Developing a short-term, catalytic framework for Indianapolis’ utilitarian bicycle network
Patrick Beyer Spring 2011 Ball State University Department of Landscape Architecture Comprehensive Project
“When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race.� -H.G. Wells
ABSTRACT Indianapolis has a growing bicycle community, but the city’s current network fails to safely connect cyclists to the places they wish to travel. Out of 51 cities, Indianapolis ranked 44th in bicycle ridership and 49th in bicycle safety. The city has ambitious plans to improve the mileage of bicycle facilities, but the cities plan is missing a few basic guiding principles. Bicycle transportation, planning, and smart growth theories have been analyzed to develop a short-term catalytic framework that will safely connect cyclists and boost ridership.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following people for their help and guidance: Sean Rotar, faculty mentor Benjamin Hunt, The Indycog Jamison Hutchins, The Indycog Kevin Whitehead, The Indycog Kevin Kastner, Urban Indy Jeremy Moore, Indianapolis MPO Kevin Mayfield, Indianapolis MPO The BikeTexas Team Karen and Stephen Beyer, my parents
TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Information Introduction 01 Types of Cycling 02 Types of Cyclists 05 Bike Culture: Indianapolis 07 Case Study: Portland Cyclists 09 Current and Planned Facilities 11 Conclusion 14 The Project Project Statement 15 Project Significance 15 Comparative Analysis 17 Bicycle Ridership 17 Bicycle Safety 18 Common Attributes 20 Goals and Objectives 22 Site Challenges 23 Clients 24 Design Process and Methodology 25 The Site 26 Planning: Inventory and Analysis 27 Conceptual Plan 29 Master Plan 29 College Ave: Buffered Bicycle Lane 31 College Ave: A Closer Look 35 Looking South at 30th and College 37 North Harding St: Bicycle Boulevard 39 North Harding St: A Closer Look 43 Looking North on Harding 45 Vulnerable Street User Zone 47 Looking South on Mass Ave 49 The Commuter Bike Station 51 Looking South on Alabama 53 Conclusion 56 Appendices Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix
A: Definitions 57 B: Bibliography 59 C: List of Figures 61 D: Infographics 62
Figure 1.1 Indiana State Capitol
INTRODUCTION In 1895, an Indianapolis community member said, “bicycles out numbered carriages by about a hundred to one (Stigoe, 103)�. One hundred and sixteen years later Indianapolis is ranked 13th by population, and 44th by bicycle commuter ridership, according to the League of American Bicyclist. Indianapolis has grown away from its bicycle heritage, but it is showing commitment to the issue by redeveloping its bicycle plan. The comprehensive project is meant to be act as a guiding framework in the development of future bicycle facilities and plans. Cities across the world have shown that safe and efficient bicycle networks have the power to change how a city functions, and with gas prices nearing five dollars a gallon, it is now, that Indianapolis needs to diversify its transportation system.
01
Background Information
TYPES OF CYCLING Two theories of bicycle transportation rival one another, the Vehicular Cycling Theory developed by John Forester and the Bikeway Theory. Both theories are practiced in the United States by cyclists and designers, but neither theory is accepted as correct (Forester, Bicycle Transportation, ix). Each theory has its own advantages and disadvantages in the American transportation infrastructure. The term “Vehicular Cycling” was not coined until the mid 20th century, but its practice dates back to the late 19th century – predating the modern automobile. The League of American Bicyclists (formerly the League of American Wheelmen) was founded in 1880 and spent much of its youthful years lobbying to Congress and President Benjamin Harrison to begin paving roads to allow for a smooth surface for their new “safety bicycle” (Stilgoe, 103). But with the success of the mass-produced automobile, the League of American Bicyclists began to shift their focus to protecting the bicyclists right to the road. Currently, every state categorizes the laws regarding bicycle use into their vehicle code (“A Cyclists’ Right to the Road”). And like other vehicles, the legally designated space for use of a bicycle is the street. Vehicular cyclists maintain the idea that bicycles are like any other vehicle on the road, by “driving” their bicycle like one would drive a car - stopping at stoplights and stop signs, using the full lane, signaling turns, and trying to keep up with traffic. Vehicular cyclists literally drive their bicycle by the mantra, “same rights, same rules, same road”. John Forester, a cycling transportation engineer, coined the term “vehicular cycling”. Forester claims that vehicular cycling is safer than bikeway cycling because cyclists are visible and their actions are easily predictable (Forester, “The Bicycle Transportation Controversy”). The argument that vehicular cycling is safe works well because the operators of both the motor vehicles and bicycles follow the same rules. Ideally all vehicle operators on the street have taken vehicular driving education courses, and know what to expect from other drivers. A vehicular cyclists should be signaling and 02
communicating with other drivers just as a motorists would do. A motorist does not have to worry about what a cyclist will do at an intersection because they cyclist follows the same rules as the motorist. Vehicular cycling is usually considered to be much more efficient than bikeway cycling for two reasons. First, the existing vehicular street network is much more extensive than the bikeway network, allowing more options for vehicular cyclists to choose the most direct route. And second, vehicular cyclists maintain a high speed to keep up with the flow of traffic. One of the major drawbacks of vehicular cycling lies in the fact that many streets in the United States were not designed for cyclists. Many cyclists lack the physical ability and courage to keep up with motor traffic above 20 miles an hour. That being said a well-designed vehicular cycling street would use traffic calming elements to slow motor traffic. For example, many cyclists merely yield at stop signs because they do not want to be inconvenienced with stopping at an empty intersection. If roundabouts replace a four-way intersection, cyclists can follow the rules of the road by yielding, and traffic will be slowed. Other traffic calming techniques include narrowing or curving the street, and implementing designed speed humps. Again, the slower speeds force motorists to be more aware of their surroundings including bicyclists and pedestrians. The Bikeway Theory is based on the European model of cycling that separates bicyclists from pedestrians and motorists. One of the first separate bicycle paths was created in Copenhagen in 1910, to maintain the bicycle trends (Brief History About Copenhagen). These exclusive bicycle transportation systems lower the amount of accidents by limiting pedestrian and motorist access. Bike lanes, cycle tracks, bike boxes, greenways, and multi-use paths can all be part of the bikeway transit network. John Pucher is a lead advocate for the continuation of bikeway networks particularly in the United States. Pucher supports bikeways because of their ability to increase trips by bicycle and increase safety. For instance, in the United States less than one percent of urban trips are made by bicycle, while in the Netherlands 28 percent of trips are by bike (Pucher, “Cycling Safety�). The fatality rate (per 100 03
Figure 1.3 Bikeway Cycling million bike trips) is 26.3 in the United States and 1.6 in the Netherlands (Pucher, “Cycling Safety”). Although, there are many factors contributing these statistics, bikeways are surely one of the major contributors to the increase in bicycle ridership and safety. Pusher points to Davis, California – an American city with an extensive bicycle facility network and a mode share split of 22 percent for bicycle trips (Pucher, “Cycling Safety”). This increase in mode share within the United States shows that bicycle facilities increase bicycle ridership. But again, there are some drawbacks to bikeways. For instance, under American law bicyclists and motorists are equal, but by giving another designated space to bicyclists, motorists begin to equate bikeways as the only designated space for bicyclists. Motorists are then often angered when a cyclist is seen riding in the street. Also, at some point bikeways must intersect with the street. In some cases the danger at these intersections is even greater because motorists are not accustom to checking for bicyclists. These problems can be addressed through more thorough driver education standards. Neither the Bikeway Theory nor the Vehicular Cycling Theory is the sole answer for bicycle transportation in the United States. Vehicular cycling is efficient and safe, but most current street conditions do not support vehicular cycling conditions; on most streets, traffic moves too quickly for a vehicle cyclist to keep with the flow. Conversely, bikeways encourage the timid and inexperienced to use active transportation, but they also give motorists the idea that bicyclists don’t have a right to the road. Both theories have their appropriate application. Higher speed, arterial streets can be retrofitted enough to add a type of bikeway, 04
while lower speed streets can be planned to cater to vehicular cyclists. If the bikeway theory and vehicular cycling theory were used in combination with a motorist education program, the design will have a high chance for success.
TYPES OF CYCLISTS In general there are three main types of cyclists: the recreational cyclists, the utilitarian cyclists, and the competitive cyclists. Recreational cyclists are riding for their amusement. They spend their Sunday afternoons riding greenways, mountain bike trails, and multiuse paths. Generally, they are concerned for their safety, enjoy the relaxed feeling of riding on a separated facility. In Indianapolis recreational cyclists can be seen riding on the Monon Trail, the Canal Tow Path, the White River Trail, the Downtown Canal, and the Cultural Trail. Utilitarian cyclists are riding from point A to point B. They prefer for safe, direct routes that will save them time usually meaning city streets. Utilitarian cyclists often ride at various times of day for various reasons. Their bikes are usually equipped with bells, storage racks, and lights. Utilitarian cyclists will have the equipment necessary to change a flat tire, and they always have a bicycle lock with them. They can be seen wearing helmets because of their constant interaction with motorists on city streets. Currently the utilitarian cyclists in Indianapolis practice vehicular cycling because of the city’s lacking infrastructure. Competitive cyclists are riding for their personal improvement. They race, train, and breathe cycling. The can be seen as a form of recreational cyclists because they think spending hours in a bicycle saddle is fun. These cyclists usually have a lack of fear that allows them to ride comfortably on country roads at high speeds. Indianapolis is home to Major Taylor velodrome where bicycle races are held every summer. 05
Figure 1.4 Recreational Cyclists
Figure 1.5 Utilitarian Cyclists
06
Figure 1.6 Competitive Cyclists
BIKE CULTURE: INDIANAPOLIS The concept of bike culture has escaped a concrete definition (Goodman). Partially because a bike culture has its own specific identity based on the cyclists that encompass it. But across any bike culture, three major groups of bicyclists can be found - the utilitarian, the recreational, and the competitive (Goodman), all of which must be passionate about bicycles. Jim, a passionate bicyclist in New York City, defines bike culture as: “The integration of cycling into one’s everyday life. Relations? Obey the traffic laws. Recreation? Ride with friends and family. Racing? Yeah, fun to do and read about. I ask for commuting clothes come Christmas, and I find myself casting lusty looks at those single-gear things. When the weather gets warm, I enjoy putting on shorts and a jersey and riding in the country (Goodman).”
