My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/13/2009
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2009
>
Agenda - Council - 10/13/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 4:22:09 PM
Creation date
10/8/2009 12:00:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/13/2009
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
223
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PEDSAFE : recommended guidelines /priorities for sidewalks and walkways Page 5 of 12 <br />safety and enhance the economic viability of these areas. <br />6. Other Pedestrian Generators– Hospitals, community centers, libraries, sports arenas, and other public places <br />are natural pedestrian generators where sidewalks should be given priority. <br />9, Missing links— Installing sidewalks to connect pedestrian areas to each other creates continuous walking <br />systems, <br />10. Neighborhood Priorities --- Local residents may have a sense of where the most desirable walking routes exist. <br />Neighborhood groups or homeowners associations can provide a prioritized list of locations where they see a <br />need for sidewalks. Agencies should be cautious about using this criterion, as it is not desirable to let <br />neighborhood pressure override addressing a key safety concern. However, it may be useful to monitor requests <br />from pedestrians with disabilities. <br />B. Methodology <br />The two recommended methodologies for selecting <br />locations for improvements are: (1) the overlapping priorities <br />method, and (2) the points method. Establishing priorities <br />should consume only a small percentage of a program <br />budget—the level of effort put Into prioritization should be <br />proportionate to the size of the capital budget. <br />There Is no single right way to select which criteria to use <br />when developing priorities. The criteria and methodology <br />should balance safety measures, such as vehicle speeds <br />and pedestrian crash data; pedestrian usage measures, <br />such as proximity to schools or commercial areas; continuity <br />between origins and destinations; and accessibility for <br />pedestrians with disabilities. <br />1, Overlapping Priorities Method— The easiest and <br />cheapest way to identify overlapping priorities is through <br />graphical representation; the Intent is to identify locations <br />that meet multiple criteria. This methodology is especially <br />useful In cases where there is not a lot of staff time and <br />funding for detailed analysis. It can be accomplished using a <br />GIS system or it can be done by hand, <br />The best way to describe this methodology is by example. <br />Assume that priorities are going to be developed based on <br />transit routes, proximity to schools, people with disabilities, <br />and neighborhood commercial areas. Start with a map of <br />your Jurisdiction. Using a color pen, identify those arterials <br />that have high transit use; draw a half -mile circle around <br />every elementary school and around locations that attract <br />people with disabilities; and color in the neighborhood <br />commercial areas. This visual approach will make areas of <br />overlapping priorities become immediately clear. The streets <br />without sidewalks within the overlapping areas are the <br />highest priority for retrofitting sidewalks. <br />2. Points Method— A weighted points system can be used <br />where staff time and funding are available for more detailed <br />htta : / /www.walkinainfo.org/pedsafe /moreinfo sidewalks.cfm <br />Seattle Example <br />Seattle recently completed an inventory of all sidewalks in <br />the city using a three -step process: <br />1. An Intern was hired to review aerial photographs to <br />determine whether a sidewalk existed. This <br />Information was then recorded as a new layer on <br />the existing GIS street database. <br />2. The Intern field- checked all locations where there <br />was some uncertainty regarding the presence of a <br />sidewalk (about 10 percent of the aerial <br />photographs were not clear). <br />3. Each of 13 neighborhood groups that cover the <br />city were given a draft copy of the Inventory and <br />were asked to check for errors. <br />The total effort took the equivalent of one full -time person <br />working for 6 months in a city of 530,000 population, 218.3 <br />km2 (84.3 mi2)of land use and 2,659 roadway kilometers <br />(1,662 roadway miles) [1,934 residential street kilometers <br />(1,202 residential street miles) and 724 arterial kilometers <br />(450 arterial miles)]. Once the inventory was completed, <br />the information was combined on a map with three other <br />types of information: <br />1, School Walking Zones: A colored circle Identified a <br />half -mile area around each school. <br />2. Pedestrian Generators: A second color was used <br />to identify a half -mile area around key pedestrian <br />generators, such as hospitals, libraries, and <br />community centers. <br />3, Neighborhood Commercial Areas: A third color <br />was used to identify the dozen neighborhood <br />commercial areas in Seattle (about one for each of <br />the major neighborhood areas), <br />Once the map was printed, it was very easy to see where <br />the three colors overlapped, two colors overlapped, etc. <br />The final step was to have the computer calculate the <br />sidewalk deficiencies in the overlapping areas. They <br />found, for example, that there were less than 3 km (2 mi) <br />8/19/2009 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.