

bicycle rack or because there is no

nearby, convenient rack. While

providing secure bicycle parking will

not entirely solve the problem of

theft, it certainly can help, and it can

increase bicyclists’ comfort in

leaving their bicycles unattended. As

a result, many bicycle owners may

be encouraged to make bicycle trips

that they might otherwise forego.


SECTION 3: US CENSUS INFORMATION ON CURRENT BICYCLE USE AND

BICYCLE SAFETY

The US Census provides broad information about bicycle use throughout the country, with an emphasis

on collecting demographic data about cyclists and their geographic locations. Much of the Census focuses

on bicycle commuting, excluding information about other bike usage, such as recreational use. Below are

five of the most relevant national findings from the most recent US Census:23

1. WALKING AND BICYCLING TO WORK

Long-term trends over the past three decades show a slight uptick in bicycle commuting, while walking

has declined drastically. Since these trends are for the country overall, it is impossible to tell whether

Ithaca has followed similar patterns.

2. RATES OF WALKING AND BICYCLING TO WORK BY CITY SIZE

Ithaca has been highlighted as having the highest rates of pedestrian commuters in the country. While this

bodes well for public support of improved non-car transportation infrastructure, it is worth noting that

much of this data is influenced by the college population, not permanent Ithaca residents. Ithaca does not

make the top 15 cities for bicycle commuting. Looking at bike infrastructure in Davis, CA, or other top

bicycle cities would be worthwhile, as this may provide best practices that could be put in place in Ithaca.

23 McKenzie, Brian. “Modes Less Traveled—Bicycling and Walking to Work in the United States: 2008-2012.” US

Census (2014).


3. RATES OF WALKING AND BICYCLING TO WORK BY REGION AND CITY SIZE

The average rate of bicycle commuters in small Northeastern cities is 0.3%, which provides a baseline

against which to compare Ithaca’s bike rates. In every city, bike commuters account for under 2% of

people surveyed.

4. BICYCLING TO WORK BY STATE

New York is solidly in the middle of the country in terms of bike commuting. Interestingly, Western

states have much higher rates of bike commuting, raising questions of how those Western states

encourage bicyclists, especially through infrastructure.


5. TRAVEL MODE BY SELECTED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The US Census provides important demographics about which segments of the population are most likely

to bike. Being young, being male, living in a household without children, and being low-income are the

most important indicators of increased bike use.


6. TOMPKINS COUNTY CENSUS DATA: ACS 2013 5-YEAR ESTIMATES24

Currently, only 1% of the total Tompkins County population reports bicycling as their primary mode of

transportation to work, which is just under national statistics. This makes sense due to the weather

conditions and other barriers to bicycling in the county that survey respondents and interviewers have

identified.

7. TOMPKINS COUNTY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION BY POVERTY RATES25

The following graphic uses American Community Survey and US Census Bureau data to break down the

popularity of different modes of transportation within Tompkins County by poverty levels. The “Bike,

etc.” category includes bicycles, motorcycles, and taxicabs. Unfortunately, data specifically about bicycle

rates was not available.

24 Social Explorer. “Tompkins County ACS 2013 (5-Year Estimates).” Accessed November 30, 2015.

http://www.socialexplorer.com/6f4cdab7a0/explore 25 American Community Survey. “Means of Transportation to Work by Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months

(Tompkins County).” 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

SOV% Carpool% Bus% Walk% Bike,etc% Athome%

<100% Poverty

100-149% Poverty

>=150% Poverty


8. TOMPKINS COUNTY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION BY POVERTY RATES26

Further information about the intersection between income and transportation in Tompkins County can be

seen below. Tompkins County patterns mirror national trends in that low-income demographic groups are

the most likely to walk or bike.

26 Census Transportation Planning Projects. Data from Tompkins County American Community Survey 2006-2010

5-Year Estimates.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Lessthan$10K

$10-14,999K

$15-19,999K

$20-24,999K

$25-34,999K

$35-49,999K

$50-74,999K

$75-99,999K

$100K+

Household Income by Mode to Work2010 5 CTPP Tompkins County NY

Drove Alone

Carpool

Bus


SECTION 4: PUBLIC OUTREACH

1. FIRST SURVEY: STREETS ALIVE!

We went to Streets Alive!, an annual event hosted by Bike Walk Tompkins on September 20th, 2015, in

order to gain public insight into the bicycle infrastructure problems citizens felt were most pressing in the

City of Ithaca and Tompkins County. We managed to survey 137 participants from a wide variety of age

groups and socioeconomic backgrounds. However, this was not a random sample, and the people at the

event were more likely to have an interest in or strong opinion about improving bicycle infrastructure than

the average resident of Tompkins County. Appendix B is a copy of the survey.

The event primarily promotes the multi-purpose role that streets serve in cities, and it was filled with

students, families, and all types of non-motorized bicycle creations. We were able to visibly gauge not

only the participatory rate of bicyclists, but also the motivation for increasingly safe and efficient methods

to add to the existing bicycling infrastructure. However, this survey was brief, and our sample size of 137

participants could be expanded. We are also afraid that since this survey was conducted at Streets Alive,

an event catered towards bicycling enthusiasts, that the results of our survey are skewed and not

representative of the entire population of Ithaca and Tompkins County. To remedy this issue, we have

created a second online survey with different questions, though this was also not a random sample that is

representative of the area’s residents. This second survey is discussed in Part 2 of this section.

A. DEMOGRAPHICS

There was a greater number of female than male respondents. The largest age group surveyed was ages

18-24.

B. RESIDENCY

The majority of the sample (53% of respondents) were from the City of Ithaca.


C. HOW RESPONDENTS WOULD DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS A BICYCLIST IN

ITHACA

Respondents could choose more than one response on this question. More people said that they were

enthused/confident than any other answer. This was the second strongest choice.

D. REASONS RESPONDENTS RIDE BIKES

Here, respondents were given the option to select as many reasons as they wished so a pie chart would not

be an appropriate representation of our results. 137 Respondents selected 220 reasons. The most popular

response was recreation.

E. PLACES RESPONDENTS WOULD LIKE TO GO IF BICYCLING WERE SAFE AND

ATTRACTIVE EVERYWHERE

Top Responses include:

Downtown

Farmers’ Market

Stewart Park

Cass Park

Cornell

Meadow Street


F. BARRIERS THAT CURRENTLY PREVENT CITIZENS FROM BICYCLING

Concerns about sharing the road with automobiles, about biking on steep hills, and about biking in

inclement weather were respondents’ top reasons for not biking.

G. OPTIONAL QUESTION: IF APPLICABLE, WHAT TRIPS DO YOU MAKE AND

HOW OFTEN?

“Love biking from campus to downtown. Also, it is amazing once you find out about the trails that could

be connected”

“I bike everywhere. A great way to see our surroundings and exercise!”

“I bike from my home into Ithaca and use TCAT.”

“Go to waterfalls at least five times per semester.”

“Let’s cut off a perimeter around the city of Ithaca and only allow electronic bikes. Sc*** cars!”


2. SECOND SURVEY: ONLINE VIA SURVEYMONKEY

Our second survey was distributed to a wide variety of individuals via Cornell University listservs, Ithaca

College listservs, Sustainable Tompkins, the Ithaca Common Council, the Sustainability Center, and

neighborhood e-mail lists, among others. We hoped to receive more responses than our first survey, and

we intended that respondents would come from more varied backgrounds and represent more interests

than respondents at Streets Alive! We ended up receiving 464 responses from people around the Ithaca

area, though it is still not a random sample. From the results, it is noticeable that there is a lack of

education about bicycling in Ithaca. Many people are unfamiliar with bicycle boulevards, how quickly a

bicycle can go, and worry about biking in the winter.

A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix C.

A. RESIDENCY

More people living in the City of Ithaca responded than people living elsewhere. There seems to be a

pretty reasonable distribution of responses from permanent residents and college students.

B. RESPONDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF BICYCLE BOULEVARDS

When asked whether they knew what a bicycle boulevard is, a little more than half of the respondents

indicated that they did not.

43%

9%2%

27%

13%

6%

City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Village of Cayuga Heights

Cornell University/Collegetown Ithaca College Other

49%51%

Yes No


C. PREFERENCE FOR BIKE LANES OR BIKE BOULEVARDS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

We proved the definition for a bicycle boulevard in this question, which was not visible when answering

the previous question. Most people would rather have bike lanes in residential areas, which is surprising

considering the opposition to the Cayuga St. bike lane because it takes away on-street parking.

D. LIKELINESS OF BIKING IN WINTER WEATHER ON TREATED ROADS

61% of respondents are at least somewhat likely to bike in the winter. 39% of respondents are unlikely to

bike in the winter, which matches with the fear of biking in inclement weather that the first survey

identified. It will be important to remove the stigma around bicycling in the winter in order to gain

support for and utilization of bicycle infrastructure.

60%

35%

5%

Bicycle lanes Bicycle boulevards Neither

39%

41%

20%

Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely


E. CONVERSION OF BIKE LANES INTO STREET-SIDE PARKING IN THE WINTER

Even though people are hesitant about biking in the winter, the majority of respondents would still like to

have the option.

F. DRIVERS’ PROBLEMS WITH BICYCLISTS AND BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE

People could choose more than one option for this question. The most common problems were that

people find it difficult to safely pass bicyclists, bicyclists do not always clearly signal, and some bicycle

lanes seem too narrow.

48%52%

Yes No

137

167

140

222

272

133

67

38

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Bicycle lanes ending

Bicycle lanes that seem too narrow

Bicyclists sharing the street even if there is a bike lane

Bicyclists not signalling

Difficult to safely pass bicyclists

Bicyclist too slow on streets without bicycle infrastructure

Bicyclists too slow on bicycle boulevards

Not applicaple (I don't drive/ride)


E. BICYCLISTS’ PROBLEMS WITH DRIVERS

Respondents’ top worries are about cars driving too close to them, being cut off by drivers, and

encountering aggressive drivers.

