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