Prepared For:

City of Columbus, Division of Mobility Options

Prepared By:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Interim Final Plan
September 2011

A note to the reader

This Interim Final Plan was produced to allow for approval and implementation of individual recommendations of the Weinland Park Community Mobility Plan. While some of the Plans recommendations can be implemented as
soon as resources are allocated, other recommendations will require additional
study to determine feasibility specifically improvements recommended for N
Fourth Street, Summit Street, and E Fifth Avenue.
The City of Columbus is committed to providing facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, and other modal users. City staff members are working toward developing solutions that accommodate these users while providing acceptable levels
of service to current and future automobile drivers, and satisfying ODOTs
geometric design standards. A forthcoming final version of the Weinland Park
Community Mobility Plan will include the results of feasibility studies, providing final recommendations for these corridors.

Mayor
Michael B. Coleman
Columbus City Council
Michael C. Mentel
Hearcel F. Craig
Andrew J. Ginther
A. Troy Miller
Eileen Y. Paley
Charleta B. Tavares
Priscilla R. Tyson
Department of Public Service
Mark Kelsey, Director
Division of Mobility Options
Randall J. Bowman, Administrator
William A. Lewis, Chief Mobility Engineer
Nicholas J. Popa, Bikeways and Community
Mobility Manager
Terry L. Stewart, Project Engineer
Jodi M. Stefanik, EIT
Project Team
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
HKI Associates, Inc.
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
University Area Enrichment Association
Walkable Communities, Inc.

University Area Commission

Ian MacConnell
Ron Hupman
Susan Keeny
Sara Matthiesen
David Hegley
John Risteter
Seth Golding
Charles Robol
Ian Studders
Joaquin Serantes
Sharon Young
Laura Shinn
Miles Curtiss
Dick Talbot
Pasquale Grado
Doreen Uhas Saurer
Bill Graver
Rimar Villasenor
Joyce Hughes
Tom Wildman
Mobility Plan Steering Committee
Laura Bidwa
Carl Shoolman
John Gideon
Steve Simmons
Joyce Hughes
Jeff Stephens
Rory Krupp
Pablo Tanguay
Chris Orban
Mark Wagenbrenner
Julia Orban
The project team would like to thank the residents
of Weinland Park for their participation, persistence, and patience throughout the development of
this plan. Special thanks are extended to the Weinland Park Community Civic Association and its
officers, particularly Joyce Hughes, President and
Chris Orban, Traffic and Mobility Committe Chair
for their leadership during the planning process.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

Introduction
Mobility Planning
The Community Mobility Planning Process
Mobility Planning in Weinland Park

ii

iii
1
2
3
3

Issues and Concerns

3-1-1 Service Requests
Communication Forums & Input Opportunities 
Public Involvement Comments

9
10
12
16

Existing Conditions
Guiding Plans and Studies
Automobiles
Pedestrians
Bicycles
Transit

19
20
24
35
44
45

Recommended Solutions
Toolbox of Treatments
Automobile Tools
Pedestrian Tools
Bicycle Tools
Transit Tools
Other Tools
Location Based Recommendations
Neighborhood Improvements
Corridor Improvements
Site Specific Improvements