F. COMFORTABLE SPEEDS FOR DRIVERS AND BICYCLISTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

When asked about what automobile speed they would be comfortable with in a residential area,

respondents answered anywhere from 10 to 45 mph. Most respondents said 25 or 30 mph. Because this

was a write-in question, some responses included:

“We should lower the speed limits in all neighborhoods, and on Cornell campus. Why is it 30mph

everywhere? Who picked that # as safe? It's not, and thousands of people hit every year in cities around

this nation.”

“Comfortable at any speed, prefer slower of course”

“Depends on the width, traffic, congestion of street! 25-30? 20?”

When asked about what bicycle speed they would be comfortable with in a residential area, a lot of

people responded that they were unsure. This shows that a lot of people don’t know how fast bicycles can

go, which may be one reason why people opt to drive instead. Several people wrote that bicyclists should

go as quickly as they can and that there shouldn’t be a speed limit. Actual numbers ranged from 0-20

mph. The most popular responses were in the 20-25 mph range. Some responses included:

“Whatever speed as long as they obey rules and wear helmets”

“The same as the cars”

“? I've never seen bicyclists go too fast in a residential area...”

“For myself, I don't like to ride fasterr than 25 even on a downhill.”

“unsure of typical bicyclist speed... 20?”

“I want to say 30 as well, but I'm not sure if that's realistic.”

“30 (can bikes even go that fast?)”

“0, bikes shouldn't be on roads.”

212

156

292

197

254

228

55

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Drivining too quickly on streets without bicycleinfrastructure

Driving too quickly on streets with bicycle infrastructure

Drivers passing too close

Drivers not signalling

Drivers cutting off bicyclists

Drivers being aggressive or harassing bicyclists

Not applicable (I don't bike)


G. BIKE LANES THAT END SUDDENLY

We wanted to know of problematic infrastructure, so we gave respondents the option to share their

knowledge of ending bike lanes. People wrote about:

State St. (inconsistent lanes)

Cayuga St. (heading south before and after the roundabout)

Hudson St. (upper part)

Wait Ave. (after turning off of the bike lane on Thurston Ave.)

Intersection of Hoy Rd. and Dryden Rd.

Meeting of E. Seneca St. and MLK Jr. St.

Old Elmira Rd. at Meadow St.

East Ave. by Goldwin Smith Hall

Cradit Farm Rd. near Helen Newman Hall

NY-89

Prospect St.

Route 79 at Collegetown

College Ave. going into Ho Plaza

Thurston Ave. bridge

Pine Tree Rd.

NY-366

Green St.

E. State St. near Mitchell St.

Cayuga Waterfront Trail at Route 13 crossing

Cascadilla St.

Tioga St.

Route 89 bridge near Island Fitness

Hanshaw Rd. as it reaches the Town of Dryden

Triphammer Rd. near the Shops at Ithaca Mall

Bridge by Rhodes Hall south of Cornell University

Albany St. roundabout


SECTION 5: PRINCIPLES FOR AN EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE BICYCLE

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN ITHACA

We developed a set of three basic principles, which serve as guidelines to be embodied in our proposed

bicycle transportation plan.

PRINCIPLE 1: INTEGRATED PLANNING

Plans and projects to promote bicycling as a transportation means will be inclusive of the viewpoints of

all stakeholders (citizens, students, businesses, etc.) involved. Planning must be decentralized,

incorporating ideas from the local community on what they want and how they want projects to

materialize in their communities. We have begun this principle of integrated planning via our community

outreach initiatives. We realize that most bicycle infrastructure is currently located within the City limits

and does not connect well to the Town of Ithaca or Tompkins County as a whole. There is also little to no

connectivity to the West Hill neighborhood. Our recommendations seek to increase the connectivity of

existing structures and to broaden the bicycle infrastructural network of the county as a whole. We hope

to promote bicycling as a feasible and desirable transportation mode in this area.

PRINCIPLE 2: ACCESSIBILITY

Ensuring that bicycling is an accessible means of transportation requires modifying road and parking

systems in order to accommodate bicyclists. New routes will be proposed, and suggestions will be given

to improve existing routes. Transportation plans must meet the needs of various users across different

genders, age groups, socioeconomic statuses, locations and physical status. We hope to increase the

clarity and usefulness of existing infrastructure in order to increase accessibility of the network as a

whole. Improvements should include repainting faded bike lanes, increasing visibility of bike lane signs

for both bicyclists and motorists, increased bike lane options for bicyclists of different physique (e.g.,

options to avoid hills). There should also be more bike racks and supporting infrastructure so that

bicyclists feel confident that their bikes will be safe wherever they go.

PRINCIPLE 3: ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY

The health of bicyclists and other users will be protected. Bicyclist, pedestrian and automobile safety

must be prioritized in the transportation system. A major current complaint of bicyclists and motorists in

Ithaca is the lack of safety for bicyclists on the road and the hazard that bicyclists can cause for

uneducated and uninformed drivers. Road signs, designs and construction must be organized in a way that

is cognizant of ensuring the safety of these main road users. We found current signage to be insufficient

and current paint (designating bike lanes) to be fading. The current infrastructure does the minimum to

ensure the health and safety of bicyclists and promote future bike use and should definitely be updated to

ensure maximum usage and safety. Land and space will be used efficiently towards meeting these safety

goals with plans being in accordance with NACTO guidelines.


SECTION 6: SOLUTIONS TO OVERCOME ITHACA’S OBSTACLES TO BICYCLE-

FRIENDLINESS

Although Ithaca’s hills are beautiful to bike in, they are not as pleasant to bike up. Hills test endurance,

but they also prevent many potential bicyclists from biking. In surveys conducted with a purpose of

public outreach, it was often and undoubtedly cited that Ithaca’s topography inhibits many residents from

biking. With this in mind, it is our intention to devise solutions that revolve around the hills. Furthermore,

our solutions involve the development of new infrastructure, both to tackle the hills and other issues

creating obstructions to biking. Some involve the redesign of streets with new bike lanes and other

infrastructure. Some of the solutions further would suggest an education module and community

discussion, implemented with the purpose of forwarding the cyclist culture through routine public

outreach forums.

Key concerns with hills include:

Maintaining control on steep terrain.

The level of fitness of riders.

The fear of appearance after using your bike, especially when bicycling to a professional setting.

The fear of motorists affecting bicyclists’ safety.

When plans reflect the topography, Ithaca can create a stronger cyclist community.

Plans should reflect a high priority for flat zones. This is difficult when trying to assist in connecting

developments on the hills of Ithaca. There is no choice but to incorporate the city’s gradients; however,

our team hopes that the following solutions will help minimize some difficulties faced when biking in

Ithaca.

Route prioritization can be difficult to attain seeing as it is a high level policy decision, but it should guide

network development to ensure that long-term solutions can be derived.

1. AVOIDING HILLS

Although often inevitable, utilizing routes that are less steep could increase ridership and allow riders to

more feasibly carry cargo. Routes that could be slightly longer, but less steep, would encourage more

people to bike.

In Ithaca, this could be made possible by implementing bicycle infrastructure up University Ave. as

another bike lane to access Cornell’s North Campus and Cayuga Heights.

Maps must indicate gradients on steep streets, new infrastructure should be identified, and participants

should be informed of how to minimize gradients for each biking journey as part of a developed

education module.

2. FACILITIES FOR THE HILLS

Biking infrastructure should meet the needs of cyclist behavior on hills. This can include:

The difference in speeds amongst cyclists against motorized vehicles going downhill and then the

large difference seen uphill.

Steep gradients can require more space for cyclists to weave.

Steep gradients can require more space for passing because of difference in speeds for various

cyclists when going uphill as well as downhill.


Providing sufficient space for cyclists when an intersection is followed by a continued increase in

gradient.

3. WIDER BIKE LANES

Wider and larger uphill bikeway patterns can help riders weave and accommodate the difference in speed

for riders when going uphill and downhill. This can be done through either:

Bike passing lanes, which can be implemented on busy and steep arterials such as State St.,

College Ave., Hudson St., and Prospect St. Adding a second bike lane adjacent to the first can

provide ample space for passing and halt fears of speed difference.

Buffers can be implemented mostly to ensure riders of their safety, and would encourage bikers to

be less worried when riding on hills.27

Because Ithaca’s bike lanes sometimes appear on arterials that also accommodate moderate motor traffic,

uphill bike lanes have been Ithaca’s main choice. These are useful in creating feelings of security and can

increase biker speed when going downhill. The uphill bike lanes on State St. need to be updated as they

are faded and must be maintained to ensure that biking infrastructure is connected by arterials to

Collegetown and Cornell’s campus. They could be implemented on University Ave., as well as College

Ave. In these same places, placing buffers of 2 feet wide would also drastically induce security and allow

the creation of space for bikers.

4. LOWER MOTOR SPEEDS

When space is not in abundance to mark down new biking infrastructure, reducing the overall maximum

speed of motor traffic can help create security by lowering the range of speed on the street. It would

reduce turning conflicts, the number of passing events, and the severity of collision. Furthermore, it

would allow motor traffic to gain respect for collectively shared streets.

5. TRANSIT INTEGRATION

Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) is an essential function to provide alternative transit within

Tompkins County. It can also be an effective tool in calming many fears that bikers have such as night

rides, long distance, and unpleasant weather, as well as lessen the impact of the hills.

To successfully integrate biking with TCAT and alternative transit, plans should:

Be based around ensuring the connection between biking infrastructure and busy transit hubs. By

ensuring that cycling infrastructure appears at main transit areas (the Commons, Green St.,

College Ave., Cornell Campus, South Meadow St.), riders can more easily make the switch

between bus and bike.

27 Image source: “Bikeway Types – Bike Lanes.” Accessed November 30, 2015.

http://www.altaprojects.net/files/3913/5042/8388/BikewayTypes_BikeLanes.pdf


Maintain bike racks at parking lots and other busy transit hubs.

Provide bicycle maps and educational fliers at busy stations near racks.

Provide pavement markings from the bicycle network to transit stations.

6. BIKE SHARE SERVICE

If Ithaca does implement a bike-share service, it could consider the effects of utilizing the folding bike. It

would not only be an exciting product for the public to engage with, but could also help minimize TCAT

bus update costs, and lessen the impact of hills by allowing riders to fold their bike and walk, or take the

bus.

