Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix C
Priority Improvement Projects Evaluation
Potential pedestrian improvement projects were identified based upon a number of sources: pedestrian needs identified in CPED small area plans and the Access Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan; project ideas submitted for the second round of Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program solicitation; issues identified by a Fall 2007 inquiry to neighborhood organizations; bicycle and pedestrian trails in the Bicycle Master Plan Map; and a review of the existing conditions.
Over 250 potential improvement projects were originally identified, representing the following types of improvements:
- street crossing improvements at complex intersections, freeway interchanges, along street corridors, and in downtown
- pedestrian environment improvements, including streetscape improvements, sidewalk widening improvements, and bridge improvements
- connectivity improvements, including sidewalk infill, new sidewalk and bicycle/pedestrian trail connections, and new street connections
Accessibility improvements were also recognized as an important type of need, but information was not available on the existing accessibility of pedestrian facilities. Many of the locations identified as having narrow sidewalks or needing street crossing improvements may also be good candidates for accessibility improvements.
The initial project list was presented at a public meeting in September 2008 for public review. The projects were then consolidated into the current list of approximately 150 potential projects.
All of the potential pedestrian improvement projects were evaluated based upon number of infrastructure condition and pedestrian demand measures, including crash incidence, multi-lane roadways, pedestrian zone width, sidewalk gaps, deficient pedestrian environment, transit priority, pedestrian generators, and areas with poor pedestrian network connectivity. Each potential improvement project was given a high, medium, or low rating for each of the evaluation measures, and a total pedestrian need level calculated summing the points for each measure, as defined in Table C-2. A summary of the resulting pedestrian need levels are shown in Table C-1 and Maps C-1 to C-6. The detailed evaluation results are shown Table C-4 (xls).
Table C-1: Pedestrian Need Evaluation Results
Number of Projects by
|Freeway bridges & interchanges||8||13||12||33|
|River and railroad bridges||2||5||0||7|
Table C-2: Pedestrian Need Evaluation Criteria
|Measurement||High l |
|Medium £ |
|Low ¡ |
|Crash Incidence (total crashes involving pedestrians 2002-2006 within 1 block of project location)||Corridor: 8 or more crashes per 1/4 mile |
Intersection: 5 or more crashes
|Corridor: 4 or more crashes per 1/4 mile |
Intersection: 2 or more crashes
|Corridor: less than 4 crashes per 1/4 mile |
Intersection: less than 2 crashes
|Multi-Lane Roadway||3 or more lanes per direction or divided 4 lane roadway||2 or more lanes per direction||1 lane per direction||# A-16|
|Pedestrian Zone Width (measured as minimum sidewalk + boulevard width on at least 1 side of the street for successive blocks)||6 or less||7-9||10 or more||# A-22 |
|Sidewalk Gap (sidewalk gap defined as location where as sidewalk is missing on one or both sides of the street and is needed to provide access to properties or to provide a direct connection to other sidewalks)||Sidewalk gap on both sides of street||Sidewalk gap on one side of street||Complete sidewalks||# A-12|
|Deficient Pedestrian Environment (indicates lack of enhancements to the pedestrian environment measured by the presence of pedestrian scale lighting, trees, architectural bridge fencing, or curb extensions)||No enhancements present||1 type of enhancement present||2 or more types of enhancements present||# A-18 |
|Transit Priority (the level of current or future transit use)||Definite Primary Transit Network or Primary Transit Network and LRT/BRT station||Primary Transit Network or LRT/BRT station||No Primary Transit Network of LRT/BRT station||# A-4|
|Number of Pedestrian Generators |
schools, parks, museums, libraries, universities, large venues, hospitals, community corridors or neighborhood commercial node, or commercial corridors/activity centers (commercial corridors and activity centers are counted as 2 generators)
|4 or more||2-3||less than 2||# A-8 |
|Areas with Low Pedestrian Network Connectivity (defined as having an effective block size created by existing pedestrian facilities that is the same size as two large city blocks or larger – perimeter of 3960 ft or more)||Surrounded by areas of poor connectivity on most sides||Adjacent to some areas of poor connectivity||Not located in areas of poor connectivity||# A-13|
|Overall Pedestrian Need Level||8 or more pts||6 or more pts||Less than 6 pts|
In order to implement pedestrian improvement projects, there needs to be not only a demonstrated need for pedestrian improvements, but also an opportunity for pedestrian improvements to occur. Some potential projects will have a high need, but there may not be an opportunity to implement an improvement for many years. Likewise, some projects may have a low need relative to other potential pedestrian projects, but an opportunity exists to integrate pedestrian improvements into another infrastructure improvement project in a short timeframe.
An overall project readiness level of high, medium, or low was assigned for each potential improvement project based upon current information available according to the following definition:
- High Project Readiness - project with pedestrian improvements is in a capital program and is substantially funded.