47
48
48
53
57
59
61
63
63
65
71

Prioritization and Implementation

Plan Prioritization
Implementation Strategy
Updating the Plan

83
84
86
90

Historically, the need for vehicular traffic to access downtown from outlying areas of the city has been
prioritized over other modes and the travel needs of local residents in Weinland Park. The result is that
several streets, Summit and Fourth in particular, have become barriers to mobility, hindering multi-modal
connectivity and segmenting the community. Prompted by resident concerns (expressed through 311
requests) as well as other issues such as high incidences of pedestrian crashes and traffic violations, the
City initiated the Weinland Park Community Mobility Plan (WPCMP) to improve mobility conditions
throughout the the neighborhood. The recommendations included in the WPCMP will work to achieve the
following goals:
Balance the transportation system for moving people and goods by all modes (pedestrian,
bicycle, automobile, transit, truck, and rail)
Reduce traffic violations (speeding, failure to yield to pedestrians, running red-lights,
etc)
Recognize and strengthen the connection between land use and mobility (coordination
with other planning efforts)
Promote distinct and vibrant neighborhoods
Address issues identified by community residents
Recommend comprehensive yet implementable solutions
Through a combination of extensive community input and technical data collection, the project team first
worked to identify the existing conditions and most significant barriers to mobility in the neighborhood. The
public input opportunities included several community open house and workshop meetings, neighborhood
walk audits, resident surveys, meetings with stakeholder groups, and informal porch chats. These efforts
resulted in the compilation of approximately 1,000 comments regarding mobility conditions in Weinland
Park.
The most frequent concerns expressed by the public were for pedestrian safety when crossing High, Summit,
and Fourth streets; issues with driving in Weinland Park (most of these related to conversion of Summit
and Fourth streets from one to two-way operation); and concerns over driver behavior (predominantly
speeding). These three categories accounted for over 50% of all comments recevied. Resident concerns
were confirmed by traffic studies which identified excess vehicular capacity and speeding problems along

Executive Summary

Located just north of downtown Columbus and south of The Ohio State University, Weinland Park is a
densely populated community consisting primarily of single and multi-family residences. With a strong
grid style street network and traversed by several north-south and east-west arterial streets, Weinland
Park is well connected to the surrounding city and central Ohio region. This connectivity presents both
opportunities and challenges for mobility within and through the neighborhood.

iii

Recommended Short-Term Projects (0-3 Years)

Project
#

iv

Recommended
Improvement

Location

Bicycle Parking

Various Locations

Sixth Ave - Indianola Ave

Sidewalk Installation to Summit St & Fifth St to
Sixth St

Shared Signed
Roadway

High St - Fifth Ave to

Twelfth Ave

11

Improved Signal
Timing

Summit St & Fourth St Warren St to Hudson St

12

Restripe Lanes &

Remove Parking
Restrictions

Summit St & Fourth St Warren St to Hudson St

16

HAWK Beacon*

Summit St at south
park path

17

HAWK Beacon*

Fourth St at south park

path

18

Intersection Safety
Improvements**

Seventh Ave & Summit St

19

Crosswalk with
Rapid Flash Beacon

Eighth Ave & Summit St

20

Crosswalk with
Rapid Flash Beacon

Eighth Ave & Fourth St

23

Curb Extensions
with Lane Shift

Seventh Ave east of

High St

27

Curb Extension

Seventh Ave & Courtland

Ave

31

Curb Extensions

Indianola Ave & Fifth Ave

32

Curb Extensions

Indianola Ave & Seventh

Ave

33

Curb Extensions

Indianola Ave & Euclid Ave

34

Curb Extensions
with Raised Median

Indianola Ave & Ninth Ave

47

Mini Circle

Indianola Ave & Sixth Ave

48

Mini Circle

Indianola Ave & 8th Ave

49

Mini Circle

Indianola Ave & 11th Ave

Summit and Fourth Streets. Additionally, several offset intersections along these corridors
create poor sight distance for turning vehicles and crossing pedestrians. These factors all result
in high occurrences of pedestrian and vehicular crashes in several locations. Comments related
to bicycle safety and lack of facilities, crime and personal safety, and sidewalk issues each
accounted for 8%, while the remaining 25% of comments were scattered throughout a variety
of other mobility issues.
The next step in the community mobility planning process was the development of a Toolbox
of Treatments, which consists of numerous mobility improvements that were selected
to address the array of issues and concerns expressed through public input and observed
during data collection. The Toolbox is intened to serve as an ongoing resource for use by the
City and residents of Weinland Park to diagnose and address future mobility issues in the
neighborhood.
Drawing on the Toolbox of Treatments, a list of 54 location based recommendations was
develoved to address the existing issues throughout Weinland Park. For each location, a tool,
or combination of tools, was selected and applied to address the identified mobility problem.
Some recommended improvements apply to the entire neighborhood, some to a roadway
corridor, and others to specific sites or intersections.
Once the list of recommended projects was developed, members of the public and the WPCMP
Steering Committee worked with the project team to prioritize the projects. Based on this
prioritization along with factors such as location, effectiveness at achieving the plan goals,
estimated cost, and funding source, an implementation strategy was developed that groups
the projects into short-term (0-3 years), medium-term (4-7 years), and long-term (7+ years)
recommendations and identifies a responsible party for each.
This strategy will help to ensure that the WPCMP is implemented in a way that consistently
improves mobility conditions throughout the neighborhood over the coming years. However,
given the changing nature of funding and community priorities, this plan should be re-evaluted
and updated every five years to reflect completed projects, adapt to new issues, and ensure that
it continues to address the mobility needs of Weinland Park and its residents.
* A warrant analysis has not been conducted to determine whether HAWK Beacons are warranted. If the standard is not met, pedestrian-activated LED rectangular rapid flashing beacons may substitute.
** The Exclusive Pedestrian Phase was determined by preliminary traffic analysis to not be feasible. This being
said, the WPCMP recommends further study. See Intersection Safety Improvements (18) for alternative approaches and more information.

