Guide

Transportation Issue Assessment and Best Practices Guide
Town of Lansing, New York
Cornell Design Connect
Fall 2014

Prepared By
Mike Catsos
Hien Dinh
Miriam Zaki
Zhiyin Pan
Adam Bronfin
Eileen Munsch
Geslin George
Kieran Micka-Maloy

Acknowledgements
Town Board Member Ruth Hopkins
Town Planner Mike Long
Town Clerk Debbie Crandall
Planning Board Member Al Fiorelle
Planning Board Member Rick Prybyl
Town of Lansing Planning Board
Lansing Town Council
Lansing Comprehensive Plan Update Committee
Special thanks to:
Fernando de Aragon and Tom Mank of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
About Design Connect
Design Connect is a collaborative, student-run, multidisciplinary planning and design orga-
nization at Cornell University. Operating in cities and towns across Central New York, De-
sign Connect applies community-based, democratic, and sustainable principles to a variety of
planning and design problems in local communities.

Table of Contents
Project Background 5
Process Summary 6
Baseline Conditions 10
Traffic, Congestion, and Safety 13
Streetscapes 18
Regional Connections 24
Alternative Transportation 27
Land Use and Density 31
Recent Trends and Short-Term Outlook 34
Traffic, Congestion, and Safety 37
Alternative Transportation 40
Land Use and Density 42
Town Center 44
Long-Term Outlook 46
Interpreting Our Recommendations 51
Recommendations Matrix 56

Executive Summary
This report is based on a student research effort (Design Connect) to identify and address the
planning impact and implications of new development in the Town of Lansing, New York.
The methodology employed in this research include looking at the municipal comprehensive plan,
zoning and regulation codes and other related transportation literature for the Town of Lansing. Field
research was used to identify and document transportation related issues which arose during the
peak hours of the day. Additionally, the research benefited from the survey on a number of planning
and transportation related issues, conducted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan update process.
The main issues identified can be grouped under six main categories; accidents and traffic safety,
bicycle and pedestrian issues, transit service and usage, regional commuting patterns, streetscape
design, zoning and land use. To help identify appropriate intervention, further information was
obtained from the State and Federal government agencies, national transportation advocacy groups,
and university research projects.
The research identified broad themes based on the issues, addresses the baseline conditions of the
town and explores short and long term outlook based on different forces exerting on the community.
Based on these baseline conditions, outreach and research, the report highlights best practices for
transportation issues in rural communities and identifies locations where interventions might be
deployed in the Town of Lansing. These best practices include information on how to finance
improvements to the transportation system, along with reflections on how changes made to the town
policy and planning procedure could generate positive changes in the community transportation
landscape.
The three recommendations being proposed in this report include:
1. Town wide expanded design guidelines and site improvement requirements such as smaller block
lengths, smaller setbacks, detailed standards for site layout and building configuration, pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure and sustainable landscape requirements to name a few.
2. Transit-oriented development overlay zone in the town center and other major commuting corridors
in the Town of Lansing, to create new development possibilities and shift population centers closer to
quick and easy transportation access, thereby reducing dependency on single-passenger auto trips.
3. Implementing an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance would help to moderate the speed of new
development in the Town so that infrastructure and public services like transportation can
accommodate the new users without producing negative impacts.

5
Project Background
Councilperson Hopkins approached Design Connect with concerns about the rapid pace of
development in Lansing and questions about the quality-of-life impacts that housing cur-
rently in the development pipeline might have on the community. As part of an ongoing com-
prehensive plan update process, the town commissioned a resident survey; the results of the
survey indicate that residents share similar concerns about the town’s wild and agricultural
heritage, congestion, traffic, municipal spending, affordability, and sense of place.
The ongoing comp plan update, together with the conversation surrounding 15 to 20 pro-
posed suburban residential housing projects, offers a chance to bring community desires into
alignment with Lansing’s planning, zoning, and urban design strategies for the coming years.
Thetownwouldliketoaccomplishathoroughreviewofbestpracticesforguardingagainstthe
negative impacts of new development, with a specific focus on the transportation issues that
cause concern for local residents. On the basis of conversations with Lansing’s Town Board,
Planning Board, and Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, along with feedback from lo-
cal residents, the Design Connect Lansing team developed this guide using a best-practices
framework to respond to many of the concerns that were raised by community members.
Community History
Lansing, New York was within the territory of the Native American Cayuga Tribe. The history
of European settlement in the area dates back to the late 1700s when settlers arrived from
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, and other areas of New York. In 1760, the area was
divided into lots of land, the Central New York Military Tract, in order to reimburse Revolu-
tionary War soldiers. A lack of Native Americans, due to General Sullivan’s expedition in 1779,
and the fertile land in Western New York, attracted early settlers to the area. In 1817 the act
that created Tompkins County resulted in the formation of the Town of Lansing, setting it
apart from the Town of Milton which it had previously been a part of. Historical farmers were
served by grist mills, saw mills, clothing mills, blacksmith shops and tanneries operated by
other settlers.
Lansing is located on the eastern shore of Cayuga Lake and has an area of slightly more than
60 square miles. According to the 2010 census, the combined population of the Village and
Town of Lansing is 11,033, with some 8,000 of those residents residing in the Town. Nearly
half of the community works in educational services in nearby Tompkins County Community
College, Ithaca College and Cornell University. Lansing is a rural community; about one third
of the town’s land area is farmed on by forty operating farm businesses.

6
Process Summary
Research
To better understand Lansing’s transportation issues and the context that surrounds them,
the team consulted a variety of sources during an extensive research phase.
Information on the Town’s current zoning codes, regulations, and recent development activ-
ity was gathered. The team also looked in depth into the community’s comprehensive plan
and documents prepared by the current Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, along with
survey results prepared for the comp plan update summarizing resident sentiments about a
variety of planning issues. Both the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council and the
Tompkins County Planning Department have prepared studies in the past that explore trans-
portation issues in our study area. In addition, the team gathered information from Tompkins
Consolidated Area Transit and local transportation advocacy groups.
Two separate tours of the study area were conducted during peak morning and evening traf-
fic hours to observe and document a range of transportation conditions. Lastly, to identify
appropriate interventions that might be applied in the community, the group sought infor-
mation from State and Federal government agency sources, national transportation advoca-
cy groups and think tanks, and university research projects. Issues explored included traffic
counts, accidents and traffic safety, bicycle and pedestrian issues, transit service and usage,
regional commuting patterns, streetscape design, zoning, and land use.

7
Outreach
The team’s outreach process was developed in response to the broad variety of transporta-
tion issues we hoped to address. While working with community leaders to refine the project
scope during early phases, the team conducted on-site brainstorming meetings and phone
interviews with members of the Town Council, the Planning Board, and Lansing’s Town Plan-
ner. As the scope narrowed and major thematic issues began to emerge, representatives of
the team distributed project information and team contact info at meetings of the Planning
Board and Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, which generated interest in the project
and feedback about current transportation issues and potential interventions. Informal con-
versations with community leaders and local residents following those meetings also proved
informative. Additionally, the team benefited from the fact that a town-wide survey on a
number of transportation and planning-related issues had recently been conducted as a part
of the comprehensive plan update process. While Lansing is a large community and some
residents were difficult to reach, long-form survey responses and town records provided to
the group served as an excellent resource in gauging community sentiment on a variety of
relevant topics.
The team delivering a project update to the Planning Board.