A bike culture can be beneficial to a city for several reasons. Statistically, bicyclists offer a steady tax base and disposable income. The average income for an American Bicyclist is $60,000 (“New Ideas for Creating Bike-Friendly Communities.”). The median income in Indianapolis’ citizens is $43,000; $17,000 less than the average American Bicyclist. Also bicyclists outnumber golfers, tennis players, and skiers combined (“New Ideas for Creating Bike-Friendly Communities.”). Offering a developed bicycle network creates an incentive for a large number of financially stable people. Cities cannot directly create a bike culture. But cities can create infrastructure, policies, and events that encourage the development of a bike culture. But the passion that defines bike culture, ultimately comes from the cyclists within it. Within Indianapolis’ bike culture, there are organizations and subgroups that are active in the continuation of Indianapolis bike-ability. The Indycog is a local bicycle advocacy group that represents a large portion of Indianapolis’ bike culture. The group focuses on celebrating all things cycling because each section of bike culture has its own energy, and cycling in Indianapolis can benefit from having everyone represented, and everyone involved (Theindycog.com, “About”). In February 2009, two Indianapolis citizens created the group which acts as a 07
venue for the acquisition and dissemination of local bicycle information ranging from bicycle facilities, resources, events, and other policy issues (Theindycog.com, “About”). The Central Indiana Bicycle association is large local group composed of more than 2000 members. The club focuses on bicycle touring, but members also have interests in other types of cycling. CIBA sponsors a lecture series at the Indianapolis public library, and many bike rides including the annual Navigate Indy This Evening or N.I.T.E. ride (cibaride.org). The N.I.T.E. ride is an all day event with the highlight being a 20 mile evening bike tour of downtown Indianapolis. In 2009, the N.I.T.E. ride had over 3000 participants (“FAQ”). Indianapolis also co-sponsors the annual Mayor’s Bike Ride with the Marion County Health Department to promote the use of active transportation and the recent addition of bicycle facilities. In 2010 the ride focused on the newest bicycle lanes on Allisonville road (Strosahl). Smaller bike ride events like the “Tweed Ride” and the “Courteous Mass, Critical Manners ride” occur more often, and usually have a smaller attendance. College students are a major part of the utilitarian sect (“New Ideas for creating Bike Friendly Communities”). Many cannot afford or choose not to drive an automobile. This leaves the student with public and active transportation options. Indianapolis is home to many universities near the downtown, including Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Marian University, University of Indianapolis, and Butler University. A total that’s over 45,000 students near the downtown. Indianapolis is full of people that are passionate about bicycling, and the number is growing. Groups are being formed and events are being planned for all types of cyclists - the utilitarian, the recreational, and the competitive. This growing bike culture will need a bicycle network that responds to their needs.
08
CASE STUDY: PORTLAND CYCLISTS The city of Portland went a step further and researched the likelihood that residents would ride a bicycle as the primary mode of transportation; the statistics they came up with are quite interesting. The city found that the majority of the population is interested in becoming a utilitarian cyclists, but they are concerned about their safety. Many cities in industrialized nations have high mode share splits because they have broken the fear of the roadway by developing bicycle networks where bicycling is the most logical and enjoyable form of transportation (Geller). In these cities, bicycling safety is not a thought before most trips. Changing the perception of bicycling safety is necessary to increase cycling as a form of transportation. Figure 1.7 shows the data recorded by the Portland Bureau of Transportation. Nearly two thousand cyclists in Portland consider themselves “strong and fearless”. They will ride in a city street with or without a bicycle facility. Seven percent of Portland’s population considers themselves “enthused and confident”. They use the existing facilities, and are pushing for shorter-trip distances, better bicycle facilities, and better end of trip facilities. Sixty percent of the group is interested but the current network isn’t developed enough to remove their concern for safety. They hear messages from various groups about the benefits associated with cycling, and would ride if their were few cars that drove at slower speeds. Interestingly, if this group decided to commute by bicycle the amount of vehicles on the road would significantly decrease and the road would be safer place to ride. And finally, 32 percent of the population cannot be persuaded. The most you can hope for is that they are kind while they pass you. This case study shows that most people are open to cycling as a form of transportation, as long as the infrastructure is available. Indianapolis shouldn’t be much different.
09
* .5% “Strong and Fearless”
* 32% “No way, No How”
* 7% “Enthused and Confident”
* 60% “Interested, but concerned”
*Figure 1.7 Portland Cyclists. Data from the Portland Bureau of Transportation.
10
CURRENT + PLANNED FACILITIES Andy Lutz, the bicycle and pedestrian cooordinator of Indianapolis described Indy’s bicycle plan as being “in its infancy” (“New Ideas for creating Bike Friendly Communities”). This is neither a strength nor a weakness, but a fact that must be remembered. Former Mayor Bart Peterson created the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator position a little over three years ago (“New Ideas for creating Bike Friendly Communities”). “Infancy” is a great way to describe Indianapolis bicycle plan; the city is behind and it’s looking to grow and catch up. In 2009 the city was designated a bronze medal for bicycle-friendly communities from the League of American Bicyclists. The city provided almost 8 million dollars for the creation of almost 11 miles of bike lanes on New York and Michigan streets, major East – west thoroughfares that run through the downtown (“League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign”). Total the city has 28.99 miles of bike lanes, and the 10 year plan projects over 200 miles of bike lanes (Strosahl). Indianapolis’ many recreational, multiuse paths are a strength of the current bicycle plan. The Monon Trail, The Canal Tow Path, Fall Creek Trail, and the White River trail lead to the downtown connecting the North side to the downtown. Additionally, when the cultural trail is completed, the recreational path will circumnavigate the downtown. The recreational loop will boarder the edges of the downtown and give good connection points for other recreational, multiuse paths from the suburbs. Indianapolis has also recently proposed the renovation of a portion of The City Market building, adjacent to the Cultural Trail, to become a bike station. The bike station will provide secure bike parking, showers, food, and other amenities for bicycle commuters. More importantly, it can act as an educational venue for to inform Indianapolis bicyclists about rules of the road, new bicycle facilities and how to use them properly, and upcoming events. The city has many recreational trails available, but for the utilitarian cyclist’ options are very limited. The utilitarian cyclist should have safe routes throughout the entire city. In 11
Current BikeWays I-6 9
it c h BL - Ho o v e r - D
I-6 9
DEAN RD
I-465
FO R