Introduction

Mobility Planning

What are Complete Streets?

Complete streets are designed and

operated to enable safe access for
all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists,
motorists and transit riders of all
ages and abilities must be able
to safely move along and across
a complete street. Some of the
benefits of complete streets include:
Economic development
Better air quality
More vibrant streets and
communities
Improved safety for all users
Enhanced accessibility
Lower transportation costs
Better health through increased
activity

Through the Community Mobility Planning (CMP) Program, the City of Columbus is
taking a new approach to transportation planning and engineering that acknowledges
and responds to key changes in how residents view and use the transportation system.
It recognizes the role that well designed facilities play in creating healthy and vibrant
communities. Recent focuses on environmental awareness, rising fuel prices, and a
renewed desire for urban living in Columbus have all combined to increase demand for
multi-modal options and improved connectivity between business, retail, and residential
areas. The Mobility Planning Program is one of many steps the City is taking to promote
sustainable development, revitalize urban areas, and improve transportation options for
all residents. Since 2008, the City has adopted a Complete Streets resolution, developed
the Bicentennial Bikeways Plan, updated the Citys Bike Law to promote safe cycling and
require the provision of bicycle facilities, been designated a Bicycle Friendly Community,
and implemented the GreenSpot Program.
In general, traditional transportation planning methods analyze the street system to
maximize operational efficiency for motorized vehicles, often at a municipal or regional
scale. Such plans have lead to the creation of auto-centric networks that often overlook
or even determine the types of land uses that surround them, and frequently discourage
or preclude travel by other modes. Often, older residential neighborhoods near the
urban core bear the marks of such development patterns as interstates and arterial roads
were built through them to connect new suburban developments to the central business
district. Recognizing the importance of complete streets and the need for improved
mobility, particularly in older urban neighborhoods, the City of Columbus developed
the Community Mobility Planning Program to achieve the following goals:
Balance the transportation system for moving people and goods by all modes
(pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, transit, truck, and rail)
Reduce traffic violations (speeding, failure to yield to pedestrians, running redlights, etc)
Recognize and strengthen the connection between land use and mobility
(coordination with other planning efforts)
Promote distinct and vibrant neighborhoods
Address issues identified by community residents
Recommend comprehensive yet implementable solutions

The Community Mobility Planning Process

A planning process, that seeks to be inclusive of all travel modes and all users of the
transportation network, was tailored to meet the needs of the Weinland Park neighborhood.
The process was broken down into four basic phases:
Data Collection: this phase included all input gained from the public and
stakeholders, technical data collection such as sidewalk and curb ramp inventories
and traffic counts, and a review of existing plans and policies. Specific mobility
issues and locations of concern were identified throughout the Weinland Park
community.
Toolbox of Treatments: as the first step in developing solutions, the team identified
numerous solutions for each travel mode that could be applied to address the issues and
concerns identified during the data collection phase.
Location Specific Recommendations: this phase involved analyzing the mobility
conditions at each location of concern throughout the neighborhood and
recommending the most appropriate tool(s) for that specific site.

