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
4
5
6
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

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%
Less
than
$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 Work
2010 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 bicycle
infrastructure
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.

IthacaBicycleTransportationBlueprint|60
APPENDIXA
No.StreetFromToLength
(ft.)
1997conditions1997proposedtreatment2015conditionsPlan
implemented?
1.Route13
Bikeway
MeadowSt.DeyCascadilla2,700Stripedshoulderon4-
laneroad
AddstencilsandsignsStripedshoulderon
4-laneroad,
northboundfrom
HancockSt,
southboundto
CascadillaSt.Bicycle
travelillegalnorthof
DeyStonlimited
accesshighway
EXISTING
WIDEPAVED
SHOULDER
lacksstencilsor
signs
FultonSt.CascadillaClinton4,000Existing14’wide
outsidetravellanes
(oneway)
Stripebikelane(10TL/4BL)or
hybridlanestencils
Existing14’wide
outsidetravellanes
(oneway)
No
MeadowSt.HancockClinton3,500Existing14’wide
outsidetravellanes
(oneway)
Stripebikelane(10TL/4BL)or
hybridlanestencils
Existing14’wide
outsidetravellanes
(oneway)
No
Meadow
St./ElmiraRd.
ClintonCityLimit8,30062’wide5lane
arterialwithtwo-way
leftturnlane
Stripebikelane
(5BL/10TL/10.5TL/11CL/10.5
TL/10TL/5BL)orrestripeto
create14’outsidelanewith
stencils
62’wide5lane
arterialwithtwo-way
leftturnlane
No
2.Route79
Bikeway
GreenSt.FultonMeadow50030.5’width-oneway
(7P/11TL/12.5TL)
Stripeoutsidelane10TL/3.5’
shoulderoraddhybridlane
stencilsorprovide
30.5’widthoneway
(7P/11TL/12.5TL)
No

7P/11TL/5BL/7.5Ponwestern
twothirdsofroadsegment
with13.5TL/12TL/5BLnear
MeadowSt.
GreenSt.MeadowCayuga2,50040’width-oneway-
twotravellaneswith
on-streetparkingon
bothsides.Stripein
center.
Stripebikelane
(7P/11TL/10TL/5BL/7P)or
relocatecenterlinestripeto
stencils
40’width-oneway-
twotravellaneswith
on-streetparkingon
bothsides.Stripein
center.
*Curbbump-outs
addedonbothsides
atPlainStandat
CornSt.
No
GreenSt.CayugaSeneca
Way
1,50040’width-oneway-
twotravellaneswith
on-streetparkingon
bothsides.Stripein
center.
Stripebikelane
stencils
Stripebikelane
(7P/11TL/10TL/5BL/
7BusLane).
*Widthmaybemore
westofSTiogaSt
andlesstoeast
YES
*needs
repainting
*blockedby
construction
SenecaSt.WestStateMeadow80031’width-oneway
(7P/11TL/13TL)
Stripeoutsidelane10TL/4BL
oraddhybridlanestencils
31’width-oneway
(7P/11TL/13TL)
No
SenecaSt.MeadowEastState4,00040’width-oneway-
twotravellaneswith
on-streetparkingon
bothsides.Stripein
center.
Stripebikelane
stencils
40’width-oneway-
twotravellaneswith
on-streetparkingon
bothsides.Stripein
center.
*Curbbump-outs
addedonbothsides
atPlainStandat
CornSt.Curbbump-
outaddedonnorth
sideatCayugaand
onsouthsideat
Tioga.
*Widthmaybemore
No

betweenCayuga&
Aurora.
*Widthmaybeless
onSenecaWay
betweenSenecaSt
andEStateSt
3.Route89
Bikeway
Taughannock
Blvd.
CityLimitAllanH.
Treman
State
Marine
Park
2,80011’travellaneswith
4’+/-striped
shoulders
Addstencils11’travellaneswith
4’+/-striped
shoulders
YES
*Connectsto4’
pavedshoulders
along10”lanes
outsideCity.
*Stencilledbike
lanesare4.5’
along10.5’
lanes.No-
parkingsigns
bothsides.
*Needs
repainting
Taughannock
Blvd.
AllanH.
Treman
State
Marine
Park
Bridge2,20011’travellaneswith
4’+/-striped
shoulders
AddstencilsStencilsaddedto
shoulderstocreate
bikelanes
YES
*Stencilledbike
lanesare5’.No-
parkingsigns
bothsides.Bike
lanesstopnorth
ofbridge.
*Needs
repainting
Taughannock
Blvd.
BridgeState2,30014’outsidetravel
lanes
Stripebikelanes(10TL/4BL)
14’outsidetravel
lanes;someparking
No
4.Route96
Bikeway