CARROLL RD
MITTHOEFER RD
FRANKLIN RD
GERMAN CHURCH RD
POST RD
SHADELAND AVE
CARROLL RD
SHERMAN DR
ARLINGTON AVE
RURAL ST
EMERSON AVE
PROSPECT ST
O KV
ILLE
RD
DAVIS RD N
AV E
4 Miles
*Figure 1.8 Indianapolis Current Bikeways
SHELBY ST
D
VAND
ERGR IF
F RD
THOMPSON RD
SO U
IL
LE
SOUTHPORT RD
RD
EA ST
ER
N
AV E
MI CH I
ACTON RD
YV
TH
HICKORY RD
LB
FRANKLIN RD
SH E
FIVE POINTS RD
MC FARLAND RD
MERIDIAN ST COUNTY LINE RD
R IF F
ER
SENOUR RD
HANNA AVE
R
RD
EA ST
ER G
AN
TH
D
SO U
VA N
SHERMAN DR
THOMPSON RD
CHM
TROY AVE
TROY AVE
TROY AVE
CHU R
GA N
RD
MC GREGOR RD
STOP 11 RD
1
MORGANTOWN RD
SUNNYSIDE RD
BL VD
SA R
GE
NT R
D
SHADELAND AVE
RD LE
D
RAWLES AVE
ENGLISH AVE
BRO
I-6 5
SR 37
10TH ST
I-6 5
MERIDIAN SCHOOL RD
3 US
2
I-70
I-70
E
STOP 11 RD
46TH ST
WASHINGTON ST
SHERMAN DR
O N AV
MANN RD
ON VIL ALL IS
WAY
KEYSTONE AVE
STATE AVE SHELBY ST
EAST ST
RD BLUFF
IS MAD
PADDOCK RD
E
4 I-7
E AV
I-7 0
21ST ST
ALBANY ST
N
I-7 0
PIK
FRYE RD
RALSTON RD
0
N TO
RAYMOND ST
EDGEWOOD AVE
SOUTHPORT RD
VE SA
ENGLISH AVE
5 SR 13
THOMPSON RD
TT
16TH ST
SO
HANNA AVE
AMERIPLEX PKWY
EMERSON
ND R Y W PK EK CR E
FA LL
DR A J BROWN AVE
COLLEGE AVE
PENNSYLVANIA ST EAST ST
WEST ST TROY AVE
HANNA AVE
BI N
BL VD LD IE TF ANI AST ENNSYL V P
W ES
CAPITOL AVE
MERIDIAN ST ILLINOIS ST
RIVERSIDE DR E
VE YA
MERIDIAN ST
CK
SE
E DL
38TH ST
PROSPECT ST
HARDING ST
HOLT RD
TIBBS AVE
HIGH SCHOOL RD
TU
56TH ST
MICHIGAN ST NEW YORK ST
OHIO ST
MCCARTY ST
HU AC
R CA
N KE
p
0 I-7
E AV
AY PRESSW
62ND ST
N PE
SS MA
IA
NES EX SAM JO
EEK RD
46TH ST
25TH ST
NORTH ST
RD
MINNESO TA ST
FALL CR
N GI
LYNHURST DR
GRANDVIEW DR
COOPER RD
KNOLLTON RD KNOLLTON RD LL
BELMONT AVE
MOLLER RD
L TR AI DY DA N
GEORGETOWN RD
10TH ST
SE
62ND ST
R VI
RACEWAY RD
KESSLER BLVD NDR
E AV
MAIN ST
A
GIRLS SCHOOL RD
N
COUNTRY CLUB RD
16TH ST
IA
CO S
D
22ND ST
D
ER
29TH ST
79TH ST
KESSLER BLVD EDR
52ND ST
IN
ILL
79TH ST
WAY
SV
RD
82ND ST
FRANKLIN
OR D
ROCKVILLE RD
MORRIS ST
BROAD RIPPLE AVE
DR M L KING JR ST
CR AW F
30TH ST
EK
FOX RD
71ST ST
34TH ST
WARMAN AVE
HIGH SCHOOL RD
REED RD
GUION RD
RACEWAY RD
Y
26TH ST
21ST ST
71ST ST
RD
K PKW I-7 4
73RD ST
AN HIG MIC
E CREE
MOLLER RD
EAGL
46TH ST
D ER LAN
KESSLER BLVD WDR
CR E
86TH ST
62ND ST
56TH ST
I-4 6 5
LD BLVD
T WES
71ST ST
ST
DITCH RD
PAYNE RD
WILSON RD
I-465
FA LL
96TH ST
WESTFIE
ZIONSVILLE RD
79TH ST
86TH ST
GEORGETOWN RD
MOORE RD
I-465
TOWNSHIP LINE RD
96TH ST
REA L
96TH ST
MAZE RD
Legend Major Streets Active Multi-Purpose Bike Lane Cultural Trail
12
Indianapolis BikeWays Plan 10+ Years
I-465
CARROLL RD
ARLINGTON AVE
EMERSON AVE
GERMAN CHURCH RD
RD
DAVIS RD
SHERMAN DR
N
AV E
SO
LE
SOUTHPORT RD
RD
SHELBY ST
UT
HE
AS
TE
RN
AV E M IC
ACTON RD
IL
HICKORY RD
YV
FRANKLIN RD
LB
FIVE POINTS RD
MC FARLAND RD
MERIDIAN ST
SH E
STOP 11 RD
MAZE RD
COUNTY LINE RD
Legend
4 Miles
Cultural Trail
HI G
MC GREGOR RD
Active Multi-Purpose Bike Lane
2
IFF RD
THOMPSON RD
Major Streets
0
ERGR
1
MORGANTOWN RD
VAND
SENOUR RD
D R F
ER
IF
ST
G R
HANNA AVE
EA
ER
RD
TH
D
SO U
VA N
SHERMAN DR
CHM AN
TROY AVE
TROY AVE
TROY AVE
CHU R
I-65
MERIDIAN SCHOOL RD
3 US
STOP 11 RD
CARROLL RD
MITTHOEFER RD
FRANKLIN RD
POST RD
SHERMAN DR
SHADELAND AVE
ILLE
FRYE RD
RALSTON RD
SUNNYSIDE RD
SA R
GE
NT
RD
SHADELAND AVE BL VD FO
RD
O KV
AN
C
RE E
CARROLL RD
9
9 I- 6
DEAN RD
RD LE VIL ON AL L IS
WAY KEYSTONE AVE
STATE AVE
SHELBY ST
PROSPECT ST
BRO
I-65
SR 37
RAWLES AVE
E
MANN RD
EMERSO N
R ND W Y PK K RE E LC FA L
COLLEGE AVE EAST ST
BL UFF
AV ISO N MAD
PADDOCK RD
BI N
BL VD IE LD TF ANI AST ENNSYL V P
W ES
CAPITOL AVE
MERIDIAN ST ILLINOIS ST
PENNSYLVANIA ST
WEST ST RD
0 I-7 0
10TH ST
4
I-7
46TH ST
I-70
I-70
I- 7
E AV
SOUTHPORT RD
*Figure 1.9 Indianapolis Proposed Bikeways 13
THOMPSON RD
EDGEWOOD AVE
AMERIPL EX PKWY
E
WASHINGTO N ST
ENGLISH AVE
ALBANY ST
N
5 SR 13
THOMPSON RD
PIK
RAYMOND ST
SO
HANNA AVE
p
I- 6
D it c h BL - Ho o v e r -
DITCH RD
RIVERSIDE DR E
TROY AVE
HANNA AVE
16TH ST
EAST ST
HOLT RD
LYNHURST DR
RACEWAY RD
TIBBS AVE
HIGH SCHOOL RD
VE YA
N
21ST ST
R CA
CK
TO
38TH ST
PROSPECT ST
E AV
TU
E AV
ENGLISH AVE
IA
N KE
TS
MICHIGAN ST NEW YORK ST
IN
MINNESOTA ST
AY PRESSW
T SE
0
OHIO ST
MCCARTY ST
HU
LE
G
EX
I-7
AC
R VI
NES SAM JO
ND PE
SS MA
NORTH ST
RD
MERIDIAN ST
LL
56TH ST
46TH ST
25TH ST
HARDING ST
SE
ROCKVILLE RD
MORRIS ST
GRANDVIEW DR
COOPER RD
KNOLLTON RD KNOLLTON RD
MAIN ST
KESSLER BLVD NDR
GEORGETOWN RD
MOLLER RD
AIL TR DY DA N
GIRLS SCHOOL RD
E AV
10TH ST
WARMAN AVE
HIGH SCHOOL RD
REED RD
GUION RD
RACEWAY RD
NA
COUNTRY CLUB RD
16TH ST
DIA
CO S
RD
22ND ST
IN
LE
29TH ST
79TH ST
62ND ST
WAY
SV IL
EEK RD FALL CR
FRANKLIN
RD
62ND ST
34TH ST
DR M L KING JR ST
WF O
FOX RD
KESSLER BLVD EDR
52ND ST
D
CR A
30TH ST
L
82ND ST 79TH ST
71ST ST
BROAD RIPPLE AVE
NR
Y K PKW
26TH ST
21ST ST
71ST ST
KESSLER BLVD WDR
MOLLER RD
E CREE 4
73RD ST
D
A HIG MIC
EAGL
I- 7
ER
62ND ST
56TH ST
46TH ST
LAN
5
RURAL ST
T WES
71ST ST
I- 46
86TH ST
DR A J BROWN AVE
WILSON RD
TOWNSHIP LINE RD
PAYNE RD
GEORGETOWN RD
79TH ST
86TH ST
I-465
FA L
96TH ST
ST
LD BLVD WESTFIE
ZIONSVILLE RD
MOORE RD
I-465
96TH ST
BELMONT AVE
96TH ST
REA L
RD
K
R
D
developing a catalytic bicycle framework, first priority will focus on connecting the utilitarian cyclist to the downtown and bicycle commuter station. Bicycle routes will be developed in detail throughout the downtown that respond to the needs of the bike culture.
CONCLUSION Indianapolis is making efforts to become more bike friendly. The city has done a great job addressing the needs of the recreational cyclist, but the network serving the utilitarian cyclist is not as extensive as it needs to be. The proposed catalytic bicycle network should focus on the integration of all types of bikeway facilities and the education of motorists on vehicular cycling and bikeway cycling practices. The proposed facilities should be used to connect the pieces of the growing bicycle culture with existing and planned facilities like the cultural trail, the monon, and the bicycle commuter station. By catering to Indianapolis college students and the current bicycle commuters, Indianapolis can quickly develop a stable core on which they can continue developing their ten year plan.
14
The Project
PROJECT STATEMENT The purpose of the project is to explore the possibility of retrofitting Indianapolis streets to increase bicycle connectivity, efficiency, and safety according to Indianapolis’ growing bike culture. Theories of bicycle transportation have been analyzed to develop adequate routes for all types of cyclists. An analysis of the findings led to a catalytic bicycle network for the core of Indianapolis centered around a recently proposed bike station. The proposed network will quickly boost ridership and safety.
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE Developing a core bicycle network in Indianapolis offers many benefits to the community. First, the developed infrastructure will give residents the freedom to choose a safe, and efficient alternative to the automobile. Living without a car offers many financial advantages, and using active transportation as the alternative form of transportation offers many health benefits. Second, by prioritizing the development of the utilitarian bicycle network, and developing the urban core first, the city will offer a strong incentive for downtown living. The new form of urban mobility will increase the chances of urban revitalization and development. Incentivizing downtown living helps draw more people into the downtown, creates a stable tax base and develops the city’s identity. The increased standard of living should also help improve the migration patterns of the city (Figure 2.1). And finally, an adequate network will improve bicycle safety. The increased safety will encourage the timid to ride their bicycles, and as more people ride bicycles, bicycle awareness also increases, providing a safer cycling environment.