Figure 1: Community
Mobility Planning Process
Existing
Policies

Public
Input

Technical
Data

Toolbox
of
nts
Treatme

Prioritization and Implementation: the final phase of the planning process

involves the City working with the project Steering Committee, which consists of
neighborhood residents and key stakeholders, to prioritize the recommendations
and develop a strategy for implementation. The City and Steering Committee
will continue with this phase of the project long after the plan document has been
completed.
The plan study area (Exhibit 1) encompasses the entire Weinland Park neighborhood,
which extends from High Street on the west to the CSX railroad tracks on the east and
from Fifth Avenue on the south to Twelfth Avenue on the north. In addition to Weinland
Park, the study area also incorporated Fourth and Summit Streets from I-670 to Hudson
Street.

Prioritization &
Implementation

Mobility Planning in Weinland Park

Why Weinland Park?
After completing its first two community mobility plans in the Linden and Franklinton
neighborhoods, the City of Columbus selected Weinland Park for its next plan. The
community is an ideal location for mobility improvements for many reasons. Similar to
Linden and Franklinton, Weinland Park has seen increased investment and redevelopment

Exhibit 1: Weinland Park Community Mobility Plan Study Area

in recent years after long periods of disinvestment. It is located adjacent to The Ohio State
University and the Short North and is less than one mile from downtown Columbus, all
of which are major activity generators used by a wide range of people with different
mobility needs. Weinland Park is also a densely populated neighborhood and, at onehalf square mile in area, is conducive to travel by various modes.
Resident concerns recorded by the City of Columbus Call Center (3-1-1) as service requests,
and other issues such as a high number of pedestrian crashes and traffic violations have
also prompted City officials to take actions to improve mobility in and around Weinland
Park. Many of the factors and concerns leading to the selection of Weinland Park for a
CMP are discussed in more detail in the following sections and in subsequent chapters
of this plan.
While the plan was initially intended to focus strictly on the Weinland Park neighborhood,
the City received requests from adjacent neighborhoods to extend the study area along
Summit and Fourth Streets. The entire corridor from I-670 to Hudson Street was included
in the scope because any changes to these streets in Weinland Park would impact traffic
along the rest of the corridor as well.
Weinland Park Transportation Network
The streets in Weinland Park are laid-out in a traditional grid network. High Street and
the one-way pair of Fourth and Summit Streets serve as the main north/south arterial
streets through the community, providing quick access to and from downtown Columbus.
Fifth and Eleventh Avenues are the primary east/west arterial streets, providing access
to High Street and I-71 and generally framing the neighborhood on the north and south.
Seventh Avenue serves as a key route through the center of Weinland Park for local
traffic; it connects to Weinland Park Elementary School, Kroger grocery store, and High
Street. The rest of the street network consists of residential streets running both north/
south and east/west.
This arrangement is highly conducive to neighborhood mobility as block sizes are small
and direct connections are easily made to area destinations. In contrast to conventional
suburban development, where loop and cul-de-sac streets create long circuitous routes,
the streets in Weinland Park are better at facilitating a direct route for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit as well as cars. The grid network also provides numerous entry
and exit points to and from the neighborhood and offers multiple parallel routes of travel,
thus reducing the importance of any one intersection or roadway. It is because of the

Figure 2: The grid network in Weinland Park

(left) is far more conducive to multi-modal travel
than the suburban style loop and cul-de-sac
development shown in this southwest Columbus
neighborhood (right).

existing transportation framework and mix of land uses in Weinland Park that this area
is a good location for mobility improvements. A better balance of transportation modes
can be achieved simply through repairing, upgrading, and supplementing the existing
infrastructure, rather than requiring a redesign of the street network.

Figure 3: Located at the corner of Fifth Ave and

Fourth St, D.L. Auld (later 3M) was a major
employer in the area for nearly 100 years.

