Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupervisor Desch RE RoadsTOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14350 February 21, 1978 Mr- Hugh S- MacNeil, Chairman County Board of Representatives Toropkins County Court House Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Sam: For a number of years the County and the Town have considered several approaches to the traffic problem at the int0r-section of Judd Falls Road and Mitchell Street- In the past year I have noticed a worsening of the congestion due to residential and commercial growth in the neighboring area- For each additional car that has to pass through this intersection, the chances of a serious accident increase proportionately- I would hope we jointly could find a way to alleviate the serious congestion and safety hazards in this area within the next year- Can the County Planning Staff give this an appropri ate high priority? Sincerely yours. Noel Desch Town Supervisor ND/elb cc: Larry Fabbroni Liese Bronfenbrenner 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 November 8, 1979 Mr. Frank Liguor i, Planning Coraraissioner Tompkins County 128 East Buffalo Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Liguori: At the Town Board meeting this evening, we considered the Route 13 Improvement Resolution adopted by the Tompkins County Transportation Commission. It is our view that the adopted resolution is a major step in the right direction, with one significant exception. The Town of Ithaca cannot wait for the accomplishment of the B-1 studies before construction of the Forest Home By-pass. The by-pass is extremely urgent and must have a timetable of no longer than three years to completion. Planning for the by-pass has dragged on too long. If we cannot find a way to get this job done, the Town will have no choice but to close certain Forest Home streets to through traffic. The Route 13 project is not an emergency, the Forest Home traffic problem has reached the stage of dire necessity. I hope you will convey these points to the appropriate com mittee who will be dealing with the problem. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Planning Board is continuing dis cussion of the location of a new corridor for Route 13 between Cortland and Ithaca; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca by resolution adopted September 10, 1979, pointed out the traffic circulation problems which the B-1 corridor would create in the Northeast portion of the Town of Ithaca, including the Village of Cayuga Heights and Forest Home; and WHEREAS, these concerns are reflected in the report of the Tompkins County EMC, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby endorses the B-1 corridor contingent upon the following conditions being included in the documents designating the corridor, submitted to the State DOT by Tompkins County: 1. Written acceptance of the B-1 corridor is adopted by resolution by the Town of Dryden, and the Villages of Dryden, Freeville and Lansing. 2. Written acceptance by the County Board of Representatives of the commitment to construct with the Town of Ithaca and Cornell University, the Forest Home By-pass prior to con struction of the new Route 13. 3. Designation of the County of the present Route 13 corridor as the urgent need for upgrading, which the Town understands will not jeopardize the schedule for construction of the new Route 13. -. ■>. ..-"v-'v:-- STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS VSS: ■TOWN OF ITHACA ) I, Edward L. Bercen, Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and exact copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Town Boardof said Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of , November ,19 7^ and that the same is a complete copy of the whole of such resolution. / ' I WITNESS \VHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Corporate seal of the Town of Ithacai'New Yprfc thi^ ^ i9th day of November ,19 79. ' V:, -WTown 0erk of the Town of Ithaca / : -v •: J -'f. T©WM ©F ITflACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 December 9, 1980 Honorable Raymond Bordoni ^ r""' Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Ray: Last evening, the Ithaca Town Board briefly reviewed the status of the Route 96 Project. The Board has asked me to write to you to express the following: (1) We applaud the efforts of the City of Ithaca in attempting to convince the State DOT to include the railroad overpass in the initial plan. (2) We reaffirm our long standing position with regard to the location and configuration of the 4-lane highway, within the Town of Ithaca, now incorporated in the State plans. (3) We support your efforts to secure approval of the State's phased plan as now set forth and urge Common Council to act affirmatively without delay. It is clear that a fail ure to approve the plans now will effectively kill the pro ject for a very long time. Like so many others, this decision is an agonizing one, for we all would like to solve the total problem. We now, for example, are left with the absolute necessity to improve fire service on West Hill as an urgent item of business. In 1981, we shall look forward to the opportunity to work with you to identify a number of sites for a new fire station on West Hill. Very truly yours, Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js • i '. • V • ' TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 December 19, 1980 Mr. Joseph M. Powers Regional Director of Transportation New York State Department of Transportation ^ ^ Region 3 ; 333 East Washington Street " Syracuse, New York 13202 . v rj-v-: -RE: Route 96 Relocated Plan - Alternatives Dear Mr. Powers: I enclose a copy of a letter to you from the Town Engineer, dated June 15, 1977, along with additional backup letters, mailing lists, petitions, minutes of public meetings, formal resolutions, and maps not all originally sent with the ref erenced letter. The letter and maps describe a combination of two State DOT alternatives, R-2 and R-3, which shows an intersection with the present highway near the Professional Building while passing just south of the new hospital. The packet of materials affirms the total concensus the land owners, Town, and County reached over three year ago on this so-called R-2,3 Modified Alternative. Therefore, at this late stage, the Town is unwilling to accept any proposal out side of the designated R-2 and R-3 corridor. Our unanimous choice has been stated on the record since June 1977. It is our judgment that the time has come to get on with the detailed design for this project. Very truly yours, Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js encs. cc: William C. Hennessy, w/enc. Harris Dates Raymond Bordoni NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAHON 1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany. New York 12232 February 17, 1981 Mr. Koel Desch Sjipervisor Updike Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Town of: Ithaca County of: Tompkins Computed State Aid Rate: 40% Dependent upon amount appropriated, Dear Sir: Thank you for the details furnished on our FORM TE-188 In connection with the highway projects to be Improved under the Town Highway Improve ment Program for the year 1981. The shared costs for each of the approved projects are shown below: Serial No.Project Mileage State Aid *Town Share 53493 Honness Lane 0.50 $3,600,00 $5,400.00 53494 Maple Avenue 0.48 3,456.00 5,184.00 53495 Seven Mile Drive 1.05 7,344.00 11,016.00 Note: Approved costs and State aid are based on individual projects; however. State aid will be limited to authorized percentages of $36,000,00/year, *Town*s share MUST be financed under Real Property Tax or other source under Sec. 229, Hwy. Law. Upon budget approval by Town Board, It Is IMPERATIVE that Budget Data Form THI-13 be executed and returned to this Section promptly; and a copy be forwarded to the County Superin tendent of Highways and the Community Assistance Engineer at the State Regional Office of Transportation. Very truly yours, JOHN SHAFER Director Traffic/^Safety Division By cc Community Assistance Section Clerk Town Highway Supt. County Highway Supt. Regional Office TE 180e (2/80) 106 Roat St. Ithaca, N. Y. March 27, 1981 Mr. Noel Desch, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 132 Updyke Road Ithaca, N. Y. Dear Noel: Please read copy of my letter to the Highway Department, If you have any political clout with that Department, please use it. Fifteen years ago John McManus told me that he had complained more than once about this problem. About 5 years ago, I wrote a similar letter and talked with someone on the phone at the Highway Department, but it produced no results. I don't believe that there is any other area or streets in the Town that are afflicted as badly as we are. The crud is so thick that every car carries it into the garage and it is tracked into every home by each resident in daily trips to the mail boxes. Opening the windows in the Spring would be nice to contemplate, but the dust from the street makes this a foolish exercise. Please - Noel - we don't want explanations of why it is done, or promises that next year will be better. We have been through that ad nauseum. Let's have some action before abandoning our half-acres to the stripmining developers. Sincerely, 4-^ Ed Roberts } \=' ^ 0'^ 4 "• -I ne .