8
Analysis Framework
Distilling a wide range of community concerns and issues into a coherent set of themes posed
an early challenge for the group. The range of transportation system challenges identified by
community contacts, taken together with the large geographic extent of the proposed study
area, made settling on a framework difficult. Eventually, an analytical framework emerged
that was designed to approach many different issues through a broad, holistic look at trans-
portation and related land use issues in the southernmost portion of the community.
The team opted to explore several broad transportation themes: traffic volumes and asso-
ciated effects, alternative transportation, regional connections, streetscape design, and land
use. Through this lens, the team chose to assess baseline conditions in the town and explore
potential short- and long-term changes to the community’s transportation system as dif-
ferent forces exert influence over time. Finally, using information gathered during research,
outreach, and the baseline conditions assessment, the team elected to highlight best practic-
es for transportation issues in rural communities and identify locations where interventions
might be deployed in the Town of Lansing. The guide to best practices was to include infor-
mation on how to finance improvements to the town’s transportation system, along with
reflections on how changes to town policy and planning procedure could generate positive
changes in the community transportation landscape.

9
The Study Area is bounded approximately by the Village of Lansing Line to the
south, the Lansing Town Center to the north, Cayuga Lake to the wast, and the
town line to the east.

10
Baseline Conditions
The Town of Lansing’s existing transportation network consists largely of roads with a vari-
ety of classifications and purposes. Two major north-south roads, Route 34 and Triphammer
Road, run the length of the study area, channeling traffic to and from Ithaca and the commer-
cial areas of the Village of Lansing. These two roads are classified by local agencies as Urban
Minor Arterials. Another north-south road located further east, Warren Road, moves traffic
through industrial areas of the community and past the airport, and is classified as an Urban
Collector Street. Asbury Road, which connects the three major north-south routes between
the Village line and the town center, shares this classification. Other streets in the commu-
nity are classified as Urban Local Roads, reflecting their status as low volume streets serv-
ing denser, suburbanized neighborhoods. Local planning agencies have also identified Route
34 and Triphammer road as major freight corridors, thanks to the presence of several major
freight generators nearby.
Surveys conducted to inform the Town of Lansing’s comprehensive plan update, along with
interviews of local residents, reveal a number of different perceived problems with the Town’s
road network and overall transportation system. While most streets in the study area are
effective at moving vehicle traffic swiftly through the community, this convenience has come
partly at the expense of other modes. Residents cited high traffic speeds, high traffic volumes,
and truck traffic as major disincentives for pedestrians and bicyclists. Noting the absence of
shoulders in much of the town, the scarcity of signaled intersections and street lighting, and
the few designated pedestrian crossing areas, many residents shared memories of recent
accidents. They made clear that perceptions of danger limit interest in other modes and can
make the experience of driving uncomfortable. Other issues, such as the absence of turn
lanes and the congestion along certain arterial roads, contributed to perceptions that some
form of intervention could be required. Route 34, the town center area, Triphammer Road,
Waterwagon Road, Hillcrest Road, and Warren Road were frequently mentioned as unsafe or
problematic during these conversations.

11
A map from the Tompkins County Planning Office showing jurisdition over roads in the
Town of Lansing. The study area is located in the lower right hand quadrant of the map.

12
Consistent with these perspectives, records kept by the Lansing Town Clerk’s Office reveal
a long history of neighborhood requests for transportation interventions in the study area.
Along Route 34, improvements have been requested at intersections with Eastlake Road,
Waterwagon Road, and E. Shore Circle, which fall along a high-speed curve. One 2011 peti-
tion with nearly 100 signatures from neighbors requested new signage, flashing lights, lower
speed limits, more enforcement, lighting, and improved sight lines, indicating a strong degree
of neighborhood support for focusing on safety. In this instance, the state approved a flashing
beacon on the southbound portion of Route 34 approaching the intersection with Waterwag-
on Road. Speed limits have also been lowered along Route 34 between Eastlake and 34B, but
many of the issues that caused neighbors concern have not been resolved.
Similar requests for lower speed limits, traffic signals, lighting, enforcement, and other traffic
pattern changes have been made for Waterwagon Road, Asbury Road, Triphammer Road,
and Warren Road, with a special focus on sensitive intersections along these corridors in-
cluding Waterwagon / Triphammer, Asbury / Triphammer, and Warren / Asbury. Residents of
neighborhoods alongside Asbury and Triphammer Roads have supported their requests with
petitions and letters to local officials. While some of these requests have resulted in lowered
speed limits, others have been rejected.
Major accidents in the study area along the Triphammer corridor in 2013 and 2014, which
required victims to be airlifted to regional hospitals, have kept Lansing’s transportation safety
issues alive in both local news and the public consciousness. Coupled with a series of recent
high-profile articles about new growth, it is expected that community residents in the study
area will remain invested in town-wide conversations on transportation system develop-
ments related to new growth and change.

13
Traffic Volumes
Average traffic counts over a 24-hour period along all major roads through the
study area from the New York State Department of Transportation.

14
Road Average Daily Traffic (2012)
Route 34 7942
Triphammer Road at Village Line 6867
Warren Road 4805
Asbury Road 1071
Route 34B at Route 34 7648
Route 34B at Armstrong Road 5087
Route 34 at Town Center 7521
Recent traffic counts from the Town of Lansing indicate that many of the major roads within
the study area have experienced double-digit percentage increases in traffic volume over the
past decades. The most significant traffic volumes were recorded at the intersection of Route
34 and Route 34B in the town center, along the southermost reaches of Triphammer Road,
and along the major corridor of Route 34 near Ithaca.
While traffic counts provide only a limited view into the traffic issues, and sometimes con-
tain idiosyncrasies, a macro-level assessment of changing traffic volumes in the community
supports the assertion that changes in the community are fueling changes in road usage pat-
terns and increases in overall traffic generation.
Summary table of 2012 average daily traffic along major road segments.

15
Congestion
Several areas in the community have been identified as particularly congested. Particularly,
the segment of Route 34B immediately west of the town center was identified by both local
residents and assessments carried out by other agencies as an area of particular concern.
Residents mentioned that traffic flowing southward through the community from the school
area creates dangerous and congested conditions daily for much of the afternoon and eve-
ning. Another area identified as congested was a segment of Warren Road immediately north
of the Village of Lansing line. In both of these areas, traffic volumes exceed the acceptable
bounds of road capacity. While congestion is experienced by residents one way and defined
by transportation planners another, conversations with locals indicated that smaller-scale
pockets of congestion and crowding at intersections exist elsewhere in the community as
well.
Congestion data from the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council indi-
cates significant PM congestion on Route 34B and Warren Road in Lansing

16
Traffic Safety
A study of traffic accidents across Tompkins County from 2000 to 2010 conducted by the
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council largely confirms many of the perceptions of
local residents regarding road safety. Intersections with high crash rates are concentrated al-
most entirely along Triphammer Road and Route 34, where high-speed collector roads meet
neighborhood feeder streets. The road segments where accidents occur most frequently fall
along Route 34, Hillcrest Road, Triphammer Terrace, and along other major North-South car-
rier roads in the northern portion of the town.
The study area hosts a high concentraion of high crash rate intersections. ITCTC
identified multipe road segments and intersections with significant safety issues,
including those pictured here with a minimum of more than 1 crash per year.

17
A look into the severity of the accidents that occurred during that time frame reveals a similar
picture. High-severity crash intersections are concentrated even more noticeably in the town
center and along Triphammer Road leading southward at intersections with Hillcrest Road,
Waterwagon Road, and Asbury Road. The segment of Route 34 that passes through the study
area south of the town center also plays host to a large number of high-severity accidents.
While roads and intersections in Lansing do not rank among the highest in the County for ac-
cidents between vehicles and bikes or pedestrians, this lower frequency of incidents may be
attributable to the low-density suburban character of the study area, which likely contributes
to lower rates of walking and biking overall. Notably, conflict between vehicles and deer is
strongly evident in accident patterns, with most collisions occurring along Triphammer Road
and Route 34.
High-severity crashes are also a common occurence.