7. IDEAS FOR NEW TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE

Although potential problems may arise with funding conflicts, these transit innovations could help Ithaca

lessen problems with both steep gradients and inclement weather. They also would help to ensure that

biking remains a clear and visible mode of transportation in the City and Town of Ithaca.

A. BIKE STAIRWAYS

In areas where hills are inevitable, and biking around takes a large amount of time and distance to cover,

bike stairways can aid in both pedestrian and bike transit. This would include large stairways that are

wide enough to accommodate cyclists carrying their bikes uphill. These bike stairways could have one

lane for going up, and an additional trail for going downhill.

In Ithaca in particular, it could be useful in two situations, but would take much change in policy, and a

lot of funding to implement. The first situation is connecting South Hill to Collegetown and Cornell.

Currently bikers have to utilize intense uphill and downhill gradients, and bike down into the valley, and

then back uphill to reach both destinations. By allowing cyclists to use the foot bridge over Six-Mile

Creek, and then creating a bike stairway cutting the gradient back up to State St., bicyclists could quickly

access Collegetown neighborhoods.

This could be done by making the bike stairway access come out onto Stewart Ave. with paved bike

lanes. Stewart Ave. does not face a steep gradient and would allow bikers easier access to Central

Campus, North Campus, West Campus, as well as Cayuga Heights. Additionally, if this route on Stewart

Ave. becomes a reality, it would be wise to further connect the bike lane on University Ave. to minimize

reliance on State St., but also because University Ave., although longer, is much more bikeable than State

St. It also could provide quicker access from Stewart Ave. to the Commons.

To allow even quicker access, a bike stairway could be created near the private drive on the north side of

Cascadilla Gorge. It could connect to a marked bike path on Dewitt Place, which has an insignificant

gradient. This would allow much easier access to northern routes using the Cayuga St. bike lanes and

could connect riders from Cornell’s campus to other parts of Ithaca much more quickly.

If the connection is made to Stewart Ave, a bike shelter should appear somewhere on Stewart so that

people can access Cornell’s campus at the lowest possible elevation if they must bike uphill to Cornell.


Proposed Bike Stairways

These would be trails in the form of stairs accompanied by runnels so that people can walk up with their

bike trailing alongside them. These could be interspersed with series of flat sections followed by more

stairs. Using Stewart Ave. as a main Collegetown/Cornell campus arterial, we minimize reliance on State

St. and make uphill access easier when trying to reach Cornell’s campus from downhill. In this plan, the

city should develop a large bike rack, transit center, or bike shelter to enforce its presence and utility.

Key Proposed Bike Stairways

(Dashed) New Paved Markings Incorporated with the Inclusion of Bike Stairways

Existing Bike Lanes

In this photo, one can see the runnels

so that riders can easily drag their bikes

uphill. Steps should either be large so

that the stairway meets the needs of the

matched hillside. Additionally, for

optimum utility, another trail, this time

flat, could be placed alongside the

stairs so that bikers can go downhill or

ambitiously ride up.19

________________ 19 Image source: Ramessos. “Rails on stairs

for moving a perambulator.” Last modified

December 18, 2007.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:

Kinderwagen.jpg


B. BIKE ELEVATORS

Bike elevators have proven effective in cities with extremely hilly terrain. They provide long-term

solutions to hills and inclement weather. They also are extremely expensive and would be difficult

projects to gain support for. That being said, at this level of intervention, it could ensure that biking

becomes an actual option in Ithaca. Elevators should be built at areas near convenient transit hubs, atop

hills to minimize the inconvenience of going uphill, and have biking shelters built in to store bikes once

they reach the top of the hill.

8. PROVIDE EDUCATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT

Education modules should be as easily accessible as maps showing bike infrastructure. They should

familiarize residents with the quickest and safest ways to connect to various districts and should inform

residents of alternative routes to minimize both the speed differential of motor traffic and the steepness of

routes. These pamphlets and online media should be easily found in dense nodes at Ithaca College and

Cornell University, transit stops with a lot of volume (e.g., parking garages near the Commons, bus stops

at State St. and Green St.), institutions with a lot of traffic (e.g., the library, schools, hotels, landmarks),

and, of course, be available online.

9. STYLISTIC SOLUTIONS

There are several changes that could be made to increase the user-friendliness of Ithaca’s bicycle network.

The following ideas are more specific to design and the actual implementation of markings on the streets.

These ideas will certainly be controversial in the community, but infrastructure must be perceived by the

community as overly apparent in order to foster increased security for bikers but also the long-term goals

of a cyclist culture.

On streets of the network with heavy motor traffic, infrastructure either needs to be clear and well-

segmented like on Old Elmira Rd., or in cases where it cannot be done to a secure extent, buffers should

be implemented to separate the bike lanes from motor traffic. This can be done by utilizing street

markings running perpendicular to moving street traffic that stretch 2-3 feet wide in order to better signal

separation between cyclists and motor traffic.

Furthermore, on streets with a steep gradient, such as State St., Hudson St., and possibly University Ave.,

passing lanes could be implemented, or bike lanes only appearing on one side of the street, but with two

lanes. This would require the repainting of streets. Passing lanes allow for riders to pass uphill—

important because of rider speed differential—and for the incorporation of space for riders to weave while

riding uphill.

A last solution to highlight Ithaca’s chosen visible infrastructure is through alternative color on roads to

indicate bike lanes. It would be a stark change, but would signal a long-term respect for cyclist culture by

prioritizing their needs and by ensuring continued awareness on the part of motor traffic.

Biking can be a part of Ithaca’s macro-planned, long-term future. For it to be properly implemented, these

solutions should be followed. By placing the needs of the biker and the pedestrian as equivalent to those

of motor traffic, we create a city for everyone.


SECTION 7: STREET-SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS

The new bike lanes that appear on North Cayuga street help guide strong network development. The

reason that bike lanes are selected is because they are paved markings indicating separating and

recognition of bikers by motor traffic. This being said, they need to be extended to reach the southern

intersection of another bike lane, at Old Elmira Rd. The lack of separation between car and bike lanes is a

source of fear for many potential bikers. Therefore, the gaps in the roads should link the system. To this

end, gaps should be minimized to provide user-friendliness. They also signal that biking is a long-term

aspect of the Ithaca experience and work to increase the security of bikers by ensuring awareness on the

part of motor traffic.

1. BIKE LANES FOR IMPROVED CONNECTIVITY

The highest priority and most needed additions to bicycle infrastructure to improve connectivity to

existing bicycle infrastructure are:

Continuing and completing the Cayuga Street bike lane.

Continuing the bike lane on Old Elmira Road from the roundabout up West Spencer Street, so

that bikers can continue northwards onto Cayuga Road.

The bike lane should extend north on Hudson Street to provide connectivity and ensure that

drivers are aware of bike traffic.

The city should use Court St. to connect to University Ave. and implement a new bike lane. This

has a lesser gradient and can connect well to Cornell’s North and West Campus and provide a

low motor traffic route for bikers to Cayuga Heights. With this in mind, it would be wise to make

a transit center by placing bike racks and shelters nearby a TCAT station. This will not only

increase convenience for bicyclists, allowing them to alternate between the bus and bicycling

system, but will also potentially reduce pressure on bicycling storage on the TCAT.

This network would lessen the amount of bike traffic on heavy motor arterials. Furthermore, it works to

incorporate the idea of adding University Avenue as a less steep alternative to State Street for access to

Collegetown as well as Cornell’s Central, West, and North Campus areas.


2. ALL PROPOSED NEW BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE

An interactive version of these maps can be accessed at https://goo.gl/ZZuVkl

Proposed Bicycle Infrastructure and Problematic Locations

Key Recommended New Bike Infrastructure

★ Problem Areas to Address

★ Intersection of Buffalo and Taughannock - Issues with signage and connection to the Waterfront Trail.

★ Loss of Lane (Green Street) - The bike lane disappears here and starts again a few yards away. It is

dangerous and confusing. It might just be due to the construction but regardless, it is an issue.

★ Prospect and S Aurora Intersection - Bike lane ends heading up the hill but continues on the other side of

the street.

★ Weird Roundabout - Bike lanes end leading to this but also sprout away from it. It is hard to navigate and

slightly dangerous. Leading up and going away from it are one way roads so maybe a separated bike lane could

work in those locations.

★ Thurston and University - The right turn at this intersection is dangerous for drivers and bikers. They should

be separated.


Proposed and Existing Bicycle Infrastructure and Problematic Locations

Key Recommended New Bike Infrastructure

Black Diamond Trail (Under Construction)

Existing Bike Lanes

Bicycle Boulevards

Recreational Bike Routes (No Traffic)


★ Problem Areas to Address

★ Intersection of Buffalo and Taughannock - Issues with signage and connection to the Waterfront Trail.

★ Loss of Lane (Green Street) - The bike lange disappears here and starts again a few yards away. It is

dangerous and confusing. It might just be due to the construction but regardless, it is an issue.

★ Prospect and S Aurora Intersection - Bike lane ends heading up the hill but continues on the other side of

the street.

★ Weird Roundabout - Bike lanes end leading to this but also sprout away from it. It is hard to navigate and

slightly dangerous. Leading up and going away from it are one way roads so maybe a separated bike lane could

work in those locations.

★ Thurston and University - The right turn at this intersection is dangerous for drivers and bikers. They should

be separated.


The following would possibly be more convenient to implement in 2016 because the Department of

Public Works already plans on working on these roads:

University Ave. from Linn St. to existing bike lane past West Ave.

Add a climbing bike lane, preferably away from parked cars. Connect it to the existing Cornell

University bike lane that starts at the Johnson Museum.

This is would be a bicycle-friendly way to get from Cornell to downtown because of its low

traffic volume and its directness. Also, this would complete the bike lane that exists on University Ave.

past the Johnson Museum.

Lake St. from East Shore Dr. to University Ave.

5’ bike lane in both directions, 10’ of travel lane in both directions.

