MAKING CONNECTIONS:
REDEVELOPING THE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NETWORK FOR
DOWNTOWN MUNCIE
A CREATIVE PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTERS OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
BY
NATHANIEL HUNTER, B.S.
DR. ERIC KELLY – ADVISOR
BALL STATE UNIVERISTY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
DECEMBER 2009
Making connections: Redeveloping the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network for
Downtown Muncie
Muncie, Indiana like many other cities in the United States is working towards improving its original downtown. This creative project focuses on creating a functional Pedestrian and
Bicycle Network for Muncie’s Downtown with connections to the surrounding neighborhoods. The current network is disconnected, with facilities abruptly ending and barriers making it difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to efficiently make their way to and from the downtown from surrounding neighborhoods. Also, the current condition of the
Downtown sidewalks and bicycle network are below average excluding the White River
Greenway. With this project an improved Bicycle Pedestrian Network is proposed.
This proposal looks at creating direct routes for pedestrians and bicyclists, eliminating barriers and completing facilities that will increase the connectivity of the Downtown to the surrounding neighborhoods. In doing so, this project will also look into the behavior of cyclists and pedestrians. The proposal will also evaluate the current network to identify areas in need of improvement to increase the quality of the network. New development and improvements to the network will also be prioritized to create the most direct and efficient routes first. Funding will also be investigated to determine if progression on the proposed
network can be made on a shorter time line.
The improved pedestrian bicycle network will not only improve the Downtown, but it will also benefit the city’s transportation, environment, energy, health, and economy.
Concerning transportation, 40 percent of all trips are less than two miles and can be made with a 10‐minute bike ride. Consequently cars could be removed from our congested roads.
One would also think about the improvement in air quality as 60 percent of the pollution created by automobiles is emitted during the first few minutes of operation while the vehicle’s engine warms up. Some might even consider the 30‐minute walk, an alternative to the 10‐minute bike ride with the same benefits. By improving the bicycle pedestrian network the city will also improve the quality of life. The number of people bicycling and walking the streets can be an indicator of a community’s livability, a factor in attracting businesses and workers. Communities with bicyclist and pedestrians allow for greater interaction of its citizens, which produces a greater sense of place and identity. Bicycling and walking also benefit citizens by improving their health and reducing obesity. A good bicycle and pedestrian network can also lower the need for an automobile and provide relief for those who cannot afford them.
ii
Initial Creative Project Proposal......................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................v
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................................. 9
1. Early History of Muncie’s Pedestrian System .....................................................................9
2. Benefits of Walking and Biking................................................................................................9
A. Health ...........................................................................................................................................................10
B. Economic.....................................................................................................................................................13
C. Environment/Energy.............................................................................................................................14
D. Transportation .........................................................................................................................................15
E. Quality‐of‐life.............................................................................................................................................16
3. Bicycle/Pedestrian Environment and Behavior ............................................................. 16
A. Choosing to Cycle or Walk...................................................................................................................17
B. Choosing a Route .....................................................................................................................................18
4. How Far Pedestrians Are Willing to Walk or Cycle ........................................................ 19
5. Why People Walk....................................................................................................................... 20
6. Types of Pedestrians and Cyclists........................................................................................ 21
7. Walkability/ Bike Ability Audit ............................................................................................ 23
8. Creating the Network ............................................................................................................... 24
A. Barriers........................................................................................................................................................24
B. Design Standards.....................................................................................................................................25
C. Trip Generators – Destination Points .............................................................................................27
D. Safe Routes to School.............................................................................................................................28
E. Pedestrian Facilities ...............................................................................................................................28
F. Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................................................................29
G. Complete Streets\Livable Communities .......................................................................................30
H. Local Ordinances.....................................................................................................................................30
I. Prioritizing Improvements ...................................................................................................................30
J. Sample Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans...............................................................................................32
9. Coordination Needed ............................................................................................................... 33
MUNCIE’S EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLAN.......................................................34
DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................46
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................55
DOWNTOWN MUNCIE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLAN...................................................65
I. Human Factors in Creating the Network...................................................................................66
1. Urban Design Factors.............................................................................................................................66
2. Route Choice ..............................................................................................................................................67
3. How Far Pedestrians Are Willing to Walk or Cycle...................................................................67
4. Why People Walk or Bicycle ...............................................................................................................69
iii
II. Goals.........................................................................................................................................................69
III. Downtown Recommendations ...................................................................................................71
IV. Recommended Downtown Paths...............................................................................................83
V. Design Standards................................................................................................................................95
1. Legal Requirements................................................................................................................................95
2. General Design Standards....................................................................................................................96
3. Pathway Standards .................................................................................................................................98
CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................................................99
Works Cited & References ................................................................................................................101
Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms ...............................................................................105
Appendix B: Glossary..........................................................................................................................106
Appendix C: Community Connections Survey..........................................................................109
Appendix D: Community Connections Survey Results.........................................................116
iv
Figure 1: Map: Downtown Muncie Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Focus
Area……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Figure 2: Map of Muncie, Delaware County, Indiana……………….……………………….. 4
Figure 3: Population Time Line.....………………………………………………………………...... 5
Figure 4: Enrollment Statistics for Ball State University..………………………………… 5
Figure 5: Age Distributions Graphs, City of Muncie, Delaware County, and
Indiana………..................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 6: Age Distribution Percentages, City of Muncie, Delaware County,
Indiana.……………………………………………………………………………………….…. 7
Figure 7: Physical Activity Benefits……………..…………………………………………………. 11
Figure 8: Health Risks Linked with Obesity....………………………………………………..... 12
Figure 9: Common Environmental Factors….………………………………………………….. 17
Figure 10: NHTS, 2001 Trip Purposes Results.………………………………………………….. 21
Figure 11: Omnibus Survey, 2003 Trip Purpose……………………………………………….. 21
Figure 12: Type of Pedestrians……………………..………………………………………………….. 22
Figure 13: Type of Bicyclists………………………...………………………………………………….. 22
Figure 14: Common Barriers………………………..………………………………………………….. 25
Figure 15: Bicycle Hazards…………………………..…………………………………………………... 25
Figure 16: Considerations for Pedestrian Facilities.………………………………………….. 29
Figure 17: AASHTO’s Variables for Priority in Retrofitting.……………………………….. 32
Figure 18: Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan Classification Variables for
Sidewalk Projects Priority………………………………………...…………………….. 35
Figure 19: List of Project Priorities for Figures 10 & 11…………………………………….. 38
Figure 20: Map: 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan: Proposed
Routes……………………..………………………………………………………………...…… 39
Figure 21: Map: 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan: Project
Priority…………………………………………………………………………………………... 40
Figure 22: 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan: Project Priority
Costs……………………….……………………………………………………………………… 41
Figure 23: Map: 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan:
Pedestrian/Bicycle and Roadway Coordination Project..…………………... 43
Figure 24: Map: 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan:
Pedestrian/Bicycle Network Water Crossings………………………………….. 44
Figure 25: Map: 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan:
Sidewalk Priority Areas…………………………………………………………………... 45
Figure 26: Delaware County Geospatial Resources’ GIS Data.…………………………….. 47
Figure 27: 2009 Sidewalk Survey………………….…………………………………………………. 49
Figure 28: Sidewalk Condition Excellent…………………………………………………………... 50
Figure 29: Sidewalk Condition Good….……………………………………………………………... 50
Figure 30: Sidewalk Condition Fair………………………………………………………………….. 51
Figure 31: Sidewalk Condition Poor..…………………………………………………………… 51
v
Figure 32: Sidewalk Condition None.……………………………………………………………….. 52
Figure 33: Map: 2009 Sidewalks Surveyed………………………………………….
...
………….. 54
Figure 34: Sidewalk Segment Conditions...……………………………………………………….. 56
Figure 35: City Block Sidewalk Conditions...……………………………………………………... 56
Figure 36: Curb Ramp Counts………………...………………………………………………………... 57
Figure 37: Pedestrian Barriers and Hazards Count.…………………………………………... 58
Figure 38: Map: Detailed Sidewalk Conditions...………………………………………………... 61
Figure 39: Map: Generalized Sidewalk Conditions...………………………………………….. 62
Figure 40: Map: Points of Conflict…………………...……………………………………………….. 63
Downtown Muncie Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan Figures
Figure 1A: Map: Downtown Muncie Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Focus
Area……………………………………………………………………………………………...... 66
Figure 2A: Map: Downtown Muncie Population Density…...…………………….....……… 68
Figure 3A: Typical Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Goals.……………………………………….. 70
Figure 4A: Downtown Muncie Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Focus Area.…........ 74
Figure 5A: Problem Curb Ramps………………..…………………………………………………….. 76
Figure 6A: Sidewalks Replacement….……...……………………………………………………….. 78
Figure 7A: Downtown Routes…………………………………………………………...…….…......... 84
Figure 8A: County Wide Proposed Routes………………………………………………...……… 85
vi
Muncie, Indiana like many other cities in the United States is working toward improving its historic downtown. This creative project focus on creating a functional
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network for Muncie’s Downtown with connections to the surrounding neighborhoods. The current network is disconnected, with facilities abruptly ending and barriers making it difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to
Figure 1‐Downtown Muncie Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
Focus Area
efficiently make their way to and from the downtown from surrounding neighborhoods. Also, the current condition of the Downtown sidewalks and bicycle network are below average, excluding the White River Greenway that runs through the Downtown. With this project an improvement to the pedestrian and bicycle network will be proposed.
This creative project also looks at creating direct routes for pedestrians and bicyclists, eliminating barriers and completing facilities that will increase the connectivity of the Downtown to the surrounding neighborhoods. In doing so, this project also looks into the behavior of cyclists and pedestrians. The proposal will also evaluate the current network to identify areas in need of improvement to increase the quality of the network. New developments and improvements to the network will also be prioritized to create the most direct and efficient routes first.
A good plan in many cases can become complex and create the need to be extremely comprehensive which is difficult. At many points when working through this project, it was found that additional information was needed continually adding to the project. The subject matter covered in this comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle plan not only address pedestrian/bicycle variables, but the unique demographics of Muncie. This small Downtown Muncie project was not intended comprehensively cover all the materials in a pedestrian/bicycle plan but to create a
starting point for future city wide plan.
2
Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan Variables:
•
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Behavior
•
Willingness to Walk/Bike
•
Type of Pedestrian
•
Type of Bicyclist
•
Walkability and types of Audits
•
Barriers and Hazards
•
Trip Generators
•
Pedestrian Facilities
•
Bicycle Facilities
•
Complete Streets
•
Prioritizing Construction and Improvements
•
Ordinance
When considering this project, Muncie has many unique demographics to consider. The city of Muncie is located in East Central Indiana as shown in Figure
2.The city of Muncie is centrally located in Delaware County and is the county seat.
Muncie is currently the eighth (8th) largest city in Indiana. In 2006, the population was estimated to be at 61,683, which is 15,533 less than its peak population in 1980 shown in Figure 2 (page 4). Data shows that the student population of Ball State
University has risen from an average of 19,000 students in the 1990s to an average of 20,000 in the 2000s. The population curve is a little unusual as a large portion of the population falls in the 5‐19 age group and the second largest range falls in the
20‐24 age group. This latter population can be account for by the large student population at Ball State University. Figures showing the Ball State University student enrollment and the population charts are shown on pages 5‐7.
3
Figure 2‐ Map of Muncie, Delaware County, Indiana
4
Figure 3‐Population Time Line. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Figure 4: Enrollment Statistics for Ball State University
5
Figure 5‐Age Distributions Graphs, Muncie, Delaware County, and Indiana
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
6
=3-6>4(+,?
large age group with a slightly higher percentage is the 20-24 range. Th of students at Ball State University.
!"#$%&'(()'*#&'+",-%".$-"/0'1&%2&0-3#&,'4/%'5$02"&6'+&7383%&'9/$0-:6'30;'-<&'=-3-&'/4'>0;"3036'
2/?@3%"0#'(AAA'B'(AACD''=/$%2&E'FD=D'G$%&3$'/4'-<&'9&0,$,D
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Ethnicity and Race
Th
The goal of providing an improved pedestrian bicycle network will not only improve the Downtown, but it will also have effects benefiting transportation, the environment, energy, health, and economy. Concerning transportation, 40 percent grants. Muncie’s population is generally composed of White (Caucasian American), Black (African of all trips are less than two miles and can be made with a 10‐minute bike ride.