15
*Figure 2.1 Migration Patterns of Indianapolis based on 2008 IRS Data. The graph shows that many Indianapolis residents move to more progressive areas (and warmer climates). Indianapolis also seems to be attracting people form rural communities.
16
1
Portland, OR
2
Minneapolis
3 San Francisco 4
Seattle
5
Tucson
6
Sacramento
7 Washington, DC 8
New Orleans
9
Denver
10
Mesa
11. Oakland 12. C hicago 13. Honolulu 14. Philadelphia 15. Boston 16. Austin 17. Long Beach 18. San Diego 19. Albuquerque 20. Columbus 21. New York 22. San Jose 23. Fresno 24. Atlanta 25. Milwaukee 26. Las Vegas 27. Los Angeles 28. Phoenix 29. Cleveland 30. Colorado Springs 31. Raleigh 32. Detroit 33. Memphis 34. Houston 35. Baltimore 36. Jacksonville 37. Louisville 38. Kansas City, MO 39. Omaha 40. Virginia Beach 41. Nashville 42. Dallas 43. Fort Worth 44. Indianapolis 45. San Antonio 46. Arlington, TX 47. El Paso 48. Miami 49. Tulsa 50. Oklahoma City 51. Charlotte
17
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS The comparative analysis looked at the League of American Cyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community Study to see how Indianapolis compared in bicycle ridership and safety to the four cities closest in population size: Jacksonvile (808,526), Detroit (808,327), Indianapolis (793,010), San Francisco (764,976), and Austin (749, 659). The data was then used to find correlating attributes between the most bicycle friendly cities to see how they could be incorporated into the bicycle network.
BICYCLE RIDERSHIP
*Figure 2.2
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Jacksonville
Detroit
Indianapolis
San Francisco
Austin
The graph above show the modeshare percentage of bicycle ridership. The graph on the left shows how the five cities compare to the 51 cities studied.
BICYCLE SAFETY
*Figure 2.3
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Jacksonville
Detroit
Indianapolis
San Francisco
Austin
The rankings on the right shows how Indiananapolis compares in overall safety. The graph above shows the three year average of annual bicycle fatalities. According to the director of the Marion County Safety Partnership, Don Bickel, between January 1, 2010 and October 20, 2010 there has been 160 reported collisions between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist, and between the same dates in 2009, there were 152 collisions (Herrmann). Based on these safety and ridership statistics, San Francisco and Austin can be used as American models for bicycle network development.
1
Oklahoma City
2
Omaha
3
San Francisco
4
Minneapolis
5
Seattle
6
Milwaukee
7
Portland, OR
8
Washington, DC
9
Austin
10
Denver
11. Cleveland 12. Boston 13. Honolulu 14. Chicago 15. Columbus 16. Oakland 17. Colorado Springs 18. Long Beach 19. Sacramento 20. Fort Worth 21. Philadelphia 22. New Orleans 23. San Jose 24. Tucson 25. Kansas City, MO 26. Los Angeles 27. Baltimore 28. Virginia Beach 29. New York 30. San Diego 31. Memphis 32. Dallas 33. Houston 34. Atlanta 35. Mesa 36. Fresno 15.3% 37. Las Vegas 38. Raleigh 9.3% 39. Tulsa 40. El Paso 41. Albuquerque 42. Phoenix 43. Detroit 44. San Antonio 45. Louisville 46. Jacksonville 47. Nashville 48. Arlington, TX 49. Indianapolis 50. Miami 51. Charlotte
18
DENSITY COMPARISON *Figure 2.4. PPSM = People Per Square Mile
Detroit = 6,885 PPSM San Francisco = 9,999 PPSM
Indianapolis = 2163 PPSM
Austin = 2610 PPSM
19
Jacksonville = 971 PPSM
COMMON ATTRIBUTES San Francisco and Austin had three major commonalities that led to their strong performance: High density, high number of university students, and high percentage of bicycle facility to land area. Density benefits cities in many ways. It increases social connectivity, reduces travel time, and lowers infrastructure and energy costs. Figure 2.4, shows the density of Indianapolis and its four peer cities. Each blue man represents 100,000 people. The pink line represents the land area of the selected city. Austin would be a good model for increasing density and developing bike routes because it is most similar to Indianapolis in Density.
NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLED
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Jacksonville
Detroit
Indianapolis
San Francisco
Austin
Figure 2.5 shows the number of enrolled college students in the studied cities. Analysis has shown that college students are likely to bicycle because of the health benefits, environmental benefits, and low cost of operating a bicycle. The high student populations may account for the high modeshare and safety statistics. By linking the universities in Indianapolis the network will be more likely to succeed. 20
2
AREA OF BICYCLE FACILITIES 0.10
2
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Jacksonville
Detroit
Indianapolis
San Francisco
Austin
Figure 2.6 shows the area of bicycle facility over the total land area for each of the studied cities. The correlation between increased bicycle facilities and ridership is well documented in a many cities across the world. San Francisco and Austin also fit the pattern. Indianapolis will need over 360 miles of bicycle facilities to reach a number similar near San Francisco and Austin. The current ten year plan calls for about 240 miles.
21
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal 1: Create safe bicycle routes. -Provide a buffer zone for all bike lanes. -Place reflectors within the buffer zone to increase visibility. -Reduce the speed limit on streets with bicycle lanes. -Slow vehicular traffic adjacent to bicycle routes using various traffic calming techniques. Goal 2: Create efficient bicycle routes. -Offer direct routes to central business district and bicycle commuter station. -Utilize wayfinding signage to effectively communicate estimated time to common destinations. Goal 3: Increase student ridership -Connect the four major universities in Indianapolis. -Connect high schools and elementary schools where possible. Goal 4: Increase resident ridership. -Connect the population dense portions of the city.
22
SITE CHALLENGES Indianapolis envelops all of Marian county, almost 400 square miles. The city’s average density is only 2,163 people per square mile. This low density creates social and physical disconnects throughout the city. Routes were effectively evaluated and chosen to help unify the city. Forming the routes near the densest residential areas ensured visibility and sociability, increasing awareness and safety. Many of the streets in Indianapolis were designed for motor vehicle traffic. Slowing motor vehicle traffic was needed to help increase the comfortability of the bicycle network. Traffic calming infrastructure forces motorists to slow down to a reasonable speed and would work well with policies and increased enforcement. Bicycle safety education is also important for the success of the bicycle plan. Since both theories of bicycle transportation design were utilized in the proposed catalytic framework, all road users will need to be educated in vehicular cycling practices and bikeway cycling practices. Education helps reduce confusion and shows cyclist how to use the new bicycle facilities. Motorists violating the proposed bike policies will be required to take education classes from the point of view of a cyclist.
23
CLIENTS The network was not designed for just one single user group. The hope is that the bicycle network would be used by all Indianapolis residents and any visitors through future bike share programs. Because Indianapolis has such a low density it is important to build the network on dependable, committed cyclists. As shown in the background information, university students tend to choose to ride bicycles for the financial and health benefits. The proposed route would also serve an immediate benefit to the lower socioeconomic class in Indianapolis.
Figure 2.7 Typical Indianapolis Client
24
DESIGN PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY Much was considered in the development of the short-term catalytic plan. In order to reach as many people as possible, a study was performed to see where residents were actually living. Using GIS data, a dot density map was created. The next objective was to estimate the distance a commuter would be willing to travel to work in the central business district. Using the standard 12 miles per hour as the average commuter cycling speed, a 6 mile radius or 30 minute bike was used as the perimeter of the focus site - the center being the proposed commuter station. Road volume was then analyzed using traffic count data from Indiana Department of Transportation. Roads were then categorized by projected bikeability according to the recorded vehicles per day. Routes were then designated based on the surrounding density and the most direct bikeable routes. Once the preliminary utilitarian bicycle network was created the routes were visited to confirm the projected bikeability. The preliminary network was then refined based on data collected from the site visit. Alternative routes were developed to avoid problematic streets. The redeveloped network was then critiqued by members of the Indycog, Jim Sayer, the executive director of the adventure cycling association, and other members from the Indianapolis cycling community. The some what impromptu meeting was arranged after Jim Sayer’s presentation at the Indianapolis central library in downtown Indianapolis. The group gave valuable feedback as most are active utilitarian cyclists in the city. The information was then applied to the utilitarian network. The refined plan was then critiqued by BSU faculty that encouraged the development of unique cycling experiences through the use of infrastructure. The plan was then revised keeping in mind the professor’s advice and recent knowledge gained from Mia Birk’s presentation “Creating a Bike-Friendly City: Lessons from Portland”. 25
THE SITE The large size of the site requires multiple scales to effectively communicate the design. The design will be looked at from a county scale, a contextual scale, and finally a street level scale. Sites were chosen based on the program or typology they represent.
*Figure 2.8 Indianapolis
26
PLANNING: INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
The density map, Figure 2.9, shows where people in Indianapolis are living. The map was generated using 2000 census data. According to the map, much of Indianapolis’ population is dispersed evenly throughout the city. The majority of the city is filled with single family housing. The city has not seen much residential development toward the south west and south east.