The bridge overlooking Ithaca Falls is 30’ wide and will be repaved. Therefore, there would be

enough room to add in bike lanes. This street connects Ithaca Falls with Cornell University and also

passes Ithaca High School and Boynton Middle School.

Tioga St. from Cascadilla St. to Seneca St.

Add hybrid lane stencils.

This would connect the bicycle boulevard on Tioga St. to Court St. Ithaca is currently lacking a

bicycle-friendly east-west street, which Court St. could become. Also, it would be convenient to extend

Tioga St.’s bicycle infrastructure to Buffalo St. because it is a popular commercial area.

Hector St. from City Limits to the Bridge

Add a climbing bike lane where width permits. Add markings indicating that it is a shared road in

all other areas.

S. Aurora St. from Hillview Pl. to City Limits

Add a climbing bike lane.

Cecil Malone Dr. from Taber St. to S. Meadow St.

Include 5’ bike lanes in both directions in the design of the bridge.

“If/when the Black Diamond Trail bridge gets funded and built across the Flood Control Channel

between the end of Malone Dr. and the end of the trail extension along Floral from the Cayuga Waterfront

Trail, then Malone will be part of a major bike connection between South Titus Ave. and adjacent

neighborhoods to the east, Cass Park and West Hill to the west, and retail and employment places to the

south. We must ensure there is room for bike lanes on this new bridge.”

Brindley St. from W. State St. to Taber St.

Include 5’ bike lanes in both directions in the design of the bridge.

This would connect the intersection of W. State St. and W. Seneca St. with Cecil Malone Dr.,

which would allow bicyclists to access the commercial area located along Meadow St., a street that

prohibits bicyclists.

Below are proposals based on the 1997 Bicycle Plan and areas that we have identified:

Taber St. from Brindley St. to Cecil Malone Dr.

5’ bike lanes in both directions.

See notes for Brindley St. Alternatively, create a more direct, bicycle/pedestrian-only connection

between Brindley St. and Cecil Malone Dr.


E. Shore Dr. from Cayuga St. to City Limits

Add bike lanes in both directions.

There are existing paved shoulders at the City Limit.

Cascadilla Ave. from Meadow St. to Cayuga St.

Add signage indicating that this is a shared bicycle-automobile road.

This would connect people coming from the east (e.g., Cornell University) to businesses such as

Purity Ice Cream.

Cascadilla Ave. from Cayuga St. to Aurora St.

Make this stretch exclusively for bicycles and automobile traffic exclusively from homeowners.

This would connect people coming from the east (e.g., Cornell University) to businesses such as

Purity Ice Cream.

Court St. from Meadow St. to University Ave.


This would create an east-west corridor for bicyclists. Court St. has less automobile traffic than

Seneca St. and Green St. By connecting Court St. to University Ave., bicyclists have a way of accessing

Cornell’s campus and Collegetown.

Green St. from Fulton St. to Cayuga St.

Add bike lanes along all of Green St.

Green St. has a lot of businesses, yet the existing bike lane is very short. This would create an

east-west corridor for bicyclists.

Cayuga St. from Ithaca High School to the end of S. Cayuga St.

Complete the existing bike lane.

Cayuga St. currently has a bike lane along part of it, but it does not even reach the Commons.

Since it already has some bike lane, it would make sense to extend it instead of having a lane that ends

suddenly. This would be a prominent north-south corridor.

Clinton St. from Meadow St. to Cayuga St.


Clinton already connects to Prospect St., then Hudson St., and then IC. This would be a

convenient route to Wegmans. With that, speed bumps or other traffic calmers would be in order to

maintain safety.

Taughannock Blvd. from Buffalo St. to State St.


This would create complete bike lanes along Taughannock Blvd.

Maple Ave. from Ithaca Rd. to Pine Tree Rd.

Add either bike lanes in both directions or a climbing bike lane.

This would connect the Belle Sherman and Cornell area with East Hill Plaza.

Dryden Rd. from College Ave. to Dryden Rd.


This would connect Collegetown, Belle Sherman, Cornell, and East Hill Plaza.

E. MLK Jr. St. (Route 79) from Mitchell St. to City Limits

Add a climbing bike lane.


Honness Ln. from E. MLK Jr. St. (Route 79) to Pine Tree Rd.


This would connect the East Hill Recreation Way with the Pew Trail.

Park Ln. from Tudor Rd. to Slaterville Rd.


This would connect the South Hill Recreation Way with the Pew Trail.

Slaterville Rd. from Park Ln. to Burns Way



Burns Rd. from Burns Way to South Hill Recreation Way



Coddington Rd. (Route 119) from Grant Egbert Blvd. to Danby Rd. (Route 96B)

Add signage indicating that this is a shared bicycle-automobile road. Add an uphill bike climbing

lane.

This would connect Ithaca College with downtown.

Hudson Pl. from Hudson St. to Coddington Rd.



Farm Rd. from Coddington Rd. to Grant Egbert Blvd.


Danby Rd. (Route 96B) from Coddington Rd. to Hillview Pl.



S. Meadow St. from Elmira Rd. to Spencer Rd.


This would connect Elmira Rd. with Buttermilk Falls and Treman State Park.

Spencer Rd. from S. Meadow St. to Buttermilk Falls


This would connect Elmira Rd. with Buttermilk Falls and Treman State Park.

Elmira Rd. from S. Meadow St. to Enfield Falls Rd.


This would allow access to the commercial areas along Elmira Rd. as well as connect Elmira Rd.

to Treman State Park. One potential problem bicyclists may face is turning.

Enfield Falls Rd./Park Rd. from Elmira Rd. to Park Rd.


This would connect Elmira Rd. with Treman State Park.


South Hill Recreation Way to Buttermilk Falls See map.

This would connect two popular recreational areas.

These streets are also on the Department of Public Work’s list of streets to work on in 2016. The

following should be maintained:

S. Plain St. from Clinton St. to N. Titus St.

Repaint bike boulevard stencils.

Ithaca Rd. from Mitchell St. and Irving St.

Repaint climbing bike lane.


SECTION 8: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The recommendations that we have for better biking infrastructure is based on a combination of older

bike plans and our own initiatives and suggestions. Combining many sources, we present these

recommendations to the City and Town of Ithaca’s biking infrastructure in phases: Phase 1, smaller

extensions or infrastructural changes; Phase 2, bigger projects that will create new lanes and need more

community feedback; and Phase 3, changes that involve large investments and more in-depth surveying

and planning.

PHASE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS

Sheltering and providing better lighting for bike racks within the City and Town of Ithaca:

Given Ithaca’s climate, there is always a possibility of inclement weather. We noticed

that there are ample bike racks in the City of Ithaca as well as at Ithaca College and

Cornell University. The Town of Ithaca should increase its public bike racks in needed

areas. Bike racks in the City, Town, and at both college campuses tend to be exposed to

the elements, inadequately covered, or inadequately lit. Covering provides shelter from

the environment. For bike racks to be used, they must be on frequently traveled paths and

well lit. With this, we recommend covering bike racks downtown and at major

destinations in the Town first before providing coverage to lesser used bike stations in

less popular locations.

Examples:

High Priority: Bike racks in Seneca Garage (on Seneca and N. Tioga).

Medium Priority: A bike rack at Wegmans is needed, but it will take time

for people to feel safe biking to and from Wegmans with groceries in wavering weather.

Other infrastructural changes need to be made for this to be a more viable option.

Low Priority: Bike racks in parks and other natural areas. Although

people travel to parks frequently, there is rarely a need for them to leave their bikes there

in a covered location since they are usually there for a short period of time.

Regular maintenance of bike lanes and boulevards:

Many of the bike lanes and boulevards recently established in the City of Ithaca,

particularly, are not maintained. The lack of cleanliness and maintenance is a hindrance

to bicyclists given that it is both a safety hazard and a visual deterrent.

With bike lanes and boulevards, it is imperative that streets be maintained with as few

potholes, cracks, etc., as possible. Currently, South St./S. Titus Ave., across from

Wegmans, is in horrible condition and is avoided by both cyclists and vehicles because of

this.


More bike boulevards:

There should be more bike boulevards that travel east to west, but also link with and

existing infrastructure to create a gridded bike transportation network that is cohesive and

easy to navigate. Our primary suggestions for this are on Court St. and Cascadilla St.,

between Meadow St. and North Aurora St. None of these streets are major intersections

onto the other side of Meadow St. and so they have less vehicular traffic than some of the

other streets that intersect with Meadow St. Whether these streets are chosen or not, it is

important to add to and develop east-west connections to the existing north-south

boulevards and bike lanes.


Painting of bike lanes and adding signage:

Current bike lanes in both the City and Town of Ithaca lack sufficient road painting and

safe signage. Although both of these tasks are very expensive, they are important to

address with expediency so that bicyclists feel protected and vehicles are consistently and

blatantly aware of bicyclists in the area. Increasing signage within both the City and

Town of Ithaca is important and needs to be improved, but we also advise signage on the

outskirts of the Town of Ithaca so that people coming into the city and town are aware

that bicyclists are present.

We also advise painting of different streets and bike lanes to highlight the differences

between “regular streets” and streets intended for biking to ensure that biking is more

respected as a means of transportation.


Connection and access to Buttermilk Falls and Treman State Parks:

It is very important to create a safe passage to Buttermilk Falls and Treman State Parks

because they are beautiful locations that are more difficult to get to via bike. The

completion of a trail that leads to Buttermilk and Treman will increase ridership and

access to these areas in the warm months. These are also popular destinations for visitors

to Ithaca. Creating a connection between Ithaca’s natural areas could promote

ecotourism.

As a part of this recommendation, we propose a bike path that will be cut behind the

Emerson Power plant to the back of Lower Buttermilk State Park. We understand the

developments planned for the Emerson Power Plant but think that this connecting path

will increase access to the park by people who live near and around South Hill.

Located about 1.5 miles from Buttermilk State Park, Treman State Park is also an

important destination. We recommend a route on the east side of Route 13/34. The south

side of Route 13/34 has fewer intersections and allows for a smooth departure from

Buttermilk State Park, leading to Treman. A point of contention will be the bridge on the

route and whether to direct bike traffic on it, under it, or to add a bicycle bridge next to

the existing one.