Think of all the cars that could be removed from our congested roads. One would also think about the improvement in air quality as 60% of the pollution created by fi c
Th Th
African Americans within the Muncie community. Populations of people of 2 or more races, people of the Hispanic race and people of the Asian races are the next highest minorities. A detailed table of
Muncie’s racial demographics and its recent changes is provided on the following page.
automobiles is emitted during the first few minutes of operation while the vehicle’s
Household information is bene fi cial when analyzing population data. In the following tables you will engine warms up. Some might even consider the 30‐minute walk, alternative to the to decrease. For example, a city with 5 houses once had a population of 16 people, but now has a
10‐minute bike ride with the same benefits. By improving the bicycle pedestrian only has 220. Th network the city will also improve the quality of life. The number of people bicycling and walking the streets can be an indicator of a community’s livability, which has an impact on attracting businesses and workers. Communities with bicyclists and pedestrians allow for greater interaction among its citizens, which produce a
#$%&'()'*+,-$./0'12&.34'53460'7'8.-4.3%$(,'*30%.4'593,'2':;;< greater sense of place and identity. Bicycling and walking also benefit by creating
7
an area for activity for cities to improve their citizen’s health and reduce obesity. A good bicycle and pedestrian network can also lower the need for an automobile and provide relief for those who cannot afford them.
8
Muncie has an interesting past. Muncie was a quiet town but erupted into a bustling city. The boom began in the mid 1800s with the appearance of the railroad and again with the discovery of natural gas in Central Indiana in the 1880s. Muncie became one of the fastest growing cities in the country, and with that growth the city made great investments in its transportation system. In 1882 there were only
15 miles of streets and no paved sidewalks, but by 1891 Muncie had five (5) miles of sandstone walk, five (5) miles of brick walk, and two (2) miles of cement walk
(General W. H. Kemper 1907). Muncie had high standards for its infrastructure in
1888 as the city council stated that all walks should be of sawed sandstone, six feet wide, the gutters of dressed limestone slabs, while grass should be grown between the walk and curb. A few years later in 1890 when cement became popular the council forbade the use of a “new fashioned” concrete walk on East Jackson and ordered the city engineer to make it of brick (General W. H. Kemper 1907).
A pedestrian/bicycle network can create many benefits and can completely justify their costs, paying for themselves. Sense of place, health benefits, economic,
transportation, and many others are persuasive factors to anyone with a hint of interest in creating a strong and useful pedestrian/bicycle network. Continuous publication of the positive impacts of pedestrian/bicycle network will help to further reinforce the requirements for this mode of transportation.
A. Health
Walking or bicycling plays an integral role in enhancing physical and mental health by providing physical exercise as well as relaxation opportunities. Walking and bicycling also provide a venue for social interaction and space for recreational activities. Overall, an increase in pedestrian/bicycle trips creates a healthier and
more active livable community.
In 2001, the National Household Travel Survey found that roughly 40 percent of all trips taken by car are less than 2 miles. This could be a short 10‐ minute bike ride for an experienced cyclist (type A bicyclists) or a 30‐minute walk. .
Pedestrian and Bicycle networks can play a large role in improving the health of a
city. On the following page are just a few of the benefits from participating in regular physical activity.
10
Maintain Weight
Reduces blood pressure
Reduces risk for type II diabetes, heart attack, stroke, several forms of cancer
Relieves arthritis pain
Reduces risk for osteoporosis
Prevent and reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety
Boosts good cholesterol
Lengthens lifespan
Relieves back pain
Strengthens muscles, bones, and joints
Can improve sleep
Elevates overall mood and sense of well-being
Figure 7‐Physical Activity Benefits
Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2009 and Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality 2009
Citizens who do not participate in regular exercise risk becoming overweight, or even obese. The rate of obesity has become a large concern in the United States with 49 of 50 states reporting an obesity rate of 20 percent or more. The Center for
Disease Control and Prevention also reported that 30 states had an obesity rate of
25 percent or greater and Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee were equal or greater than 30 percent. The rate of obesity in Indiana for 2008 was 26.3 percent.
The rate of obesity is of concern because of its negative health implications such as heart disease, hypertension, and Type II Diabetes. The following table is a more complete account for associated health conditions.
11
Coronary heart disease
Type 2 diabetes
Cancer (endometrial, breast, and colon)
Hypertention (high blood pressure)
Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint)
Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)
Stroke
Liver and Gallbladder disease
Sleep apnea and respiratory problems
Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility)
Figure 8‐Health Risks Linked with Obesity
Source: (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2009) and (Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality 2009)
The health conditions linked to obesity also generate large costs for the taxpayer in the form of health care. In 1998 it was estimated that taxpayers paid between 13.5 and 24.5 million dollars for Medicaid and Medicare expenses caused from obesity, and 24.6 to 27.6 million if one adds the medical expenses for those overweight(Finkelstein 2003). Finkelstein also reported thst if you add out‐of‐ pocket costs, private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, costs totaled between 51.5
and 78.5 million dollars for medical expenses related to overweight and obesity.
Giving citizens access to a pedestrian/bicycle network allows many the opportunities to increase their levels of activity, lower their chances of becoming overweight, and consequently lower health care expenses and related taxes. This is important as popularity for a national healthcare plan increases.
12
Bicycling and walking not only offer an opportunity to improve physical health among citizens, but may also decrease obesity and monetary expences dedicated to related healthcare needs.
B. Economic
Bicycling and walking are affordable forms of transportation. The costs of operating a bicycle are about $120 a year, which includes the maintenance of the bike and the replacement of worn tires (The League of American Bicyclists n.d.).
Operating the typical car on the other hand costs $8,000, a sum accounting for 19 percent of a typical household income in 2004 according to AAA. Bicycling can also help to reduce health care costs as discussed earlier.
In addition to reducing transportation costs for average citizens, bicycling may also provide opportunities to create revenue. Organized groups, charities, and others have organized bicycling events such as races, or celebrations that can bring money into the local economy. In Lawrence, Kansas, a yearly bicycle event recently added a bike race to its agenda. This race is expected to attract 900 riders alone.
The city is donating some funds plus city services for the event. With the small investment the city is looking at gaining $600,000 in spending from participants and fans(Lawhorn 2009). Augusta, Georgia has also seen the benefits from bicycle events. In the 2006 Tour de Georgia part of the race ran through Augusta. It was estimated to have brought in $250,000 to the community and $32.6 million to the state of Georgia (Lombardo 2006).
13
Bicycle‐related economic activity can also generate money to the state economy. Wisconsin and Colorado, states with large scale manufacturing of bicycles and bike accessories, generate millions of dollars in activities and thousands of jobs.
Colorado bicycle‐related business has shown a contribution of over $1 billion to the state economy in annual activity (Alta Planning and Design 2006).
Bicycling and walking do not only bring in money to the economy; they also help to reduce government spending. With more bicycle and pedestrian trips there are fewer vehicle trips to cause wear and tear on the road. With fewer vehicles on the road, fewer accidents and less property damage can also be anticipated. A decrease in vehicles also decreases the demand for additional roads, lanes and parking. Reducing the vehicle trips and increasing bicycle and pedestrian trips can be a win, win in regards to economic benefits.
C. Environment/Energy
When citizens get out of their vehicles and walk or get onto their bicycles they are eliminating pollutants they would have created in fuel emissions by taking a vehicle. According to the League of American Bicyclists, bicycles currently displace over 238 million gallons of gasoline per year, by replacing car trips with bicycle trips. Not only did those who bicycle save gasoline, but they are also helping to reduce congestion by not having their vehicle on the road, eliminating the emissions caused by idling in the congestion. By eliminating pollutants caused by congestion, less contaminates end up in the air and on roadways which flows off the streets end up in our lakes and rivers.
Walking and bicycle trails that help make up the bicycle
14
and pedestrian network also provide environmental benefits. Trails help to protect plants and animals, create buffers for lakes and rivers, and filter pollution from agriculture and road runoff, along with other benefits. The plants along the trails create oxygen and filter air pollution, such as ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide. Additionally, these alternative transportation methods do not contribute to the noise level as cars often do reducing noise pollution.
D. Transportation
Briefly mentioned before, in 2001 the National Household Travel Survey
(NHTS) found that roughly 40 percent of all trips taken by car are less than 2 miles in length, the equivalent of a short bike ride or a 30 minute walk. Many people already chose to leave their vehicles at home, making their trip on foot or bicycle.
Bicyclists alone make nine million trips a day or 3,285,000,000 trip per year, in the
U.S. (2001 NHTS). Those citizens that chose to walk or ride a bike reduce local traffic and congestion. Otherwise, congestion reduces mobility, increases auto‐operating costs, adds to air pollution, and causes stress.
Additionally, there are many who cannot drive or have the luxury of owning a vehicle. According to the NHTS, one in 12 U.S. households do not own an automobile and approximately 12 percent of persons 15 or older do not drive.
Those that cannot drive such as the poor, young and elderly can benefit greatly with the development of a bicycle and pedestrian network.
15
E. Quality‐of‐life
Realtors, homebuyers, and others have associated the numbers of those who walk and bicycle as an indicator for an area’s quality‐of‐life. An active pedestrian/bicycle path is now perceived as giving a sense of community, which is attractive to businesses and their employees. Bicycle and pedestrian networks create an additional location for neighbors and other citizens to interact and create or strengthen relationships. The bicycle and pedestrian network increase one’s quality‐of‐life by improving the time spent traveling.
To date there is little research that has evaluated the relationship between the factors of the physical environment and the bicyclist/pedestrian. This may be due to the fact that pedestrian and cyclist behavior is highly complex and difficult to study. Many reports and articles found in this study have name factors in the environment that affect a pedestrian’s behavior, but very few concrete connections have actually been made. The studies that do look at the bicycle/pedestrian environment often study why those are choosing to walk or cycle instead of using their auto(Schlossberg, et al. 2007)(B. E. Saelens, et al. 2003).
16
Common Environmental Factors
Aesthetics
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Connectivity
Mixed Land Use
Residential Density
Walking/Cycling facilities
Traffic Safety
Crime Safety
Traffic
Traffic Block pattern and length
Figure 9‐Common Environmental Factors
A. Choosing to Cycle or Walk
Current studies on how environmental factors affect the behavior of cyclists and pedestrians are limited(B. E. Saelens, et al. 2003).
Many studies have found that bicycle and pedestrian trips have a strong positively correlate with density (Saelens,
Sallis and Frank 2003). There are also strong positive correlations between connectivity and land use i . Urban design, such as, short block length and a gridded street pattern also seem to have positive effect on bicycle and pedestrian trips, but the relationships are not as strong. Additionally, aesthetic factors have been found to increase physical activity behavior(Humpel, Owan and Leslie 2002). Bicycle and pedestrian facilities have indications of a positive correlation with bicycle and pedestrian trips, but there are limited studies and data available making this correlation unreliable(Saelens, Sallis and Frank 2003). Areas that need further study are: bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic calming, and crime.
i
A mixed land use had a strong correlation with pedestrian and bicycle trip, but the relationships became even stronger when nonresidential uses, such as, shopping and employment, were in close proximity to residential uses.
17
B. Choosing a Route
Statistically, pedestrian/bicyclists have been show to use several factors when determining a route. The view of a route, travel speed of nearby vehicles, perceived safety, and directness are items one may consider before or while on a trip. A study by Mineta Transportation Institute found that the most significant factor in choosing a route is efficiency, followed by traffic safety, and than aesthetics.
In most cases, cyclists and pedestrians prefer to take the most direct and convenient route, indicating the importance placed on time. The second priority of pedestrians was traffic safety. Pedestrians find comfort in having traffic calming devices present and in traffic that follows a safe driving speed(Schlossberg, et al. 2007). Following in importance as indicated by travelers is the condition of the facilities, such as the sidewalk. Lastly, pedestrians look for pleasant aesthetics such as landscaping when considering their choice in routes. These results are from a single study and should not be considered conclusive at this point, as the study has not yet been duplicated with a more diverse sample.
