ATTACHMENT 5
Sidewalk Ranking System
(endorsed by Town Council September 10, 2001)
|
|
FACTOR |
RANKING |
SCORE |
|
Safety Characteristics (5 pts) |
Street Classification |
Arterial |
5 |
|
|
Collector |
3 |
|
|
|
Local |
1 |
|
|
Pedestrian Generators (15 pts) |
Proximity to Schools (elementary or secondary) |
Within ¼ mile |
5 |
|
Within ½ mile |
3 |
||
|
Transit Service |
Transit stop within ¼ mile |
5 |
|
|
|
Transit stop within ½ mile |
3 |
|
|
Other Pedestrian Generators |
Within ¼ mile of UNC, parks, shopping |
5 |
|
|
|
Within ½ mile of UNC, parks, shopping |
3 |
|
|
|
No significant generator within 1 mile |
0 |
|
|
Other Factors (16 pts)
|
Existing Facilities (project side) |
Worn path |
5 |
|
No facility – roadway only option |
3 |
||
|
Existing sidewalk |
0 |
||
|
Existing Facilities (opposite side) |
Worn path |
5 |
|
|
No facility – roadway only option |
3 |
||
|
Existing sidewalk |
0 |
||
|
Gap or Missing Link (if both, score only for Gap) |
Gap (600 ft or less between sidewalks) |
5 |
|
|
Missing Link (10% or more of section between two pedestrian generators) |
3 |
||
|
Citizen Requests |
Request has been made to Town |
1 |
The Bicycle and Pedestrian and the Transportation Advisory Boards recommend that the Sidewalk Ranking System be used as a general guide for identifying a group of new sidewalks in Chapel Hill. Working from this group of sidewalks generated by the ranking system, the boards will consider ROW, construction feasibility, and necessity as factors in determining a fixed list of new sidewalks for each fiscal year.