- Medium Project Readiness
- project with pedestrian improvements is in a capital program and has been partially funded or is in a provisional capital program
- OR a non-pedestrian infrastructure improvement is in a capital program which offers an opportunity to integrate pedestrian improvements
- OR a significant planning or design study has been completed or is underway which demonstrates the feasibility of implementing the pedestrian improvement project
- Low Project Readiness
- no pedestrian project is in a capital program
- AND no significant non-pedestrian infrastructure projects is in a capital program, offering the opportunity to integrate pedestrian improvements
- AND no significant planning or design study has been completed to demonstrate project feasibility
- Tier 1 projects have a high project readiness and any level of pedestrian need. Design and implementation is a priority for these projects.
- Tier 2 projects have a high pedestrian need and a medium project readiness. These projects are the highest priority for funding and scoping new pedestrian improvements based upon current information.
- Tier 3a projects have a medium pedestrian need but have a medium project readiness. Tier 3b projects have a high pedestrian need and a low project readiness. Tier 3a and 3b projects are the second highest priority for funding and scoping new pedestrian improvements based upon current information.
- Tier 4a projects have a low pedestrian need and a medium project readiness. Tier 4b projects have a low pedestrian need and a medium project readiness. Tier 4a and 4b projects are moderate to low priority for funding and scoping pedestrian improvements based upon current information.
- Tier 5 projects have low pedestrian need and low project readiness and are the lowest priority based upon current information and may be addressed as opportunities allow, but are not a priority at a citywide scale.
The supporting information justifying the project readiness levels are shown in Table C-4 (xls). It should be noted that project readiness changes frequently as capital improvement programs change, and as planning and design work is advanced for potential pedestrian improvement projects. The project readiness included in this plan is the most current information available at the time of the plan. The majority of the potential pedestrian projects have a low project readiness level based upon current information.
The projects were then grouped into implementation tiers based upon the combined pedestrian need and project readiness ratings, as shown in Table C-3.
Table C-3: Project Tiers
Pedestrian Need Level
Because the project readiness is subject to frequent change, these tiers are expected to change over time, but they provide a good starting point for prioritizing pedestrian improvement projects for funding solicitations and for further defining the scope of pedestrian improvement projects.
The methodology used to prioritize pedestrian improvement projects provides a good high level comparison of the relative need for pedestrian improvements among a large number of potential improvements. However, the approach could be further refined. For instance, population and employment density and transit boardings could be used to provide a more refined level of pedestrian demand. The criteria could also be weighted depending upon the relevance of the criteria to the type of facility.
The Pedestrian Advisory Committee developed a weighted criteria framework for evaluating potential pedestrian projects, initially developed for evaluating the potential improvement projects in this plan, but it required far more information than could be collected for such as large number of projects. These criteria are shown in Table C-5 and Figure C-1.
Table C-5: Pedestrian Advisory Committee Proposed Project Evaluation Criteria
|1. Potential Use / Mode Shift. Projects must be able to show projected use and how the project will result in a modal shift (including transit) from single occupancy vehicle to a non-motorized mode. The methodology used to determine projected use and how a project will create a modal shift must be presented.|
|2. Reliance on non-auto modes . A high percentage of people who live in the area rely on walking, biking and/or transit as their primary mode of transportation. Priority should be given to projects that serve areas with low auto ownership and low incomes.|
|3. System connectivity. Project removes a barrier or closes a system gap. Proposed projects should demonstrate that the project or planning effort will connect to or will supplement the pedestrian system. Preference will be given to projects that connect to transit or are multi-modal in nature.|
|4. Project readiness. The project has a well-defined scope of work, addresses potential obstacles, and is consistent with approved plans. Other readiness elements include: offers leverage for other projects or outcomes, addresses sustainable O&M, is cost effective and has a process for public engagement. Studies or projects must be completed by the deadlines posted in the solicitation requirements.|
|5. Linking origins to destinations. Proposals should demonstrate a travel demand need (current or anticipated) that links origins to destinations. Proposals should serve population and employment concentrations, with a focus on high trip generation areas. Examples of high trip generation facilities are parks, schools, large venues, etc.|
|6. Cost effectiveness. Projects must demonstrate that proposals are cost effective. Proposals will look at how much the projects will cost compared to the number of users it benefits. Innovative cost saving ideas should be given preference. Consideration should also be given to maintenance costs.|
|7. Education and enforcement. Projects should consider how education, enforcement, promotion, and encouragement can help an infrastructure project to be more successful. Priority should be given to projects that outline the education and enforcement elements and those infrastructure projects that include non-infrastructure strategies to help improve the modal shift.|
|8. Safety and security. Proposals need to consider the varied elements of safety (personal security, traffic, physical condition). Preference will be given to projects that address a safety or personal security need, improve mobility, and make bicycling and walking more convenient. Examples include addressing sub-standard conditions or lighting.|
|9. Innovation. Creativity in design has been shown to increase bike and pedestrian use. Innovative treatments often solve difficult problems that traditional treatments cannot solve. Preference should be given to projects that use innovative treatments or techniques, especially those that offer transferability to other projects.|
|10. Accessibility. Projects would be given a higher priority if they address an area where pedestrian facilities are not currently ADA compliant. All projects must adhere to ADA accessibility guidelines.|
Figure C-1: Pedestrian Advisory Committee Proposed Project Evaluation Criteria Weighting
Last updated Mar. 29, 2012