Information from this study is still useful, as the author has found no other studies that provide this type of data. The results were not surprising and have supported implications that have been made articles over the years. It is not a far stretch to assume that people value their time. We can now say with some perspective that when creating a bicycle or pedestrian network planners should prioritize with efficiency, traffic safety, facility condition, and aesthetics.
18
Some authors claim that most pedestrians are only willing to walk an average of ¼ mile; however the methods in these studies are faulty and the data is unreliable. It was not the fault of those conducting the study; it has been found that half of participants cannot accurately estimate the distances they travel. In the
Mineta Transportation Institute, researchers found that participants were off by 45 percent on thier estimated trip distance. This error in distance was found in a survey where participants were asked to estimate their trip distance and then trace their route on a printed map. On average, the guesses erred by 0.20 miles.
The Mineta Transportation Institute findings also indicated pedestrians walk farther than previously thought, at least when walking to a transit center. The study found that people on average, were walking 0.47 miles, almost twice the distance originally reported. This new finding deserves attention as it could affect urban planning in multiple areas such as Transit Oriented Developments (TODs). This, of course, will need further study with the mapping survey technique used in this study.
For bicyclists, determining how far one will ride can vary greatly based on the cyclist community in the area. Many cyclists ride for recreation, for sport or to commute and can cover a large distance on each trip. When considering multiple factors, time is still one of the most significant issues implicating how far one will travel. Time can determine how long a trip can be, based on one’s athletic ability, or be a value for comparison when considering other forms of transit. If there are
19
greater facilities with few barriers, a bicyclist can cover a longer distance in a shorter time than when the bicyclists must travel with poor facilities with barriers. .
Another issue is how well an individual is accustomed to riding. An individual who rides everyday will have few problem riding, but others may become sore and fatigued from the same experience (Forester 1994). In other works, soreness and fatigue can be limiting factors. Little data was found concerning bicyclists as a whole, the data that was found was old and focused in on small segment of cyclists making it difficult to make a generalization for all bicyclists. A better measurement in future research may consider time versus distance for a more generalized measure that would cover all type of cyclists in various conditions.
Individuals walk, run, or jog for many reasons including heath, exercise, and work. Two recent surveys studied the purpose of one’s pedestrian trip, one by the
Federal Highway Administration and the other by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. The Federal Highway Administration used their 2001 National Household
Travel Survey (NHTS), formerly the Nationalwide Personal Transportation Survey
(NPTS), to determine the purposes of walking trips. The Bureau of Transportation
Statistics contracted Omnibus to conduct their survey. The two surveys although similar, are stated differently and have differently named categories, which created results. The results for the two surveys are found on the following page.
20
NHTS: Trip Purposes as Percentage of Walking compared to Other
Modes, 2001
Social and Recreational
Personal Family Business
School or Church
Percentage of
Walking Trips
44.7
36
11
Percentage of
Other Modes
26.6
43.8
9.8
To/From Work or other Work/Business related
Other
6.6
1.5
18.8
0.8
Figure 10‐ NHTS, 2001 Trip Purposes Results
Omnibus Survey, 2003 Asked all respondents for what purpose they walk, run, or jog:
Purpose
Percentage
(weighted)
Commuting to work or school
Recreation
Exercise/for my health
Personal errands (to the store, post office, walking the dog, and so on)
6.18
10.3
60.35
Required for my job
19.42
3.75
Figure 11‐Omnibus Survey, 2003 Trip Purpose
Pedestrians are diverse, making them difficult to plan for comprehensively.
There are walker and joggers, people who enjoy a stroll, parents who walk with children, people with pets, elderly, and individuals with disabilities, all who have different needs when developing a pedestrian system. However, facilities should be
created to meet the needs of all users.
21
Types of Pedestrians
Ambulatory Impaired
Cognitive Impaired
Dog Guided
Elderly
Hearing Impaired
Joggers
Parents and Children
People with Pets
Prosthesis
Scooters
Walkers
Waling Aid Users
White Cane Users
Wheelchairs
Figure 12‐Types of Pedestrians
Cyclists are also a diverse group with large variation in experience and skills.
With this group there are recreation riders, commuters, children, novice riders, and others, all who have their own needs and levels of comfort. Cyclists are now commonly divided up into three different groups of cyclists: advanced, intermediate, and beginner.
Types of Bicyclists
Type Description
A
B
C
Advanced
Intermediate
Novice
Figure 13‐Type of Bicyclists
Type A ‐ Advanced Bicyclists
Advanced Bicyclists are the most skilled of the three types of cyclists.
Advanced cyclists will ride in almost any weather, are comfortable riding with traffic, and are able to ride at a continuous speed of 12 mph or higher. They also look for the fastest route, even if that means riding in heavy traffic. Types of riders
22
commonly found in this group are daily commuters, racers and tri‐athletes, bicycle messengers, and other athletically trained cyclists(Lydon 2008).
Type B‐ Intermediate Bicyclists
Intermediate Bicyclists are well skilled bicyclists with varying levels of experience. This type of rider is less comfortable riding with traffic, tends to take a longer route if it appears safer, and is unlikely to bicycle in unfavorable weather.
Type B riders also have lower distance and inconvenience thresholds then Type A cyclists. Type B cyclists will ride more when the proper bicycle facilities or streets with light traffic are present.
Type C‐ Novice Bicyclists
Novice Bicyclists have basic cycling skills. Type C riders are usually children and first‐time bicyclists. This group of riders prefer the sidewalk, recreational paths, and parks. You will usually only see this type of cyclist in pleasant weather.
When evaluating an existing pedestrian or bicycle system there are many ways to go about it. Some may wish to simply evaluate the sidewalk and its conditions. Others may need a comprehensive evaluation that surveys the entire environment of the pedestrian or bicyclist. In any case there are many surveys or audits to choose from. The Walkability Checklist and Bikeability Checklist are simple surveys created by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center that are great in targeting problem areas or collecting the basic data for a project. Systematic
23
Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES) and Pedestrian Environment
Data Scan (PEDS) are more complex surveys that collect a comprehensive set of valuable pedestrian and environment data.
A. Barriers
For pedestrians and bicyclists it is important that they have a direct or efficient route for their trip, but often there are barriers in the way that slow or force the pedestrian/bicyclist to take a different route. It is important to remove these barriers because pedestrian and bicycle trips are often limited by the distance that the person is willing to travel or by the perceived distance of travel. If barriers can be removed it is possible to increase the number of pedestrian and bicycle trips.
(Institute of Transportation Engineers 1999)
Rivers, interstates, railroad tracks, and unsafe environments are all barriers quickly thought of, but there are many others that can be forgotten by those whom have chosen another primary mode of transportation. Wide roads, rough railroad crossings, inadequate bike lanes, lack of pedestrian and bicycle connections, signals not activated by bicycles, and poor, incomplete, or non‐existing facilities are all barriers that must be considered. Those who have chosen to walk or bicycle in a given area can assist in naming many more of the locally found barriers.
For bicyclists, hazards also can be considered a barrier. Street grates, debris, rough pavement, high traffic speeds, high traffic volumes, rumble strips, and others can be dangerous obstacles for those determined to make the bicycle trip.
24
Common Barriers
Rivers, creeks, canals
Railroad yard or tracks
Interstates, highways, county roads
Poor, incomplete, or non-exixsting facilities (sidewalks, paths, bike lanes)
High volume roads
Bridges
Wide Roads
Rough railroad crossings (more so on angled crossings)
Inadequate bike line (to narrow)
Lack of bicycle and pedestrian connections (where it would be suitable between residential areas and schools or shopping areas)
Unsafe Environments (crime and traffic safety)
Signals that are not activated by bicycle
Signals that cannot be activated by pedestrians
Figure 14‐Common Carriers
B. Design Standards
Bicycle Hazards
Street Grates
Debris
Rough Pavement
High Speed Limits
High Volumes
Rumble Strips
Narrow Traffic Lanes
Gravel Shoulder
Excessive Driveways
Figure 15‐Bicycle Hazards
When working with or creating new design standards for pedestrian and bicycle networks, experience in the area of laws and regulations becomes very helpful. A quick search of current standards will bring up Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines, Victorian Transportation Police Institute (VTPI) best practices, and many others. When working on the pedestrian plan specifically, the ADA legal
25
requirements must be met in order to avoid discriminating against those with disabilities. Initial improvements to facilities concerning design standards and an implementation timeline should have been addressed in a citywide transition plan to address these requirements. There are exemptions, deferments, and other reasons cities have not yet met requirements of the ADA. Careful review should be conducted to ensure that all requirements and standards are being met. Note that the ADA’s Revised Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public RightsofWay have not yet been approved and accepted into law, but there are standards from other sections of the act that are considered the minimum standard. Most importantly, the main purpose of the act is to eliminate discrimination and should be used as the primary
consideration in creating design standards.
~United States Access Board~
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1991 is a civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination against people who have disabilities. ADA implementing regulations for Title II prohibit discrimination in the provision of services, programs, and activities by state and local governments. Under the ADA, designing and constructing facilities that are not usable by people who have disabilities constitutes discrimination. In addition, failure to make the benefits of government programs, activities, and services available to people who have disabilities because existing facilities are inaccessible is also discrimination.
As of June 30, 2009, the ADA standards for the Public RightsofWay were still in a Draft form and not yet approved. The ADA standards issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Transportation (DOT) were initially created in
1991 based on the original 1991 Americans with Disability Act Accessibility
26
Guidelines (ADAAG), which still set the minimum requirements. In the ADAAG there are section currently reserved for standards, such as the standards for the Public
Rights‐of‐Way, which are waiting to be created and approved. The ADA Standards for the Public RightsofWay currently needs the DOT’s and the DOJ’s approval before it is added to the ADAAG.
C. Trip Generators – Destination Points
Trip generators are important in informing the creation of a pedestrian/bicycle network. In determining or assigning trip generation points, several methods can be used based on need. To better design or create a pedestrian and bicycle network a planner needs to determine points of origins and destinations. The planner can then use skill and judgment based on knowledge and experience to determine demand for pedestrian facilities. This process is known as the intuitive or sketch planning approach and this process can be accomplished with greater precision by using a GIS system. The forecasting and modeling approaches are those similar to vehicle traffic demand methods and use some of the same theories(Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center n.d.). There is also new computer modeling that can better make predictions, but this method may over‐ complicate this process for smaller communities and is not typically cost effective
(Litman, et al. 2009).
There are many forecasting methods that can be used. The Federal Highway
Administration has reported on several models to allow municipalities to find a method that best meets their needs. The Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non
27
Motorized Travel report looks at nineteen (19) different methods and is a great review of the available models.
D. Safe Routes to School
The Safe Routes to School program was created in 2006 and is managed by
National Center for Safe Routes to School. The purpose of the center and its program enable and encourage children to safely walk and bike to school. Through the center information is provided on multiple aspects used to create Safe Routes to
School (SRTS). With this program a community can come together and create a map of safe routes, create a school zone, place street crossings, add traffic calming, develop walking events, create a bicycle rodeo, add street signs to warn drivers, and provide information for crossing guards.
E. Pedestrian Facilities
When discussing pedestrian facilities there are many other considerations, such as the pedestrian environment, that must be made after meeting the ADA standards and additional design standards found appropriate by the transportation planners. When developing standards for facilities several design considerations can create a delight able environment found with Complete Streets. Additional considerations for pedestrian facilities the importance of it all should be in creating and attractive and inviting area that can be freely used by pedestrians. A great source for detailed information can be found at Walkinginfo.org.