Connection from Triphammer Mall and the Shops at Ithaca Mall to the City of Ithaca:

Currently there is no safe, established way, by bike, to get from the Triphammer Mall and

the Shops at Ithaca Mall to other parts of the Town/City of Ithaca. We think a path in this

area will create a surge in access and connectivity of Cayuga Height to the downtown

region. Currently we are proposing this a downhill route to get from the Mall/Cayuga

Heights into downtown Ithaca, but a route into these areas is suggested. A link from the

back of the Shops at Ithaca Mall (between Best Buy and Planet Fitness) to Beckett Way,

leading to Cayuga Heights Rd. is the start of the proposed link. Making a left onto

Cayuga Heights Rd., we think a link should continue on this road until it intersects with

West Remington Rd., where a left will lead the bicyclist down into the City of Ithaca near

Ithaca High School. The route itself is subject to change, but we think a connection

between Triphammer Mall, the Shops at Ithaca Mall, Cayuga Heights, and the City of

Ithaca would be a beneficial connection in regards to bicycling infrastructure.


SECTION 9: POLICY SUGGESTIONS

Currently there is no formal cohesion between the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County,

Ithaca College, and Cornell University regarding bicycle rules, laws, or infrastructure. We recommend

that these governmental bodies and educational institutions come together in order to form a more

connected and targeted set of policies on behalf of the area as a whole. Through our analysis, we have

come up with policy suggestions, which will help improve, maintain, and promote bicycle infrastructure,

now and for years to come.

1. STANDARDIZATION OF LAW BETWEEN THE CITY OF ITHACA AND THE TOWN OF

ITHACA

The City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca have different prohibitions, requirements for maintenance, and

goals for bicycle transportation. We suggest unification of infrastructure, maintenance, and safety

regulations to ensure the best possible conditions for bicyclists as they travel between the City and Town

of Ithaca. The standardization of laws will also make enforcement and obedience easier for safer road

conditions. We acknowledge the fact that this would require a great amount of coordination and planning,

but we are confident that putting in the initial coordination effort upfront will lead to more effective

planning and long term results.

2. REGULATIONS OF BIKE SHELTERS

There are many bike shelters within the City of Ithaca; however, many of them are not sufficiently

covered or well lit. The Code of Ithaca 276-7 part D suggests that some bike shelters be built as a part of

project review criteria; it is suggested that covered bike shelters become mandated. The City and Town

should also provide covered bike shelters for schools, youth centers, and administrative buildings within

their domains.

3. REGULATION FOR TYPES OF BIKE LANES AND DEGREE OF MAINTENANCE

The National Association of City Transportation Officials is the leading body on bicycle transportation

designs and guides for safe bicycle infrastructure. The non-profit organization has a design guide, which

we recommend be adopted for already existing and future infrastructure in the City and Town of Ithaca.

Current bike lanes are not maintained to the degree to which they need to be for safe, year-round travel.

We recommend that bicycle infrastructure maintenance be funded and added to the budget of the City and

Town of Ithaca. Bike lanes and infrastructure should be sustainably maintained through proceeds from

parking or other means of transportation that are less encouraged. For the maintenance of the trails,

funding can be secured from entrance or vendor fees. Successful implementation requires long term

commitment of city resources.

4. USING MEADOW STREET

Currently, cyclists are not allowed to ride on Meadow St. south of the intersection with Willow St. We

suggest allowing bicycling on the sidewalk on Meadow St. Meadow St. is an important north-south

corridor with low pedestrian traffic. This will help bicyclists travel along the corridor and make quicker

travel times between different destinations.


5. EDUCATING DRIVERS AND BICYCLISTS AT ITHACA COLLEGE AND CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

We suggest an educational module for Ithaca College and Cornell University students, faculty, and staff

who wish to have a car on campus. The module simultaneously will explain and assess bicyclists’

knowledge on bicycle routes, infrastructure locations, and safety protocols. It will end in an assessment,

which will be repeated until the applicant receives a score above 80%.

6. SPEED RESTRICTIONS

It was noted that though speed limits exist for automobile drivers, the same cannot be said about

bicyclists. Since the speed restrictions for automobiles cannot be applied to bicyclists, lower speed limits

should be implemented in certain bike routes and lanes that are predominately used for bicycle travel.

There should be clear signage and distinct differences between the speed restrictions for bike lane users

and automobile users. This will increase the safety of these routes and will encourage more citizens to

utilize them if they feel their safety will be ensured. On these particular routes, traffic calmers such as

speed bumps should also be present.

7. WEST HILL CONNECTIVITY

There is currently a significant lack of bicycle infrastructure in the West Hill neighborhood. Simply

providing them with one or two bike routes that run along major roads and connect to the broader

infrastructural network would be a significant improvement to this area and the infrastructural network of

the Town of Ithaca. Because West Hill has higher rates of poverty than other parts of Ithaca, his is

important especially in conjunction with census data that reflects that lower-income people are more

likely to bike.

8. FUNDING STRATEGY

The City of Ithaca is experiencing a situation where infrastructure (roads, schools, sewers, etc.) are

deteriorating at a rate faster than they can be fixed with current funding levels. Part of the problem relates

to when the infrastructure was originally built, and part has to do with rising healthcare and institutional

costs. Elected officials also don’t want to raise taxes because they want to get reelected. This lack of

available funding for new facilities and maintenance of existing facilities is probably the biggest barrier. It

would be helpful to study how other municipalities in similar circumstances have overcome this barrier

through creative financing, reallocation of resources, new taxes or assessments, and other strategies. In

the end, funding needs to be supported by elected officials as well as the general public.


SECTION 10: SUMMARY

The City of Ithaca and surrounding communities have been making efforts to install infrastructure

to increase opportunities for bicycle transportation including the 1997 Bicycle Plan and the Bicycle

Boulevard Plan. However, to meet the needs of Tompkins County’s non-vehicle driving commuters, and

Ithaca’s 2015 Mobility and Transportation plan for future development, additional planning and

infrastructure are needed to make bicycling easier, safer, and more attractive.

Part of Ithaca’s 2015 plan for future development is to install infrastructure to seamlessly connect

the city. Adding bicycle and pedestrian paths to major highways including Route 13, Route 79, and Route

96/96B would connect many areas of the community that are not currently accessible for safe bicycle

travel. The majority of bike lanes and other infrastructure are currently located within the city limits.

Bicycling infrastructure needs to be installed throughout Tompkins County as a whole.

The Ithaca area has an extremely high percentage of residents who walk to work as a primary

means of transportation. If bicycling were a safe and attractive option, perhaps many more people would

utilize the bicycle to commute. In our first survey, we determined that safety—especially from automobile

traffic—and steep path gradients are the main barriers preventing people from bicycling in the Ithaca area.

To protect bicyclists from automobile traffic, bike lanes installed along highway routes will need to be

buffered from traffic by some sort of barrier. Current infrastructure also has to be properly maintained;

paths need to remain clear of obstacles and lines need to be re-painted when worn away. Address the

issue of steep gradients on paths for bike travel will entail avoiding hills where possible and perhaps

making routes that are slightly longer but less steep. Bike lanes on roads with steep gradients should be

widened to allow bicyclists to safely weave and pass each other while travelling.

Implementing new plans will require cooperation between the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca,

Tompkins County, Ithaca College, Cornell University, and the residents that live in these areas.

Governance and educational facilities in the area could form a more connected set of policies regarding

the area as a whole, which would ease the process of installing and maintaining infrastructure. The

community needs to be informed that bike paths will be a pleasant and useful addition to their

neighborhoods, and they should also have access to maps showing bicycle infrastructure and routes.

Online media and pamphlets can be used to educate residents in addition to physical copies of maps

present at important nodes such as bus stops.


SECTION 11: CONCLUDING REMARKS

The recommendations included in this Blueprint form the basis for the improvement of a

comfortable, safe, and accessible network of bicycle paths throughout Ithaca. This continued network will

provide the option of bicycling as a more practical mode of transportation. This Plan is meant to serve as

a “working document” to guide transportation planning decisions made over time and to support the

multi-modal transportation goals for the Ithaca region.

While the suggestions made in this Blueprint and in the past contain valid ideas that could vastly

improve bike conditions—thus working toward our goal of establishing bicycling as an easy

transportation system—we believe that many documents and resources like this Blueprint already exist.

The City of Ithaca, along with Bike Walk Tompkins, George Frantz, and numerous other entities have

already drawn up numerous plans that we believe have the potential to succeed, but only if they are

properly implemented and publicized. Furthermore, when poor quality bike infrastructure is built with

seemingly little citizen input, citizens lose a tremendous amount of trust in and respect for governmental

entities.

To this end, communities should be involved in the decision making process, with their input and

ideas on implementation strategies included in proposals and bicycling plans. We do not simply

recommend a neighborhood meeting when a new bike lane is built as these are usually ineffective and

under-attended. Instead, we recommend that our entire set of policies is presented as a network solution

to bicycling infrastructure in Ithaca. There should be a series of community meetings in a public space

such as the Town or City Hall, which would be open to the entire public of the City, Town, and County. If

included at the beginning rather than at the end when plans and proposals have already been drawn,

communities will be more likely to be open to accepting the plans and aiding in its implementation.

With regards to the improvements that can be made to this blueprint, our plans did not include the

western part of Ithaca. It is suggested that future plans involve making bicycling a viable transportation

mode for residents and visitors for the western part of Ithaca. Furthermore, given the information that the

use of bicycling primarily as a transportation mode is high within lower income groups and communities,

it is suggested that special attention be given to areas of low income earners to improve on their safety on

roads, as well as increase their accessibility to this mode of transport.

Note: All maps were created using Google Maps as a base.

It

ha

ca

B

ic

yc

le

T

ra

ns

po

rt

at

io

n

Bl

ue

pr

in

t |

60

AP

PE

ND

IX A

No.

Str

eet

Fro

m

To

Len

gth

(ft.