-i'-, . juperviso iii itha..- 106 Roat St. Ithaca, N. Y. 14850 March 27, 1981 Highway Superintendent Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, N. Y. Dear Sir: ' . - ^ ^ - What reason impels the Town Highway Department to treat the residents of Roat St., Orchard and Blackstone, to such shameful mess of dirt each year? - With the first snowfall in early winter and each one thereafter, we are happy to see the snowplow truck when necessary, but do not enjoy the truckloads of dirt which follow every snowfall. Salt and sanding of hills we can understand, but not the level streets of our area. By the end of March our streets are coated with so much dirt that a wet day means mud and a succession of dry days produces a cloud of dust from each passing vehicle, tfe don't need the kind of treatment we have been getting, and look forward to the day when our streets may be as.chean as others in the Town of Ithaca. m -. tv i; • ; : viinij Sincerely, B. R. Roberts 106 Roat St. 257-1949 /: pi' .>-i'& Mr. Noel Desch, supervisor the Town Board of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca, Ithaca 14850 ET£lE(li\5'iE FEBU TOWN 0^ ITHACA 6 Muriel Ithaca 20 Feb.1984 Dear Mr. Desch; I wish to call your attention and that of the town highway depart ment to a ditching problem on Muriel steet which is a major concern to us and our neighbors. It relates to the culvert which passes under the street pavement just north of our property from the ditch on the east side to ours on the west. The recent water main break and the resultant flooding will be fresh in the minds of our able personnel who responded in the wee hours of February 7. This will be the fifth time since our home was built in 1969 that the same pattern of water flow has flooded ours and our neighbors' properties. Complaints have resulted only in cleaning and deepening the ditch on the west side. The ditch cannot handle the flow of water through what amounts to a water cannon aimed at our driveway and house. This time the added impediment was snow forming slush as in other times leaves and debris block driveway culverts. We could take easy action at the time of such water flow to protect our property but it would obviously put a greater problem on neighbors. We hope the ditching on the east side can be corrected and the culvert eliminated. Sincerely, . a Charles and Shirley Hall 1 Ij©mm MAY-8 1984 U\aL TOWN OF ITHACA 6 Muriel Ithaca May 5, 1984 Mr. Noel Desch Supervisor, Tovm of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Ithaca, N,Y. 14850 Dear Mr. Desch, We are grateful for the ditching provided on the East side of Muriel opposite our lot and home. With the heavy rains of this past week only a small amount of water passed through the culvert under the road and the newly deepened ditch seemed to handle the flow well with no embar rassment to any property. Please convey our compliments to the crew which did the work so neatly. Sincerely, Charles and Shirley Hall TOWN OK ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STROT ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 August 20, 1984 Ms. Patricia Daggy 112 Judd Falls Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Ms. Daggy: Mr. Cartee has brought to my attention, your request to park partially within the Town highway right-of-way at 112 Judd Falls Road on the driveway at that location. You have as sured us that the vehicle at no time will be parked so as to interfere with the use of the walkway. This being the case, you have my permission to park within the right-of-way on a provisional basis, so long as the parking does not interfere with Town operations nor place any liability on the Town of Ithaca for any damage to your property within the right-of- way. If I leam of objections from the neighborhood we may have to consider withdrawing the provisional approval. Very truly yours, Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js 'VI i TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 122 WeM Cowrt Street • P.O. Bex 147 • Ithsce New York 1485} • Telephone (607) 273-7080 September 14, 1984 Come live the good life! Noel Desch Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Noel: As a resident of Tompkins County and as a community leader you should be aware that the Route 96 design hearing is scheduled for late 1984 or early 1985. These State DOT plans for the relocation of Route 96 through the West End of the City of Ithaca and on the West Hill in the To^vn of Ithaca will play a very important part in our Community's future. As a method of becoming accurately aware of all the things that will be happening and why they will be happening, we have arranged with Mr. Richard Simberg, Regional Engineer of the NYS Department of Transportation to give us a presentation on Tuesday, September 25, 1984 from 12:00 noon until 2:00 p.m. at the Tompkins County Trust Company Board Room. Other persons that will be invited to attend this presentation will be Chamber Officers, Chairmen, County Development Committee Members, repre.sentatives from local businesses, financial institutions, industry, elected officials, law enforcement and life safety agencies. Your attendance or appointees attendance is very important. As Community Residents we must be as well informed as possible. We will iieed all the support that we can obtain to make sure this project is seen through to a successful conclusion. This will be an excellent opportunity to accomplish this objective. Sincerely, /> u Raymond Bordoni, Chairman T. C. Chamber of Commerce County Develop ment ComniLttee RE/md OCT 2 6 1984 TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 122'West Court Street • P.O. Bex 147 * Ithoco New York 14851 * Telephone (607) 273-7080 October 23, 1984 Ray Bordoni, Chairman, County Development Committee Dear Desch, Come live the good lifel If after attending the September 25th meeting on the current State D.O.T. plans for relocation of Route 96, you agree with these plans and wish to help have them approved we urge you to circulate the enclosed petition. In order for our local government officials to approve this project they need to see community support. This support will be evident through the signatures of you and your colleagues. Your help with this project can be rewarded by better economic health in our city and county through thriving businesses and improved property values, cleaner air, better traffic flow, elimination of safty hazards, and much improved access to the hos pital . Please give this project your attention now. Further delays will have a large negative impact on our community's safety and economic health. Signed petitions can. be^jceturne.d to the__Chamber of Conunerce at the above address. Sincerely, ^ . . a A Ray Bordoni, Chairman jy County Development Committee TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 January 11, 1985 Honorable John C. Gutenberger Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear John; Ibis letter is to seek your support for a discussion on the future of Forest Hate Drive before the formal process of abandonment has moved too far along to expect further open dialogue, I should like to propose that the Tatpkins County Planning Director convene a meeting of representatives fran the City, Cornell and the Town to see if there is any possible way to resolve the problem in the mutual best interest of all the parties, so that we might avoid a costly legal action that could result in a less than satisfactory solution on this long standing matter. I sense that Cornell still has an open mind en the future of the road and I can assure you the Town of Ithaca would srpport such an attenpt to find a mutually acceptable solution. Would you be willing to appoint an appropriate designee from the City to meet with Frank Liguori, Town Engineer Larry Fabbroni and Bill Wendt from Cornell? Very truly yours. Noel Desch Stpervisor