28
Considerations for Pedestrian Facilities
Street lighting
Landscaping heighth
Clear visibility
Shade trees
Separation from vehicular traffic
Direct and continuous facilities
Traffic Calming
Considerations for shared walkways
Buffer type between pedestrian and vehicular traffic
Figure 16 ‐ Considerations for Pedestrian Facilities
F. Bicycle Facilities
Developing or improving bicycle facilities often means coordinating improvements with street projects. Adding or improving bicycle lanes can require construction, such as resurfacing or improvements to a streets shoulder and moving or changing storm drains to bicycle friendly storm drains. Bicycle lanes can also cause a need for repainting and striping along with signage to improve space and drivers awareness of bicyclists. Other considerations such as the placement of bicycle racks are also important for bicyclists to reduce the worry and willingness to lockup their valuable bicycle. Valuable information and sources on providing bicycle facilities can be found at bicycleinfo.org
Other improvements for bicycle facilities include:
•
Traffic control devices
•
Traffic calming
•
Bicycle parking
•
Bicycle lockers
29
•
Park‐and‐ride lots
G. Complete Streets\Livable Communities
Complete Streets and Livable Communities expand on the base of pedestrian and bicycle network design. Complete Streets consider the entire environment of the pedestrian and bicyclists, for example, trees are planted where its hot, traffic calming is placed where traffic is fast, and adding furniture when possible. When designing a complete street more attention is given to the pedestrian and bicyclist, and considerations are made on a case‐by‐case measure.
H. Local Ordinances
Municipalities and other local forms of government have the ability to create and modify local ordinances in order to provide safety or create design standards for the pedestrian or bicyclist. These ordinances can require property owners to clear their sidewalks of snow in winter, allow children to ride their bicycle on the sidewalk, or require bicycle parking at businesses. The use of ordinances can be helpful in creating a proper environment for the pedestrian and bicyclists when ordinances are followed and enforced. There is little information of local ordinances for the pedestrian and bicyclist and no model ordinances where found in this research.
I. Prioritizing Improvements
When prioritizing improvement projects there are a few factors to be considered. To keep things simple; demand, barriers, benefits, and costs can help
30
determine a sequence for creating and improving pedestrian and bicycle systems.
These factors have been used to create simple and complete matrix systems to determine priorities. An example of a matrix system can be found in the Victoria
Transport Policy Institute’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning: A Guide to Best
Practices . Another way to stage pedestrian/bicycle facility improvements and new construction is by requests and complaints, and cities such as Portland refer back to transportation and neighborhood plans as part of their process.
Prioritizing improvements and new constructions can also become a complex system, taking in consideration multiple variables like those discussed in the
AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities . This guide provides a list of variables and describes their importance for consideration for improvement projects. Other thoughts and ideas can be found by getting public involvement to determine the areas interests and values; there may be areas that neighborhood wish to have higher priority.
31
AASHTO's Variables for Priority in Retrofitting
Volume
Pedestrian Generators
Road Traffic Speed
Street Classification
Crash Data
School Walking Zones
Transit Routes
Urban Centers
Neighborhood Commercial Areas
Disadvantaged Neighborhoods
Missing Links
Neighborhood Priorities
Activity Type
Transportation Plan Improvements
Citizen Request
Street Resurfacing Programs
Figure 17‐AASHTO’s Variables for Priority in Retrofitting
Source: AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian
Facilities
J. Sample Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans
When beginning to plan or revise a pedestrian/bicycle plan it can be very helpful to review other plans that are new and well planned. Reviewing other plans can be helpful by observing good examples in areas that are unfamiliar, or by learning a new concept or idea that may not have been thought of or covered in the previous plan. There are no comprehensive lists or rankings of pedestrian or bicycle plans, but there have been some attempts to try to provide useful lists.
Walkinginfo.org and bicyclinginfo.org both have long lists of plans one can review.
They also separate plans into state, regional, local, trail/greenway, and site plans to try to be more helpful. Another great source is in the appendices of the continually revised Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning: A Guide to Best Practices produced by the
32
Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. For this guide, the writers have provided a list of plans that were reviewed and were thought to be exemplary.
During and after work on a pedestrian/ bicycle plan, coordination is needed between the pedestrian/bicycle planner and other officials and departments along with the public. The public works and their street departments will play an important part in the implementation, maintenance, and design of any pedestrian and bicycle plan. Many others may have valuable information and input on things such as rules, regulations, funding, current and future projects, and zoning.
Coordination helps to keep everyone in the loop, benefits with participant’s recommendations, and having everyone on the same page help in its implementations. This topic has been discussed in multiple pedestrian and planning documents including the Federal Highway Administration’s book Implementing
Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level .
33
Muncie’s pedestrian plan is part of a countywide plan as it has been developed from a city‐county planning department, the acting Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO). The Delaware‐Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission created its first bicycle plan in 1995 and bicycle/pedestrian plan in 2000. These plans were meant to be to a jumping off point for an anticipated plan called
Community Connections. In 2005 the latest transportation plan incorporated and updated the bicycle/pedestrian plan with information and references to the
Community Connections plan. However, there was a problem with the Community
Connections plan. The company that was contracted to produce the plan had some management issues and split up during the production of the document, thus, reducing its quality. This has delayed progress in improving Muncie’s pedestrian and bicycle network. The Delaware‐Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission is currently in progress on updating the 2005 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan to be released sometime in 2009.
As the Muncie‐Delaware Metropolitan Plan Commission covers most of
Delaware County the current plan covers goals and objects meant to allow anyone within the county to reach the Pedestrian/Bicycle network. Because there is a
34
countywide focus, projects and their priority are not focused entirely on the city.
Being a countywide plan, the criteria noted below was suggested to help in the planning process. With this criterion a new system was to be proposed using new and existing facilities.
Delaware-Muncie Transportation Plan Classification Variables for Sidewalk
Projects Priority
Connectivity
Development Density
Land Use Type
Level of Service (LOS)
Projected Use
Safety
Congestion
Modal Conflict Resolution
Accidents
Hazardous Segments
Pedestrian/Bicycle Volume
Figure 18 – Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan Classification Variables for
Sidewalk Projects Priority
Source: 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan
With the completion of the Community Connections plan an inventory and analysis of the current system with recommendations was produced. This was completed with the use of a new geodatabase created for this project. With the geodatabase and geographic information systems (GIS) software the existing conditions, improvements, and future proposals were all geographically represented with easy interpretation. This was very useful for the county when
presenting and collecting input from the community.
The Community Connection plan was also meant to provide recommendations and guidelines for local officials, so they would have the correct
35
tools for implementing the new network. Guidelines for right‐of‐ways, design standards, and maintenance recommendations were to be created. In all, the plan was to be the beginning of a new strong multi‐modal system for Muncie and
Delaware County. Unfortunately Murphy’s Law stepped in with the contractor and the Community Connections plan never became the large stepping‐stone that it
should have been.
36
The following are maps and descriptions are from the Community Connections plan.
Figure 19 – 20052030 DelawareMuncie Transportation Plan. Page 39
Figure 9 is a map of proposed routes initially developed from data and further developed with input collected over several public viewing sessions. This map was created for the Community Connections plan. Other information about the map and routes are unknown.
Figure 20 – 20052030 DelawareMuncie Transportation Plan: Project
Priority. Page 40
Figure 10 is a mapping for a list of 12 proposed multi‐use pathways, developed as part of the Community Connections plan. These projects were chosen based on public input, mostly from Muncie. Most participants were located in
Muncie, all there most projects are found to be centrally located around Muncie.
This causes concern, as it seems to acknowledge that the public living outside the city were not represented and were given no consideration in the development in
the list of priority projects. The following is a list of the projects and their identification number to help refer between the map on Figure 10 and the table in
Figure 11.
37
List of Project Priorities for Figures 10 & 11
1 Morrow's Meadow Trail/White River Greenway
2 Buck Creek Beltway
3 Campus Connector
4 Muncie Creek Greenway
5 York Prairie Greenway East
6 Central Levee Walk
7 Bethel Heron Trail/ Evermore Path
8 River Road Greenway
9 White River Greenway Memorial Extension
10 Rosewood Farm Pathway
11 York Prairie Greenway West
12 Beach Grove Greenway
Figure 19‐List of Project Priorities for Figures 10 & 11
Source: 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan
38
39
Figure 21‐ 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan: Project Priority
40
Figure 22‐ 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan: Project Priority &
Other Path Costs
Figure – 11
The costs in this table were preliminary estimated costs at $300,000 per mile for multi‐use paths. The costs were the base prices with no additional costs estimated for changes in design or engineering.
41
Figure 12 20052030 DelawareMuncie Transportation Plan:
Pedestrian/Bicycle and Roadway Coordination Project. Page 43
Figure 12 is a mapping of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are priorities for new construction or replacement during scheduled or foreseen roadway projects. The facilities listed on the map were determined with data layers, public input, and the need to fill in missing segments of the network. The map also shows projects where coordination for new or replacement pedestrian/bicycle facilities have been made.
Figure 13 20052030 DelawareMuncie Transportation Plan:
Pedestrian/Bicycle Network Water Crossings. Page 44
The White River is a beautiful meandering river that runs its way through
Muncie, IN creating a need for many water crossings for the pedestrian/bicycle network. Figure 13 is a map of Muncie the location of water crossings for the White
River and the many other creeks and drainage ditches.
Figure 14 20052030 DelawareMuncie Transportation Plan: Sidewalk
Priority Areas. Page 45
This Figure is a simple map show that shows the areas where there is a priority for sidewalk construction. The areas shown are the top six area, in no order.
None of the areas are in the study area for this project.
42
Figure 23 ‐ 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan: Pedestrian/Bicycle and Roadway Coordination Project.
43
Figure 24 ‐ 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan: Pedestrian/Bicycle Network Water Crossings
44
Figure 25 ‐ 2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan: Sidewalk Priority Areas
45
Data collection began with researching existing documentation and data available. Documentation on the current pedestrian/bicycle network was discussed in detail in the previous chapter. The Muncie‐Delaware Plan Commission held the
2005‐2030 Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Plan, Community Connections Survey
Results, and Delaware‐Muncie Transportation Improvement Program. Attempts were made to view the 1995 Transportation Plan, the 2000 Transportation Plan and the Community Connections plan, but were these documents were never made available. The Delaware County Geospatial Resources Office (GIS Office) provided many helpful geospatial datasets listed below. The GIS data made available were created by the GIS Office with the exception of the Census and Sidewalk Conditions datasets. Multiple offices were also asked for a transition plan regarding ADA
compliance, but this document was never made available.
Delaware County Geospatial
Resources’ GIS Data:
Alleyways
Building Footprints
Bus Routes and Stops
Census Data
Land Use
Parcels
Parks
Schools
Sidewalk Condition
Streets
Water Bodies
Sewer Facilities
Figure 26 – Delaware County Geospatial Resources’ GIS Data
For more input on the creative project a meeting was set up with Marta
Moody, Executive Director of the Delaware‐Muncie Plan Commission and another interested party. Common interests were discussed. Ms. Moody also shared recommendations made by other groups that were looking to improve the pedestrian system in Muncie’s Historic Downtown and elsewhere.
After review of the existing data and discussion with other parties, it was determined that additional data and updated information was needed. The sidewalk data was outdated and did not represent the current sidewalk conditions.
The data was also lacking other useful information such as sidewalk distance to the curb and buffer type. Other information thought to be useful such as, barriers and hazards would also need to be collected. A new survey of the sidewalk was needed.
ESRI ArcPad and ArcView were selected to create, collect, and analyze the data. A personal geodatabase was created with a shape and point file to develop the feature and input data being surveyed. Each surveyed feature was given a field and
47
domains were added to allow for a better efficiency while in the field. In addition, a
“notes” field was added in order to enter information not covered by the other variables being surveyed.
The survey identifies physical features for the pedestrian network. The potential features and their descriptions are listed on the following page. The primary need for the survey was to analyze Muncie’s Downtown and its surrounding area and streets that could be used as connections to the downtown.
For consistency, the criteria was developed for determining sidewalks
conditions. The criteria noted on the survey, found on the following page, were developed for simplicity and to meet the needs of this project. Following the survey
are reference material created to provide visual examples.