) 1997 c

on

dit

ion

s 1997 p

rop

ose

d t

reatm

ent

20

15

co

nd

itio

ns

Pla

n

imp

lem

ente

d?

1.

Route

13

Bik

eway

M

ead

ow

St.

Dey

Cas

cad

illa

2

,70

0

Str

iped

sho

uld

er o

n 4

-

lane

road

A

dd

ste

nci

ls a

nd

sig

ns

Str

iped

sho

uld

er o

n

4-l

ane

road

,

no

rthb

ou

nd

fro

m

Han

cock

St,

south

bo

und

to

Cas

cad

illa

St.

Bic

ycl

e

trav

el i

lleg

al n

ort

h o

f

Dey S

t o

n l

imit

ed

acce

ss h

igh

way

EX

IST

ING

WID

E P

AV

ED

SH

OU

LD

ER

lack

s st

enci

ls o

r

sig

ns

F

ult

on S

t.

Cas

cad

illa

C

linto

n

4,0

00

Exis

tin

g 1

4’

wid

e

outs

ide

trav

el l

anes

(one

way)

Str

ipe

bik

e la

ne

(10

TL

/4B

L)

or

hyb

rid

lan

e st

enci

ls

Exis

tin

g 1

4’

wid

e

outs

ide

trav

el l

anes

(one

way)

No

M

ead

ow

St.

Han

cock

C

linto

n

3,5

00

Exis

tin

g 1

4’

wid

e

outs

ide

trav

el l

anes

(one

way)

Str

ipe

bik

e la

ne

(10

TL

/4B

L)

or

hyb

rid

lan

e st

enci

ls

Exis

tin

g 1

4’

wid

e

outs

ide

trav

el l

anes

(one

way)

No

M

ead

ow

St.

/Elm

ira

Rd

. C

linto

n

Cit

y L

imit

8,3

00

62

’ w

ide

5 l

ane

arte

rial

wit

h t

wo

-way

left

turn

lane

Str

ipe

bik

e la

ne

(5B

L/1

0T

L/1

0.5

TL

/11

CL

/10

.5

TL

/10T

L/5

BL

) o

r re

stri

pe

to

crea

te 1

4’

outs

ide

lane

wit

h

sten

cils

62

’ w

ide

5 l

ane

arte

rial

wit

h t

wo

-way

left

turn

lane

No

2.

Route

79

Bik

eway

G

reen

St.

Fult

on

Mea

do

w

50

0

30

.5’

wid

th -

one

way

(7P

/11T

L/1

2.5

TL

) S

trip

e o

uts

ide

lane

10

TL

/3.5

’

sho

uld

er o

r ad

d h

yb

rid

lan

e

sten

cils

or

pro

vid

e

30

.5’

wid

th o

ne

way

(7P

/11T

L/1

2.5

TL

) N

o

It

ha

ca

B

ic

yc

le

T

ra

ns

po

rt

at

io

n

Bl

ue

pr

in

t |

61

7P

/11T

L/5

BL

/7.5

P o

n w

este

rn

two

thir

ds

of

road

seg

men

t

wit

h 1

3.5

TL

/12T

L/5

BL

nea

r

Mea

do

w S

t.

G

reen

St.

Mea

do

w

Cayu

ga

2,5

00

40

’ w

idth

- o

ne

way -

two

tra

vel

lanes

wit

h

on-s

tree

t p

arkin

g o

n

bo

th s

ides

. S

trip

e in

cente

r.

Str

ipe

bik

e la

ne

(7P

/11T

L/1

0T

L/5

BL

/7P

) o

r

relo

cate

cen

ter

line

stri

pe

to

crea

te 1

4’

outs

ide

lane

wit

h

sten

cils

40

’ w

idth

- o

ne

way -

two

tra

vel

lanes

wit

h

on-s

tree

t p

arkin

g o

n

bo

th s

ides

. S

trip

e in

cente

r.

*C

urb

bu

mp

-outs

add

ed o

n b

oth

sid

es

at P

lain

St

and

at

Co

rn S

t.

No

G

reen

St.

Cayu

ga

Sen

eca

Way

1

,50

0

40

’ w

idth

- o

ne

way -

two

tra

vel

lanes

wit

h

on-s

tree

t p

arkin

g o

n

bo

th s

ides

. S

trip

e in

cente

r.

Str

ipe

bik

e la

ne

(7P

/11T

L/1

0T

L/5

BL

/7P

) o

r

relo

cate

cen

ter

line

stri

pe

to

crea

te 1

4’

outs

ide

lane

wit

h

sten

cils

Str

ipe

bik

e la

ne

(7P

/11T

L/1

0T

L/5

BL

/

7B

us

Lane)

.

*W

idth

may b

e m

ore

west

of

S T

ioga

St

and

les

s to

eas

t

YE

S

*nee

ds

rep

ainti

ng

*b

locked

by

const

ruct

ion

S

enec

a S

t.

Wes

t S

tate

M

ead

ow

8

00

31

’ w

idth

- o

ne

way

(7P

/11T

L/1

3T

L)

Str

ipe

outs

ide

lane

10

TL

/4B

L

or

add h

yb

rid

lan

e st

enci

ls

31

’ w

idth

- o

ne

way

(7P

/11T

L/1

3T

L)

No

S

enec

a S

t.

Mea

do

w

Eas

t S

tate

4

,00

0

40

’ w

idth

- o

ne

way -

two

tra

vel

lanes

wit

h

on-s

tree

t p

arkin

g o

n

bo

th s

ides

. S

trip

e in

cente

r.

Str

ipe

bik

e la

ne

(7P

/11T

L/1

0T

L/5

BL

/7P

) o

r

relo

cate

cen

ter

line

stri

pe

to

crea

te 1

4’

outs

ide

lane

wit

h

sten

cils

40

’ w

idth

- o

ne

way -

two

tra

vel

lanes

wit

h

on-s

tree

t p

arkin

g o

n

bo

th s

ides

. S

trip

e in

cente

r.

*C

urb

bu

mp

-outs

add

ed o

n b

oth

sid

es

at P

lain

St

and

at

Co

rn S

t. C

urb

bu

mp

-

out

add

ed o

n n

ort

h

sid

e at

Cayu

ga

and

on s

outh

sid

e at

Tio

ga.

*W

idth

may b

e m

ore

No

It

ha

ca

B

ic

yc

le

T

ra

ns

po

rt

at

io

n

Bl

ue

pr

in

t |

62

bet

wee

n C

ayu

ga

&

Auro

ra.

*W

idth

may b

e le

ss

on S

enec

a W

ay

bet

wee

n S

enec

a S

t

and

E S

tate

St

3.

Route

89

Bik

eway

T

aughanno

ck

Blv

d.

Cit

y L

imit

All

an H

.

Tre

man

Sta

te

Mar

ine

Par

k

2,8

00

11

’ tr

avel

lan

es

wit

h

4’

+/-

str

iped

sho

uld

ers

Ad

d s

tenci

ls

11

’ tr

avel

lan

es

wit

h

4’

+/-

str

iped

sho

uld

ers

YE

S

*C

onnec

ts t

o 4

’

pav

ed s

ho

uld

ers

alo

ng 1

0”

lanes

outs

ide

Cit

y.

*S

tenci

lled

bik

e

lanes

are

4.5

’

alo

ng 1

0.5

’

lanes

. N

o-

par

kin

g s

ign

s

bo

th s

ides

. *N

eed

s

rep

ainti

ng

T

aughanno

ck

Blv

d.

All

an H

.

Tre

man

Sta

te

Mar

ine

Par

k

Bri

dge

2,2

00

11

’ tr

avel

lan

es

wit

h

4’

+/-

str

iped

sho

uld

ers

Ad

d s

tenci

ls

Ste

nci

ls a

dd

ed t

o

sho

uld

ers

to c

reat

e

bik

e la

nes

YE

S

*S

tenci

lled

bik

e

lanes

are

5’.

No

-

par

kin

g s

ign

s

bo

th s

ides

. B

ike

lanes

sto

p n

ort

h

of

bri

dge.

*N

eed

s

rep

ainti

ng

T

aughanno

ck

Blv

d.

Bri

dge

Sta

te

2,3

00

14

’ o

uts

ide

trav

el

lanes

S

trip

e b

ike

lanes

(1

0T

L/4

BL

)

or

add h

yb

rid

lan

e st

enci

ls

14

’ o

uts

ide

trav

el

lanes

; so

me

par

kin

g

No

4.

Route

96

Bik

eway

It

ha

ca

B

ic

yc

le

T

ra

ns

po

rt

at

io

n

Bl

ue

pr

in

t |

63

B

uff

alo

St.

Bri

dge

Mea

do

w

2,2

50

14

’ o

uts

ide

trav

el

lanes

S

trip

e b

ike

lanes

(1

0T

L/4

BL

)

or

add h

yb

rid

lan

e st

enci

ls

14

’ o

uts

ide

trav

el

lanes

N

o

*E

XC

EP

T

bri

dge

over

Flo

od

Co

ntr

ol

Chan

nel

has

stri

ped

sho

uld

ers

5.

Dey

Str

eet

Bik

eway

D

ey S

t.

Ro

ute

13

Han

cock

1

,40

0

36

’ w

ide

resi

den

tial

stre

et w

ith o

dd

-even

par

kin

g

Des

ignat

e 2

4-h

our

par

kin

g o

n

one

sid

e o

f st

reet

. C

reat

e b

ike

lanes

(7

P/5

BL

/10

TL

/4B

L)

or

14

’ o

uts

ide

trav

el l

anes

wit

h

hyb

rid

ste

nci

ls

36

’ w

ide

resi

den

tial

stre

et w

ith o

dd

-even

par

kin

g

No

T

om

pkin

s S

t.

Dey

Cayu

ga

50

0

30

’ w

ide

(=/-

) w

ith

24

-ho

ur

par

kin

g i

n

west

-bo

und

lane

Eli

min

ate

par

kin

g.

Str

ipe

bik

e

lanes

(5

BL

/10

TL

/10

TL

/5B

L)

or

hyb

rid

ste

nci

ls

30

’ w

ide

(=/-

) w

ith

24

-ho

ur

par

kin

g i

n

west

-bo

und

lane

No

6.