18
Streetscape Conditions Matrix
Warren
Road
Triphammer
Road
East Shore Route 34B Asbury
Road
Waterwagon
Road
Hillcrest
Road
Town
Center
Road Type County County State State County Local Local County/
State
Lanes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Shoulder
Presence
and Condi-
tion
Yes, Wide Yes, Mod-
erate
Yes, Wide Varies No Shoulder No Shoulder Yes, Narrow
and Un-
paved
Yes,
Narrow
Right Turn
Lanes
Yes None None Yes None None None Yes
Sidewalks None None None None None None None None
Lighting None None None None None None None Limited
Runoff
Manage-
ment
Grading;
mix of soft
and hard
infrastruc-
ture
Grading and
culverts
Grading Grading and
culverts
Grading and
culverts
Grading and
culverts
Grading,
dispersed
culverts and
drains
Grading,
dispersed
sewer
drains
Public Open
Space
None None Dispersed None None None Dispersed Dispersed
Pedestrian
Amenities
None None None None None None None Trash cans
near ath-
letic fields
Streetscape Views
Hillcrest Road

19
East Shore Drive (Route 34)
Triphammer Road

22
Asbury Road
Waterwagon Road

23
Streetscape Conditions
Streetscapes in Lansing are largely rural in nature. Most roads have two lanes, no sidewalks,
and minimal pedestrian amenities such as lighting. The widths of shoulders vary - sever-
al roads have only narrow gravel shoulders, while others are as wide as three or four feet.
Stormwater runoff grading on the side of the road varies in steepness and drops sharply in
some areas. Most local roads wind smoothly around the topography of the area. The low
density of housing allows for an abundance of natural vegetation, primarily deciduous and
coniferous trees, along the sides of the roads.
Community perspectives on streetscape changes are varied. According to information gath-
ered from the pre-comp plan update Community Survey, 58.04% of surveyed residents would
like to see tax dollars used for sidewalks and 69.70% are willing to spend tax dollars on bike
paths/lanes on roads. After a review of open ended survey responses, a majority cited the
lack of sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks as the main contributing factor to lack of road
safety. Other factors include lack of lighting, sharp drop offs, and lack of bike and pedestrian
pathways. Main areas of concern include East Shore Drive, Triphammer Road and Asbury
Road. Although many people indicated a desire for pedestrian walkways, some felt that the
lack of sidewalks contributed to the rural character of the area.

24
Regional Connections and Commuting Patterns
The Town of Lansing is connected to greater Ithaca and the Central New York region by arteri-
als like Route 34 (Auburn Road/East Shore Drive), Route 13, Route 34B (Peruville Road/Ridge
Road), and Triphammer Road. The most important regional connections are those that lead
to Ithaca, namely Route 13, East Shore Drive, and Triphammer Road. In addition, several TCAT
routes lead from Ithaca and Cornell University into Lansing, providing a means of alternative
transportation into and out of the town.
Major employment sectors in the Town of Lansing are Education, Health and Social Services
(1,549 employees), Manufacturing (405), Retail Trade (351), Finance, Insurance, Real Estate,
and Rental and Leasing (345). Many people commute to jobs outside of Lansing each day,
particularly those who work for Cornell University--a substantial percentage of the popula-
tion.
A chart of the Town’s employment distribution shows a large number of work-
ers in education-related fields, manufacturing, and retail - all industries which
are concentrated outside of the community.

25
Between 2000 and 2010, the labor force in the Town of Lansing (outside of the Village) in-
creased by 5.9% from 3,922 to 4,155. During the same time frame, the labor force in the
Village of Lansing increased by 18.6%, from 1,663 to 1,972. Comparatively, Tompkins County
saw its labor force increase by only 4.3% during those years, from 51,187 to 53,371. Lansing,
particularly the Village of Lansing, has thus grown at a higher rate than the rest of Tompkins
County in recent times. Much of that increase is workers drawn to jobs in other parts of the
county.
Lansing’s employment distribution reflects the high number of professionals commuting to
Cornell and other major employers in Ithaca. In-commuting to Tompkins County from Cayuga
County, immediately to the north of Lansing, has increased steadily in recent years.
In keeping with patterns identified in Lansing’s road hierarchy, sources indicate that a sig-
nificant number of the study area’s residents commute southward along major north-south
corridors into the City and Town of Ithaca. Many are employed by the county’s major educa-
tional institutions, Cornell University and Ithaca College, with others employed in business
and industrial parks located immediately outside the town’s southernmost boundaries.
Commuting Mode Split
In terms of commuting modes, the Town of Lansing is much more auto-oriented than Tomp-
kins County as a whole, with 72% of people driving to work alone and another 13% of people
carpooling to work. Mode split in the Village of Lansing is much closer to Tompkins County
as a whole, with 56% of people driving to work alone and 17% carpooling. Walking to work, in
both the Village and the Town of Lansing (with 1% and 2% mode share respectively), is very
rare in comparison to Tompkins County as a whole, where walking to work has 17% mode
share. Residents of the Town of Lansing take the bus to work at approximately the same rate
as people of Tompkins County as a whole (7%), but people in the Village take the bus in much
greater numbers, at 20% mode share. Cycling is the least chosen way to work, with mode
shares of 0%, 1% and 2% in Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing and Tompkins County respec-
tively.

26
Charts of commuting modes indicate that the rate of commuters using alterna-
tives to single-occupancy autos lags far behind regional averages.

27
Alternative Transportation
Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure
Infrastructure intended solely for use by pedestrians and cyclists is relatively rare in the Town
of Lansing. Major roads through the community including East Shore Drive, Ridge Road, War-
ren Road and Auburn Road have shoulders available for pedestrians and bikes, yet many oth-
er streets lack both space and infrastructure for pedestrians or bikers. Visibility around high
speed curves is limited on roads such as Route 34, and other streets such as Hillcrest Rd
present visibility problems as they rise up steeper hills, creating safety risks for pedestrians
and bicycles attempting to share road space. Narrow and winding country roads with no
shoulders carry frequent 18-wheeler traffic from the airport-area industrial park, salt mine,
and other industrial facilities. Because some roads lack tonnage limits, pedestrians and bi-
cyclists are drawn into conflict with larger, dangerous vehicles on top of regular automobile
traffic.
There are also some intersections that pose specific dangers for pedestrians and bikers. The
town center intersections of Triphammer Road / 34 and 34B / RT34, in particular, lack any
form of safety measures, and high-speed right-hand turns passing outside of the travel lane
and through bicycle and pedestrian space are very common. This practice is common else-
where in the town, both for turning and for passing of turning vehicles, which leaves pedes-
trians and bikers along shoulders exposed to high speed traffic.

28
Transit Service
TCAT busses serve the suburban neighborhoods within the study area. Two regular routes,
Route 36 and 37, pass through between northern portions of Lansing and Ithaca. Route 36
follows the path of East Shore Drive and serves a park-and-ride lot in the town center area.
Route 37 follows Warren Road, Asbury Road, and Triphammer Road before continuing north.
One additional weekend-only trip, Route 77, also follows Warren Road, but terminates before
reaching the town center. Little formal infrastructure exists for these bus lines, but bus policy
allows pickups for flag-stop riders throughout Lansing. While in practice this makes for an
easier ride, it can make identifying origin points of riders more difficult.
Current service schedules mean that Lansing is currently served by bus during the morning
and evening rush hours only. The absence of a regularly-available bus line has been identified
as an obstacle for users who would like to rely more on the bus as a substitute for a personal
vehicle. However, low ridership patterns across the community, especially when compared to
neighboring communities of similar size, indicate that service frequency is unlikely to increase
anytime soon. The community’s low density nature and other factors also contribute to a
history of poor ridership.
Current TCAT bus routes through the study area.

