Analysis of Highways in Rural New York: Part I in Traffic Counts And, Part II on Planning a Highway Program

367 Pages·18.186 MB·English

by  Allred, Wells M

AMDTSIS OF HIGHWAXS IN RURAL NEW XOBXt
PART 1 ON TRAFFIC COUNTS AMD PART II
ON FLAMING A HIGHWAX PROGRAM
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
Cornell University for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Bfir
Wells M, Allred
June, 19S1
ProQuest Number: 10834563
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10834563
Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
VITA
The w riter mm bom in Emery, Utah, itty 26, 1922* He attended
high school at Farran, Utah and started Ms soilage training in
September, 192*0 at Utah State Agricultural College in lagan, College
work was interrupted upon entrants into the Ar&ar April, 192*3 and was
resumed again at Utah State Agricultural College July, 19k6« A
degree of Bachelor of Science was obtained by the w riter at that
institution in December, 19U6 and a degree of Master of Science in
December, 19k?*
He area employedtoy Cornell University in the Department of
Agricultural Eeonottlea closing cost aesount books from January to
September of 19US* The w riter was accepted to the Graduate School
at Cornell University in September, 19kB* He interrupted hie
training in' September, 19k9bo aeoept a fu ll time position as
Lecturer in Local Government in the Department of Agricultural lee*
nomica for the fa ll semester, graduate work wee resumed in February,
1S$Q and was again interrupted in September of 1950 to take a posi­
tion with a reeeareh staff of the Special Committee on Social
Welfare of the Joint Legislative Committee on Interstate Cooperation
of the New fork State Legislature*
Graduate work was resumed again in February, 1951 and require­
ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy were met In June, 1951
with a major In Public Administration and Finance under Professor
E. A. Luts, a minor In land Economics under Professor H. E. Conklin
and a minor in Economic Theory under Professor M. A, Copeland*
The w riter could never have finished this study without the
assistance and cooperation of those who worked with him*
He is especially grateful to Professor S* A* Luts who gave
freely of his time and counsel, read manuscript, and made many
helpful suggestions and oorreotlons* Special thanks should also
he given to Miss Dolores Schubert who enabled the w riter to rtmake
the deadline1* by her diligent efforts in correcting and typing
the final copy*
Others without whose help this thesis could not have been
completed ere Mr* Clarence Walter, Town Highway Superintendent of
the Town of Barker, all the cltlaens in the Town of Barker, and
many town and county officials In Toapktns and Broome Counties who
provided most of the basic data used in this study* Especially
helpful also were the field mm who assisted in taking the traffic
counts and questionnaires, and the several clerks who performed
most ef the tedious tasks of tabulating, summarising, punching
cards, »nd mairfoig xjp tables*
Final responsibility for results of this study belongs to
the writer as does the responsibility for any errors in fact and
logic which appear in the manuscript*
m rnm m m * * «* * * #•»*».«•• % # # * ♦ * • * * * i
wmm& m m * # * * * * * *ff # # • • « • * « • # * 6
Definition of Tern and Procedures * « • « « * • • 6
Basis for Selecting Station * , * ♦ * • * * * * • 17
Beacriptlon of Bead Prongs and Area In Which . x
Stations are located •> 1926, 1934, and 1949* * 2D
CoMparieen of fee of Highways * 1926, 1934, and 1949 26
Intensity of Traffic * * • * * « * • * • # * » 26
Hourly Mstribtrfcion * « * • • • • # « • * • » 40
Typo of Vehicles « « * » » * • * • * , * • , 41
Origin of fefoAele® • • . ........................* * * . 42
m ains TCMJ • • » , * » • • » # * • • • * • « « • . • • 55
feflnltlem of Toon® and Prooateoe « « « • * • • « 55
tutlnaniin XdEwfeisi*a- o€&Q UAL aeAcM A —.***1^11* qffli-^fr ium.it.i #iO JBEiiin®. dl • #.. * * * # *^ • * * JvS)# ws
Use of Highways * .................... 63
Xnt^iaity of T raffic * 63
typo of Vehicles • « * • » . » • • . • • • . . 63
Origin of Vehicles • » « * • • « • « • • • • * 69
CCS^AItlSQi' OF TRAVEL BSfWEBH TWO AREAS * * » ♦ . * * . . 72
fdmli&tlena of Comparing THta * # * *
Comparison of Use of Highways * • « • * « * * * • • 73
Intensity of traffic * * • • * « « • • • • * • 73
type Vehicles * • * « » « « • * « » • * • « 74
Gri^la off » * » « » * # « ** « * 75
* « # * *•« * * » » * * # * # « « » * • ♦ % 4 4 n
fm$&m Q&mtp 1926# 193k* «nd X%% 73
Cw&y Mid 8a*k«r tma * « % ♦ « ♦ # 79
I
oom£B m sm gted m m . m m mm
iraOTOTlOM
latsnsity 'm$ *%p* Q& vgtiialsa and origin m travel
OOflSti.tffifrS ‘tiftrad asyd IMT tfNSffffirtlllf- yny faf igfrnntjy'^nif S& ~ ffifrlftlflff asjMjat®
Q*yf fflfrif '|FPtlflTlli'*y ffif' fjdlfltfrtiiltfit ffTftHfl ftp --
road® to beconm ■ ''far «xp®nditttre of1 - iifgh^iy jfun&ta ' S&toni
0<y' maummm. ^ppf; H’ f-fy ■ «»<i g^nfe sJjtO' Its ®sttsrfe84jE%©dl>
Sn>°iMuHfc'4iY gllAli itjiifMMfriiriiio1 n^Hiftil ftftanftta --jrf hi irtlTitim* SAAu.
In PaH II, infc^seit^^f tr& m e laid tf$#*T i M i *sre -
am l^sd and «ygg«8t*<l a* t** psss£l&t criteria far ssssrtsixilng