Nort

h-S

ou

th

Cit

y

Bik

eway

C

ayu

ga

St.

Cit

y L

imit

Yo

rk

2,8

00

C

ayu

ga

St.

Yo

rk

Cas

cad

illa

3

,00

0

36

’ w

ide

resi

den

tial

stre

et w

ith o

dd

-even

par

kin

g

Des

ignat

e 2

4-h

our

par

kin

g o

n

one

sid

e o

f st

reet

. C

reat

e b

ike

lanes

(7P

/5B

L/1

0T

L/1

0T

L/4

BL

) o

r

14

’ o

uts

ide

trav

el l

anes

wit

h

hyb

rid

ste

nci

ls

Bet

wee

n F

arm

and

Lin

coln

~5

’ b

ike

lane

each

sid

e, 7

’ p

arkin

g

lane

(24

hr)

outs

ide

no

rthb

ou

nd

bik

e la

ne.

F

rom

Lin

coln

no

rth,

7’

bik

e la

nes

& n

o

par

kin

g b

oth

sid

es

(new

ban L

inco

ln t

o

Fal

ls,

no

t new

no

rth

of

Fal

ls)

tap

erin

g t

o

5’

over

bri

dge

and

no

rth

YE

S,

LO

NG

ER

:

no

rth o

f F

arm

St

to p

ast

Ithac

a

HIg

h S

cho

ol

It

ha

ca

B

ic

yc

le

T

ra

ns

po

rt

at

io

n

Bl

ue

pr

in

t |

64

pas

t It

hac

a H

igh

Sch

oo

l, t

aper

ing t

o

~4

’ an

d e

nd

ing j

ust

no

rth o

f te

nn

is c

ourt

s,

far

fro

m C

ity L

ine.

C

asca

dil

la

Ave.

C

ayu

ga

Tio

ga

75

0

Tw

o n

arro

w,

one-w

ay

stre

ets

alo

ng

Cas

cad

illa

Cre

ek,

bo

th w

est

bo

und

All

ow

bic

ycl

es t

o r

ide

agai

nst

traf

fic

in s

outh

lan

e. P

rovid

e

sig

ns,

bik

e la

ne

stri

pes

or

hyb

rid

str

ipes

Tw

o n

arro

w,

one-

way s

tree

ts a

lon

g

Cas

cad

illa

Cre

ek,

bo

th w

est

bo

und

NO

T Y

ET

? 2

01

6 C

ity t

o

des

ign f

ixin

g

cree

ksi

de

rail

ings

as

pre

req

uis

ite

to 2

-

way B

icycl

e

Bo

ule

var

d

T

ioga

St.

Cas

cad

illa

S

enec

a

1,1

00

36

’ w

ide

stre

et w

ith

met

ered

par

kin

g o

n

bo

th s

ides

of

stre

et

(exce

pt

in f

ront

of

po

st o

ffic

e and

cit

y

gar

age)

Pro

vid

e hyb

rid

lan

e st

encil

in

bo

th d

irec

tio

ns

alo

ng r

ight

edge

of

trav

el l

ane,

just

left

of

par

kin

g l

ane

36

’ w

ide

stre

et w

ith

met

ered

par

kin

g o

n

bo

th s

ides

of

stre

et

(exce

pt

in f

ront

of

po

st o

ffic

e and

cit

y

gar

age)

NO

T Y

ET

*B

uff

alo

to

Far

m

to b

e re

buil

t

20

16

. B

icycl

e

Bo

ule

var

d P

lan

conti

nues

so

uth

of

Far

m t

o

Sen

eca

C

ayu

ga

St.

Gre

en

Tit

us

1,1

00

36

’ to

40

’ w

ide

stre

et

wit

h m

eter

ed p

arkin

g

on b

oth

sid

es o

f st

reet

Pro

vid

e hyb

rid

lan

e st

encil

in

bo

th d

irec

tio

ns

alo

ng r

ight

edge

of

trav

el l

ane,

just

left

of

par

kin

g l

ane.

Co

nsi

der

elim

inat

ion o

f m

ete

red

par

kin

g

on e

ast

sid

e o

f st

reet

bet

wee

n

Cli

nto

n a

nd

Tit

us

36

’ to

40

’ w

ide

stre

et

wit

h m

eter

ed p

arkin

g

on b

oth

sid

es o

f st

reet

No

N

ort

h T

itus

St.

Cayu

ga

Pla

in

1,5

00

36

’ w

ide

stre

et,

2

ho

ur

par

kin

g o

n n

ort

h

sid

e o

f st

reet

wit

h 2

4-

ho

ur

par

kin

g o

n s

outh

sid

e

Pro

vid

e hyb

rid

lan

e st

encil

in

bo

th d

irec

tio

ns

alo

ng r

ight

edge

of

trav

el l

ane,

just

left

of

par

kin

g l

ane.

Co

nsi

der

elim

inat

ion o

f p

arkin

g o

n

south

sid

e o

f st

reet

36

’ w

ide

stre

et,

2

ho

ur

par

kin

g o

n n

ort

h

sid

e o

f st

reet

wit

h 2

4-

ho

ur

par

kin

g o

n s

outh

sid

e

No

It

ha

ca

B

ic

yc

le

T

ra

ns

po

rt

at

io

n

Bl

ue

pr

in

t |

65

P

lain

St.

So

uth

Tit

us

Elm

ira

1,2

00

30

’ w

ide

stre

et w

ith

od

d-e

ven

par

kin

g.

Lo

w t

raff

ic v

olu

me

bec

ause

of

ped

estr

ian

bri

dge

over

cre

ek

Pro

vid

e hyb

rid

lan

e st

encil

in

bo

th d

irec

tio

ns.

Co

nsi

der

des

ignat

ing 2

4-h

our

par

kin

g

on o

ne

sid

e o

f st

reet

only

30

’ w

ide

stre

et w

ith

od

d-e

ven

par

kin

g.

Ped

estr

ian b

rid

ge

over

cre

ek r

epla

ced

wit

h r

oad

bri

dge.

Bic

ycle

Bo

ule

var

d

sig

ned

& s

tenci

led

enti

re l

ength

of

Pla

in

St

fro

m E

lmir

a R

d t

o

Cas

cad

illa

St

wit

h

red

uce

d s

pee

d l

imit

of

25

mp

h.

YE

S,

LO

NG

ER

:

Cas

cad

illa

St

to

Elm

ira

Rd

as

Bic

ycle

Bo

ule

var

d,

per

Ithac

a B

icycl

e

Pla

n m

ap,

afte

r

much p

ub

lic

inp

ut.

E

lmir

a R

d.

Pla

in

Mea

do

w

1,5

00

36

’+ w

ide

stre

et w

ith

pav

ed s

ho

uld

ers

and

no

par

kin

g

Str

ipe

trav

el l

anes

and

pro

vid

e

sten

cils

fo

r sh

ould

ers

36

’ w

ide

stre

et w

ith

bik

e la

nes

whic

h

exte

nd

no

rth a

lmo

st

to t

raff

ic c

ircl

e a

blo

ck b

eyo

nd

Pla

in S

t

and

so

uth

alm

ost

to

Mea

do

w S

t, n

o

par

kin

g e

xce

pt

in

lim

ited

pull

-off

YE

S

S

pen

cer

Rd

. A

lban

y

Ro

ute

13

6,6

00

18

’ +

/- w

ide

stre

et

wit

h s

ho

rt,

one-w

ay

sect

ion a

t S

tone

Quar

ry R

oad

to

elim

inat

e th

rou

gh

traf

fic

Pro

vid

e hyb

rid

lan

e st

encil

s 1

8’

+/-

wid

e st

reet

wit

h s

ho

rt,

one-

way

sect

ion a

t S

tone

Quar

ry R

oad

to

elim

inat

e th

rou

gh

traf

fic

No

7.

Eas

t H

ill

Bik

eway

E

. S

tate

St.

Co

mm

on

s R

oute

36

6

2,5

00

40

’ w

ide

stre

et w

ith

som

e p

arkin

g o

n

south

sid

e o

f st

reet

Eli

min

ate

par

kin

g o

r re

loca

te

road

cen

terl

ine.

Str

ipe

bic

ycle

lanes

in b

oth

dir

ecti

ons

or

stri

pe

up

hil

l cl

imb

ing l

ane

wit

h

hyb

rid

lan

e st

enci

ls i

n

do

wn

hil

l d

irec

tio

n

Cli

mb

ing b

ike

lane

go

ing e

ast.

So

me

par

kin

g

bet

wee

n b

ike

lane

and

curb

, N

o p

arkin

g g

oin

g

YE

S

*W

orn

by m

oto

r

traf

fic

abuse

sever

al p

lace

s,

and

gen

eral

ly

nee

ds

rep

ainti

ng

It

ha

ca

B

ic

yc

le

T

ra

ns

po

rt

at

io

n

Bl

ue

pr

in

t |

66

do

wn

hil

l fo

r sa

fer

wid

e sh

ared

lan

e.

Cen

ter

line

mo

ved

.

Pull

-off

, b

ike

sen

sor,

and

bik

e tr

affi

c si

gnal

for

left

turn

at

Mit

chel

l.

R

oute

36

6

E.

Sta

te

Map

le

3,0

00

30

’ w

ide

stre

et (

+/-

)

wit

h s

om

e o

ver

nig

ht

par

kin

g o

n u

phil

l si

de

of

stre

et a

nd

so

me

2-

ho

ur

par

kin

g o

n

do

wn

hil

l si

de

Eli

min

ate

par

kin

g a

nd

pro

vid

e

up

hil

l cl

imb

ing l

ane

wit

h

hyb

rid

ste

nci

ls i

n d

ow

nhil

l

dir

ecti

on o

r ex

plo

re f

easi

bil

ity

of

crea

tin

g d

ayti

me-o

nly

bik

e

lanes

in n

ightt

ime

par

kin

g

lanes

.

Cli

mb

ing b

ike

lane.

No

par

kin

g b

oth

sid

es.