ND/js TO: Noel Desch FROM: Shirley Raffensperger RE: Environmental Assessment, Forest Home Drive abandonment DATE: January 31, 1985 Several residents of Forest Home have called me re the Environmental Assessment form prepared by the City for Forest Home Drive abandonment. Their negative comments, with which I basically agree, include concern that none of the residents of Forest Home were contacted for input into an evaluation of the impact of the circulation changes on residents of F.H. - that, in any case, the impacts for F.H. residents, described as "minimal", are not accurately stated. Additionally, there is no recognition of the broader interests of other Town residents, the role of F.H. Drive as an important part of the loop circulation around the campus; impacts on alternate routes are not addressed adequately, nor is the probable exacerbation of these impacts when the planned repair of Triphammer bridge takes place. Recent traffic counts are historically low because the poor condition of the road has discouraged' traffic. Also, public reaction in Forest Home is based, not just on "anticipation of inconvenience" but on already-felt problems with, traffic in bad weather, with the refusal of taxis and airport limo's to maintain past levels of service to F.H, residents after the closing of the road, and increased travel times experienced. Apart from EAF, there seems to be a growing move to lobby for road building in the Town and City to replace Forest Home Drive, e.g. from Warren to Pleasant Grove to Triphammer bridge. This would certainly be more costly than'repairing the road! I don't know the procedures, if any, that the City provides for comment on EAFs so I would appreciate your passing along these comments to the City as appropriate. copy: Fabbroni Buyoucos TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET HHACA, NEW YORK 14850 May 10, 1985 Mr. Richard Siitiberg, P.E. Regicrial Director of Tran^wrtation Region 3, NYSDCT 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Decir Mr. Siirberg: The Town of Ithaca appreciates the cormrLtment you have made to moving the critical Route 96 project forward with all due speed. We in the Town are prepared to assist in every way possible to assure that our overall ccrrmunity makes the correct decisions that will lead to acconplishment of both of the original objectives namely, solving the octopus problen and the hospital access problen via a new road. We are very pleased that the major potential stumbling block in the Town has been raroved by virtue of the attached resolution adopted by the Tcnpkins County Cannunity Hospital Board. We look forward to the opportunity to move forward as a joint effort between the hospital staff, your staff, Tcnpkins County and the Town of Ithaca staff to work cut the details of the routing through the hospital grounds. We also appreciate your willingness to meet with individual irr^cted property owners in the West end of the City of Ithaca. This will go a long way toward eliminating misconceptions and misunderstandings and result in a more solid endorserrent of the project by the City. This ^proach has proven highly successful cn the Route 79 project in the Towns of Dryden ani Ithaca. If there is anything you need fran the Town of Ithaca, please do not hesitate to call me. During the day I can be reached at 256-4272 or 273-1721 (noontime) and evenings at 272-3469. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js cc: ttoyor John Gutenberger L. Fabbroni B. Hcwell F. Liguori N TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL RESOLUTION The recent accident at the "octopus" has emphasized the urgent need for reconsideration of route 96. Tompkins Community Hospital has urged the State several times to reconstruct route 96 at the earliest possible date. Each year the hospital has 10,500 inpatients and an additional 58,000 outpatients who are cared for by a work-force of 750- It ts die only hospital within a 30 mile radius. The present route of liighway 96 has two major defects which have affected adversely the hospital's services to the Tompkins County community. The grade crossmg in the City of Ithaca means that emergency access to the hospital by ambulances and other vehicles can be blocked for as much as 10 minutes by a passing train. In some cases, this might be lifc-threatening. The same situation could prevent fire fighting equipment from reaching the hospital. The other disadvantage of the present route 96 is the difficulty of routine access by the estimated 1,100 persons who travel by car to and from the hospital each day. The new route could cut actual travel time as well as stress considerably, particulary from the population center of tlie county, Tompkins Community Hospital Is prepared to cooperate fully with plans of New York State for reconstruction of route 96. We realize this will entail sacrifice of some of the hospital's property. Wc ask New York State, Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca to consider the effects of their choice of route on the Jiospital which is, after all, a vital community service. The folloiwng points are of Importance to us. — The hospital opposes strenuously the continued use of Cliff Street as an integral part of route 96. Relocation of the route is of paramount importance for the future delivery of high quality health services in Tompkins County. Hospital services are shifting rapidly from inpatient to outpatient services, and towards partnership between physicians and the hospital. Both trends will increase traffic to the hospital area. For example, we are cx>ns1ructing a medical office building connected to the hospital building which will liouse approximately 15 physicians. — The hospital favors at least a passing lane on a reconstructed route 96 to deal with the anticipated growth in traffic to the hospital area. — The highway should be placed as far as possible from the hospital buildipg so as to minimize noise and dirt and to preserve the unique beauty of the hospital site, — At various times a narrower panel than elsewhere has been discussed for route 96 where it goes through hospital grounds. The hospital property west of any of the proposed highway routes will be useless for hospital purposes and we are fully prepared to sell the houses to the State thereon. Given the volume of traffic to the hospital, we hope the width of the highway and other construction will meet the highest New York State standards. We pledge full cooperation to the State of New York, Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County in the resolution of problems relating to details of route 96 reconstruction on hospital property. Approved - Board of Directors April 25, 1985 ©F ITMA€A 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORX 14850 Jiily 24, 1985 Mr. Darrell W. Harp Assistant Ccxnnissioner Office of Legal Affairs New York State Department of Transportation State Office Building 15 - Room 509 1220 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12232 Dear Harp: We v;ould very much appreciate your assistance csi some legal aspects of the process involved with corrpletion of the Route 96 relocaticfn design development. Through the fine efforts of Richard Sinfcerg, his staff and cxnsultants, this projech is scheduled for the design hearing in late 1985 or early 1986. As you may know, the projec± involves major circulaticsi inprovements in the Ithaca City urban area including roadway widening and new bridges. The project also includes a new hi^iway on new alignitent up the escarpment on West Hill in the Town of Ithaca. The corrpletion of this project including the alternative involving a railroad overpass is of the utmost importance to the entire ccmnunity, not only the City and the Town but the County and regicffi as a vhole. Yet we are told that the City of Ithaca Camon Council irey veto any or all of the alternatives which are considered. Can you tell us if there is any provision whereby property cwners, registered voters of the City and/car the Town and County can petiticm for a referendum cn this vital issue? Also, is there any precedent \^ereby the project can be accortpli^ied on an accelerated basis because of the urgent emergency nature of the need, that is to provide adequate access to Tottpkins Ccmnunity Hospital for most of the 80,000 inhabitants of Tcxipkins County? Finally, can you recortirend any steps that we locally might take to assure successful caipletion of this project in the shortest possible time. If you wish to discuss this natter further you can call me at 507-256-4272. Very truly yours. ibel Desch' ^ Supervisor ND/js cc: John