48
2009 Sidewalk Survey
Sidewalk Conditions
Rating Condition
1 Excellent
2 Good
3 Fair
4 Poor
Description
Like new
Few bumps or cracks
Some bumps or cracks, some heaving of the sidewalk
Lots of bumps or cracks, lots of heaving
5 None
Sidewalk Width
Range Unit
No existing sidewalks
0' - 30' Feet
Sidewalk Distance to Curb
Range Unit
0' - 16' Feet
Buffer Type Between Sidewalk and Curb
ID Description
1 Grass
2 Brick
3 Landscaping
4 Hedges
5 Trees
6 Concrete/Landscaping
7 Other
Curb Cut North or West
ID Description
1 Yes
2 No
Curb Cut South or East
ID Description
1 Yes
2 No
Barrier Type
Unit Description
1 Utility pole
2 Street tree
3 Street sign
4 Fire hydrant
5 Curb cut/ramp in bad condition or not ADA compliant
6 Utility cabinet
7 Utility pole guy wire
8 Street light
Figure 27‐ 2009 Sidewalk Survey
49
‐ New or Perfect Condition
No bumps, cracks, or heaving.
Figure 28‐ Sidewalk Condition “Excellent”
‐Like New
Few bumps, cracks, and little heaving.
Figure 29‐ Sidewalk Condition “Good”
50
‐Older Condition that may need repairs, but not yet in need of
replacement
Some bumps, cracks, or heaving.
Figure 30‐ Sidewalk Condition “Fair”
‐ Conditions that are in need of replacement
Major bumps, cracks, or heaving.
Figure 31 – Sidewalk Condition “Poor”
51
Figure 32 – Sidewalk Condition “None”
‐ No Sidewalk Present
Sidewalk not present or no longer function
Figure 32‐ Sidewalk Condition “None”
For the survey, data was collected on an Xplore tablet PC with ESRI’s ArcPad for accurate positioning. Data for the survey was collected by walking all the sidewalks and areas where there is potential to develop sidewalks. Figure 33, shown on page 52, shows the entire area surveyed. The data was inputted into the geodatabase with ESRI’s ArcPad software. To collect the measurements needed a measuring wheel was used to get rough estimates within ¼ of a foot or better. The data was collected by one person, eliminating inconsistencies of multiple persons on the judgment of sidewalk conditions. Surveying the area took over two weeks, but could have been shorter if not for the limitation made by the Xplore tablet PC. The tablet could only hold a charge that varied between 105 minutes and 180 minutes
52
(1.75 – 3 Hours). There also were no additional batteries, so there was a similar wait period while the Xplore tablet was charging.
After the data was collected, the information was cleaned and corrected to fix overlaps, GPS error, and make adjustments based on notes taken by the survey. An addition was made to add hazards to the list of barriers. While conducting the survey many street signs were removed incorrectly leaving jagged metal to stick out of the concrete. Additional barriers included old bolts left in the concrete after some type of streetlight or other pole was removed. Some areas even had wiring and fragments of old poles.
53
Figure 33 – 2009 Sidewalks Surveyed
54
In conducting the survey and analyzing the data, important information was collected and several issues were discovered. The information collected with the
GIS system provided very useful data that is visual as well as analytical. By displaying the survey data and data collected from the GIS office on a map one can quickly interpret the data, identify concerns and area for improvement, and envision new routes and connections.
According to the survey findings on sidewalk condition, about 82 percent of the sidewalks were in “fair” condition or better. Eighty‐two percent is an exact percentage when looking at each segment of sidewalk and its condition. In a downtown where pedestrian access is a high priority, 82 percent can still be viewed as a low number.
When looking at a city block that is in
“excellent” condition with exception of a small, heaved segment of sidewalk, the
condition then becomes “poor” as a person with a disability may find the sidewalk of the entire block unusable. When looking at the entire length of a block to determine conditions, a larger percentage of sidewalk becomes identified to be in less than useful condition. that is in a less than useful condition. Look at the entire length of the block and assign the entire block the lowest condition when Poor or None conditions are present or when driveways have no curb ramp only about 53.5
percent of the sidewalks are walkable for the entire population. The length in feet and percentages are shown below and maps are show on pages 61 and 62.
Sidewalk Segment Conditions
Condition Feet Percentage
Excellent 32,103.49
24.92%
Good 43,032.53
33.40%
Fair
Poor
30,331.75
19,557.68
23.54%
15.18%
None 3,820.24
2.96%
Total 128,845.70
100.00%
Figure 34 ‐ Sidewalk Segment Conditions
City Block Sidewalk Conditions
Condition Feet
Excellent 26,295.04
Percentage
20.41%
Good
Fair
Poor
None
26,911.72
15,763.38
55,269.67
4,605.89
20.89%
12.23%
42.90%
3.57%
Total 128,845.70
100.00%
Figure 35‐ City Block Sidewalk Conditions
A second area of importance is the type or design of the curb ramps. While conducting the survey, it was found that more information should have been collected in this area. The ADA standards for curb ramps, in the Public Right‐of‐Way
56
Accessibility Guidelines, have not yet been accepted and currently use ramp standards found in other sections of the Act. The standards currently in draft form will create a higher standard than that found in Downtown
Muncie. Information, such as width of the curb ramp, warning strip type, warning strip width, warning strip color, and ramp grade, would have been valuable information to have when the Public Right‐of‐Way
Accessibility Guidelines are adopted. The data collected was only to find whether there was a curb along a pedestrian route. Of the 790 points where a pedestrian route intersects a curb, 684, or about 87 percent, had ramps. Condition and design of the ramps were not considered. The fact that there was or was not a ramp was the only variable in the decision. The following table shows the data collected from the survey on curb ramps.
Curb Ramps
Yes
No
Total
Count Percentage
684 86.58%
106
790
13.42%
100.00%
Figure 36 – Curb Ramp Counts
Additional information was collected on barriers and hazards on pedestrian routes. Along a pedestrian route there are many items that a pedestrian must interact and maneuver around. The survey collected points for barriers and hazards to find the number of interactions or maneuvers one would make along a route.
Many items were found, including many unexpected hazards. Old parts from
57
streetlights and signposts were found in the sidewalk. Bolts, jagged signposts, broken bases of streetlights, and sawed down utility
poles were all found. Pleas see the data below for specific information.
Bad Ramp
Concrete Block
Fire Hydrants
Guy Wire
Hazards
Mail Box
No Curb Ramp
Other
Plants
Railings
Sidewalk Heaves
Sign Stubs
Stairs
Street Lights
Street Signs
Traffic Light
Trees
Utility Box
Utility Poles
Xing Light
Total
Figure 37 – Pedestrian Barriers and Hazards Count
94
123
28
117
36
1230
73
40
12
10
20
15
195
264
6
6
73
35
23
12
48
58
Visualizing data can help one grasp issues or envision new ideas. The following pages in this chapter are maps produced from the survey. Descriptions are included for each map.
Figure 38 – Detailed Sidewalk Conditions
The map of detailed walking conditions, as it implies a detailed map of walking conditions. The survey taken was meant to extract data regarding the condition of sidewalks within the study area and along neighborhood connections.
Figure 39– Generalized Sidewalk Conditions
This map was meant to illustrate the sidewalk conditions from the viewpoint of an individual with physical disabilities. In this case, when a segment of a block was missing or in poor condition, the entire block was reassigned as “none” or
“poor” condition. Additionally, a block of sidewalk with a curb and no ramp was reassigned a “poor” value. In this way, a better visualization can be made concerning routes that are either accessible or restrictive to individuals with physical disabilities.
Figure 40– Points of Conflict
Walking down a sidewalk in the Downtown one will have to maneuver around many objects that are presently in the walkway. This is not a significant problem for many of us, but individuals with visual impairments be slowed by related hazards. Guy wires that stabilized utility poles can cause hindrances, or even serious injuries. Many of these points of conflict can be replaced to less intrusive
59
locations or eliminated from the walkway. This map shows where there are large groupings of hazards and provides a visual of the points of conflict.
60
Figure 38 – Detailed Sidewalk Conditions
61
Figure 39– Generalized Sidewalk Conditions
62
Figure 40– Points of Conflict
63
The pedestrian and bicycle plan for Downtown Muncie is one recommendation needed to rejuvenate the Downtown into the active city center it once was. The Purpose of these changes is to encourage walking and bicycling into preferred and efficient modes of transportation used in the Downtown (shown in
Figure 1A). By expanding on and improving the current pedestrian and bicycle network, not only will Muncie regain an underutilized mode of transit, but also gain benefits in many other areas, such as public health, economic, transit, quality‐of‐life, environment, and energy.
Walking is the most important and basic form of transportations. All trips whether transit or by vehicle begin with a short walking trip. However, Muncie has traditionally focused on the automobile as the primary means of transportation. In the early 1990s a change throughout the country began to take into consideration all forms of transportation and, by doing so, has created efforts to increase active transportation. The new multi‐modal approach has many benefits, many of which have been seen in larger cities where multi‐modal systems have been present for years.
Figure 1A‐Downtown Muncie Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
FFocus Area
1. Urban Design Factors
Muncie was built using a grid street system and a hierarchy was applied.
Within the grid system are a few obstacles, such as, a busy railroad system and the
White River, which uniquely modify the grid. By using the grid layout with acceptable block length, the City of Muncie has created a high level of connectivity for it pedestrians and bicyclist. The City of Muncie also has and allowed for a mixed land use in its Downtown that allows for a commercial and residential mix. Even though residential can occur in the Downtown there is a low population density as
66
shown in figure 2A (page 68). Although having a larger residential presence in the
Downtown would increase the hours of activity in the Downtown, residential activity does not have the same correlation with trip generation as nonresidential uses, such as shopping and employment, which are also present.
2. Route Choice
Limited information is available concerning the factors in which the people of
Muncie use in make a choice of route for walking or bicycling. In the Community
Connections survey, question 25 asked what safety factors the people of Delaware
County felt were important. In Delaware County the most important concerns indicated were a) a quality surface condition of the path, and b) a buffer between the roadway and pedestrian/bicycle pathway. A distant third from the first two choices for a safe pathway were the lighting conditions.
3. How Far Pedestrians Are Willing to Walk or Cycle
The Community Connections survey collected for Delaware County in 2002
(see Appendix C) provided valuable information about the activity level and thoughts of those in the county, data that can be used in this pedestrian/bicycle plan. The survey did, however, differ in the units of measurement. The Community
Connections survey used time instead of distance when questioning about trip length. For Delaware County it was found that 79.84 percent were willing to walk for at least 11 minutes, which at an average walking speed of three miles per hour would cover one half of a mile. This distance equates to the distance from one end of the downtown to the other.
67
Figure 2A– Downtown Muncie Population Density
68
4. Why People Walk or Bicycle
In the Community Connections Survey of Delaware County multiple questions were asked to better understand the current interest and needs of the people in Delaware County. In a survey question asking the purpose of a walking or bicycle trip, the greatest response was found in the area of pleasure/leisure and followed by fitness/training. In a following question, survey respondents were asked how new or improved facilities would impact how the network be used. In the follow up question, respondents reported higher participation in all categories with no change in the ranking of the results from the original question. No questions were asked directly discussing the primary purpose for a walking or bicycle trip, and the question that were asked on a trip purpose may have been found confusing.
Confusion may have occurred, affecting the result when it asked for a trip purpose listing jogging/running along with fitness/training as possibilities.
The goals of this Downtown pedestrian and bicycle plan is to create direct routes for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as to eliminate barriers and complete
facilities that will increase the connectivity of the Downtown to the surrounding neighborhoods. This would be in addition to the goals yet to be set in the city/county wide pedestrian/bicycle plan. General goals typically found in a pedestrian and bicycle plan are listed in the following table.
69
Provide a safe, accessible, and convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Encourage increased levels of walking and bicycling.
Integrate pedestrian and bicycle facilities with other transportation systems.
Create a safe, convenient and attractive walking and bicycling environment.
Create an education program to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Reduce the number of short vehicle trips.
Identify problem areas, missing links, and discontinuances to plan for prioritization and funding solutions.
Create a system for prioritizing the improvement of pedestrian and bicycle facilities conditions. (Removing barriers, adding curb ramps, adding pedestrian-activated signals
Develop a list prioritizing repairs and replacement of facilities
Create an integrated system of footpaths and bikeways that connects neighborhoods, commercial areas, schools, parks, and other major community destinations.
Develop and adopt a map depicting the city’s intent for future pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Develop standards that improve the pedestrian and bicycle network, such as those that reduce driveways, improve sight lines, improve access controls, and improve curb cuts.