29
Despite relatively high population densities, maps of TCAT ridership reveal that
the Town rates lower than other Tompkins County communities in transit rid-
ership.

30
Community Perspectives on Alternative Transportation
According to open-ended survey conducted in advance of the town’s comprehensive plan
update, residents feel some degree of dissatisfaction about alternative transportation in the
community. Concerns surrounded a number of different issues, including lack of sidewalks,
crosswalks, crossing lights, crossing signs and bike lanes, traffic lights not long enough for
pedestrians to get across, narrow shoulders, high speed limits, heavy truck traffic, poor visi-
bility at night and absent lighting, lack of turning lanes along some roads, lack of road safety
education for pedestrians and drivers, inadequate road maintenance for bikes and pedestri-
ans terms of clearing snow and grass, lack of speed monitoring on roads, poor road condi-
tions for the elderly, and blind spot on certain corners.
Because of the way the survey questions were formulated, most responses related to the
state of the community’s physical infrastructure for alternative modes. Fewer responses
were recorded relating to commuting, mode choice, and community policy towards transit.
It is also worth noting that many survey respondents expressed satisfaction with the current
state of the community’s alternative transportation system, and were skeptical that the ben-
efits of investment in new infrastructure would have a positive impact for taxpayers in the
northernmost rural areas of the town.

31
Land Use and Density
The Town of Lansing’s current zoning map.

32
The Town of Lansing is currently divided into 8 distinct land control districts. The districts are
Rural Agricultural, Lakeshore, Residential Low Density, Residential Moderate Density, Res-
idential Mixed-Use, Commercial Mixed-Use, General Commercial, and Industrial/Research.
The vast majority of northern portions of the Town, outside of the study area, is zoned Rural
Agricultural. The RA district is intended to support and preserve farming activities that have
taken place within the community for centuries, although small scale residential development
is allowed in this area. Low and Moderate Density Residential zoning, along with Lakeshore
zoning, can be found along Route 34B in the area of the Lansing Schools, reflecting the higher
development intensity in this area.
Land cover within the study area varies, although significant areas are occupied
by residential development, forestlands, and agricultural lands.

33
Within the study area, the zoning picture is somewhat more complicated. The study area
is punctuated by a Commercial Mixed Use zone covering the town center area, intended to
foster the development of a discernable town center with varied commercial and residential
development forms. From the town center and the Village of Lansing line, a corridor of Mod-
erate Density Residential spans the approximate area between Route 34 and Triphammer
Road, two of the Town’s busiest travel corridors. West of Route 34 on the Lakefront and east
of Triphammer Road are areas of Low Density Residential. A large Industrial/Research area
covers lands immediately to the north of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport which include
light manufacturing and offices. Finally, Residential Mixed Use districts intended to accom-
modate denser growth as infrastructure take shape are located to the east and north of the
town center.
The densest single family residential development allowed under the current zoning code is
possible in the Moderate Density Residential Zone, with a minimum lot size of 20000 square
feet. In the Moderate Density Residential Zones and Mixed Use Commercial Zones, multi-
unit residential can be developed at an intensity of up to 8000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. In
Low Density Residential zones, minimum lot size is 40000 sq. ft., or nearly one full acre. With
the exception of the Rural Agricultural Zone, townwide height limits cap buildings at 35ft. All
residential zones feature mandatory minimum front-facing setbacks of at least 30 ft, and
minimum open space requirements on lots range from 85% to 20% in the densest commercial
districts.
The Town currently mandates that one- and two- family residential units include a minimum
of two off-street parking spaces. Residential developments with 3 or more units require 1.5
parking spaces per dwelling unit. Parking requirements for commercial, industrial, and civic
uses vary significantly with proposed use.
Despite residential zoning, large tracts of agricultural, inactive agricultural, and wooded land
remain intact along the southern and eastern edges of the town within the study area. Resi-
dential development has been most intensive in the area between Triphammer Road, Warren
Road, and Asbury Road. On the fringes of undeveloped lands in the study area, division of land
into fragmented single home lots along major street edges is a common practice.

34
Recent Trends and Short-Term Outlook
New Development
As of early 2014, nearly 20 unique residential development projects were in different phases
of Lansing’s development pipeline. The housing units expected to come into existence through
these proposed projects number in the hundreds. While not all of the development proposals
may come to pass, the projects currently in the pipeline offer a sense of what Lansing’s near-
term development future may look like. Distributed across the study area, they serve as a
reasonable approximation of locations in which growth might be expected to appear and the
overall number of units which might be added to the Town’s housing stock on a shorter time
horizon.
By entering the location and expected number of new units for each development into trans-
portation models, it is possible to estimate how traffic volumes and flows might change in
the community over the coming years. Using data supplied by the Design Connect team, the
Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council prepared models estimating how traffic vol-
umes might change on the Town of Lansing’s major roads as the currently-proposed devel-
opments take shape.

35
This graphic shows the location and scale of eighteen recently-proposed devel-
opments. While not all of these developments may eventually built, their size
and distribution approximates the development pattern and intensity that is
currently allowed under Lansing’s zoning code.

36
Proposed Development Name Proposed Number of Units
Under Review as of May 2014
Lake Forest Circle 17
Cayuga Farms Townhomes 102
Whispering Pines Phase VI 30
East Shore (Novalane) 7
Lake View 17
Sun Path 3
Plated and Approved as of May 2014
Cayuga Way 12
Cottonwood 21
Pond Circle 8-10
Woodland Park 73
Lansing Commons 15
Village Solars / Circle Phase I 188
Under Discussion as of May 2014
Village Solars / Circle Phase II 120
Green Square 60
NRP 80
Cornerstone 90
Calamar 125
The status of developments and approximate expected number of units
to be developed.

37
Traffic Modeling Results
Road Existing Peak Hour Count New Development Peak Hour Count Percent Change
Route 34 at East Shore Circle 967 1010 4%
Route 34 at Town Center 981 927 -5%
Triphammer at Waterwagon 1007 1358 35%
Triphammer at Sharon Drive 972 984 1%
Triphammer at Village Line 1078 1118 4%
Hillcrest Road 176 192 9%
Asbury at Armstrong Road 606 643 6%
Warren at Cherry Road 1053 1137 8%
Warren at Hillcrest Road 990 1128 14%
Route 34B at Triphammer Road 536 603 13%
Traffic counts can be expected to increase across the study area as new devel-
opment takes shape, with pressures concentrated on major north-south roads.
Traffic count changes at selected locations:

38
Road Existing VOC New Development VOC Net Change
Route 34 at Town Center .34 .38 .04
Triphammer at Waterwagon .57 .61 .04
Triphammer at Sharon Drive .42 .46 .04
Triphammer at Village Line .61 .60 -.01
Hillcrest Road .1 .11 .01
Asbury at Armstrong Road .45 .44 .01
Warren at Cherry Road .62 .76 .14
Warren at Hillcrest Road .55 .67 .12
Route 34B at Triphammer Road .21 .22 .01
Town Center .34 .48 .14
Traffic volumes will remain within road capacity limits in some areas, but threat-
en to exceed existing capacity in others. Warren Road and Route 34B in the
town center show particular vulnerability to this issue.
VOC changes at selected locations:

39
While some areas of the community are expected to experience no increase or only modest
increases in traffic volume, several areas are projected to experience traffic volume increases
nearing 10% during peak hours. Raw traffic volumes would increase the most along seg-
ments of Warren Road and in the Town Center area. There are limitations to modeling traffic
increases - this model assumes no changes in development patterns outside of the town,
and estimates vehicle usage on the basis of a variety of ever-changing factors. However, the
modeling results are useful in visualizing how broad trends in traffic volume and directional
flow may evolve as the town’s built landscape changes.
By comparing the expected raw increase in traffic volume for each road segment to the ca-
pacity of that road segment, we begin to develop a sense of where congestion will increas-
ingly become an issue of concern. Higher Volume-over-Capacity ratios indicate higher levels
of congestion and a decreasing overall level of service. A VOC of 1 indicates that a road seg-
ment is fully at capacity; VOC’s above 1 indicate that the road is above capacity, and VOC’s
approaching 1 indicate that the road is nearing it’s maximum capacity.
While many of Lansing’s roads are projected to have traffic volumes stay well within capacity,
several problem areas are also evident. Most notably, the town’s three major north-south
corridors (Route 34, Triphammer Road, and Warren Road) and Route 34B carry volumes that
are significantly higher than their capacity relative to other roads in the community, and the
southern segments of Warren Road are expected to experience negative changes in level of
service under this development scenario.
Beyond congestion, it is likely that increasing traffic volumes through sensitive intersections
and road segments could exacerbate the traffic safety issues that the community has already
identified. Increasing numbers of vehicles passing through intersections such as Warren /
Hillcrest, Waterwagon /34, Waterwagon / Triphammer, Asbury / Triphammer, and the Town
Center may contribute to an uptick in vehicle-to-vehicle conflict in areas that are already no-
table for high accident frequency and severity. Residents along the east-west roads that span
the town, including Hillcrest Rd, Waterwagon Rd, Asbury Rd, and Cherry Rd, may perceive
slight increases in the number of vehicles cutting through neighborhoods to reach other parts
of town, along with associated road noise and traffic speed impacts.

40
Recent Alternative Transportation Developments
Pedestrian and Bicycle
The Lansing Town Pathways Committee has spearheaded a recent push to connect residential
areas to the town center as a part of a complete network of paths, both sidewalks and trails,
to connect local schools, the town hall, Lansing Market, Myers Park, Salt Point, Ludlowville
park, and the RINK with one another. Plans developed by the committee and endorsed by
the town council express a need to connect neighboring communities with the paths as well.
While current pathways in the town center area are largely recreational, the community’s
paths are eventually intended to be useful for commuting, traveling to school, visiting neigh-
bors, and accessing services. Planning efforts have focused on the southern portion of the
town, where most intensive residential development has occurred in recent years.
Despite the recent surge in interest towards a path network, on-the-ground developments
have been few. The pathways committee has identified several steps to success in creating a
trail system. Those steps include:
• A formalized process to contact landowners of property with the potential for trail devel-
opment to link with existing trails or with unique natural areas and seek agreement for
property easements. The contact work could be done by volunteers, perhaps from the
Lansing Pathways Committee, with oversight from the Town Board. The Town Board, with
legal advice, would also oversee easements.
• Coordination with neighboring communities to link to their trail systems, such as those in
the Village of Lansing, the Town of Dryden and the Town of Ithaca.
• A Town policy for working with all developers to incorporate trails and open spaces in their
plans that link to existing trails or planned trails.
• Clear communications with specific volunteer and community groups to coordinate work
with the Town Parks and Recreation. Groups would include the Cayuga Bird Club, Boy and
Girl Scout Troops, Lansing Pathways Committee.
• A plan for costs and maintenance of trails through a capital improvements budget, use of
volunteer groups, grants from public and private funds.
Many local residents, particularly in the heavily agricultural areas of the community, are sup-
portive of the trailways concept but skeptical that the benefits may not reach all parts of the
community. Sustaining the push for new alternative transportation infrastructure, facilities,
and amenities in the near future may be contingent on the identification of an outside funding
source to support new investment.

41
Transit
If transit ridership is to become more viable in the community over the next several years,
a number of obstacles need to be overcome. Development and enhancement of park and
ride locales, improved communication tactics to raise awareness and improve passenger ex-
perience, and the addition of shelters and amenities at bus stops could raise the profile of
the transit system and attract more riders. However, recent development trends will likely
replicate many of the problems faced by existing neighborhoods - homes are too far-flung
from bus routes, trips are too infrequent, and no incentives exist to draw individuals out of
their cars. For this reason, the absence of a multi-modal transportation hub surrounded by
higher-density neighborhoods will continue to be a barrier to improved transit access and
ridership.
As community demographics change, the challenges posed by a lack of transportation alter-
natives will start to become more apparent. For example, more than 89% of respondents to
the town’s recent survey indicated that transportation improvements for the elderly and dis-
abled represent a good use of community tax dollars. In the same survey, 86% of respondents
felt that expansion of housing options for the elderly was a top priority, indicating that aging
in the community is a clear concern. Despite this interest, and a steady demographic shift
toward becoming an older community, mobility and accessible transportation lag far behind
what is necessary to provide a quality existence to non-driving seniors. Less than one percent
of respondents felt that Lansing distinguishes itself as a place to retire, perhaps because of
transportation barriers and the absence of local goods and services. While the aging are just
one example, short-term trends indicate that alternative transportation options may eventu-
ally be lacking for a variety of local groups.

42
Recent Land Use Trends and Impacts
A number of recent trends have shaped land use in the Town of Lansing. For one, the process
of updating the comprehensive plan will eventually contribute to a revision of the communi-
ty’s zoning codes. According to a November 2013 report by the Town of Lansing, the Agricul-
ture and Farmland Protection plan, one top priority is the protection of agriculture and farm-
land. Although a large share of residential development has occurred in South Lansing over
the past 15 years, the Town has observed encroachment into the agricultural and rural areas
of North Lansing. The town is concerned about the potential impacts of future development
on farms as well as suburban sprawl.
Over recent decades, residential development outside of the Village of Lansing grew at a rate
3 times faster than development within the village. (The area of the Town of Lansing out-
side of the Village is 41,835 acres.) Although the current policies and community support for
agriculture has created a favorable farming climate, residents have observed that this high
rate of development has had a negative impact on farming in many ways. The town has also
observed that rural sprawl results in a more expensive process in the delivery of services to
residents, such as water, sewage, well maintained roads, and lighting.
As a result of these concerns, the town is hoping to rezone much of the RA zoning district to
an agricultural zone, disallow uses least compatible with farming, and revise the definition of
agriculture in the zoning code. They hope to “encourage in-fill development in South Lansing
to reduce rural sprawl and the associated costs of infrastructure development,” and to ex-
plore opportunities and properties to fund and preserve the farmland.
The following are among the recommendations proposed by the Town of Lansing in order to
achieve their goals of farmland protection and reducing suburban sprawl, while allowing ad-
equate development for their growing population:
• Avoid sprawl by focusing and promoting development in areas where adequate infrastruc-
ture and services already exist or can be easily upgraded.
• Preserve and protect lands that contain steep slopes; federal, state or locally designated
wetlands; environmentally important areas (such as quality wildlife or plant habitats); for-
ests and woodlots; and agriculture.
• Require development to take the form of cluster and/or conservation subdivisions in en-
vironmentally, agriculturally, and visually sensitive areas.
• Establish more intensively developed mixed use neighborhoods in and near the Town Cen-
ter.