Gutenberger R-irhard Siiriberq 0 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 Septerrber 10, 1985 Mr. Richard Sintoerg, P.E. Regional Director New York State Department of Transportation Region 3 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Dear Mr. Simberg: I am writing to you on the matter of the alignment of the north end of the Route 96 relocation project. The Town of Ithaca has been requested by the Paleontological Research Institute and Torpkins Connunity Hospital (jointly) to endorse a third alternative for this part of the project. The new ciltemative would place the highway to the south of the two existing alternatives through the PRI property. It is our understanding that such an endorsement by the Town, PRI and the hospital, by September 15, would enable your office to consider such an alternative without delaying the Spring 1986 timetable for the design hearing. At its meeting last evening, the Ithaca Town Board considered the new alternative and the positions ej^essed by PRI (their letter to you dated Septorber 3) and the hospital and voted unanimously to endorse this na/ alternative (see resolution attached). We are pleased with the efforts made by all the parties involved with this part of the project and hope this will enable you to move forward with the resolution of the various conflicts. If there is further action that you need from the Town, please let rre know. I can be reached during the day at (607) 256-4272 or during the noon hour at Town Hall (607) 273-1721. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js cc: B. Howell H. Theisen L. Fabbroni F. Liguori jb^vr RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca in March 1977 endorsed the R 11 modified alternative for the location of Route 96 through the properties in the Town of Ithaca including the lands of the Tompkins Community Hospital, and WHEREAS, the Tompkins Community Hospital and the Paleontological Research Institution have jointly considered the problems which the two current State DOT alternatives would create for their property, and WHEREAS, the Tompkins Community Hospital and the Paleontological Research Institution have asked the Town of Ithaca to consider the endorsement of an alignment of the new highway southerly of the nurses quarters through a major portion of the Paleontological Research Institution property as a third alternative, and (see letter Oliver to Simberg dated September 3, 1985), WHEREAS, the third alternative would potentially offer a solution to the concerns previously expressed by the Tompkins Community Hospital and the Paleontological Research Institution, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca does hereby endorse the third alternative for the Route 96 connection, adjacent to and south of the nurses quarters in addition to its previous endorsement, providing that the consideration of this alternative does not delay the Spring 1986 design hearing on the overall project, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca hereby requests the New York State Department of Transportation to consider the above ^ described proposal for the third alternative. STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS > SS: TOWN OF ITHACA ) I, Jean H. Swartwood, Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and exact copy of a resolution duly adopted by the / - of said Town of Ithaca at a meeting held on the ^ ^ day of » 19 <^rand that the same is a complete copy of the whole of such resoiUtioW; \ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hei^nto set my hand and the Corporate seal of the Town of Ithaca, New 'York tills /0>^ day of As". IVittamson Lou Book Co . Rochester. N.Y. 19609 Town Clerk of the "f^n of Ithaca 2: TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 Septenier 23, 1985 Mr. William G. Herbster Senior Vice President Cornell University 314 Day Hall Ithaca, New York 14853 Dear Bill: 'The Ibwn of Ithaca needs Cornell assistance in the enforcement of the through truck load limit ban in Forest Hone. Most, but not all, trucks that travel through the hamlet on Judd Falls Road originate at or deliver to Cornell. Qprnell Public Safety has helped in the past to enforce the speed limit but we realize that staffing demands fluctuate and there may be a reluctance to deal with the truck issue. The Town would appreciate your consideration of a more fomal arrangonent to provide these services as a sqpplonent to \^at can be enqpected fron the County Sheriff. Perhaps seme of Cornells operational costs could be offset by the services provided to the Town, I do not believe the total number of hours of enforcement would n^ to be v^ high l^t Director Mac Daniels would have seme suggestions on this, initial thought would be 5 hours/week during the normal work day and similiar coverage at other periods of the day. Thariks in advance for your assistance. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Sv^jervisor ND/js TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Frank R. Liguori PE Commtssioner of Planning MEMORANDUM ID;Pferrtoers, Board of tepresentatives Ci^ and Village Pfayors Supervisors Scott Heyinan, Acting County Adrnlnistrator Williani itobbs, Corrmissioner of Public Wodcs Larry Fabbroni, Town of Ithaca Planner Matthys VanCori:, Director, City Planning & DevelopirEnt Bonnie Howell, Administrator, Ton^ddris Comn. Hospital George Totman, Chairrran, County Planning Board Richsod CX/lett, Chairman, Transportation Ccnmission Robert Howard, Vice Chairman, Traffic Safety Board Ralph Jordan, Chairman, Econcndc Advisory Board Mark Hamlet, Chairman, Enviromrental Mgmt. Council Other Public Officials /; NOV r- - ~6I9^ >- rVHAC FRCM: Frank R. Liguori, Goirnassioner of Planning RE: NySDOT l^date on Rt. 96 Iirprxovement Alternatives DATE: November 5, 1985 Willard Ketchum, New York State Department of Transportation Engineer, Syracuse Office, has asked me to set up a neeting place for a nesting with public officials at vdrLch time NYSDOT staff and consultants will give a status report on the Rt. 96 iirprovement proposals and respond to ccmments received at the series of recent local meetings sponsored ty them. The meeting for public officials will be held at the Main Court Room in the Courthouse at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 1985, Public officials are invited to attend. NYSDOT will also give a similar presentation to the general public at 7:00 p.m. on that evening at the High School auditoriim. Hie evening meeting will be open to the public and will be publicized fcy NYSDOT. The City of Ithaca Planning Department will notify public officials in the City concerning the afternoon neeting. FRL:ys cc: Harry Missirian, Assoc. Planner, TdP Barbara Auble, Secretary, Si:preite Court Willard Ketchum, NYSDOT, Syracuse 128 East Buffalo Street, Ithaca, New York 14850..Telephone (607) 274-5286/274-5287 /O n ©MOW® JAN 2 1 1986 ^1— j 1^-/ L town of ITHACA ^?^i OFFICE OF FIRE CHIEF mm CITY OF ITHACA 31Q WEST GREEN STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 1A850 TELEPHONE: 272-1234 CODE 607 21 January 1986 Mr. Noel Deschj Supervisor Town cTf Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY If^SSO Dear Noel; This letter is in response to your request on 1/17/S6 regarding the three proposed Route 96 alternatives and their effect on emergency response to the western part of the Town of Ithaca by the Ithaca Fire Department- From an operational perspective, there are three considerations: the railroad crossing, the flood control channel/bridge system and response time. RAILROAD CROSSING: Alternatives A and B propose no change in the existing condition of at-grade railroad crossing. This would continue the enisting problems associated with train blockages in the west end. Alternative C does provide the option of a separated grade crossing that would lift emergency responses over the train tracks. FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL/BRIDGE SYSTEM; Alternatives A, B and C all add additional bridges. This relieves the current possibility of a dysfunction involving the octopus bridge that would shut off access to West hill via normal response routes. Alternative C with an elevated rail crossing provides some relief from problems that would be associated with flooding in the west end. RESPONSE TIME; This is somewhat difficLilt to accurately project without scale drawings to work from. However, it appears that there are some obvious considerations. Alternative A does not appear to have any negotiable interconnection provided between State Street and Buffalo Street west of the flood control channel other than via