Plan for walking and bicycle facilities in all existing and new developments.
Plan for maximizing connectivity, provide shade, places to rest, short blocks, and public spaces in new neighborhoods.
Ensure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities are part of street design.
Develop a program to organize and gain support for the pedestrian and bicycle network.
Provide adequate bicycle parking.
Install lighting and other facilities to add security.
Establish a relationship between the utility companies and street department.
Seek out and apply for grants to fun pedestrian and bicycle projects.
Design facilities to minimize maintenance costs by specifying standards for materials.
Develop a routine for inspecting pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Provide literature on the pedestrian and bicycle network.
Provide walking and bicycle maps to the public.
Develop literature promoting walking and bicycling.
Develop education programs for schools.
Develop safety and helmet programs.
Figure 3A ‐ Typical Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Goals
70
With the street network already in place, there are many limitations in regard to expanding and improving the pedestrian/bicycle network. The existing street network is, however, built on a grid system that provides excellent connectivity. Building on the existing streets network also has the added benefit in that it already is taking people where they want to go, in that all buildings are placed adjacent to a street. Efforts in the Downtown focus on creating greater accessibility, safety, and shared right‐of‐ways.
When looking at the Downtown pedestrian and bicycle facilities, there are many issues that must be addressed. There are areas that are without curb ramps that can be replaced, areas without sidewalks, “poor” conditioned sidewalk, hazards and barriers, non‐bicycle friendly storm drains, road shoulders need to be resurfaced, and missing signs and road strips need to be placed for starters.
Addressing all the issues in the Downtown at once would be wonderful, but unlikely.
Alternatively, suggestions are made to prioritize projects with the greatest benefits.
Additionally, opportunities to complete lower priority projects should be taken . Any improvements or new construction should follow the new design standards.
Downtown Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects
1.
Remove All Hazards.
2.
Construct curb ramps where there are none.
3.
Construct sidewalks where segments are missing.
4.
Replace sidewalks in poor condition.
5.
Remove or reposition items that create a barrier or point of conflict.
6.
Replace storm drains with bicycle friendly drains.
71
7.
Resurface street shoulder.
8.
Place signage and paint stripping for bicycle awareness
1. Removing all hazards
While conducting the survey on the current sidewalk conditions it was found that random hazards, exist throughout the Downtown. Hazards, such as broken‐off street signposts or bolts cemented into the sidewalk, create a danger for pedestrians. One could stumble and fall from or onto these hazards and could become seriously injured. Thus, hazards should be removed immediately. In some cases, it looks as if the signposts were incorrectly installed, with concrete poured directly around the signpost, causing removal and replacement to became a difficult task. Circular forms can be used in the future sign implementation to leave a small opening in the concrete to allow for easy placement and removal of street signposts.
72
73
Figure 4A – Sidewalk Hazards
74
2. Construct curb ramps where there are none.
.A curb ramp is a small and simple project and can quickly bring the
Downtown to a higher standard that the City of Muncie is always reaching for
Downtown Muncie does meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act concerning a minimum number of curb ramps, but the city of Muncie should be challenged to strive for greater support for individuals with physical impairments.
By making these improvements directness and continuousness will be improved where the cities greatest walkable area is expected, the Downtown. Adding curb ramps can increase the trip distance of individuals, especially those with physical disabilities. Overall, this improvement would benefit all bicyclists and pedestrians by reducing potential hazards.
75
Figure 5A – No Curb Ramps
76
3. Construct sidewalks where segments are missing.
4. Replace sidewalks in poor condition.
In an effort to complete the pedestrian network in the Downtown areas that have a disconnection, or a segment incomplete, additional sidewalks will be constructed. Along with the completion of missing segments of a complete pedestrian network, sidewalks in “poor” condition will also be replaced to remove restrictions they create for people with disabilities. By creating a completed pedestrian network by filling the missing segments and increasing the quality of sidewalks by replacing those in “poor” condition, the network will increase its directness and continuousness as well as increase its overall efficiency for pedestrian trips.
77
Figure 6A‐ Poor and Missing Sidewalks
78
5.Remove or reposition items that create a barrier or point of conflict.
Throughout the Downtown of Muncie there are many barrier or points of conflict. These points of conflict force pedestrians to maneuver around them and, in some cases, force people with disabilities to find an alternate route. Many items that interfere with free pedestrian movement could be avoided with a little consideration given to the pedestrian. Items such as a utility pedestal could be positioned outside the pedestrian right‐of‐way, or when possible, buried, or placed closest to the street. When placing an item close to the street it creates a buffer
between the pedestrian and traffic, thus, increasing the pedestrian’s sense of safety.
Barriers on South Walnut Street were found to be an area of concern. The recent renewal project on South Walnut Street included creative and reasonably slanted curbs made of brick, a feature that tends to give comfort to drivers parking their vehicles. With this added comfort, drivers tend to park extremely close to the curb and some drivers even park on the brick curb. This parking pattern is slightly intrusive as it narrows the outdoor seating areas allowed on the pedestrian right‐of‐ way. The area from the fence of the outdoor seating areas to the top of the curb is very narrow and confined when a row of cars are parked along the street. Street lighting can also be found in these same passages making it difficult for large groups to pass through. Due to the narrow passages, people with disabilities are forced to find an alternative route. These narrow passages are exacerbated by the fact that pedestrians tend to avoid the first eighteen inches next to the street. Dimensions of the passages left by the outdoor seating areas are listed on the following page.
79
Sidewalk Measurement Excluding Outdoor Sitting Areas and Curb Length
Blue Bottle 33’ X 4’
Vera Mae’s 64’ X 3’
Doc’s Club 38’ X 4’
Heorot 21’ X 3’
80
6. Replace grates with bicycle friendly drains.
81
In creating a bicycle network in the Downtown, there are some issues that need to be addressed. The first involves replacing storm water street drains that are not bicycle friendly. Some older street drains have grates with large parallel openings that can catch a bicycle tire and throw a bicyclist off their bike. Replacing these drains is an issue of safety and is a first step, in concurrence with priority seven and eight, in creating a higher functioning bicycle network in the Downtown.
7. Resurface street shoulder.
The road’s shoulder surface is an important issue in a bicycle network.
Bicyclists feel every little bump in a road unlike a commuter in a car with full suspension. The condition of street shoulders can be often overlooked and unmaintained because it is an area less often used. Vehicles often travel toward the middle of the street where ruts are created from the heavy use vehicles. These wear marks are often the area focused on when road maintenance is conducted. In addition to creating discomfort for bicyclists, poor shoulder surfaces may also reduce a rider’s grip on the road and force them to ride at a slower pace. When a bicyclists ride at a lower speed or take an alternative route the distance one would cover is a set period of time, is decreased. In fact, this may be the prime factor for decreasing the number of bicycle trips made. Improving the conditions of the road shoulders plays an important role in developing a bicycle network and should be
considered as part of the initial development of the system.
8. Place signage and paint stripping for bicycle awareness.
82
Placing signs and painting bicycle lanes is important with the initial development of the bicycle network on the streets in the Downtown. Signage and painting bicycle lanes creates a safe area for bicyclists to ride, provides them whit a share of the road, and increases the driver’s awareness of the bicyclist. Placing signs and bicycle lanes also developing awareness, which plays an important role in rider safety.
To maximize connectivity and directness from the Downtown to the surrounding neighborhoods, multiple shared pedestrian and bicycle paths are proposed. The Downtown paths will facilitate higher volumes of pedestrian and bicyclists to move freely without barriers or restrictive sidewalks that are meant for
lighter pedestrian‐only traffic. The suggested pathways took into account neighborhoods, destination points and safe routes to school for the major influences. Impacts from the local railroads, White River, Ball State University, population density, and pre‐existing citywide proposed paths were also taken into account.
1.
Walnut Street (Downtown Section)
2.
Campus Trail
3.
Jackson Street
4.
Muncie Unity Trail
5.
East Washington Street/North Walnut Street/(MLK Jr. Trail) West Wysor Street
6.
Emerson Memorial Trail
7.
MLK Jr. Trail (East Wysor Street)/ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Trail
8.
Campus Collector
9.
Liberty Trail/Charles Street
83
Figure 7A – Downtown Routes
84
Figure 8A – County Wide Proposed Routes
85
1. Walnut Street (Downtown Section)
This section of the pedestrian/bicycle network includes both sides of Walnut
Street running from the railroad tracks south of Victor Street to Wysor Street in the current center of Downtown Muncie. Part of this stretch of road has recently gone through an overhaul with a resurfaced road, installation of brick sidewalks and new streetlights, and other improvements. Although these improvements were made with good intentions, the materials used for this project are problematic. Brick is often brittle and cracks, a phenomenon that has already compromised the quality of the walkway. The curbs also cause concern as discussed earlier. They are low and allow comfort to drivers who casually pull up and park on the curb, reducing the
openness and movement of the current pedestrian area.
A greater concern involves the outdoor seating areas in front of several restaurants and taverns. The perimeter of each seating area is marked by permanent railings. These seating areas take up much of the sidewalk and extend out far enough to drastically reduce the walkway for the pedestrian. Walkways are made even narrower when bicyclists use the railing to lock up their bicycles.
Narrow walkways are problematic for bicyclists and pedestrians, especially those with physical impairments. To achieve full ADA accessibility requirements along
Walnut Street, it would be necessary to make a few small changes.
Because of its prime location in the Downtown, this section of the pedestrian and bicycle path is critical in showcasing the quality and character that Muncie will provide with all the following projects. To better meet the needs addressed, the
86
permanent railings around the outdoor seating areas will need to be removed.
Alternatively, freestanding rails will be allowed, providing they leave a sidewalk width of six feet or pedestrian and bicycle movement along the sidewalk. To widen the walkway two feet, the current two‐foot sloped brick curb will be replaced with proper curbs. This change will also deter motorists from parking their vehicles on the curb. Because it may not be practical for the city to make such significant changes in a recently improved streetscape, some alternative, interim measures may be taken. To improve accessibility, simple adjustment to railings around the seating areas could be made; thus, better freedom for pedestrians and bicyclists would become available.
New construction north of Main Street will use dyed and stamped concrete in place of the brick used in the previous project. The use of the dyed and stamped concrete will also be used moderately as an accent piece to carry the brick theme further through the Downtown creating a smother pathway. To finish this section, the south end will also need finishing touches and extend the previous street revitalization project to the railroad tracks south of Victor Street.
Along this section, bicycle signs will also be placed to increase bicycle awareness of a shared road often used by motorist and advanced bicyclists. Unsafe storm drains will also need to be replaced with bicycle safe storm drains to increase safety for the bicyclist riding along the street, most of which would be safe if they were flush with the roadway. Without change, current drains having the same affect as a large pothole. For bicycle parking an on street parking location can be
87
converted into bicycle parking. Another suggestion that should be considered deals with changing the current section of road that is a one‐way back into a two‐way road. This will increase mobility for bicyclists wishing to ride on the streets. A two‐ way roadway will also help to reduce traffic speeds as studies have shown drivers slow when driving against another lane of traffic.
2. Campus Trail
Campus trail will run from Walnut Street along West Washington Street, crossing the Washington Street Bridge where it links up with the White River
Greenway Path before continuing onto Meeks Avenue and North Reserve Street along the north side. This section continues north on North Reserve Street to West
University Avenue where the path takes a left with the pathway placed on the east side of the street. The path follows the north side of University Avenue until the path jogs over on the east side of North Dicks Street and then to the south side of Ashland
Avenue. This section of path ends on Ashland Avenue as it meets up and continues
with the Campus Collector Path.
This path is a high priority in that it leads to the Ball State Campus, the area in Muncie with the highest population density. This demographic also has a high likelihood of enjoying the use of the path, as they tend to be active and would enjoy the activities found in the Downtown. Concerning this path, it already has a built sidewalk system except for a few small sections on Ashland Avenue and however, the entire section is not yet in a condition that would promote its use as a path.