43
• Limit the acreage of land zoned for commercial and light industrial uses in the Town. Dis-
courage strip commercial development through appropriate zoning mechanisms. Limit
heavy industry to existing Industrial/Research (IR) Districts.
• Redevelop or retrofit aging or abandoned industrial or commercial sites, where feasible.
• Ensure that new development is sensitive to the community’s scenic values. Develop a
scenic resources inventory.
• Encourage new development to contain a mix of uses and recreation spaces that support
the daily needs of residents. Locate mixed uses in appropriate areas and in suitable build-
ing types.
• Provide a variety of housing types and prices that support a broad range of household
types, sizes, lifestyles, life stages, and household incomes in new developments.
• Incorporate suitable sustainable development practices (such as LEED certification and
alternative energy production) in the design and construction of new developments.
• Limit intrusion of non-agricultural uses into agricultural and conservation areas. Buffer
farms from neighboring development.
• Low density residential uses should be limited to areas that have marginal or no value as
agricultural or conservation areas, and which are not anticipated to be served by public
water or sewer.
• Discourage frontage (“strip”) residential lots, especially in prime agricultural areas.
Development under existing zoning will radically alter land cover in the study area.

44
Town Center Trends and Developments
During a Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting on November 13, 2012 a SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis identified the lack of a Town Center as a fu-
ture threat that could impact the Town of Lansing. The Town of Lansing has identified goals
and objectives around creating a Town Center through its Comprehensive Plan. The Town
Center area consists largely of some 140 acres of town owned land located along 34B in
between East Shore Drive to the west and Triphammer Road to the east. It is zoned for com-
mercial mixed use which allows allows most business and commercial uses, housing, mixed-
use, recreation, and some light assembly and manufacturing. The Town Center Policy Plan
indicates the desire for higher density housing, commercial services and recreational oppor-
tunities that cater to the needs of local residents, increase the tax base and create a greater
sense of community in Lansing.
If the Town Center is developed, it is likely that the intersection of East Shore Road and 34B
will experience increased traffic congestion during peak hours, which has been cited by res-
idents and assessments as an area of concern for both congestion and safety reasons. Res-
idential development south of 34B will likely increase traffic congestion for school related
travel in the morning and afternoon.
Local firm Holt Architects submitted a Town Center Plan in 2010 that articulated seven goals
which included community identity and character, acknowledgment of Town Center activity
(new town hall, renovated library, historic grange), increased density, mixed land uses, pedes-
trian focus, consolidated parking and public sewers. During a public meeting, seventy Lansing
residents raised 6 key issues that included the necessity of strategy, connections to unify the
community, improvement of community services, support of small local business develop-
ment, the presence of housing in the Town Center, and the promotion of green space.

45
Proposed designs for the town center area from the Holt Town Center Plan.

46
Long-Term Outlook
While long-term outlooks for the Town of Lansing’s transportation system are difficult to
characterize and largely dependent on design and policy interventions adopted over the com-
ing years, near-term trends provide a basis for assessing future conditions if patterns remain
unchanged.
Based on patterns identified in short term traffic change projections, congestion and traffic
incidents can be expected to increase in the study area if development continues at a con-
sistent rate. Locations already identified as congested or dangerous, such as Warren Road,
Triphammer Road, Route 34, the town center intersections, and intersections with Asbury
Road, Waterwagon Road, Hillcrest Road, and East Shore Circle, will continue to present prob-
lems for public safety, commuting, and alternative transportation as traffic volumes increase.
It will be difficult for the community to expand capacity to accommodate new growth without
further compromising community character, yet without expanding capacity, certain prob-
lems may be exacerbated. Thus, in accordance with many of the goals identified during the
development of the town’s new comprehensive plans, alternative approaches will need to
be adopted to help the community mitigate against impending problems without costly and
unpopular capacity increases.
Further expansion of the community’s housing stock without some form of investment in
alternative transit infrastructure will continue to make potential bikers, walkers, and transit
users feel unsafe and potentially alienated as users of the Lansing transportation system.
The viability of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles will also be influenced by changes
to the community’s road networks and the physical form of new development. With many
large-lot, low-density, residential-only developments on the horizon, offering pedestrian and
bike infrastructure that provides meaningful connections to services and landmarks will be
increasingly difficult. Travel by these modes, as well as by bus, will be further frustrated by
the expanded use of dead ends, cul-de-sacs, and gated communities, which will continue
to enable auto drivers. Significant local interest and momentum behind the development of
a town-wide trail system could change Lansing’s long-term alternative transportation out-
looks, but the overall viability of these modes is closely interlinked with a number of other
factors.

47
Roadway design can affect travel behavior in several ways. A connected road network pro-
vides better accessibility than a network with a large portion of dead-end streets. This in-
creased connectivity can reduce vehicle travel by reducing distances between destinations, in
addition to improving walking and cycling conditions. Connected streets provide shorter and
more direct paths than road networks with dead ends. Studies have found that (regardless of
density), design practices which improve street connectivity, create a safe pedestrian envi-
ronment, provide shorter route options, and a variety of transit service reduce miles traveled,
congestion delays, traffic accidents, and pollution emissions.
One transportation study found that residents in a neighborhoods with safe pedestrian de-
sign walked, bicycled, or rode transit for 49% of work trips and 15% of their non-work trips.
This is 18% and 11% higher, respectively, than a similar neighborhood but with an automo-
bile oriented design. Walking and cycling conditions are affected by the quantity and quality
of sidewalks, crosswalks and paths, path system connectivity, the security and attractiveness
of pedestrian facilities, and support features such as bike racks and changing facilities. The
decline in car trips resulting from improved walking and cycling conditions has a significant
impact on traffic congestion.
From a regional connectivity perspective, barring any major structural changes, the southern
portion of the town of Lansing will likely continue to serve as a bedroom community for Itha-
ca professionals and other workers. Forces outside the region will continue to be the focus
of commuting activity. In moving town residents between their neighborhoods and major
employers elsewhere in the region, the major north-south corridors of Route 34, Triphammer-
Road, and Warren Road will continue to function as essential linkages. In the long term, the
way development and transportation infrastructure take shape along these corridors will have
an outsized influence on the feasibility of commuting via different modes and perceptions of
the transportation system for commuters.

48
The interplay between new development, land use, density, zoning regulations, and trans-
portation will continue to be a primary influence on Lansing’s transportation future. Without
density increases from infill development, cluster development, retrofits of existing build-
ings, relaxation of height limits, and density bonuses, land use patterns are likely to further
reinforce the auto-oriented culture of Lansing and pose challenges to the adoption of other
modes of travel. The associated costs of developing and maintaining Lansing’s vehicle infra-
structure can be expected to continue to rise. However, significant community desires exist
for reduced pressure on sensitive views and habitats, reduced conflict between development
and agricultural character, and a more cohesive community center. If these desires win out,
favorable changes in traffic conditions and the greater transportation system could result
on the longterm. Past studies examining travel countywide have indicated that by tailoring
practices to densify communities and preserve existing open space, Tompkins County munic-
ipalities could slow the rate of increase in VMT and emissions generation by up to 45%. It is
likely that constraints intended to focus new growth in already-developed areas and around
transit could generate similar effects in the Town of Lansing.
Land use policies are most effective at reducing traffic when combining the advantages of
mixed uses, connectivity, walkability, and density. When land use practices are measured indi-
vidually, they each result in incremental improvements. However when combined with other
land use practices, the result is larger than the combination of each policy. For example, while
mixing land uses and improving sidewalk safety each separately result in greater pedestrian
and bicycle activity, doing both in the same neighborhood results in a compounded improve-
ment.