Vinegar Hill or Brookfield Road. This results in increased response times to West Hill of 1 to 3+ minutes in the event .one of the two bridges is out of service (that is an existing situation), A similar conditionappli..s to Altsi native B with the e^ddition of the runaround loop in in the Cass Park area- This appears to be about one mile in length and the response time factors listed above would apply in this case as well- Similar comments apply to Alternative C- In ail three alternabives, the effect of the one way streets would be manageable- Please contact me if you have any further questions. I'm sorry that I can t make your meeting tonite, but I am obligated to prior commitments. ^ Sincenely, Edward M. Olmstead, Jr. Fire Chief cc: Mayor Gutenberger PLAWNING/EIMVIROIMMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS 310 W. STATE STREET ITHACA NEW YORK 607 • 272 • 2201 14850 April 19,1986 Mayor John C. Gutenberger City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear John: I an. sUtoitting this proposal for a study and analysis of potential impacts of a relocated Route 96 up Ithaca's West Hill. This proposal is based exprLsefln -aerstandings and opinions My intention is to use, to the fullest extent, existing data that are ^ gathered over the next few weeks ty public agenciesor ad hoc groups, j will supplement this with my own investigation to the maximum extent practical in terms of time and budget. It is not the purpose of a study such as I propose to provide an exhaustive isLe toSr^i^orf ® analysis of every possible aspect of thispropose to examine selected specific concerns of the aS 0^""^ Identify major impacts related to these concerns, SLc^^ if® r estimate of the likely magnitude and implication of such ex^ien«"f.°fh2rio^ufi;r"""°" ex^LriVms'^t^dyf ^ to iff Potential impact of a relocated road on short- and long-rangeuse of land on West Hill, particularly in the Town of Ithaca TMs^d include a consideration of existing land use, potential trafficctenges on existing roads due to the new highway, thfcapacity^f existing infrastructure, existing land value and ownership patternsap^rent ^ket com^tition in the area, environmental cSrfffSlcs if iSs^iiZ development-' iff ^tential impact of a relocated road on Cass Park and the short-and long-range use of land in the area between Cayuga Inlet and the fiil hi f channel (the Island). This would consider such things traff° ownership patterns, possible futuretraffic patterns, properties to be taken for the new highway. developmental constraints, existing long-range development planspublic ^licy and an evaluation of the most appropriate use of wfst End land vis-a-vis the overall community land use picture. Mayor John C. Gutenberger April 19,1986 Page Two 3. Evaluation of the impact of various Route 96 relocation proposals on traffic patterns and neighborhood character in the rest of the community. This would focus primarily on cross-city routes and, to the extent that information is available or could be estimated, the positive and negative aspects of anticipated cross-city traffic patterns would be examined for the various Route 96 proposals. Pertinent railroad information, as this is gathered hy the itown of Ithaca, would be incorporated into this section. 4. The aesthetic and visual implication of alternative designs will be excunined. This would include considerations of scale, mass, dimension, construction technique, views, kinesthetic experience and landscaping opportunities, particularly within the City. Pertinent information from the State's environmental impact study will be included if this information can be obtained. In addition to the above, I propose to review the specific physical designs for the various alternative routes and identify possible changes that might mitigate adverse impacts or improve the effectiveness of the new road. I have specifically not included in the scope of this proposal the follo%d.ng.: a. A examination of the probability of loss of life or destruction of property due to traffic obstruction by railroad activity. b. An economic market analysis to assess the potential for new residential and nonresidential (ccwmercial) development related to alternative highway designs. c. Cost-benefit analyses to identify and assess the immediate and long-term costs and benefits >Aiich might be associated with the alternative designs. These issues would require substantially more time to do well and would not, in my opinion, lead to an uncontrovertable conclusion that one solution was better than another. I propose to provide a reproducible copy of any final report, including any maps that might be used. In addition, I would be prepared to make two public presentations during the study, the nature and timing of which would be determined by you. The final report would be organized so as to facilitate comparisons of the various proposals. It would be primarily and, therefore, the inclusion of specific recommendations for one route or solution over another is not anticipated at this time. Mayor John C. Gutenberger April 19,1986 Page Three To do the study outlined above, i estimate it would take 200 to 250 hours of my time. I propose to do the study at cost, i.e. actual time and overhead, and estimate it would cost up to a maximum of $8,600.00. This figure includes the participation of a traffic and transportation engineer to assist with traffic movement impact analysis. ' To make the study most effective it will be necessary to have good cooperation from involved public officials, which I hope you can arrange. Existing studies and background data should be made available it is relevant long-range development policies and prospectiveor ne^ed capital improvement projects in this part of the City and Town of Ithaca be considered and evaluated. In this regard, I would expect to arrange for a number of discussions with both public- and private- sector individuals and groups. I Pro^se to start work on this study as soon as authorized to do so and to bill monthly for work completed, based on time sheet records. Approval ot t^s letter can constitute an agreement between us or the material herein can be adapted to any contractual form you require. If you TOuld like to discuss further any modification of this proposal, or would like clarification on any aspect of it, please give me a call. Very truly yours, PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS Thomas Niederkorn TN:mt TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STRHTO EM9I 9IKBBI / riHACA, NEW YORK June 30, 1986 Mr. Richard Simberg, Director NYS Department of Transportation Region 3 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Re: Traffic Improvement Existing SR 96 and Hospital Entrance Dear Mr. Simberg: Since a NYSDOT study of 1982 summarized in your predecessor's, Mr. Powers, May 1982 letter to the Tompkins Community Hospital, several significant growth and transportation changes have occurred, or will soon occur, warranting the installation of a traffic signal at the SR 96 entrance to the Hospital complex. With the planning of a revised circulation Town Highway which would service the Tompkins County Professional Building (not served in 1982) , the Tompkins Community Hospital (with expanded outpatient services since 1982), the Biggs Complex office occupancies (not occupied in 1982), and the Health Department occupancy (existing in 1982), it is expected employees would have doubled to 600 by this fall. Client traffic would also have substantially increased over 1982 at the main entrance/exit by this fall. These increases warrant a signal by volume. Over the past five years, records, of the Tompkins County Sheriff's Department alone, document 31 known accidents, including 22 injuries with 21 hospitalizations and one death, to warrant a signal by accident experience. With these warrants, the plan being implemented this year for the new Town Highway to extend from the intersection of SR 96 in question to Indian Creek Road (overview map enclosed), and the compatibility of all these circulation plans with any new SR 96 alternatives, we request your immediate study and installation of a traffic signal as a safety improvement. As a part of your study, the extension of the 45 MPH speed zone north to DuBois Road and advance intersection and hospital direction (white on blue) signing should be considered for immediate safety improvements prior to the actual signal installation. Mr. Richard Simberg -2- June 30, 1986 We appreciate the demands you must recieve daily for this type of installation. However, with the necessary technical warrants met, the high hazards both