HPMS Traffic Counts Gray
146th
way High
State Hwy 37
US
I 69
Huntington
Meridian
421
Mohawk
US Hwy 31
7th 126th
River
116th
Oak
Hw y 37
- 09 1910
OAKLANDON RD
l Cre ek
SUNNYSIDE RD
Fal
T RD
LEE RD
800 - 09 2265Carroll
13614 - 06
CARROLL RD
MITTHOEFER RD
19184 - 06
POST RD
GERMAN CHURCH RD
25585 - 07
29735 - 07
CUMBERLAND RD
48586 - 0737717 - 07
Post 17857 - 07
24519 - 10
Mitthoeffer 4495 - 09
09 German 8408 -Church
DAVIS RD
SENOUR RD
CARROLL RD
- 10 - 10 19118 30674
Points RD POINTS Five FIVE
Line County2264 - 09 800
997
- 09
SENOUR RD
5 Points 4710 - 09
SENOUR RD
Hickory 1497 - 09
5 Points
Lewis 2136 - 09
ACTON RD
Broadway
Bellefontaine idso n
Dav
Fulton
Cincinnati
Spring
I 65 Davidson
Herman
Dickson
Spring Spring
Davidson I 70
College
- 09
Maryland Georgia
Pin e Elm
Stevens Alley McCarty
Lord
I 65 I 70 Ramp
Merrill
Noble
Commons
Lord Harrison Fle tch er
Exit Wright 110 B
Ray
6618
Daly
Bates
Ca lva ry
HICKORY RD
Peck
Ogden
Central 09
4-
Scioto
Park
Park
Delaware Fo rt W ay ne Mitthoeffer 219 680- 09 199 - 09
Scioto Pennsylvania
Park
Talbott
Hudson
Leon Park
Alabama
US Hwy 31
Talbott
Cleveland
New Jersey
15174 - 09
Hudson
East
12862 - 10
Scioto
Talbott 14615 - 09
16060 - 09
13267 - 10
Alabama 10468 - 09
Harmon
Warsaw
Greer
Madison
Park
8750 - 09
Scioto
12099 - 10
10468 - 09
Meridian
McCrea Illinois
10456 - 10
Charles
Meridian
Merrill
Park
Pierson
Capitol
Kenwood
Illinois
Le xin gto n Elm Ho sb ro ok
Woodlawn
Ramp Orange
22210 - 10
Illinois
Charles Union
Illinois
28157 - 10
22942 - 10
Greer
Pierson
Muskingum
Roanoke
14602 - 10
Lafayette
Canal Senate
Senate
Missouri
Meikel
Church
s
FRANKLIN RD
Five Points 3507 - 09
ARLINGTON AVE Bla ke Blake
- 10 - 09 10414 FIVE POINTS RD10762
Brook Brook
Bright
FIVE POINTS RD
Douglas
ay
Toledo
Drivew
California
Blake Blake
2416993 - 07 - 07 169
River
West
White
Ohio
Court
Louisiana Lord
South
Henry
I 70
8694 - 10
Ohio
8236 - 10 7906 - 10
Wilkins
Kansas
Miami
Louisiana
- 09
Prospect
y Alle
Wes t
Sycamore
Vermont
Lockerbie
Court
Madison
Dakota
10224 - 10
14620 - 10
822
Chadwick
Sta
Wabash
Merrill
Ray
67 Allegheny
Firehouse
1086
Pearl
Henry
McCarty
524
y Hw
- 09
13602 - 10
- 10
8830 - 10
US Hwy 40
ate
8
Market
13013 - 10
Chesapeake 2492 - 10
6844 - 10 9958 - 10
Henry Ke Merrill Oliver 10
11192 - 10
13452 - 10
tts se hu ac ss Walnut MAZE RD Ma Walnut Walnut
North
St
Wabash
Rca Dome
y ck ntu
9-
Vermont
Court Washington
12th
11th Ra Alley mp 10th Puryear 9th 9th
Driveway Arch
7th
Walnut
13834 - 09
5674 - 09
35531 - 10
Blackford
Parki ng Lot
West
1st
27319 - 09 41344 - 09 18832 - 09 32324 - 09
1682 - 09
EMERSON AVE
McFarland 8224 - 09
SHERMAN DR
MeridianST MERIDIAN State Road 135
Maryland
St Joseph Sahm 9th 9th
10914
State Hwy 135
Emmett
Allegheny
Government
11th
Alley 1050
English
37
11th
Sahm
Jersey
ad
FRYE RD 9th VI LL E SaintRD Clair
ia gin Vir
Ro
BY
ell Russ
te
F RD
- 09
Home
Mann
3
New
0
EL
Walnut
Gardner
d
2,700
SH
14343 - 10
33253 - 10 15687 - 10
Washin gton Washington Main Rocklane
San
5,400
FRANKLIN RD
17988 - 10 21504 - 10
SHADELAND AVE31835 - 10
26164 - 10 15197 - 10
RITTER AVE 12278 - 09
09 59950 - 15300 16552 - 0914439 - 09 - 09
1st
New York
Ohio
University
California
Legend
Vandergriff 247 - 09
10th
Ray
27
RG EN
16985 - 10
ARLINGTON AVE
21366 - 10
- 10 06 25277 -20631
14718 - 10 21774 - 10
Emerson
KEYSTONE AVE
MC FARLAND RD
Gray
29654 - 10
North
t
a
y 935
TROY AVE
12467 - 09
RGRIF VANDEtern Northeas
E
ian
y Hw
AV
Ind
unt
RN
12th
Lo
- 10
Co
TE
11th
Middle
17004 - 09
rki ng
27369
County Hwy 300
Pa
ook
Hw y 144
OAKLANDON RD Germantown 6759 - 09
MASTERS RD
te
ST SH BA
Hague
26840 - 10
43 317
ILL
17019 - 10
- 10 76 400
SHELBY ST
EAST ST
14158 - 09
US Hwy 3126999 - 09East
18804 - 10
US 31
SR 135
East
SHELBY ST
37
16096 - 09
rnia
te
SA
341 14
SR
37
Bin ford - 09
Keystone
33914 - 10
rd nfo E
Bi
RD
nfo rd
Bi
State Hwy 431
ER SV
MI
LL
SHERMAN DR
23741 - 10 24418 - 10
Rural 12467 - 09
Rural 10023 - 09 8299 - 09
RURAL ST
7143 - 06
STATE AVE
Keystone
10019 - 07
14988 - 09
22246 - 10
13310 - 06
MERIDIAN ST
SHERMAN DR
I 70
16060 - 09
15636 - 09
3712 - 09
- 09 4
14602 - 10
680
I 70
10456 - 10 12099 - 1013267 - 10 12862 - 10 10468 -14615 09 - 09 15174 - 09
EAST ST 8750 East - 09
10468 - 09
WEST ST BLUFF RD
Harding 18945 - 06
HARDING ST
State Hwy 37
12th
Paca
SR
ille
Walnut Center
Michigan COUNTY LINE RD E Allegheny
15310 - 07
ay 31 US Highw
Sta
HAGUE RD
- 09
GRAHAM RD
15551 - 09
I-6 9
ShadelandAVE SHADELAND
RD ALL ISO NVI LLE
DEAN RD
State Hwy 431 42840 - 06
DELAWARE ST
5180 - 09
10 3507 - 0910762 -
07
West
33253 - 10- 10 35531 - 10 15687
1699 3-
ck y - 10
CAPITOL AVE
West
Ke 822ntu 9 - 10 5
575
28471 - 06
BELMONT AVE - 10 6 237
- 10
20634 - 06
32
Concord 485 - 09
6045 - 09
Sta
Brandt 05 52820 -
27405 - 10 28046 - 10
COLLEGE AVE
MERIDIAN ST MERIDIAN ST
COLLEGE AVE
COLLEGE AVE
ILLINOIS ST
BOULEVARD PL 14292 - 10
ALABAMA ST
RIVERSIDE DR E
DR A J BROWN AVE
HAUGHEY AVE
CENTRAL AVE
SUNSET AVE
KNOLLTON RD - 09 4785
HARDING ST
TIBBS AVE 9608 - 06
HOLTHolt RD
18832 - 07
21134 - 07
14226 - 09
19482 - 07
WARMAN AVE TIBBS AVE
212
10867 - 09 7551 - 09
- 10
- 09
05
5 387
MANN
RD
100
41692 - 05
COOPER RD Cooper KESSLER BLVD NDR
GEORGETOWN RD MAIN ST
LYNHURST DR I 70 I 465 8261 - 09
High School
2767 - 06
- 09
Mendenhall 2117 - 09
3204
ille 1253 - 09
yv
enbr Gard te
Moo 4512 resv - 09
elb
Fayet
- 09
Sh
31
0
AS
3682 - 09
- 10
4537
- 09
US Hwy
y 95
AVE Troy TROY
1455 - 09
1
6
Califo
- 10
Hw
HE
EDGEWOOD AVE
SOUTHPORT RD
Camp
AVE22010
ty
52
164
21209 - 10
un
UT
4305 - 09
7270
ISON
30898 - 10
32441 - 10
SO
AVE Hanna HANNA
1820 - 09
Co
US Hwy
42
CARSON AVE
31
MAD
US
30950 - 10
24055 - 10
13175 - 09
TROY AVE
TROY AVE
- 10
COUNTY LINE RD W
ville
RAYMOND ST
CHURCH MAN AVE
24834 - 09
STOP 11 RD
Prospect 5174 - 09
- 09
Elmwood
505
36155 - 07
Southport 23888 - 05
25177
RALSTON RD
- 09 12275
RAYMOND ST So 1229 uth 4 - ea 07 ste rn
THOMPSON RD
17220 - 09
US Hwy 40
Washington
PROSPECT ST
y Hw
E
STOP 11 RD
PADDOCK RD
40783 - 10
DITCH RD
HOOVER RD
GRANDVIEW DR
GUION RD MOLLER RD MOLLER RD
I 74
HIGH SCHOOL RD
8327 - 09
Kessler Boulevard North
Georgetown
US Hwy 52
HIGH SCHOOL RD GIRLS SCHOOL RD
GIRLS SCHOOL RD
Spring RD SPRNG Cold COLD
RACEWAY RD RACEWAY RD
COUNTRY CLB RD
RD
- 09
I 70
US
ALBANY ST
25TH ST
RAWLES AVE
Brook
8075
18102 - 07
KE
21864 - 10
I 74
AV
BRIDGEPORT
ENGLISH AVE
- 09
Raymond
12335 - 09
ON EPLER AVE
PI
38TH ST
I 70
BROO KVILL E RD
132 43 8632 - 09 - 09
l
Exi t 107
THOMPSON RD
16TH ST
13609
6353
the
Raymond
26410 - 07
RS
67
22178 - 10
CA
- 10
Hw y
New York
18364 - 10
TROY AVE
22001
1135 - 09
Sumner
2621 - 07
42ND ST
I 70