49
Factor Definition Travel Impacts
Density People or jobs per unit of land area (acre or
hectare).
Increased density tends to reduce per capita vehicle travel.
Each 10% increase in urban densities typically reduces per
capita VMT by 2-3%.
Mix Degree that related land uses (housing,
commercial, institutional) are mixed
Increased land use mix tends to reduce per capita vehicle trav-
el, and increases use of alternative modes, particularly walking
for errands. Neighborhoods with good land use mix typically
have 5-15% lower vehicle-miles.
Regional Accessibility Location of development relative to regional
urban center.
Improved accessibility reduces per capita vehicle mileage. Res-
idents of more central neighborhoods typically drive 10-30%
fewer vehicle-miles than residents of more dispersed, urban
fringe locations.
Centeredness Portion of commercial, employment, and
other activities in major activity centers.
Increased centeredness increases use of alternative commute
modes. Typically 20-50% of commuters to major commercial
centers drive alone, compared with 80-90% of commuters to
dispersed locations.
Connectivity Degree that walkways and roads are
connected and allow direct travel between
destinations.
Improved roadway connectivity can reduce vehicle mileage,
and improved walkway connectivity tends to increase walking
and cycling.
Roadway Design and Management Scale, design and management of streets. More multi-modal street design and management increases
use of alternative modes. Traffic calming tends to reduce vehi-
cle travel and increase walking and cycling.
Walking and Cycling conditions Quantity and quality of sidewalks, cross-
walks, paths and bike lanes, and the level of
pedestrian security.
Improved walking and cycling conditions increases nonmo-
torized travel and can reduce automobile travel, particularly
if implemented with land use mix, transit improvements, and
incentives to reduce driving.
Transit quality and accessibility Quality of transit service and degree to
which destinations are transit accessible.
Improved transit service quality increases transit ridership and
can reduce automobile trips, particularly for urban commuting.
Parking supply and management Number of parking spaces per building unit
or acre, and how parking is managed.
Reduced parking supply, increased parking pricing and in-
creased application of other parking management strategies
can significantly reduce per capita vehicle travel. Cost-recovery
parking pricing (charging motorists directly for the cost of pro-
viding parking) typically reduces automobile trips by 10-30%.
Site design The layout and design of buildings and park-
ing facilities.
More multi-modal site design can reduce automobile trips, par-
ticularly if implemented with improved transit services.
Mobility Management Various programs and strategies that en-
courage more efficient travel patterns.
Mobility management policies and programs can significantly
reduce vehicle travel by affected trips. Vehicle travel reductions
of 10-30% are common.
Land use factors that influence travel behavior, accoding to a study by
Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute

50
Concentration of new growth into more dense and diverse clusters, especially in the town cen-
ter area, through expansion of services, pedestrian infrastructure, and walkable higher-den-
sity housing, could offer an opportunity for local residents to address some of their needs in
the immediate community rather than travelling to neighboring locales to take advantage
of businesses and services. If some form of new development takes shape in the town center
location, the community could add to available housing stock while potentially reducing the
overall number of vehicle trips generated per residential unit. Town center development could
compliment the existing TCAT bus stops in the area and, together with a multi-modal trail, re-
inforce perceptions of the area as a hub of both transportation and community life. While the
long-term future of the town center remains somewhat unclear, many of the goals expressed
in the Lansing’s existing plans for the area are consistent with improving the transportation
system community-wide.
Clustering around a small town center could help in the conservation of the rolling, low-den-
sity lands present elsewhere in Lansing – while still improving travel patterns. This is because
a town center could provide a node, which is more crucial to improving transporting options
and reducing traffic congestion than increased density. An example of a high density region
facing difficult traffic conditions is the County of Los Angeles. Although LA is highly dense, its
lack of nodes or centers has resulted in high traffic volumes and congestion for a few hours
every day. This hasn’t shown to be a problem in cities of far lower overall densities, yet with
developments in nodes and centers.
If the town center creates a degree of density appropriate to Lansing’s existing character, it
could improve land use accessibility, transportation diversity, and reduced automobile acces-
sibility. Density improves land use accessibility as residents within or near the town center
would need to travel shorter distances for necessary services. A town center would also make
it more cost effective to provide sidewalks, bicycle facilities and expanded TCAT services. The
existing town center in Lansing is near an accident prone intersection. However increased
densityisconducivetoslowertrafficspeedsandsaferroads.Thesefactorsresultinalternative
modes of transit. Centeredness affects overall regional travel, not just the trips made around
and to the center. At this stage in Lansing’s development, the residents may be open to a
transportation center (in lieu of a full town center) – which may allow residents to bike or drive
and park, and take a bus to nearby employment centers such as Ithaca.

51
Interpreting Our Recommendations
A variety of best practices are relevant to the issues and challenges identified in this review
of the Town of Lansing’s transportation system; many of those policies and design interven-
tions are summarized in the following section.
This guide is not intended to serve as a comprehensive program of transportation reform.
Rather, it functions as a tool kit, with information on techniques that have helped other com-
munities improve their transportation systems, opportunities to financially support different
projects, and outside sources with additional details. Although this section includes recom-
mended locations for each intervention, not every tool is appropriate in every place. With
these tools and resources as a guide, town leadership and Lansing residents can work to-
gether to identify high priority, location-appropriate projects to pursue.
The Lansing Town Board, Planning Board, and Comprehensive Plan Update Committee each
have a powerful influence on Lansing’s transportation future through their work. In support
of a transportation system that is sustainable, inclusive, and well-performing, these organi-
zations must resolve to:
• Channel community concerns about transportation safety and accessibility into a
meaningful push toward adaptation and investment
• Connect local individuals with resources and foster participation in transportation
planning
• Consider the transportation system holistically and reduce the existing focus on
planning for automobiles
• Look to other cities and towns with strong, diverse transportation networks for
inspiration
• Promote the public benefits of a healthy transportation system in interpreting and
applying zoning and subdivision review regulations
• Maintain open communication with state and regional bodies whose policies influence
transportation conditions in Lansing
• Pursue resources and funding options that could improve transportation at reduced
cost to the community

52
Selected Recommendations
Multi-Use Trail: Evidence gathered in this analysis supports the recent push by community
groups to identify a corridor for a multi-use trail in Lansing. Connecting schools, the town
center, and goods and services to the south, a multi-use trail would ease pressure on crowd-
ed roads, offer a safe space for alternative transit users, and become a signature community
amenity. As a resource that links multiple areas of town, the trail could attract commuters,
students, and recreational users.

53
Bike and Pedestrian Improvements: Many intersections and road segments in the town lack
basic amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists. A comprehensive effort to provide wider shoul-
ders for cyclists, traffic calming devices, and crosswalks or signals for pedestrians would im-
prove safety, decrease conflict between autos and other modes, and make alternative transit
usage more appealing.

54
Town Center Improvements: A more extensive program of infrastructure improvements for
the town center area would help to create a discernable community core, foster social engage-
ment, and improve the quality of the pedestrian and cyclist experience in Lansing’s symbolic
heart. Potential improvements could include crosswalks with unique pavers, street furniture
and street trees, trash cans, additional signage, sidewalks, and human-scale lighting.

55
Transportation-Oriented Development: Applying TOD techniques on a limited scale in areas
currently served by TCAT could make community transit service more viable, decrease sin-
gle-occupancy vehicle traffic, protect open space elsewhere in town, and strengthen commu-
nity vitality. Interventions including density increases, relaxed height limits, mixed use zoning,
and provision of amenities for transit users are all tools that could potentially be applied.