existing and increasing, the new Town Highway intersection with SR 96 and the increasing community wide need, we expect you can make this a high priority on your safety improvement program. Very truly yours. Noel Desch, Supervisor Town of Ithaca Mary Call, Chairwoman Board of Representatives Tompkins County Bonnie Howell, Administrator Tompkins Community Hospital LPF/nf enclosure August 28, 1986 Members of the Town Board Attn: Noel Desch Very regretfully we were all away for the last town meeting, and since we are the taxpayers most affected by persistent flooding on Kay Street, we want to urge you to help us solve the problem we have every time it rains. We are appalled to hear that some of our neighbors who do not have a problem have degraded the call for help by those of us who continually mop up flood water, clean silt, and suffer the damages and loss of items in our basements that have been soaked by rain water. We are all in favor of weeper drains and most emphatically we beg you to start correction of this deplorable flooding as soon as possible. We see no reason why we must wait until next year (1987) to have this problem solved which is the responsibility of the town and not ours. We hope that something positive will come of this soon. From: Marian & Bob Earle ' ' n n n •-'r.-v • fy%- L ^ J ^ / |2 The Harold Sweets are out of town but they are also affected by the problems. Helen Hamilton and the Dale Browns are also away . House Craft Builders, Inc. JEROLD WEISBURD. ARCHITECT 1459 SLATERVILLE ROAD ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 (607) 277A7A7 October 23, I9d7 Noel Desch Town Supervisor 120 E. Senecs St. Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Desch, This is to confirs our phone conversation of today October 23, 1987 at 10:25 a.s., whereby we agreed that we will not build a service road connecting Penny Lane with Slaterville Road either as a temporary or permanent road until such time that the Town of Ithaca has fully resolved the final location of this road. In the interim, the Town of Ithaca agrees that no building permits or certificates of occupancy shall be withheld or in any way delayed because of this service road question. The Town of Ithaca further agrees that no escrow deposit for completion of the service rood nor construction of the rood shall be required of House Craft Builders before final and complete resolution is reached. As you know, we were going to construct the serice road so that we could proceed with the finished surfacing of Penny Lane, using the serice rood to route construction trucks off the finished Penny Lane. As we are finishing off Penny Lane shortly, it is unfortunate that it will now be the only route available to us. Sincerely, Jerold Weisburd cc: John Barney-Town Attorney Peter Grossman-Town Attorney Andrew Frost-Town Building Inspector Susan Beeners-Town Planner Robert FIumerfeldt-Town Engineer Peter Valsh, Esq. TOWN OF fTHACA 126 EAST SENECA STIBIT rrHACA, NEW YORK 14680 July 9, 1987 Mr. Barry Stevens N.Y.S. Department of Transportation 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Re: N.Y.S. Route 96B Traffic Safety Dear Mr. Stevens: The Town of Ithaca and Ithaca College are increasingly concerned about vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on N.Y.S. Rt. 96B in the Town of Ithaca, especially between Ithaca's south City line and King Road. On June 3rd I called your office in regard to some general traffic questions and spoke with John Crosby in your absence. I was informed that you are planning to conduct a traffic study in this area within the next few months. I had been gathering data to forward to you including accident statistics, information regarding new and imminent residential and commercial development in this area and the proposed fire station to be sited on Rt. 96B at the south end of Ithaca College, along with specific requests for reduced speed zones and review of traffic signs and signals. Since you are probably now scheduling the study of this area, I would like to share the data and information that we have at this point which may be of use or may influence the scope of your study. Accident statistics have been obtained from both the New York State Police and Tompkins County Sheriff's departments. By far, the majority of accidents in this area are investigated by the Sheriff's deparment. As their records are kept by date only, and not location, it is quite time-consuming to search through the hundreds of accident reports for each year to single out those for a particular section of highway. This was done, however, for the period from January 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, with the dates and rough description of accident type tabulated on Enclosure (1) . There were 31 accidents of various types during the period. The New York State Police investigated 5 accidents on this section of roadway from January 1, 1985 to June 1, 1987; these are also noted on Enclosure (1). It appears that residential growth in this southern sector of the Town of Ithaca, after having been quite moderate for several years, will soon have a decided impact on Rt. 96B traffic. In the past several months, proposals have come before the Town Planning Board for four new or expanded housing Mr. Barry Stevens -2- July 9, 1987 developments including multiple-family, cluster-type, and single-family residential units. These include: 1)"Deer Run" — a combination of 180 cluster-type and single-family units on East King and Troy Roads. Construction has begun on the first stage. 2) "ButterField" — 119 multiple-family units proposed on East King Road. Construction start anticipated this year. 3) "Springwood" — 17 additional multiple-family units planned this year on East King Road. Ultimate total additional development (including the above-noted 17), 85 units. 4) "Cayuga Vista" ~ 32 cluster-type units on Rt. 96B, Construction of first 12 units has commenced. Some expansion of the commercial development at the intersection of Coddington Road with Rt. 96B is also planned. The locations of all the above development areas are shown on Enclosure (2). The need for additional fire protection in the Town of Ithaca has resulted in the selection of two sites for fire stations to be built before the end of 1988. One of the fire station sites is on Rt. 96B at the southerly edge of the Ithaca College campus. A request will be forthcoming for a special traffic signal for emergency use on Rt. 96B at this station. The fire station site is also shown on Enclosure (2). We share the concerns of Ithaca College officials that I know have been previously expressed to you in regard to traffic safety along Danby Road (Rt, 96B), especially at the signalized intersection of the College's main entrance road with Danby Road. Pedestrian safety concerns have increased now that students are crossing the four-lane Danby Road to use classrooms at NCR. From our viewpoint, it does not seem appropriate that the 40 MPH zone south of the City line end and revert to the Statewide 55 MPH before travelling through the two signalized intersections at NCR and Ithaca College. And too, when proceeding northerly, downgrade, the 40 MPH zone is not reached until after passing through the two signalized intersections. With further regard to speed zones, the Town requests that you include the King Road-Rt. 96B intersection in your study. There have been at least 4 accidents at this intersection in the last li years. Of particular concern is the speed of downgrade northbound traffic as it approaches King Road on a curve to the Mr. Barry Stevens -3- July 9, 1987 right. Visibility from the East King Road approach is somewhat limited because of the curve. As mentioned previously, East King Road is slated for significant residential development and there is some amount of commercial development at the King Road-Rt. 96B intersection. The Town is encouraged to know that you will be reviewing Rt. 96B traffic concerns. We will be happy to provide assistance in any way possible. Very truly yours. Robert R. Flumerfelt, P.E Town Engineer RRF/nf enclosures JOL RECORDED ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS Tompkins County Sheriff's Department (1/1/86 to 6/30/87): Date 1/2/86 3/16/86 4/28/86 5/7/86 5/7/86 6/4/86 7/27/86 8/14/86 8/25/86 9/12/86 10/3/86 11/14/86 11/14/86 1/16/87 1/16/87 1/23/87 1/26/87 2/3/87 2/7/87 2/20/87 3/14/87 3/26/87 3/26/87 4/4/87 5/5/87 5/9/87 Mile Marker * 1097 1097 1089 1086 1095 1099 1095 1095 Description Vehicle struck deer Vehicle struck deer Ithaca College Entrance-intersection conflict Ithaca College Entrance-intersection conflict Ithaca College Entrance - unsafe lane change Rt. 96B & King Rd. - intersection conflict Ithaca College intersection - deer involved Accident - unknown reason i Mi. S. of Coddington Rd.