History and Character of the Neighborhood

The Weinland Park neighborhood began to take shape in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries as part of Columbus Near North area. At the turn of the century, the industrial
revolution brought an influx of factories and jobs to the City. The area that now constitutes
Weinland Park developed as a mixture of industrial properties along the railroad tracks
which serve as the neighborhoods eastern boundary, and residences for the factory
employees . Businesses such as Columbus Coated Fabrics, D.L. Auld Company (later
purchased by 3M), and Timken Roller Bearings provided employment to many area
residents and helped Weinland Park to become a stable working class neighborhood in
the early and mid 1900s. To this day Weinland Park, by and large, retains its roots as a
working class community.
Like so many urban neighborhoods across the country, Weinland Park saw a decline in
home ownership and stability following World War II as families left the urban core for
the suburbs. This out-migration, partnered with industrial decline, led to decades of
disinvestment, concentrated poverty, and increased crime in the community. By 1990,
Weinland Park had one of the highest concentrations of subsidized housing in the county,
and suffered from rising unemployment along with gang and drug activity.

Figure 4: The Godman Guild moved to its current location on the corner of Sixth Ave and
Sixth St in Weinland Park in 1994.

Did you know?

Since 1898, the Godman Guild has

continually adapted to meet the needs of
Columbus communities. Over the years, it
has provided services ranging from public
baths, to neighborhood organizing, to
career and computer training courses.

Since the mid-1990s, renewed attention and investment has been focused on the Weinland
Park neighborhood by public, private, and non-profit organizations. Active and dedicated
community groups like the Weinland Park Community Civic Association, long-standing
organizations like the Godman Guild, newer groups such as Campus Partners and
Community Properties of Ohio, and public agencies such as the City of Columbus and
MORPC have all begun working in concert to effect positive and sustainable changes in
Weinland Park. Their efforts generally focused on crime prevention, increasing home
ownership, and improving and deconcentrating Section 8 housing.

Future Investments and Development in Weinland Park

Not only does the character and design of Weinland Park make it a good candidate for
multi-modal improvements, but it is also an area in transition. With the aforementioned
planning and investment activity occurring in the neighborhood, it is likely that Weinland
Park will undergo substantial changes in the next 5-10 years. Some of the recent and
upcoming efforts in the community include (See Exhibit 2):
New Weinland Park Elementary School and Schoenbaum Early Childhood
Education Center
Redesign of Weinland Park
South Campus Gateway development
Community Policing and Pride Center on Eleventh Avenue
Clean-up and redevelopment of the Columbus Coated Fabrics site
Clean-up and redevelopment of the D.L. Auld Company/3M site
Seventh Avenue improvements including new sidewalks (built with Urban
Infrastructure Recovery Funds)
York on High and Smith and High Condos on High Street north of Fifth Avenue
Reconstruction of the Kroger grocery store at its current location at Seventh Avenue
and High Street
Weinland Park Business Plan Joint effort of Campus Partners, Columbus
Foundation, and JP Morgan Chase Foundation.
United Way Building Vibrant Neighborhoods Program Weinland Park is one
of five Columbus neighborhoods in which the United Way will focus efforts to
improve neighborhood safety and ensure safe and decent housing

Figure 5: The new Weinland Park Elementary

School, and adjacent Schoenbaum Center both
opened in 2007.

As current residents and agencies work for improvements in the neighborhood and new
residents and businesses move in, this is an ideal opportunity to improve the safety and
function of the transportation system for all users, but for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit
riders in particular.
Figure 6: The Seventh Avenue improvements,
shown here under construction, included
complete reconstruction of the road and the
installation of sidewalks.

Exhibit 2: Recent and Planned Investements in Weinland Park

8

4
3

7
9

1
2

1. Weinland Park Elementary

School and Schoenbaum Early
Childhood Education Center
2. Weinland Park
3. South Campus Gateway
4. Community Policing Center
5. Columbus Coated Fabrics Site
6. D.L. Auld Co./3M Site
7. Reconstructed 7th Avenue
8. York on High and Smith and
High Condominiums
9. Site of New Kroger

Issues and Concerns

In order for the project team to successfully study and recommend solutions to the
mobility issues of the Weinland Park community, it was important to first identify and
begin to understand what those problems are. The most effective way of gaining this
understanding was through input from neighborhood residents and stakeholders. This
process began before the project was even initiated with the tabulation of 311 service
requests, and continued through the entire planning process. The project team sought
to engeage the community and capitalize on the knowledge and input of residents
to identify key locations of concern to study, develop solutions, and prioritize the
recommendations.