21ST ST
10TH ST
PROSPECT ST
36308 - 07
33398 - 07
N
46TH ST
46TH ST 67 y Hw te Sta
10
38TH ST
42910 - 07
5755 - 09
Be 22407 - 07
TO
56TH ST
36
- 09
- 10
St ate
TT SE HU
22314
- 10
02
Hwy- 10100 State20189
I 70
LE ND
n leto
56TH ST
US Hwy
6618
Banta 3972 - 09
MOORESVILLE RD
7031 - 09
AC
120
E
I 465
NEW YORK ST MARKET ST
Edgewood 10425 - 09
8874 - 09
SS MA
S AV
09
27552
Southport
7-
09
0-
MICHIGAN ST
TextS
ENGLISH AVE
Thompson
EPLER AVE
BANTA RD
871
I 70
- 09 6001
Madison
I 465
- 09
nd
30TH ST
25TH ST
Minnesota 1466 - 09
4357 - 09
SUMNER AVE
HANNA AVE
8
OHIO ST
22644 - 10
- 09
20569 - 09
19562 - 09
Bloyd
- 09
22210 - 10
- 07
6
- 10
17343 - 06
23564
524
RAYMOND ST
10
42ND ST
I 70
13834 - 09
2492 - 10
Troy 3175 - 09 10
- 09
65TH ST
77 - 07
PE
59TH ST
59th
4484 - 09
6344 - 09
30TH ST
14343 - 101345213013 - 10 13602 - 10 - 10 22942 - 28157 - 10 10 11192 - 10 8236 7906 - 10- 10
8694 - 10 - 10Morris 8830ST MORRIS
19714 - 07
13
16161 - 09
578
OHIO ST
10914
06 - 0724362 19282
19199 - 07
42099
63RD ST
79TH ST
32858 - 05
26269 - 05
US Hwy 36
- 10
71127
10 - 27369
- 07
Morris
14492 - 07
22135 - 09
I 465
7270
I 70
MINNESOTA ST
07
275 10
16TH ST
5674 - 09
41692
56th
y 37
AVE
JR ST
Camby 3593 - 09
3775 - 09
ATE
MILHOUSE RD
CAMBY RD
KY
3105
RD Thompson 3646 - 09 THOMPSON
THOMPSON RD
I 70
UC NT
SEN I 65
L KING
- 09 - 09 09 17004 24834 -16096
1-
34TH ST
22ND ST
22152 - 09
te Hw
DR M
KE
2890
18979 - 09
213
NORTH ST
10
OLIVER AVE
TROY TroyAVE
HANNA AVE
30th
5142 - 09
23784 - 09
Sta
- 10
18821
2937 - 09
E
46TH ST
- 09
19587
I 70
75TH ST
- 09
Pe
7014
- 05
- 07
AV
52ND ST
34559 - 07
20154 - 0919594 - 09
18783 - 09
NEW YORK ST
21209 -
75TH ST
09
24146
BURDSAL PKWY
25537 - 09
10TH ST
15790 - 09
9180 - 06 10 81726
86TH ST
FOX RD 79TH ST
13057
RD
31374
RD
RACEWAY RD
10
AN
24264
- 10
22544 - 07
ST ON NGT SHI MORRIS ST
10th
- 07
BRIDGEPORT RD
27714 -
HIG
L RD
15688 - 06
48924 Airport Airport 53753 - 07
41568 - 07
MIC
SEL
17236
WA
ton
-e10 ett 76 130 fay
MORRIS ST
hing Was
- 09
54TH ST
38th
29TH ST
27828
56TH ST
46TH ST
26976 - 06
I 65
La
33900 - 06 27715 - 05
25225
16th 16TH ST
28748 - 09
20784 - 09
COS
Morris
8386 - 09
- 05
10
09
25676 - 09
34068 - 06
41340 - 06
21789
3-
09
28089 - 09
ROCKVILLE RD
Rockville
- 05
1110
30TH ST
38th 25333 - 06
38TH ST - 06
- 06 - 06 06 2378458634 54493- -07 37022
34TH ST
2776 3-
10TH ST
16305 - 09
- 10
23055 - 06
16305 - 09
17378 - 09
21121 - 09
09
06
38th
48324 - 09
71ST ST
FALL CREEK
Boulevard - 09 17272East Kessler 59th - 09 21121
10 1877618539 - 09 -
26297
222
44789 - 06
25TH ST 2160 2-
16144 - 09
rds ville
I 74
21ST ST
- 05
- 10
Cra wfo
17839 - 09
RD
75th
62ND ST
14302 - 09
52
Hw y 136
28961
298 - 10
US
A
38th
38th
43148 - 07
136
16919 - 09
19378 - 09
84
hw ay
AZ PL
32397 - 09
32385 - 09
65TH ST
65TH ST
BROAD RIPPLE AVE
FOX HILL DR
11757
86TH ST
82ND ST
25632 - 10
- 05
257
Hig
24685 - 09
DANDY TRL
KE PI
75th 75TH ST
BLVD
34305
3 it 12 Ex
46TH ST
US
56TH ST
56th
16712 - 09
28107 - 10
79TH ST
71ST ST
32113 - 09
82ND ST
80TH ST
FIELD
n ster
62ND ST
73RD ST
- 09
82nd32385 - 09
4177 - 09
hwe
WESTLANE RD
71ST ST
71st 5662 - 09
SPRING MILL RD
16187 - 09
29589
WEST
Nort
4446 - 09
86TH ST
32121 - 09
29809 - 09
96th
96TH ST
91ST ST
91st
5735 - 09
86th
14620 - 10 6844 9958 - 10- 1010224 - 10
RD
RD
E TT
TOWNSHIP LINE RD
YE FA
HARCOURT RD
GEORGETOWN RD
LA E
91ST ST
Ditch11221 - 09
- 07
MOORE RD
39882
y 52 Hw
79TH ST
37118 - 05
Sargent
US MO OR
US Hwy 421
86TH ST
29916 - 05
86th
41109 - 07
14793 - 0915172 - 09
96TH ST
96TH ST
96TH ST
ZIONSVILLE RD
I 65
86thST 86TH
10234 - 09
2627 - 09
I 865
E AVE MOOR 96TH ST
96TH ST
BOY SCOUT RD
igan
Meridian
Mich
I 865
5701 - 09
Morris
Sanders
Sanders
Sanders
5,400 Meters
HPMS System Segments HPMS TeleAtlas Segments DPW Traffic Count Segments County Boundaries
Sources: HPMS draft segment file, INDOT 2009
Using traffic count data (Figure 2.10) from the Indianapolis MPO, the designer was able to designate streets that should be avoided. Any street over 30,000 vehicles per day or over six lanes wide was not used within the network. The analysis also showed a series of low traffic arterials, and when overlaid with the density map a series of promising routes could be seen.
30 min.
The proposed growth boundary (Figure 2.11) was calculated using a 30 minute commute and the average travel speed of cyclists. This distance was then used as a guide to focus development of the catalytic, bicycle network. The proposed boundary holds half of the cities population in a third of the land area. The increased density (3321 PPSM) will greatly benefit ridership numbers.
Figure 2.12 shows the four major universities in Indianapolis. All of the universities all within a half an hour bicycle commute to the commuter bike station. These universities are major nodes and places of interest for the bicycle network. Direct routes to the central business district are important for the success of the network. These routes should also be well lit for night use.
28
CONCEPTUAL PLAN Conceptually the plan is simple. First, shrink the focus site to the urban core of Indianapolis. Second, develop safe routes where the most people are living using low traffic streets. Third, calm traffic within the central business district to increase livability. Once completed the catalytic framework will supply Indianapolis with a strong cycling network upon which the city can continue to build. *Figure 2.13 Concept Plan
MASTER PLAN The network uses both bikeway cycling and vehicular cycling to connect Indianapolis cyclists through Indianapolis’ street network. On minor arterials, bikeway cycling is utilized through buffered bike lanes. On these roads, labeled in navy blue, a spatial buffer separates the bike lane from motor vehicle traffic. The buffered bike lanes offer direct routes around Indianapolis while also providing a comfortable cycling experience. On low traffic streets vehicular cycling is encouraged. Traffic calming infrastructure slows motor vehicle traffic. Signage and sharrows also communicate to motorists, the cyclists’ right to the roadway. On these streets cyclists drive their bike as a motorist would drive a car. At the center of the network is the central business district, or the vulnerable street user zone. Within the zone policy and enforcement help govern vehicle speed and mobility. Near the center of the vulnerable street user zone is the proposed bike commuter station. The station will offer food, showers, and storage for over 200 bicycles. Together these pieces form a bicycle network that can comfortably be used by everyone.