88
To change this section of pedestrian and bicycle network from a sidewalk to a path, a few changes will need to take place. First, a proper pathway should allow a width of 10’ to allow a shared space that would provide enough room for bicyclists and pedestrians to easily pass one another without requiring couples or bicyclists to move off the path. This is a bit of a problem, as some of the right‐of‐ways do not have enough room on either side of the roadway for this wide of pathway. Ashland
Street, for example, only has around an eight‐foot right‐of‐way off the roadway. For this section of the route, bicyclists could be moved off the path into bicycle lanes and pedestrians could continue to use this a narrower path. The Washington Street
Bridge is another area of concern as its sidewalks are only four feet wide, too narrow for a proper pathway. This provides a great opportunity for Muncie to relocate and save one of the historic iron bridges in the area while providing additional character to the Downtown. Other areas less than ten feet in width will be made as wide as possible while awaiting a street project that could shift the street and, consequently, absorb the open right‐of‐way opposite the side of the path. This shift will also require the movement of utilities and the replacement of mature
street trees by the urban forester.
The pathway will need more than just a wide surface, it could also be enhanced with a bit of character like the brickwork and antic street lights added to
Walnut Street. For the campus trail, Ball State and Ivy Tech symbols could be stamped into the pavement or asphalt material. Plaques and statues could also be
89
placed along the trail with historic facts about Ball State, sport records, or something else that would provide the trail with character and a bit of an identity.
3. Jackson Street
This route stretches along Jackson Street from Walnut Street to the White
River Greenway preferably along the north side of the street. This route is a little more involved as the city will need to be coordinate with the Indiana Department of
Transportation (INDOT) since this route will run partially along State Road 32.
There are several issues that may cause difficulty with the construction on this route. Still, thus project was given a higher priority because in hope an opportunity was presented. The largest issue with this route is the lack of a right‐of‐way needed to widen the sidewalks to an acceptable measurement. The Jackson Street Bridge running to Kilgore Street has an extremely limited right‐of way that hardly allows for the current sidewalks. Not until you get between Liberty and Walnut Streets do you find enough room for a proper pathway. To create a proper pathway, the right‐ of‐way would need to be increased, however, this possibility is limited by the closeness of buildings to the road. This factor might end the discussion for this proposed trail.
4. Muncie Unity Trail
Muncie Unity Trail’s name comes from the nearby Unity Bridge. This route runs on Elm Street from Charles Street to First Street with a spur to Walnut Street on Seymour Street. Along Walnut Street, the sidewalks on the east side of the street will be replaced with a ten‐foot wide pathway. This pathway will allow for the free
90
movement of bicyclists and pedestrians traveling north and south. To set a theme for this route, public art with a unity theme could be displayed.
There are no issues with the development of this plan. All right‐of‐ways allow for the proper width of the path with room for a grass strip to buffer the road from the pathway. The path spur along Seymour Street is also free of any issues regarding the development of this pathway.
5. East Washington Street
The pathway along East Washington Street has many factors impairing its placement. The pathway will run along the north side of East Washington Street form Walnut Street to North Macedonia Avenue where the path meets up with the
Cardinal Greenway. East Washington Street was chosen to connect East Central
Neighborhood to the Downtown for several reasons. Located on East Washington is the Washington‐Carver Elementary School allowing this pathway to also function as a Safe Route to School i . This pathway would also connect the Cardinal Greenway to
the Downtown.
The right‐of‐way will allow the placement of a ten‐foot path to be placed along the north side of the street. Mature street trees currently placed along this proposed route are too large for their placement and have could damage and heaving to sidewalks. The urban forester would need to work with adjacent property owners to offer free trees and planting to replace the mature trees.
Another concern may develop from a local business that is currently using the right‐ i
Washington‐Carver Elementary has closed since the start of this paper.
91
of‐way as business parking, which would be needed for the development of the pathway.
5. North Walnut Street
The North Walnut Route will connect Downtown Walnut Street with
Minnetrista Neighborhood and McKinley. These neighborhoods north of the White
River, provide the Downtown with an alternate connection to the White River
Greenway and function as a Safe Route to School for Muncie Central High School students and community members.
This route will run on the west side of North
Walnut Street from Wysor Street to the Walnut Street Bridge. For the most part, there is a blank slate to work from in developing this route. Along the Muncie
Central High School Property and the Muncie Field House, there is sixty feet of right‐ of‐way off the street to work with. Thus opens up a several opportunities in how the pathway could be constructed as well as opportunities for park space along the path. This path, along with the Central Levee Walk, could be fitted with exercise stations that could benefit the public. This right‐of‐way, however, is currently being used as a parking lot for the school and gymnasium. Further information and cooperation would be needed before the pathway is developed.
5. Martin Luther King Jr. Trail (West Wysor Street)
This short section will improve connectivity and fill a broken link in the pedestrian/bicycle network. The south side of the roadway will receive a six‐foot sidewalk to fill in the missing segment from the corner of Walnut Street to the River
Bend Park. The north side of the street will need to be redesigned using the existing
92
walkway along the gymnasium and provided with a new entrance to the parking lot and a new entrance to the park from the parking lot.
6. Emerson Memorial Trail
Emerson Memorial Trail is an extension of the Campus Trail that will provide a short pathway and stretch of bicycle lanes. The Emerson Memorial Trail will run on Pauline Avenue beginning on University Avenue. Meeting Emerson Memorial
Park, the trail will pass through the park to the Linden Street and Beachwood
Avenue intersection. The route will continue north to Riverside Avenue where the pedestrian trail ends. On Linden Street north of Riverside, bicycle lanes will be added north until the road ends at Bethel Avenue.
7. Martin Luther King Jr. Trail (East Wysor Street)
The pathway on the north side of East Wysor will run from Walnut Street eastward to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. There will be issues created from mature trees along the street that should be addressed by the Urban Forester. The trail will be limited to eight‐feet wide construction because of a limited right‐of‐way.
Most of this section of trail already consists of eight‐foot wide paved concrete sidewalk west of Madison Street. East of Madison, there is a fifteen‐foot right‐of‐way that the trail can be placed in, but this space is currently used by the business
adjacent to the easement. There is also confusion with the parcel information, as the parcel boundaries extended into the current right‐of‐way.
93
7. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Trail (Proper)
This route runs along the north and west side of Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard from Pershing Drive north to Centennial Avenue. This path will be made eight feet wide. A change to the roadway will also be needed north of the railroad track near Hackley Street. On the north side of the road is a large shoulder that no longer seems to be in use. The idea would be to replace the current road shoulder with a standard sized shoulder freeing up space for the pathway. The path also narrows to 5’ on the Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge. This bridge also lacks barriers between the Pedestrian path and roadway. This presents the opportunity to relocate and save a historic iron bridge to use for the pedestrian path. The trail through McCullock Park would be entirely new and would input from the Urban
Forester as the trail would run through the eastern edge of the park, which has many mature trees that the trail would not want to disturb.
8. Campus Collector
The Campus Collector is a route that runs through the Ball State University
Campus. This route already exists, but it blends in with all the other walkways on the campus. To improve the routes visibility, signage will be placed along the route to help direct pedestrians and bicyclists. Crosswalks will also be improved to increase safety and visibility for the pedestrian and bicyclists.
9. Liberty Trail
This route runs along several roads beginning on Seymour Street from
Walnut to High Street and then continues along Orchard to Liberty Street. The route
94
then follows Liberty Street south to Hoyt Street. This route is meant to provide better access to those living in the neighborhoods southwest of the Downtown. This pathway would expand those sidewalks that are less than six feet to that width. To expand this path further public input will be needed to determine the needs of the neighborhood. Minimum investment will be made until that input is collected and a permanent pathway is developed.
9. Charles Street
This route runs on the north side of Charles Street from Walnut to Madison
Street. The route helps to connect the Muncie Unity Trail with the Downtown and the neighborhood east of Madison Street. The sidewalks will be expanded to eight feet where they are narrower than that width.
1. Legal Requirements
When working on the pedestrian plan specifically, the ADA legal requirements must be met in order to avoid discriminating against those with disabilities. Initial improvements to facilities concerning design standards and an implementation timeline should have been addressed in a citywide transition plan to address these requirements. There are exemptions, deferments, and other reasons cities have not yet met requirements of the ADA. Careful review should be conducted to ensure all requirements and standards are being met. Note that the
ADA’s Revised Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public RightsofWay have not yet been approved and accepted into law as of June 30, 2009, but there are standards from
95
other sections of the act that are considered the minimum standard. Most importantly, the main purpose of the act is to eliminate discrimination and should be used as the primary consideration in creating design standards.
~United States Access Board~
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1991 is a civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination against people who have disabilities. ADA implementing regulations for Title II prohibit discrimination in the provision of services, programs, and activities by state and local governments. Under the ADA, designing and constructing facilities that are not usable by people who have disabilities constitutes discrimination. In addition, failure to make the benefits of government programs, activities, and services available to people who have disabilities because existing facilities are inaccessible is also discrimination.
2. General Design Standards
The following standards will be used for the pedestrian network. These standards meet the current and proposed legally required design standards. These new standards create minimums and maximum standards, but improvements to the new standards are always encouraged. The following standards are based off of the
ADA’s Revised Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public RightsofWay.
Sidewalks
The width of the curb is excluded from the width of the sidewalk. A four‐foot sidewalk will also need a passing area placed every 200 feet. The passing area
measures five feet by five feet.
Local Streets
4’ sidewalks with a 2’ to 4’ buffer between the sidewalk and street, a 5’ sidewalk is preferred.
Arterials
6’ sidewalks with a 5’ to 6’ buffer between the sidewalk and street, a 8’ sidewalk is preferred
8’ sidewalks to 10’ sidewalks are required for sidewalks attached to the curb.
96
Central Business District Sidewalks
10’ Sidewalks are desirable.
Materials
Avoid decorative pavers, beveled edges, and other surface treatments that may
create painful bumps.
Detectable warning
Detectable warnings shall consist of a surface of truncated domes aligned in a square or radial grid pattern. Detectable warning surfaces shall contrast visually with adjacent gutter, street or highway, or walkway surface, either light‐on‐dark or dark‐on‐light.
Position detectable warning six inches back from curb and extend the entire width of sidewalk. The detectable warning will also extend 24 inches deep. Metal
dome plates are preferred in areas where a street plow can come in contact with the detectable warning. This will reduce maintenance and replacement of the detectable
warning caused by damage from the street plow.
Curb Ramps
Parallel Curb Ramp and Perpendicular Curb Ramps
Length: Sections are not to exceed 15 feet in length
Slope: 5% to 8.3%
Cross Slope: 2% Max
Perpendicular Curb Ramps
Flares: 10% max slope (used where pedestrian circulation is forced to crosse the curb ramp)
Ramp Landings: 4’x4’ min with 2% min cross slope
Slope 2%
Width: At least as wide as the widest ramp leading to the landing with a five‐ foot minimum width
Length: A five‐foot minimum length
Landings with a change in direction: 5x5’ Min
Curb: A minimum four‐inch curb when required
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Crosswalks
Width: 6’
Slope: 2% max with stop control, 5% max without stop control
97
Pedestrian Island
Length: 6’ min in direction of pedestrian travel
Detectable warnings: Located at the curb lines, if no curbs place at the edge
of the roadway
Pedestrian Signal
Time: 3.5 ft/s for the entire length of the crosswalk
Location: Inline with crosswalk adjacent to the vehicle stop line
Pedestrian Push Button
Placement: Three‐feet off the ground
Color: Contrasting housing to button
Button: Two inches
RAILROAD CROSSING
Detectable Warning: Perpendicular to the path 6’ to 15’ from the nearest rail
All the minimum standards for the general sidewalk design standards must be met along with any new standards created specifically for the pathway standards
Pedestrian Path
A minimum six‐foot path is required with a two‐foot buffer along each side of the path.
Cross Slope: 2% maximum cross slope
Mixed Use Path
A ten‐foot path is desired with two‐foot buffers along each side of the path.
An eight‐foot path is the minimum as it has limits to its use. A path with high volumes should be increased to a twelve to fourteen‐foot wide path
Cross slope: 2% maximum cross slope
Path Signs (Recommended) :
Path Name
Permitted users
Path length
Change in elevation
98
Creating this project was a major learning experience and undertaking. While working on the paper the depth and complexity of creating a pedestrian plan was found to increase rapidly. After undertaking this project it is easy to see how one could specialize in creating in pedestrian and bicycle transportation. There seem to be endless topics that can be considered to have an affect on pedestrian and bicycle
transportation systems or citizens’ behavior.