56
Recommendations Matrix
Proposed Intervention: Location: Additional Details and Potential
Benefits:
Supporting Proposed
Intervention:
Additional Resources (case
studies, design guides,
policy guides, manuals,
websites):
Expanded Design
Standards and Guide-
lines, Site Improve-
ment Requirements
Town-wide Requirements could include: small-
er block lengths, smaller setbacks,
detailed standards for site layout
and building configuration, reduced
minimum open space requirements
on suburban lots, infrastructure for
pedestrians and bicyclists, parking
and driveway guidelines, height and
massing standards, sustainable
landscape requirements, restrictions
on cul-de-sacs and gated residential
areas
Community Challenge Planning
Grants Program
Supports community efforts to
adopt and adapt zoning codes,
comprehensive plans, neighbor-
hood plans, and corridor plans
with goals that contribute to local
sustainability
Smart Growth America
Code and Zoning Audit
Checklist for identifying
areas of community codes
that could be strengthened
to promote responsible
development
Smart Growth America
Policy Audit
Checklist for reviewing
community policy for con-
sistency with sustainable
development tactics
Density Bonuses /
Amended Density
Requirements
Town Center, transit
corridors
Could be tailored to provide for trail
and path provision, resource protec-
tion, and public open space. Paired
with reduced parking requirements
in transit corridors, density bonuses
could also promote transit ridership,
biking, and walking
US EPA Building Blocks for Sus-
tainable Communities
Supports a range of planning
efforts, including sustainable
growth strategies for rural com-
munities
Density Bonuses
A guide to density bonus
policy, case studies, and
major issues from the
Puget Sound Regional
Council
Transfer of Develop-
ment Rights Program /
Infill Incentives
Sending Zones: Rural
Agricultural Zone
Receiving Zones:
Town Center, major
transit nodes in high-
er-density residential
areas
Draws development pressure away
from rural and agricultural land,
while still allowing rural landowners
to profit from the sale of develop-
ment rights. Channels new growth
into receiving areas identified by the
communities as a community center
or transit hub
US EPA Smart Growth Imple-
mentation Assistance Program
Offers contractor team sup-
port to communities working
to develop policies supporting
economic development while
protecting environmental health
Infill Development: Com-
pleting the Community
Fabric
A guide to infill develop-
ment incentives, policies,
and case studies from the
Municipal Research and
Services Center

57
Transit-Oriented
Development Overlay
Zones
Town Center, major
transit corridors,
major commuting
corridors
Overlay zones with unique require-
ments surrounding density, urban
design, transportation amenities,
and mixed land uses can create new
development possibilities and shift
population centers closer to quick
and easy transportation access, re-
ducing reliance on single-passenger
auto trips
TOD Overlay District Model
Bylaws
Sample legislation from
the Massachusetts Smart
Growth Toolkit
Adequate Public Facili-
ties Ordinance
N/A Helps to moderate the speed of new
development so that infrastructure
and public services can keep pace.
This variety of ordinance could
be used to control Lansing’s rate
of growth until the community’s
transportation system can accomo-
date new users without producing
negative impacts.
Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinances
A guide from the Maryland
Department of Planning
explaining the background
of APFO’s, their benefits,
and their drawbacks
Relaxed Accessory
Unit Restrictions
Town Center area,
transit corridors
Increase density and provide afford-
able housing for a mix of residents
while easing development pressures
on open land
Model Bylaw for Accessory
Dwelling Units
Sample legislation from
the Massachusetts Smart
Growth Toolkit
Alternative Transit
Outreach and Educa-
tion
N / A Promote and coordinate carpools
and park-and-ride, subsidize transit
passes for town employees, distrib-
ute materials to students
Traffic Safety Training:
Walking and Bicycling Pro-
grams
Recommended education
program content for school
programs

58
Bike Lanes and Wid-
ened Shoulders
Waterwagon Road,
Ashbury Road, 34B/
Peruville road
Improve bicycle safety, encourage
commuting by bicycle, improve road
network connectivity for non-driv-
ers. Interventions as simple as road
restriping can have a significant
effect on the cycling experience
National Scenic Byways Program
Funding for eligible projects
along portions of Route 34 and
34B comprising the Cayuga Lake
Scenic Byway
CDC Community Transforma-
tion Grant Small Communities
Program
Provides funds for projects,
including transportation-related
investments, that support active
living, healthy & safe physical en-
vironments, and physical activity.
PEDSAFE Guidelines for
Sidewalks and Walkways
A guide to proper street
design for pedestrians and
bikes
Street Amenities Town Center Street trees and landscaping, deco-
rative lighting, trash cans, and street
furniture would improve quality of
the pedestrian environment, pro-
mote walking, increase pedestrian
comfort level
New York Main Street Program
Funding for streetscape en-
hancements, including trees,
furniture, and trash cans
NYS Rural Area Revitalization
Projects
Supports restoration and im-
provement of public / community
facilities and commercial areas in
rural parts of the state
Bus Stop Amenities Town Center, Warren
Road, Triphammer
Road, Route 34
Permanent shelters, benches,
trash cans, bike racks, lighting, and
signage can improve transit system
safety and comfort, increase visibil-
ity, and generate increased aware-
ness of the presence of transit in the
community
Collaboration with TCAT Guidelines for the Location
and Design of Bus Stops
A resource from the Transit
Cooperative Research
Program

59
Crosswalks, Pedestri-
an Signage, Visibility
Improvements, and
Sidewalks
Sidewalks: Town
Center
Crosswalks:
Intersections of
Waterwagon & East
Shore Drive + Inter-
sections of Water-
wagon & Triphammer
Improve safety for pedestrians,
including the elderly, students, and
those walking to work; lower acci-
dent rates; encourage sidewalk uses,
strengthen community character
Transportation Alternatives
Program
Provides funding for on- and
off-road pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, infrastructure projects
for improving non-driver access
to public transportation and
enhanced mobility, and commu-
nity improvement activities. Safe
Routes to School projects are
currently also funded through
the Transportation Alternatives
Program
Design Manual for Small
Towns
Transportation and Land
Use Strategies for Preserv-
ing Small-Town Character
Weedsport NY Complete
Streets
A local case study with
examples of a complete
streets policy
Multi-Use Trail Alongside one major
north-south corridor
between the town
center and Village of
Lansing, between the
town center and Town
of Lansing Schools
Promote commuting by bike, provide
recreational opportunities, improve
pedestrian safety, enhance tourism
potential. Trail would ideally connect
schools, town center, and goods and
services in the Village of Lansing.
Recreational Trails Grant Program
The Recreational Trails Program
is a State-administered, Federal
assistance program to provide
and maintain recreational trails
for both motorized and non-mo-
torized recreational trail use
Transportation Enhancement
Program
NYSDOT-administered funds for
provision of facilities for pedes-
trians and bicyclists, including
preservation of abandoned rail
corridors for trail uses. Reimburs-
es up to 80% of project costs.
NYS Environmental Protection
Fund: Local Waterfront Revital-
ization Program Grants
Supports implementation of
plans for waterfront areas along
designated state inland water-
ways, including Cayuga Lake.
Past projects include multi-use
trail systems.
Guides for Trail Design,
Construction, Maintenance,
and Operation
A collection of resources
from the Federal Highway
Administration

60
Gateway Signage Entry points to Town
Center
Even when located outside of road
right-of-wats, signage and plantings
signal to drivers that they are enter-
ing a distinct neighborhood, which
reinforces the urge to slow down
and observe surroundings
New York Main Street Program
Funding for streetscape en-
hancements, including signage
Urban Wayfinding Planning
and Design Manual
A resource covering design
and implementation of
signage systems from the
Signage Foundation
Traffic Calming East-west roads
connecting major
commuter corridors,
including Waterwagon
Road, Asbury Road,
and Hillcrest Road
Speed tables, landscaped medians,
and curb extensions can iscourage
high-speed cut-throughs, improve
intersection safety, reduce road
noise, provide pedestrian refuge on
major streets
Consolidated Local Street and
Highway Improvement Program
(CHIPS)
Administered by NYSDOT, and
supports bicycle, pedestrian, and
traffic calming measures
Highway Safety Improvement
Program / High-Risk Rural Roads
Program
NYSDOT funds traffic control,
road reconstruction, and other
capital improvements
Traffic Calming on Main
Roads Through Rural Com-
munities
A design and policy guide
from the Federal Highway
Administration

Guide

More Related Content

Similar to Guide (20)

Guide