29
THE MASTER PLAN
*Figure 2..14
1 2
3
4
30
*Figure 2.15 Inventory and Vicinity Diagram
Broadripple
COLLEGE AVE: BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE
College Avenue
College Avenue is the only street that runs continuously from Broadripple to Mass Ave and onward to Fountain Square. These three neighborhoods are huge cultural nodes for the city of Indianapolis. Along the avenue there are restaurants, grocery stores, bars, and residential houses. The three nodes offer life to the city that often continues deep into evening hours, but currently there isn’t’ an evening-safe bicycle connection.
30th Street
The portion of college avenue studied is just under eight miles long and the average right of way is about 82 feet. In general, the road has five driving lanes, two of which are used for on street parking. The avenue has a strong and continuous street edge with few vacant buildings. The majority of the street is alley loaded eliminating the hindrance of driveway intersections. By removing the majority of the on-street parking, buffered bike lanes are added without too much disturbance to the vehicle driving lanes. 30th and College was chosen as a specific site to represent the changes made to College Avenue. The intersection is the junction of two routes within the bicycle network.
Mass Ave. Apartments
31
Fountain Square
* Figure 2.16 Inventory Streetview looking South at 30th and College
bBL
30
COLLEGE AVE: REPRESENTATIVE SITE
College Avenue
30th Street
VACANT RETAIL
32
COLLEGE AVE: BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE By limiting changes to the existing road footprint (between the sidewalks) the feasibility of the short-term catalytic plan increases. The design calls for the removal of one traffic lane and both sides of on-street parking. The acquired space is used for the implementation of five foot bike lanes with three and a half foot buffers and traffic calming median/turn lane. Bicycle boxes are used along college avenue as the street intersects other portions of the bicycle network. The bike boxes, create a road user hierarchy making the street easier to navigate. Specifically, the boxes give cyclists priority over motorists, increasing visibility and awareness. On street bicycle parking occurs on the sidewalk side of the bike lane. The bicycle parking takes the place of the sidewalk, and the sidewalks are rerouted around the bicycle parking using the additional space from the right-of-way. In addition to becoming more bike friendly, College Avenue remains a bus route. Buses stop in the driving lane, loading passengers then move from the sidewalk, across the bike lane to the buffer area where they load the bus. The step down requires loading passengers to look before the cross into the loading zone.
EXPLODED PLAN
33
*Figure 2.17
Existing Alleys
Proposed Vegetation
Existing Street Edge
Proposed Thermoplastic: Bike Lane and Buffer
Google Reference
Proposed Traffic Calming Median
bBL COLLEGE AVE: PLAN
30
*Figure 2.18
Bicycle Parking
Crosswalk Median/Turn Lane
Bicycle Box Alley
Bicycle Parking
35
COLLEGE AVE: A CLOSER LOOK In addition to the buffer zone, cyclists are also protected by lit bollards as shown in the construction detail, Figure 2.19. During the evening the bollards brighten the bike lane. Reflectors within the buffer zone also increase awareness in the evening. The street section begins to show how the street can be retrofitted to support the design. Sections of asphalt are removed to implement a traffic calming street median. Figure 2.21 shows an enlarged plan of College Avenue. The median ends and becomes the turning lane for motor vehicles. Cyclists are able to join the turn lane through the use of the bicycle box. Despite the addition of buffered bicycle lanes, the majority of the space on the road is used by motor vehicles.
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL: PYLONS
*Figure 2.19
Buffered Bicycle lanes give more distance between cyclists and motorists. They tend to increase a cyclists’ perceived sense of safety. Pylon Lights and reflectors increase visibility at night
35
bBL COLLEGE AVE: 82’ R.O.W. SECTION
COLLEGE AVE: ENLARGED PLAN
30
*Figure 2.20
*Figure 2.21
Buffer
Directional Markings
Sidewalk Curb
End Median/ Begin Turn Lane
Bike Lane 7’
8.5’
11’
11’
11’
8.5’
7’
Pedestrian Space
Buffered Bike Lane
Driving Lane
Median/ Turn Lane
Driving Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Pedestrian Space
36
LOOKING SOUTH AT 30TH AND COLLEGE Lights guide the way for cyclists heading north in the buffered bike lane toward Broadripple. A bicycle box designates a waiting space for both cyclists and motor vehicular traffic at the red light. Cyclist can move within the box to prepare for the green light. Sharrows point the direction in the intersection for beginner cyclists. (Figure 2.22)
37
bBL
30
38
NORTH HARDING ST: BICYCLE BOULEVARD North Harding street is a proposed bicycle boulevard in a low traffic residential area on a route connecting Marian University, a private university with over 2000 students to the Central Business District. The route allows safe 24 hour access to and from the downtown. The proposed bicycle boulevard is just under one and half miles long with a 60 foot average right-of-way. Currently the road is two driving lanes with on-street parking lining both sidewalks. The street is alley loaded decreasing unnecessary driveway intersections. North Harding also has a strong residential street edge helping create a more social street. 21st and North Harding was the chosen site to represent the bicycle boulevard.
NORTH HARDING: REPRESENTATIVE SITE
North Harding Street
21st street Street
VACANT RETAIL 39
*Figure 2.23 Inventory Streetview looking South on Harding Street
RESIDENTIAL
Marian University
20
N. Harding St.
BLVD
21st Street
Central Business District
*Figure 2.24 Inventory and Vicinity Map
40
NORTH HARDING ST: BICYCLE BOULEVARD Retrofitting North Harding Street is necessary to effectively slow vehicle traffic. Portions of the on-street parking are removed and replaced with traffic calming infiltration basins. By alternating the infiltration basins, a vehicle road user feels compressed slowing traffic along the bicycle boulevard. The remaining negative space along the sidewalks remains on-street parking for the homes lining the street. At intersections, the roadway compresses through the use of a traffic kneckdown. The kneckdown slows vehicle traffic and creates a shorter walking distance for pedestrians. A traffic light replaces a roundabout, alleviating unnecessary energy costs. Speed bumps are placed every 140 feet to ensure that motor vehicles do not travel above the proposed 20 mph speed limit. Together these infrastructure improvements create an even playing field for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
EXPLODED PLAN
*Figure 2.25
Existing Street Edge
Existing Alleys
41
Existing Limitations
Proposed Vegetation
Google Reference
Speed Bumps, Roundabouts and Infiltration Basins
BLVD
NORTH HARDING ST: PLAN
20
*Figure 2.26
On-street Bike Parking
Roundabout Kneckdown
Infiltration Basin Speed Bump
42
NORTH HARDING ST: A CLOSER LOOK Figure 2.28 shows a typical cross section of the proposed bicycle boulevard. The infiltration basins compress the shared space for cyclists and pedestrians. Hydrologically, storm water falls on street runs to the sides using the existing crown and then into the infiltration basins. This can also be seen in Figure 2.27. The enlarged plan, figure 2.29 shows how lane markings communicate to road users. Sharrows convey the proposed position of cyclists while chevrons help position vehicles traveling over a speed bump. On-street parking guides help define parking spaces. Across from every basin there is enough space to park two vehicles or twenty bikes.
INFILTRATION BASIN: DRAINAGE DETAIL *Figure 2.27 Falling storm water runs from the existing crown to the side of the street. The water then flows along the street to a curb cut where it can enter the infiltration basin.
Overflow: To City Sewer Curb Cut
43
BLVD
NORTH HARDING ST: 60 R.O.W. SECTION
NORTH HARDING ST: ENLARGED PLAN
20
*Figure 2.28
*Figure 2.29
On-Street Parking Guides Speed Bump Sidewalk Curb
Traffic Calming Infiltration Basins
Shared Lane Markings
6.5’ Pedestrian Space
8’
11’
11’
8’
6.5’
On Street Parking
Shared Space
Shared Space
On Street Parking
Pedestrian Space
44
LOOKING NORTH ON HARDING Figure 2.30 shows a perspective of the proposed bicycle boulevard. As the traffic of the street is slowed, the social health of the street is restored. The street also helps alleviate Indianapolis’ combined sewer problem through the implementation of traffic calming infiltration basins.
45
BLVD
20
46
VULNERABLE STREET USER ZONE Figure 2.31 shows the designation of the vulnerable street user zone. The zone is boarder by interstate 65 to the North and the East, Interstate 70 to the South, and the White River to the West. Within this important area the street speed limits are reduced to 20 mph and traffic laws are strictly enforced to protect pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users. The strict regulations on motor vehicles encourage alternate forms of travel. Cyclists and pedestrians are also encouraged through various wayfinding signage indicating travel time (Figure 2.32). Street intersections are calmed through textured walks that mimic the design style of monument circle. Both buffered bike lanes and vehicular cycling are utilized throughout the zone. The slowed traffic encourages growth in the downtown by fostering livable streets.
47
bBL
20
*Figure 2.31 Vulnerable Street User Zone Diagram
*Figure 2.32 Wayfinding Signage
48
LOOKING SOUTH ON MASS AVE Figure 2.33 shows the comfort within the vulnerable street user zone. The strict zone policies tame the downtown streets. Pictured in the rendering is Massachusetts Avenue. The street is also home to the cultural trail, a recreational trail that circumnavigates the downtown. Sharrows point to a quicker, direct way to move around the central business district by bicycle.