BuffaloSt.BridgeMeadow2,25014’outsidetravel
lanes
Stripebikelanes(10TL/4BL)
14’outsidetravel
lanes
No
*EXCEPT
bridgeover
FloodControl
Channelhas
stripedshoulders
5.DeyStreet
Bikeway
DeySt.Route13Hancock1,40036’wideresidential
streetwithodd-even
parking
Designate24-hourparkingon
onesideofstreet.Createbike
lanes(7P/5BL/10TL/4BL)or
14’outsidetravellaneswith
hybridstencils
36’wideresidential
streetwithodd-even
parking
No
TompkinsSt.DeyCayuga50030’wide(=/-)with
24-hourparkingin
west-boundlane
Eliminateparking.Stripebike
lanes(5BL/10TL/10TL/5BL)
orhybridstencils
30’wide(=/-)with
24-hourparkingin
west-boundlane
No
6.North-South
City
Bikeway
CayugaSt.CityLimitYork2,800
CayugaSt.YorkCascadilla3,00036’wideresidential
streetwithodd-even
parking
Designate24-hourparkingon
onesideofstreet.Createbike
lanes
(7P/5BL/10TL/10TL/4BL)or
14’outsidetravellaneswith
hybridstencils
BetweenFarmand
Lincoln~5’bikelane
eachside,7’parking
lane(24hr)outside
northboundbikelane.
FromLincolnnorth,
7’bikelanes&no
parkingbothsides
(newbanLincolnto
Falls,notnewnorth
ofFalls)taperingto
5’overbridgeand
north
YES,LONGER:
northofFarmSt
topastIthaca
HIghSchool

pastIthacaHigh
School,taperingto
~4’andendingjust
northoftenniscourts,
farfromCityLine.
Cascadilla
Ave.
CayugaTioga750Twonarrow,one-way
streetsalong
CascadillaCreek,
bothwestbound
Allowbicyclestorideagainst
trafficinsouthlane.Provide
signs,bikelanestripesor
hybridstripes
Twonarrow,one-
waystreetsalong
CascadillaCreek,
bothwestbound
NOTYET
?2016Cityto
designfixing
creekside
railingsas
prerequisiteto2-
wayBicycle
Boulevard
TiogaSt.CascadillaSeneca1,10036’widestreetwith
meteredparkingon
bothsidesofstreet
(exceptinfrontof
postofficeandcity
garage)
Providehybridlanestencilin
bothdirectionsalongright
edgeoftravellane,justleftof
parkinglane
36’widestreetwith
meteredparkingon
bothsidesofstreet
(exceptinfrontof
postofficeandcity
garage)
NOTYET
*BuffalotoFarm
toberebuilt
2016.Bicycle
BoulevardPlan
continuessouth
ofFarmto
Seneca
CayugaSt.GreenTitus1,10036’to40’widestreet
withmeteredparking
onbothsidesofstreet
parkinglane.Consider
eliminationofmeteredparking
oneastsideofstreetbetween
ClintonandTitus
36’to40’widestreet
withmeteredparking
onbothsidesofstreet
No
NorthTitus
St.
CayugaPlain1,50036’widestreet,2
hourparkingonnorth
sideofstreetwith24-
hourparkingonsouth
side
parkinglane.Consider
eliminationofparkingon
southsideofstreet
36’widestreet,2
hourparkingonnorth
sideofstreetwith24-
hourparkingonsouth
side
No

Ithaca Bicycle Transportation Blueprint 12-19-2015

Ithaca Bicycle Transportation Blueprint 12-19-2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Ithaca Bicycle Transportation Blueprint 12-19-2015

Similar to Ithaca Bicycle Transportation Blueprint 12-19-2015 (20)

Ithaca Bicycle Transportation Blueprint 12-19-2015