-unsafe lane change Accident at NCR traffic light At Coddington Rd, (Rogan's Corners) - unsafe lane change Rt. 96B & King Rd. - intersection conflict At #983 Danby Rd. (96B) - vehicle struck deer Rt. 96B & King Rd. - intersection conflict 200* S. of Coddington Rd.-vehicle struck deer Accident at Ithaca College Entrance At #1006 Danby Rd. (96B) - driver fell asleep Vehicle struck deer Accident at Coddington Rd, (Rogan's Corners) Accident at Ithaca College Entrance Accident at Ithaca College Entrance S. of King Rd. - vehicle hit debris in road N. of King Rd. - vehicle overturned avoiding dog Ithaca College Entrance-intersection conflict At King Rd. - D.W.I. At #1156 Danby Rd. (96B) - collision * Mile marker numbers preceeded by **96B-3602*'. New York State Police (1/1/85 to 6/1/87): Five accidents investigated: 2 - collisions with deer 1 - rear end collision (driver retrieving object) 1 - unsafe lane change 1 - collision at intersection — 96B & Coddington Rd. ENCLOSURE (1) TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA fTWr ITHACA, NEW YORK 1050 11, 1989 Mr. Richard Siitfcerg %-; Regional Director Region 3 . ^ New York State Department of Transportation 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13203 Dear Mr. Simberg: Enclosed for your information are three letters addressed to the Mayor of Ithaca from the Tcwn of Ithaca, I hope you have the opportunity to read these prior to your visit to Ithaca on april X 7« Very truly yours, Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js encs. T©WN 0¥ ITMACA, 126 EAST SENECA SntOT nHACA, NEW YORK 14a50 March 27, 1989 Hon. John C. Gutenberger, Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor Gutenberger; As the Cannon Council vote on the Route 96 alternatives approaches, it is crucial for the City to clearly understand the position of the Ttown of Ithaca in this matter. Your decision is of vital irtportance to the Town of Ithaca since much of the inpact of the project will be in the Town. We want Council to vote in favor of one of the new Route 96 highways in the Town proposed by N.Y. State Department of Transportation. Ws have maintained this position for the past twenty years and have kept the corridor clear for this purpose. At the same time, as a legislative bo<^, we have maintained a neutral position on the matter of the overpass, even though over the years a majority of Board members have sipported it as individuals. Our reason for this neutrality canes out of re^ct for t^e autonony of the City with regard to the porticn of the project in the City. We, in return, expect the City to respect our wishes with regard to the part of the project in the Town. It is ironic that the Carmon Council decision on Route 96 will cone at a tiite when you are also considering the Trohforidge Master Plan for West Hill. The new Route 96 is an integral part of the highway network needed to diffuse the inevitable increase in traffic on West Hill. The decision to do the Master Plan was widely svpported by the members of Ctranon Council. The City has appropriately requested Town (and County) participation in the process of integrated ccrprehensive planning and in the location and construction of other collector streets to serve this area. We have carmitted considerable resources throi^ staff participation and the hiring of our own consultant to work with the City on these master plans. One pertinent element of our draft Caiprehensive Plan "Statement of Purpose, Philosophy, and Plannir^ Guidelims" that has received broad support fron our boards and nei^Jx^rhood associations is the following: ^ "The Town of Ithaca recognizes the City of Ithaca as the County Seat and the traditional center of corrmercial and business activities in Toirpkins County. The^ economic viability of the City is an inportant influence on the land use policies of the Town which sees the City as the central business and cultural node for the Ithaca area." HOTever, it is very unlikely that the Tbwn officials could justify at any time in the foreseeable future the comitment of local tax dollars to build an overpass and/or an additional bridge in the City following a decision by the City to reject a solution totally funded by the State and Federal governments, Corrprehensive planning is already working well on East Hill. The City and Town, along with the Ccunty and Cornell, have been working very hard to find Hon. Jchn C. Gutenberger -2-March 21, 1989 solutions to the deficient highway network in that area. We all, and particularly our constituents, have high hopes that a long overdue intermunicipal solution to this dilerma is within reach. Hie City will need the Itown's, the County's, and Cornell's sij^port to achieve this success just as much as we now depend on the City for sipport of our position on Itoute 96. At the same time, let's not overlook vhat is happening on South Hill. If we, through a lack of integrated conprehensive planning, are unable to plan for new highway capacity to relieve Aurora and Hudson Streets, we will within the next decade have a problem ccrrparable to that in the west end of the City. In this case, the Town of Ithaca, and perhaps the Town of Danby, again along with the County, will hold the key to the future of a major part of the City, These facts are iiTpor1:ant elements of the Route 96 decision which must be considered ty our colleagues on Common Council, particularly the alderpersons representing the South, Wfest, and East Hill areas, and Fall Cre^. Soire of these alderpersons perhaps may feel they have the luxury of votdng against a new west Hill highway because they enjoy the protection of their neighborhoods provided by Route 13. Vfe hope Ihey will recognize how it wuld be if for some reason Route 13 were permanently severed just west of the bridge over Lake Street. Wfe need their support too. Let's not throw aw^ a key piece of the puzzle \hen, for the first time in a generation or more, we have everyone ready and willing to work together on the same. County-size puzzle! Very truly yours, Die Tcwn Board of the Town of Itl^ca Robert Bartholf Noel Desch David Klein Sh irley' Raf f efi^pergi .a.ilii l lililiiLuUUl) Patricia Loary- A 4, TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SB^ECA STRHT ITHACA, NEW YORK APR 3 " i4«50 March 28.1989. Hon. John C. Gutenberger, Mayor Common Council Susan Blumenthal, Chair Planning and Development Board City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Sl Ithaca, NT 14850 Dear Maytx^ Gutenberger, Susan Blumenthal. and Council and Board Members: You have today received a letter signed by Town of Ithaca Supervisor Noel Desch and four other members of the Town Board indicating their support for a "new Rl 96 highway" in the Town; in other words, alternative B or C. Two of us on the Town Board declined to sign the letter, and are writing to express our reasons — and to underscore the point that the Ithaca Town Board, like the City's Common Council. Planning and Development Board, and the public at large, is divided on the issue of Rt. 96. We note, first, that the letter was presented to the Town Board yesterday at a special noon meeting called for another reason; the letter was not even an agenda item. The letter was discuss^ by the Board iot perhaps 15 minutes, the first time that the Board had considered the question of Rt 96, as a Board, in recent memory. Two of the signers were not present for the discussion. the contents of the letter been put to a form^ vote at the meeting, the item would have failed. In its resolution of December 20,1988, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board called for "iron-clad assurances" from the Town for "other planning and road use measures to be put into effect to accommodate City ccxicems" as a pre-condition for recommending alternative B; the resolution further states that without such assurances, alternative A, option 2 would be preferable. The concerns of that resolution are echoed in a later memo from Chairperson Blumenthal dated Jan. 11,1989, in which she cites the need for "major mitigating measures" including "land-use controls," "transportation improvements such as a West Hill bypass," and "preservation of open space wi West Hill, and other intermunicipal efforts" as essential if alternative B is chosen. The Mar. 27 letter from the Town makes "iron-clad assurances" of none of these. While cooperation between City and Town for integrated comprehensive planning is a general