After working on this paper and knowing all the issues there are a few thoughts that I have if I were to attempt this again. First of all the, the topics to consider when developing a pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan that seemed reasonable at the beginning of the project, now almost seems infinite. The material that could be covered would have been enough for multiple papers. There is a large area of research on human behavior that lends itself to how individuals more through their environment, including pedestrian, bicyclists network. Design is another area that could be covered in its own paper. Traffic speeds and volumes, sidewalk widths, curb ramp material types, pedestrian volumes, street grates, and many other issues create a very complex design for something that seems to be so simple. Analysis is also a large undertaking. Looking up past documentation, surveying current conditions, studying the physical environment, as well as looking at the technical aspects such as the width of the right‐of‐way quickly create a
99
mountain of information that needs to be studied. And the many areas that this paper did not expand into such as land use, zoning, planning law, eminent domain, working with the public, building support, costs of facilities, and financing projects
are a few. With the topics that were discussed, many are brief and simplistic.
For a future recommendation, I would suggest a more focused of study. Not
that there is a difficulty in finding information or material, but the topics become a fractal, infinity expanding into a never‐ending project. Maybe not that dramatic, but a detailed study into any of the areas mentioned above may have been extremely valuable.
When working on a large detailed plan, it is easy to get caught up in and focus on one of the many areas of the project. This can cause smaller details to be overlooked or reduce focus and details in other areas. Other important thoughts and ideas may not even be considered because of a lack of experience or situations that one has never experienced. For example, one may have difficulties planning for
the visually impaired when they have never experience walking down a main street with a blindfold on, there are real simulations for this.
Balancing breadth with depth.
100
AASHTO.
Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrain Facilities, 1st
Edition.
AASHTO, 2004.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
AHRQ Pocket Guide to Staying Healthy at 50+.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 2009.
http://www.ahrq.gov/ppip/50plus/ (accessed June 2009).
Alta Planning and Design. "City of Portland Office of Transportation." www.portlandonline.com.
ALTA Planning and Design. 2006.
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=120617&c=34812
(accessed April 7, 2009).
American Planning Association.
Great Places in America.
2007.
http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/ (accessed Jan 2009).
Bassett, David R., John Pucher, Ralph Buehler, Dixie L. Thomas, and Scott E. Crouter.
"Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and Austrilia."
Journal of Physical Activity and Health 5, no. 6 (2008): 795‐814.
Beneficial Designs, Inc., et al. "Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part I of II:
Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices." Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1999.
Beneficial Designs, Inc., et al. "Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part II of II:
Best Practices Design Guide." Fedural Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2001.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Physical Activity.
Department of Health and Human Services. June 2009.
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/physactivity.htm (accessed June
2009).
CMCOG. "CMCOG Model Policy Guidelines for Bicycle‐ Pedestrian Circulation."
CMCOG Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee, CMCOG.
Daisa, James, and John Peers. "Narrow Residential Streets: Do They Really Slow
Down Speeds." Institute of Transportation Engineers.
1997.
http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/AHA97F46.pdf (accessed Jan 2009).
Department of Urban Planning, Ball State.
The Whitely Neighborhood Study.
April
1999.
101
http://www.bsu.edu/web/copc/neighborhood/studies/bestpractices99/whitely/w hitely.htm (accessed January 4, 2009).
Ewing, Ried, Tom Schmid, Richard Killingsworth, Amy Zlot, and Stephen
Raudenbuch. "Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Moridity." The Science of Health Promotion 18, no. 1 (September/October 2003):
47‐57.
Federal Highway Administration.
Guidebook on Methods to Estimating Non
Motorized Travel: Supporting Documentation.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Finkelstein, EA, Fiebelkorn, IC, Wang, G. "National medical spending attributable to overweight and obesity: How much, and who’s paying? ." Health Affairs , no. W3
(2003): 219–226.
Flink, Charles A, Kristine Olka, and Robert M Searns.
Trails for the TwentyFirst
Century: Planning, Design, and Management Manual for MultiUse Trails.
2nd Edition.
Washinton, DC: Island Press, 2001.
Forester, John.
Bicycle Transportation, 2nd Edition: A Handbook for Cycling
Transportation Engineers.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1994.
Frank, Lawrence D., Peter O. Engelke, and Thomas L. Schmid.
Health and Community
Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity.
Washington, DC:
Island Press, 2003.
—.
Health and Community Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical
Design.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2003.
General W. H. Kemper, M.D.
History of Delaware County Indiana.
Chicago, IL: Lewis
Publishing Company of Chicago, 1907.
Harris, Charles W, and Nicholas T Dines.
TimeSaver Standards for Landscape
Architecture.
McGraw‐Hill Inc., 1988.
Humpel, N., N. Owan, and E. Leslie. "Environmental Factors Associated With Adults'
Participation in Physical Activity: a review." American Journal of Preventive
Medicince 22, no. 3 (April 2002): 188.
Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the
Local Level.
Washington, DC: Institute of TransportationEngineers, 1999.
102
Lawhorn, Chad.
Lawrence to host Independence Day bicycle competition.
The
Lawrence Journal‐World. Lawrence, KS, March 30, 2009.
Litman, Todd Alexander. "Economic Value of Walkability." World of Transport Policy
and Practive 10, no. 1 (2004).
Litman, Todd, et al. "Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning: A Guide to Best Practices."
Vistoria Transportation Police Institute, 2009.
Lombardo, Tony.
Bike race brings big bucks to Augusta, Ga.
Prod. Agusta Chronicle.
Augusta, GA, April 18, 2006.
Lydon, Mike.
On Bicyclists.
06 08, 2008. http://www.planetizen.com/node/33404
(accessed 5 2009).
Masing, Milton A, and Jeffrey Koenker.
Muncie, IN, in vintage Postcards.
Charleston,
SC: Arcadia Publishing, 1999.
National Association of Realtors and National Association of Home Builders.
"Consumer's Survey on Smart Choices for Home Buyes." 2002.
National Trails Training Partnership. "National Trails Training Partnership." Impact of Trails and Trail Use.
2000.
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/adjacent/sumadjacent.html (accessed
June 2009).
Pedestrain and Bicycle Information Center. "Bikeability Checklist: How Bikeable is
Your Community?" Bikeability Checklist.
University of North Carolina Highway
Safety Research Center, 2007.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center.
Benefits of Bicycling.
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/why/benefits.cfm (accessed 2009).
—. "Walkability Checklist: How Walkable is Your Community?" Walkability Checklist.
University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, 2007.
Public Rights‐of‐way Access Advisory Committee. "Building a True Community."
Final Report, U.S. Access Board, 2001.
Public Rights‐of‐Way Access Advisory Committee.
Special Report: Accessible Public
RightsofWay Planning and Design for Alternations.
Public Rights‐of‐Way Access
Advisory Committee, Otak, Inc., 2007.
103
Pucher, John, and Lewis Dijkastra. "Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve
Public Health: Lessons from theNetherlands and Germany." American Journal of
Public Health 93, no. 9 (April 2003).
Ridgeway, Matthew. "Residentail Streets ‐ Quality of Life Assessment." 1997.
Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative. "Best Practices for
Complete Streets." Complete Streets.
October 2005. www.completestreets.org
(accessed January 2009).
Saelens, Brian E, James F. Sallis, Jennifer B. Black, and Diana Chen. "Neighborhood‐
Based Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation." American
Journal of Public Health 93, no. 9 (2003): 1552.
Saelens, Brian E., James F. Sallis, and Lawrence D. Frank. "Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling: Findings From the Transportation, Urban Design, and
Planning Literatures." Annals of Behavioral Medicine 25, no. 2 (2003): 80.
Schlossberg, Marc, Asha Weinstein Agrawal, Katja Irvin, and Vanessa Louise
Bekkouche.
How Far, by Which Route, and Why? A Spatial Analysis of Pedestrian
Preference.
Final, College of business, San Jose State University, San Jose: Mineta
Transportation Institute, 2007.
Spurgeon, Wiley W.
Muncie at the Millennium.
Muncie, IN: Muncie Newspapers,
1999.
Swift, Peter. "Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency." 2003.
The League of American Bicyclists.
Why Ride.
http://www.bikeleague.org (accessed
2009).
United States Access Board. "Accessible Right‐of‐Way: A Design Guide." http://www.accessboard.gov.
11 1999. http://www.access‐ board.gov/prowac/guide/PROWGuide.htm (accessed 2009).
Untermann, Richard K.
Accommodatin the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and
Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling.
New York, New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company Inc., 1984.
Surveys
Audit Tool (St. Louis University School of Public Health, 2003)
Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) (2004)
http://kellyjclifton.com/?page_id=38
Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES) instrument (2000)
104
ESRI
FHWA
GIS
ISTEA
MPO
NHTS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Americans with Disabilities Act
ADA
ADAAG
DOJ
DOT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
Department of Justice
Department of Transportation
Environmental Systems Research Institute
Federal Highway Administration
Geographic Information Systems
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
Metropolitan Planning Organization
National Household Travel Survey
PEDS
SPACES
TOD
VTPI
Pedestrian Environment Data Scan
Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan
Transit Oriented Development
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
105
Active Transportation – Transportation that involves walk, bicycling or other physical activity in a portion of a trip.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) ‐ A Federal law prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities. Requires public entities and public accommodations to provide accessible accommodations for people with disabilities.
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ‐ Provide scoping and technical specifications for new construction and alterations undertaken by entities covered by the ADA.
ArcPad ‐ A software, produced by ESRI, that is used for mobile GIS and field
mapping.
Bicycle Facilities – feature such as, bicycle lanes, multiuse pathway, bicycle racks that make up a bicycle network
ESRI A software and service company that provides a Geographic Information
System software
GIS – A system that captures, stores, analyzes, manages, and presents data linked to a latitude and longitude location
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) ‐ Federal legislation authorizing highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs from 1991 through 1997. It provided new funding opportunities for sidewalks, shared‐use paths, and recreational trails. ISTEA was superseded by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Pedestrian ‐ A person who travels on foot or who uses assistive devices, such as a wheelchair, for mobility.
Pedestrianactuated traffic control ‐ A push‐button or other control operated by pedestrians that is designed to interrupt the prevailing signal cycle to permit pedestrians to cross an intersection.
Pedestrian Facilities – feature such as, sidewalks, trail, benches, ramp that make
up a pedestrian network.
106
Perpendicular curb ramp ‐ A curb ramp design in which the ramp path is perpendicular to the edge of the curb.
Section 14 (1994) ‐ Proposed accessibility guidelines for public rights‐of‐way (now
reserved).
Section 504 ‐ The section of the Rehabilitation Act that prohibits discrimination by any program or activity conducted by the Federal government.
Sensory deficit ‐ Impairment of one of the five senses; includes partial or complete loss of hearing or vision, color blindness, loss of sensation in some part of the body or the loss of the sense of balance.
Sidewalk The portion of a highway, road, or street intended for pedestrians.
Technically infeasible ‐ A situation that prevents full compliance with ADAAG because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and that are necessary to provide accessibility.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ‐ The section of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that prohibits State and local governments from discriminating against people with disabilities in programs, services, and
activities.
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ‐ The section of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that prohibits places of public accommodation and commercial facilities from discriminating on the basis of disability.
Touch technique ‐ An environmental scanning method in which a blind person arcs
a cane from side to side and touches points outside both shoulders. Used primarily in unfamiliar or changing environments, such as on sidewalks and streets.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) ‐ Federal legislation authorizing highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs from 1998 through 2003. It provides funding opportunities for pedestrian, bicycling, and public transit facilities and emphasizes intermodalism, multimodalism, and community participation in transportation planning initiated by
ISTEA.
107
U.S. Access Board (United States Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board) ‐ A Federal agency that is responsible for developing Federal
accessibility guidelines under the ADA and other laws.
Visual warning ‐ The use of contrasting surface colors to indicate a change in environment, such as at a curb ramp where the sidewalk changes to the street.
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151