49
bBL
20
50
THE COMMUTER BIKE STATION The Commuter Bike Station, shown in Figure 2.34, acts as the center of the network. The station will be housed in the renovated City Market Building. The station consists of 200 secure bike storage lockers, showers, locker rooms and some concession sales. The east wing is planned to be razed. The proposed plaza provides farmers market flexible plaza in its place. The conceptual plan for the city market space was derived from historic high wheel bicycles pictured in Figure 2.35. The spoke of the wheel are represented in the plan by the plaza sidewalks. The radial pattern form strong connections to the commuter station and also designate spaces for the proposed farmers market. The site is located directly in the downtown just North of the City-county building and a few blocks East of Monument Circle. The station is within walking distance from many businesses and is projected to receive heavy use.
51
20 *Figure 2.34
Delaware (One way North)
Commuter Station Proposed Plaza/ Farmers Market
Alabama (One way South)
COMMUTER BIKE STATION: PLAN
Dismounting Zone
Cultural Trail
Market Street (Bi-Directional)
*Figure 2.35 High Wheel Bicycle
52
LOOKING SOUTH ON ALABAMA Figure 2.36 shows the proximity of the commuter bike station to places of work such as the city-county building in the distance. Motorists are required to yield for pedestrians crossing from the cultural trail to the bike station. A dismounting zone near the station gives utilitarian cyclists a protected place to dismount their bikes.
53
20
54
55
CONCLUSION Indianapolis has a growing bicycle community, but the city’s current utilitarian network fails to safely connect cyclists to the places they wish to travel. The city’s bicycle plan is ambitious, but it is missing a few guiding principles. The proposed catalytic framework uses Indy’s universities and dense populations as a backbone to support safe and direct cycling facilities. By focusing the development of bicycle facilities within the urban core, Indianapolis can quickly develop a stable and adequate cycling population, on which they can continue developing their ten year plan.
56
Appendices
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS -Active transportation is a type of transportation that requires extensive cardiovascular work. Examples: Biking, running, walking. -A Bicycle facility is any type of infrastructure that promotes the use of a bicycle. Common bicycle facilities include bike storage, bike lanes, and bike stations. -A Bicyclist is a person that uses a bicycle as a form of transportation. -A bike boulevard is a type of roadway that discourages non-local traffic through the use of various traffic calming measures, making the road the optimum travel speed of most bicyclists. -A bike station is a type of bicycle facility that provides showers, lockers, bicycle parking, and food/beverage options to encourage commuter ridership. -A contra-flow bike lane is a type of bicycle facility that goes in the opposite direction of the motor traffic down a one-way road. -Cycle track is a type of bicycle facility on street level that physically separates a bicyclist from vehicular traffic through bollards, medians, green space etc. Cycle tracks may also be referred to as separated bike lanes, or protected bikeways. -The Indianapolis Bicycle plan is a written and graphic document describing future plans for increasing bicycle mobility in the city. Currently the plan is being redeveloped in the city. -The League of American Bicyclists is the oldest national bicycle advocacy group in the United States. The group focuses on the cyclists right to the road, and recently has developed a bicycle benchmark study to compare cities’ progress on bicycle issues. 57
-A Motorist is a person that uses a motor vehicle as a form of transportation. -Shared Lane Markings or “sharrows� refer to a type of bicycle facility used to communicate with cyclists and motorists that cyclists are encouraged to share the lane. The markings are typically used when space is limited and traffic speed is slow enough that cyclists can comfortable keep up with motorists. The chevron markings associated with sharrows help aligns cyclists with the center of the lane. -Vehicular cycling refers to the act of riding a bicycle according the policies and laws of motor vehicles. - A Road Diet is a technique in transportation planning where the number of travel lanes for motor traffic is reduced in total number or lane width in order to improve other designated uses. -Smart Growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl and advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including neighborhood schools, complete streets, and mixed-use development. -Urban Growth Boundary is a is a regional boundary, set in an attempt to control urban sprawl by mandating that the area inside the boundary be used for higher density urban development and the area outside be used for lower density development. Urban growth Boundaries are usually created to protect valuable farmland.
58
APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY Balshone, Bruce L., Paul L. Deering, and Brian D. McCarl. Bicycle Transit: Its Planning and Design. New York: Praeger, 1975. Print. Birk, Mia. Alta Planning + Design Principal and “Joyride” author. Creating a Bike-Friendly City - Lessons from Portland. 28 February, 2011. “Brief History About Copenhagen”. Copenhagen Portal. Web. 23 Nov. 2010. Burkhardt, Shane, Lutz, Andy, and Fritz, Pete. “New Ideas for Creating Bike-Friendly Communities.” Lecture. Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Planning Conference. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1 Oct. 2010. Cibaride.org. Central Indiana Bicycle Association Web. 22 Oct. 2010. “FAQ.” N.I.T.E. Ride. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. Forester, John. Bicycle Transportation. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1983. Print. Forester, John. “The Bicycle Transportation Controversy.” Transportation Quarterly. Vol 55 No 2 Spring (2001). Web. 27 Sept. 2010. Goodman, J. David. “What Is Bike Culture?” Metro - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com. 30 Mar. 2010. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. Herrmann, Angela. “City Rolls out Its 15-year Bikeway Plan | Environment.” NUVO Newsweekly | Indianapolis, IN. 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. INDYCOG. 'About’. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.
59
Krizek, Kevin. “Two Approaches to Valuing Some of Bicycle Facilities’ Presumed Benefits.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol 72 No 3 Summer (2006). Web. 26 Sept. 2010. League of American Bicyclists.”A Cyclists’ Rights to the Road”. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. League of American Bicyclists. “Bicycle Commuter Rates in U.S. 70 largest cities: 2008-2009”. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. League of American Bicyclists. . “Bicycle Safety Education”. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. “League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign.” League of American Bicyclists * Home. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. Portland Bureau of Transportation. “Four Types Transportation Cyclists. Web. 21 March 2011.
of
Pucher, John. “Cycling Safety on Bikeways vs. Roads.” Transportation Quarterly. Vol 55 No 4 Fall (2001). Web. 27 Sept. 2010. Pucher, John. “Cycling in New York: Innovative Policies at the Urban Frontier.” World Transport Policy and Practice. Vol 16 Summer (2010). Web. 27 Sept. 2010. Stilgoe, John. “Wheels, Safeties, and Bicycles-To-Be”. Harvard Design Magazine. Spring/Sumer 2009: 97-104. Print. Strosahl, Amanda. “Join Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard for the Mayor’s Bike Ride on June 5 -Indianapolis Healthy Living | Examiner.com.” | Examiner.com. 27 May 2010. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.
60
APPENDIX C: LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Indiana State Capitol. Personal Photo. 01 Figure 1.2 Vehicular Cycling. Photo Credit: BikeTexas 02 Figure 1.3 Bikeway Cycling. Photo Credit: BikeTexas 04 Figure 1.4 Recreational Cyclists. Personal Photo. 06 Figure 1.5 Utilitarian Cyclists. Photo Credit: BikeTexas 06 Figure 1.6 Competitive Cyclists. Photo Credit: BikeTexas 06 Figure 1.7 Portland Cyclists Graph 10 Figure 1.8 Current Bikeways. City of Indianapolis. 12 Figure 1.9 Proposed Bikeways. City of Indianapolis 13 Figure 2.1 Migration Patterns. Forbes. 16 Figure 2.2 Bicycle Ridership Graph. Data from LAB 17 Figure 2.3 Bicycle Safety Graph. Data from LAB 18 Figure 2.4 Density Comparison Graph 19 Figure 2.5 Number of Students Enrolled Graph 20 Figure 2.6 Area of Bicycle Facilities Graph 21 Figure 2.7 Indianapolis Resident. Personal Photo 24 Figure 2.8 The City of Indianapolis 26 Figure 2.9 Density Map. 2000 Census Data. GIS. 27 Figure 2.10 HPMS Traffic Counts. Indianapolis MPO 27 Figure 2.11 Focus Site 28 Figure 2.12 Local Universities 28 Figure 2.13 Concept Plan 29 Figure 2.14 The Master Plan 30 Figure 2.15 Inventory and Vicinity Diagram 31 Figure 2.16 Inventory Streetview looking South on College 31 Figure 2.17 Exploded Plan 33 Figure 2.18 College Ave: Plan 34 Figure 2.19 Construction Detail: Pylons 35 Figure 2.20 College Ave: 82’ R.O.W. Section 36 Figure 2.21 College Ave: Enlarged Plan 36 Figure 2.22 Looking South at 30th and College 37 Figure 2.23 Inventory Streetview looking South on Harding 39 Figure 2.24 Inventory and Vicinity Diagram 40 Figure 2.25 Exploded Plan 41 Figure 2.26 North Harding St: Plan 42 Figure 2.27 Infiltration Basin: Drainage Detail 43
61
Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure
2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.36
North Harding St: 60 R.O.W. Section North Harding St: Enlarged Plan Looking North on Harding Vulnerable Street User Zone Diagram Wayfinding Signage Looking South on Mass Ave Commuter Bike Station: Plan High Wheel Bicycle. Photo Credit: Clemson
44 44 45 48 48 49 52 53
APPENDIX D: INFOGRAPHICS While not directly related to the project the following infographics help frame the United States’ mobility and transportation problem. The graphics reveal powerful information about sprawl, commute time, pedestrian fatalities, spatial allocation, economics, and social stigmas. The infographics are left in their raw format. Source information is directly on the image.
62
01
02
01
66
01