goal we can all agree on, it is unrealistic for the City to expect a commitment more specific than that from the Town. It is uru-ealistic for the City to assume that any particular land-use action by the Town in the future will be done with the City's interests in mind. And it would be unfortunate for the City to make such a far-reaching decision as Rt 96 based on such a hope. The letter you recently received gives little reason to hope for accommodation at all: it is notable in its vaguerwss regarding any of the particular issues of concern to the City relating to Rt 96 and the West Hill area, dwelling instead on East and South Hill matters. It is our assessment that the orientation of the Town's current leadership, moreover, would promote development outside the City to the west and south in a way that could well diminish the city's influence as a commercial center. The Mar. 27 letter's stated endorsement of the City as the hub of commercial activity in the region is, to us, completely at variance with the letter's endorsement of a new highway. We believe that a new highway will almost certainly encourage the sprawling commercial and high-erul residential development that has accompanied highways in communities across the country. . We believe that plan A is the only one that will alleviate traffic congestion at the Octopus and presove the aesthetic character of the greater Ithaca area. Plan A is also vital if we are to maintain the economic integrity of our community — of the people who live in the city, town and county. On this issue we suggest that you note the positions of the various parties in the Rt 96 debate, and consider not only the arguments but who is making the arguments. It was recently pointed out in one of the letters to the Journal that Ithaca's "most respected citizens" — the pillars of the community - favor alternative C. Indeed, some of the most influential, most comfortable among us * - 'x ^ — notably, the business interests, the hospital, the developers — favor a new highway, preferably a superhighway. The position of the most powerful economic force in the region — Cornell Universiy — is instructive on this poinL Cornell has taken the unusual step — so described by Senior Vice President Morley — of articulating a position on a local issue. The reason for Comell's involvement in this local issue, and its strong end(xsement of C, is indicted mid-way through Morley's statement, wherein he comes to the crux of how the project impacts Cornell: "...Ithaca and its educational, cultural, and business assets are increasingly drawing commuters from surrounding counties." Of course it is in Comell's best interests to keep the supply of cheap labor flowing freely from economically depressed surrounding counties. Council and Planning Board members may recall that during the last contract negotiations with the university's service workers, Cornell spokesman David Stewart confidenially told die Ithaca Journal that there were many more able bodies ready and willing to commute long distances to lake the place of any strikers. No need to pay competitive wages: there's always more of them where they came fiom. Busloads already make the trek; a new highway would facilitate that influx to an even greater extent. As the county's major employer, Cornell sets the wage scales for the rest of the county. And as long as the supply of labor from outlying counties continues unimpeded by the capacity of the roads, our own residents will suffer artificially depressed wages. So well does Cornell uiulerstand this supply/demand equation that it took the exceptional step of speaking out on the importance of a supcr-96. For the same reason that Cornell favors C, then, we oppose iL A new highway will jeopardize the already pH-ecarious economic position of our residents; in this sense, Rl 96 is truly a county-wide issue. We suspect that talk of an impending labor shortage motivates the support of similar large employers who also support C, who fear that they, loo, may have to offer more competitive wages (if wages are an indication, there is no labor shotage upon us: some local retailers are still offering $3.35-$4/hr. for full- time work). In closing, we applaud the City's inclination toward A as the most prudent alternative to Rt. 96, and hope that the long debate will soon come to a close with a solution that is to the greatest good for all our people. Very truly yours. Patricia Leary, Councilwomanl \J John Whilcomb, Councilman Town of Ithaca \ Town of Ithaca XT t FN t. May 8, 1989Noel Desch ^ Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Desch: On Friday, May 5th, the Town of Ithaca Highway Department paved Dove Drive with blacktop. Dove Drive is locat^ in the Hungerford Heights subdivision and surrounds the entire length of Pheasant Une which was not included in this project. We were informed by the Highway Department that the reason that Pheasant Lane was not included was because there was not enough money available, and because Pheasant Lane had just been resurfaced last year. We find these arguments for not paving Pheasant Lane unacceptable for the following reasons: 1. Pheasant Lane and Dove Drive-are part of the same neighborhood,.and bear much of the same traffic. Many of the families on Dove Drive use Pheasant Lane to get to and from their homes. The number of cars on Pheasant Lane during peak hours is equal to or exceeds the number of cars on Dove Drive over a similar length of roadway. 2. The density of houses on Pheasant Lane is higher than that of Dove Drive. There are nine houses on Pheasant Lane which is only 543 feet long. A similar length of road on Dove Drive contains anywhere from 4 to 8 houses. 3. The resurfacing of Pheasant Lane that took place last year consisted of a thin layer of oil and tar followed by an overlay of pebbles. Every time the snow plows clear the street during the winter, they spray millions of these pebbles deep into everyone's yard and driveway. Six out of the 9 houses on Pheasant Lane have paved driveways which are slowly being ruined by the presence of these pebbles. The road surface is also very unsafe for the children that ride on it with their bicycles, and has resulted in some serious accidents already. 4. We have been informed by the Highway Department that the only scheduled improvement for Pheasant Lane is another resurfacing in 1994. There are currently no plans to ever pave Pheasant Lane. We have serious objections to the fact that this street is being treated differently than similar streets in the same area. There is no difference in the amount of taxes that the residents of Pheasant Lane are paying, and we see no reason for treating the roads anv differently. ® ^ The equipment that was in the neighborhood on Friday to pave Dove Drive was brought here at considerable expense. To have included little more than 500 feet of Pheasant Lane in this project while the equipment was right here would have made considerable economic sense. It is our understanding that Eastern Heights Road will be paved this coming week. We ask that you give serious consideration to including Pheasant Lane in this schedule while the equipment is still relatively close by. Sincerely, Address ^^21® Address Cu ^<1 ikM^ 1 Pl^^ MEMORANDUM TO:File FRCM: Noel Desch RE: Parking Restrictions - County Hi^ways Town of Ithaca DATE: September 19, 1989 -^"■5 Met with Bill Moi^s and Ward Hungerford to discuss logistics of inplenenting parking restrictions on County Highways in the Tcwn of Ithaca. Back drop for discussion The Tcwn Board of Ithaca modified its Traffic Ordinance in February 1988 to restrict parking on certain sections of Coddington Road, Mitchell Street and Pleasant Grove Road in response to neighborhood corplaints about safety, etc. County Public Vforks staff have their cwn views on the area of need for such restrictions. It was agreed that Town Engineer Sally Olsen would meet with Ward Hungerford to jointly recaimend the ejctent of the restriction needed for each area. The County wDuld then proceed to administratively post the restricted area. The Tcwn would make available the balance of the signs and posts purchased for Coddington Road for installation by the County at the agreed upon locations. The Tcwn Board subsequently will consider modifying its Ordinance to be consistent with the County action. In the future, such requests will be discussed by the Engineering staff of Tcwn and County for a reccitinendation prior to Tcwn Board action. In the case of jointly agreed upon modest requests the County will pay for the signs and installation. ND/js cc: John Ozolins Sally Olsen Bill Mobbs