ftt&nd&rds of' cfftstrt&tlnn and ijtedntsnnace to spsolflo■■
highw®5re* Thegr wars also enggogisd as a naans- «f detominlng priority
tyr whioJi read® should bmme eligible far expenditure «f fund* appro*
pidLaSad ilw ^OWtr^tjNwi*1 #wf ^ pifhawoa ' jpurposss*■ it d&s f |. ifyst wriHHi
horthea* %m criteria could be weighted along i&th othsra enabling
m* i# mdro obj activaiy d®t«?©ajie priority o f spending lands and
to <set^bUsh aaint«ift3ao® arwi <^iM tr^fm «tandftrds m a spocific
hl^iway# '
Origin Of InmmnII* tbs third mpmk «f highway «e« indeatai
abov®, ®&n have on iaportamt bearingin aennaetitm i&tn deffenwHiaiJig
financial and sdRtolstipativ# responsibility for highways* What unit
2
of government should be and tbivoly responsible
for a particular highway nm » h state aid should be granted
cities, villages# towns* and eoroties fo r highways under their
Juriedletlen?
If a ll highways were under the jurisdiction of a single unit
Of government and a ll taxes were collected by this single unit*
questions of the proper administrative unit and division of tax
revenue among ur&i© far highway purposes would hate little signifi­
cance# However# with the m ultiplicity of levels and units of
government In Mm lork State* and responsibility for highways divided
among several units* these questions assume g rater significance#
the extent of a unit of governments financial and administrative
responsibility over particular highways could be determined by
consideration of at least four criterias 1) by origin of vehicles*
$) according to the tmlt of' government which, can do the job most
efficiently* 3) by the unit with the most financial resources* and
4) by historical precedent* One or a ll of these criteria are perhaps
used# It seems advisable to app3y the most objective criteria
available to ascertain the proper unit of gevusmsni which should
administer and finance the various highways located within its
jurisdiction.
- fltae might mmmm that there should be mm relationship between
origin of vehicles m a particular highway and extent of financial
and administrative responsilsllity# If the majority of vehicles
3
originates t a the local town in which the highway is loeatod, the
local town is likely to b© ®or© interested in proper and efficient
maintenance than citisen© ©f any other unit of government* Con­
trasted with th is, if most of the vehicles using a highway within a
local tom originate from within the local county, but outside the
town, then perhaps the ©ouniy should be responsible for that road#
Th© State might be the proper unit for financing a highway if most
of the travel using It originates from other counties or out ©f state#
Bet ©Raining the reeomaa^ed aoetent or relative weight which
each of thee©' four criteria should be given in ascertaining the
u»tt*s proper financial and adtsinletrative responsibility Is outside
the ©cope of this study, even though a precis© answer to this problem
is perhaps desirable* It is briefly discussed to suggest: its
Imperial*©© and also to suggest that origin of vehicles might properly
be considered In the ©elution*
The objectives of Fart t are 'to show in selected areas of Hew
forki 1) present vehicular we of highways | and 2) change in this
use# Vehicular us© of highways is described with respect to intensity
of traffic, type of vehicles, and origin of travel* Throughout this
study intensity refer© to the number of vehicles passing a point in
a given period of tteo* fm methods were used to indicate type of
vehicles# One divided vehicles into passenger, truck, and farm
equipment* The other method groined vehicles by passenger, commercial,
horse-drawn and »©ther” according to the Bureau of l-Sctor Vehicles
4
Classification* J/ Origin of travel is debemiiied by residence of
the owner* To describe the vehicular mo of highways, it was
necessary to make traffic counts in the areas selected for studyo
Tm areas were chosen in which to analyse vehicular mo of
highways* One in TceapklKS County and the other in the Tom of Barker,
Bmme County* Th© procedure for making traffic ©ows&s varied in
each of these areas, primarily because it wm conto^Uted that a
cosparlaon would be made between the 1949 o&mto and previous traffic
counts* In order to make valid comparisons, It mo necessary to
follow essentially the same procedures m wore mod to make the
previous traffic studies* It vm discovered with respect to Banker
that the previous traffic study should not fe@ compared with the 1949
study, because of possible inaccuracies in the earlier data which
could not be corrected* This was not known until th© Barker study
was under way and, hence, scei© differences ww mad® in method of
conducting the traffic studies which later proved mmmmBorp* An
mmplo of such a difference is the time of making counts* In
Tompkins County they were mad© fresa 6 A#M* to 6 P*M* However, in
order to cougar© the data in Barker for 1949 with the earlier study,
traffic was counted frm ? A*M» to ? P*M# If it had b®m known
earlier that the first Barker study could not b© used for comparative
purposes, traffic would !mv© been counted the same hour of to© day
as in Tonkins County*
I f Sit pageli' 'of the® © two methods used in do,sallying
vehicles*