Bic

ycle

sen

sor

for

left

turn

at

Sta

te.

YE

S

*N

eed

s

rep

ainti

ng

M

aple

Ave.

R

oute

36

6

Cit

y L

imit

1,0

00

28

’ w

ide

stre

et w

ith

no

par

kin

g

Str

ipe

bik

e la

nes

or

pro

vid

e

hyb

rid

lan

e st

enci

ls

28

’ w

ide

stre

et w

ith

no

par

kin

g

No

8.

Univ

ersi

ty

Bik

eway

U

niv

ersi

ty

Ave.

C

ourt

S

tew

art

*IB

P m

ap

sho

ws

clim

bin

g

lane

exte

nd

s

bey

ond

Wes

t A

v

3,5

00

30

’ w

ide

wit

h n

o

par

kin

g i

n s

-curv

e

po

rtio

n o

n l

ow

er t

hir

d

of

route

. 3

2’

wid

e

wit

h 2

4-h

our

par

kin

g

on u

phil

l si

de

of

route

and

day

tim

e p

arkin

g

on d

ow

nhil

l si

de

Str

ipe

bik

e la

nes

on l

ow

er

thir

d o

f ro

ute

or

pro

vid

e h

yb

rid

sten

cils

. E

lim

inat

e d

ayti

me

par

kin

g o

n d

ow

nh

ill

sid

e.

Rel

oca

te r

oad

cen

terl

ine

and

pro

vid

e up

hil

l cl

imb

ing l

ane

and

hyb

rid

lan

e st

encil

s in

do

wn

hil

l d

irec

tio

n

30

’ w

ide

wit

h n

o

par

kin

g i

n s

-curv

e

po

rtio

n o

n l

ow

er t

hir

d

of

route

. 3

2’

wid

e

wit

h 2

4-h

our

par

kin

g

on u

phil

l si

de

of

route

and

dayti

me

par

kin

g o

n d

ow

nh

ill

sid

e

NO

T Y

ET

*to

be

reb

uil

t

20

16

fro

m L

inn

to L

ake

St.

*C

orn

ell

Univ

ersi

ty h

as

buil

t cl

imb

ing

bik

e la

ne

fro

m

wh

ere

IBP

clim

bin

g b

ike

lane

wo

uld

end

bel

ow

Jo

hnso

n

Art

Muse

um

.

9.

Wes

t H

ill

Bik

eway

It

ha

ca

B

ic

yc

le

T

ra

ns

po

rt

at

io

n

Bl

ue

pr

in

t |

67

H

ecto

r

St.

/Ro

ute

79

Cit

y L

imit

Bri

dge

6,5

00

Wid

th v

arie

s fr

om

24

’

to 3

6’.

Lim

ited

par

kin

g o

n d

ow

nh

ill

sid

e b

etw

een V

ineg

ar

Hil

l an

d S

unri

se

Tre

atm

ent

var

ies.

Pro

vid

e

sho

uld

er s

trip

ing b

etw

een c

ity

lim

it a

nd

Oak

cres

t. P

rovid

e

up

hil

l cl

imb

ing l

ane

wh

ere

wid

th a

llo

ws

bet

wee

n O

akcr

est

and

bri

dge,

rel

oca

ting r

oad

cente

rlin

e as

req

uir

ed.

Pro

vid

e

hyb

rid

lan

e st

enci

ls

36

’ w

ide

bet

wee

n

Cit

y L

imit

and

Fal

l

Vie

w T

erra

ce.

No

t as

wid

e fa

rther

do

wn.

No

par

kin

g s

igns

on

all

of

south

sid

e and

on n

ort

h s

ide

up

pas

t

Tay

lor

Pl

wit

h s

ign

s

fart

her

up

po

ssib

ly

mis

sing.

NO

T Y

ET

*2

01

6 r

epav

ing

30

0-7

00

blo

cks

10.

South

Hil

l

Bik

eway

H

ud

son S

t.

Gre

en

[err

or,

sho

uld

be

Auro

ra]

Co

dd

ingto

n

3,5

00

Wid

th v

arie

s. 2

4-h

our

par

kin

g o

n d

ow

nh

ill

sid

e in

lo

wer

thir

d o

f

route

Pro

vid

e up

hil

l cl

imb

ing l

ane

wh

ere

po

ssib

le.

Shif

t ro

ad

cente

rlin

e as

req

uir

ed t

o c

reat

e

mo

re s

pac

e fo

r sl

ow

-mo

vin

g

up

hil

l ri

der

s. P

rovid

e h

yb

rid

lane

stenci

ls i

n u

phil

l d

irec

tio

n

wh

ere

lane

no

t p

oss

ible

and

in

do

wn

hil

l d

irec

tio

n

Cli

mb

ing b

ike

lane

bet

wee

n H

illv

iew

Pl.

and

Hud

son P

l.

YE

S,

PA

RT

LY

. *N

ot

do

wn t

o

Auro

ra S

t b

rid

ge

bik

e la

nes

or

Pro

spec

t S

t b

ike

lane,

no

r up

to

pat

h o

nto

ith

aca

Co

lleg

e C

am

pus

and

up

per

par

t o

f

So

uth

Hil

l

Rec

reat

ion

way

Table

base

d o

ff o

f th

e 1

99

7 I

thaca

Bic

ycle

Pla

n.

Contr

ibuti

ons

made

by

Sky

e H

art

, D

ave

Nutt

er,

and

Da

nie

l K

eou

gh

.


APPENDIX B

Resident Bicycle Use Survey

1. How would you describe yourself as a bicycler in Ithaca?

_____ “Strong and Fearless.” (You’re confident biking anywhere on

any street, and in many types of weather.)

_____ “Enthused and Confident.” (You’re pretty confident in your

ability and safety on many streets, but avoid or prefer to avoid

major streets with heavy traffic.)

_____ “Interested but Concerned.” (You may like to bike for exercise

or recreation, but you are concerned about your safety in using

your bike on the streets for personal transportation.)

_____ “No Way No How.” (You don’t believe bicycling is a practical

or desirable option for you.)

2. Do you ride a bike for: (Check all that apply) _____ Recreation and exercise?

_____ Personal transportation?

_____ Commuting to work?

3. If bicycling were a safe and attractive option, where and how

many days per week (0-7) would you visit the following places:

_____ Downtown. (Commons and vicinity)

_____ Elmira Road (Plain St. to Home Depot)

_____ Buttermilk Falls St. Pk.

_____ Meadow Street (Wegmans south to Elmira Rd.)

_____ Wood Street Park

_____ West State St./West End

_____ GIAC/Beverly J. Martin

_____ Lehman Alternative Community School

_____ Cass Park/Hangar Theatre/Treman Marina

_____ Cayuga Medical Center

_____ Farmers Market

_____ Stewart Park

_____ Ithaca High School/Boynton Middle School

_____ Community Corners (Cayuga Heights)

_____ Lansing/Triphammer Road shopping district

_____ Dewitt Middle School/BOCES

_____ Cornell University

_____ Collegetown

_____ East Hill Plaza area

_____ Belle Sherman School

_____ Ithaca College

_____ South Hill Elementary School

_____ Mulholland Wildflower Preserve/So. Hill Trail

_____ Other __________________________________

_____ Other __________________________________

_____ Other __________________________________

4. What barriers currently prevent you from being comfortable with biking?

_____ Automobile traffic

_____ Personal safety

_____ Visually unappealing surroundings

_____ Destinations are too far away

_____ Bad weather

_____ Lack of bicycle parking or bicycle racks

_____ Too much to carry

_____ Unsure of route

_____ Travel with children

____ Steep road gradients

Respondent Information

_____ Male _____ Female

Age:

_____ Under 18

_____ 18-24

_____ 25 – 34

_____ 35 – 44

_____ 45 – 64

_____ 65+

Residency

_____ City of Ithaca

_____ Town of Ithaca

_____ Village of Cayuga Heights

_____ Cornell University/Collegetown

_____ Ithaca College

_____ Other


_____ Bicycle Theft _____ Poor health

_____ Do not own bike _____ Other __________________________________

5. If applicable, what trips do you make and how often?


APPENDIX C

1. What is your place of residency? (Please choose the best fit)

a. City of Ithaca

b. Town of Ithaca

c. Village of Cayuga Heights

d. Cornell University/Collegetown

e. Ithaca College

f. Other

2. Do you know what a bicycle boulevard is?

a. Yes

b. No

3. A bicycle boulevard is a street where traffic is calmed so that bicyclists can share the street with

cars. In a residential area, would you prefer bike lanes or bicycle boulevards?

a. Bike lanes

b. Bicycle boulevards

c. Neither

d. Other

4. What speed are you comfortable with for bicyclists in residential areas?

5. What speed are you comfortable with for cars in residential areas?

6. How likely are you to bike in winter weather if the roads are treated? (Please answer this question

as though you use a bicycle for transportation even If you do not usually commute by bike.)

a. Unlikely (Never)

b. Somewhat likely (Infrequently)

c. Likely (Frequently)

7. Would you prefer to have bike lanes converted to street-side parking in winter weather?

a. Yes

b. No

8. As a driver, what problems do/would you have with bicyclists or bicycle infrastructure? (Check

all that apply)

a. Bicycle lanes ending

b. Bicycle lanes that seem too narrow

c. Bicyclists sharing the street even if there is a bike lane

d. Bicyclists not signalling

e. Difficult to safely pass bicyclists

f. Bicyclists too slow on streets without bicycle infrastructure

g. Bicyclists too slow on bicycle boulevards

9. As a bicyclist, what problems do/would you have with drivers? (Check all that apply)

a. Driving too quickly on streets without bicycle infrastructure

b. Driving too quickly on bicycle boulevards

c. Drivers passing too close

d. Drivers not signalling

e. Drivers cutting off bicyclists

f. Drivers being aggressive or harassing bicyclists

10. Have you noticed a bicycle lane that ends suddenly? If so, where?

a. Write-in

b. N/A

Ithaca Bicycle Transportation Blueprint 12-19-2015

Documents

Transcript of Ithaca Bicycle Transportation Blueprint 12-19-2015