3-1-1 Service Requests

By analyzing requests submitted via the City of Columbus Call Center (3-1-1), City
officials were able to identify a need for improved mobility conditions in Weinland Park.
The volume and nature of calls regarding transportation issues were key factors in the
selection of Weinland Park for a CMP; these service requests also served as a starting
point for the project team to begin identifying issues to be addressed.

Table 1: Number of 3-1-1 calls within study

area by issue/concern (2005-2008).
Type of Request
Maintenance
Signage/Signals
Handicap/ADA
Pedestrian
Miscelaneous
Vehicle Speeds
Dangerous Intersection
Bike
Total

10

Number
of Calls
141
70
20
15
8
7
2
1
264

Within the study area, a total of 3,060 service requests were recorded since 2005, of which
264 were transportation related. The 264 relevent concerns were further broken down
by type of request as shown in Table 1 and Exhibit 3 in order to identify any trends. The
majority of 3-1-1 calls were regarding maintenance issues such as potholes or other poor
pavement conditions and sweeping or plowing the streets. These were spread evenly
throughout the entire study area.
Most of the calls regarding signage and signals were to report a damaged sign or request
a new sign. However, the type of sign requested was not available for most calls so
conclusions could not be drawn about specific mobility issues. Multiple requests for
signal timing changes at the Summit Street/Fifth Avenue and Fourth Street/Fifth Avenue
intersections were recorded.
Pedestrian related requests focused on damaged sidewalks in various locations. However,
two calls requested pedestrian safety improvements at the Seventh Avenue/Summit
Street intersection. All but two of the calls concerned with vehicle speeds were along
High Street. These asked for traffic calming, a speed trailer, and a change to the speed
limit.

11

Exhibit 3: Transportation 311 Calls Recorded in Study Area (2005 - 2007)

Communication Forums and Input Opportunities

The city of Columbus is working on a plan to address the issues you have moving around
your community every day either on foot, by bike, bus, car, or wheelchair.
Your input is key for city engineers to use in the analysis and will lead to potential solutions.
We need your help to identify the issues that need to be addressed in the plan!

You know best about the issues in your

neighborhood. Here is your chance to make sure
the City is focusing its resources on the mobility
issues you want addressed.
You will have a number of different opportunities
to provide your valuable input. These include
options where the City comes to you - like porch
chats, surveys and community meetings, as well
as ones where you could come to the following
events in your community:

Come share with us your

mobility concerns:
Where do you have
issues with
speeding?
Which streets are
unsafe for walking,
biking and
wheelchairs?
What barriers to
mobility exist in the
community?

September 24, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.

Open House at OSU Schoenbaum Family
Center, 175 E. 7th Avenue

October 3, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.

Opening Workshop at OSU Schoenbaum
Family Center, 175 E. 7th Avenue

October 4, 2008
Neighborhood Walk Audit - see other side

November 17, 2008

Closing Workshop - To Be Decided

Turn over for more information

Figure 7: Public involvement notification flyer.

With one of the primary goals of the Community Mobility Planning Program being to address
transportation issues identified by community residents, public input and involvement played a
vital role throughout the planning process. From the initial development of plan goals, to the
identification of mobility issues, to the selection and prioritization of solutions, residents of the
Weinland Park community and area stakeholders were involved throughout the planning process.
All public involvement materials from the project are included in Appendix B.
The City conducted numerous public involvement events, in a variety of venues and
formats, in order gain participation from as wide a range of residents as possible. At the
outset of the planning process, a Communication Plan (See Appendix B) was created to
act as a guide for public involvement throughout the project. The goals and objectives of
the Communications Plan are to identify activities that are:
Engaging and informational to the public, stakeholders, and the project team
Comprehensive in nature
Result-oriented
Inclusive of other government organizations
In order to ensure members of the community were made aware of and had the
opportunity to participate in the planning process, multiple methods of notification were
used for all of the scheduled public events. A project website was established on which all
meeting materials and additional project information was made available. Prior to each
event, the City issued press releases, posters were hung in businesses and community
facilities throughout the neighborhood, and fliers were distributed during door knocking
campaigns by team members and representatives from the Weinland Park Community
Civic Association. Additionally, emails were sent out on multiple listservs and to any
resident or stakeholder who provided their contact information.
The following is a brief description of the approaches the City took to engage and facilitate
discussions with the public during the planning process:

Figure 8: Residents signing-in at the September

24th Community Open House Meeting.

12

Community Open House Held on September 24, 2008 at the OSU Schoenbaum Family
Center, the purpose of this meeting was to kick-off the WPCMP and introduce the planning
process to the community. Residents were also asked to share their general mobility
concerns with the project team. Approximately 40 people attended the meeting.

Opening Workshop On October 3, 2008 approximately 30 people attended a workshop

at the OSU Schoenbaum Family Center. At this meeting, a presentation was made to
educate attendees on engineering solutions used to improve multi-modal safety and
reduce vehicular speeds in residential areas. Specific mobility issues and locations were
also discussed, and an informal vote was held to prioritize the issues.
Neighborhood Walk Audits On October 4, 2008 three neighborhood walk audits
were held allowing project team members to experience first hand the transportation
issues residents face everyday. The walk audits provided educational opportunities,
demonstrating the use and effectiveness of various planning tools. Extensive input was
taken at each location and potential solutions were discussed. Between 15 and 20 people
attended each of the three walks.
Stakeholder Meetings From September 2008 to January 2009, about 30 one-on-one
interviews were conducted with individuals and small groups of stakeholders in the
Weinland Park area. The interviews generally consisted of 10 questions and a discussion
of the mobility issues and concerns of the organization or group that the interviewees
represented. Each person interviewed was also asked if they would be interested in
serving on a steering committee during the development and prioritization of solutions.
The following groups participated in one-on-one stakeholder meetings:

CABS
Campus Partners
City Departments
Community Properties of Ohio
Central Ohio Transit Authority
(COTA) (2)
Directions for Youth and Families
Godman Guild
Huckleberry House
Indianola Math, Science, and
Technical School
Italian Village Society (2)
Kroger
Living Hope Fellowship Church
Maynard Blake Group
National Youth Advocate Program
Neighborhood Services, Inc.

Neighbors In Action
North Central Mental Health
Ohio Department of Transportation
(ODOT)
Seventh Avenue Community Baptist
Church
St. Joseph Montessori School
University Area Commission (1 project
introduction & 4 meetings)
University Community Association
University Community Business
Association
University District Organization
Wagenbrenner Company (2)
Weinland Park Community Civic
Association
Weinland Park Elementary School

Figure 9: Attendees prioritize mobility issues at

the Opening Workshop.

Figure 10: Participants on the walk audit learn

about the effectiveness of traffic calming by
creating a human curb extension.

13

Resident Surveys Surveys about the existing conditions and barriers to mobility in
Weinland Park were distributed throughout the study area as another means of collecting
comments and gauging the perceptions of mobility in the neighborhood. An initial
round of surveys was primarily collected from residents living within the Weinland
Park neighborhood while a second round was distributed to residents living north
of Weinland Park. In all, over 100 surveys were completed and returned. The survey
results showed that more than 50% of residents reported problems in almost all facets of
community mobility, with the greatest problem areas being related to road surfaces and
driver behavior impacting safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

www.columbusmobility.info

Figure 11: Resident survey distributed to collect

input on mobility conditions and concerns.

Porch Chats This method of data collection and public involvement was employed to
gain input from residents who were unable to attend any of the formal public events for
the project and would have otherwise not been engaged in the planning process. The
porch chats involved over 40 informal interviews conducted at residents houses, various
businesses, and other community gathering places. These informal conversations, which
occurred among small groups of individuals and generally covered the same questions
as the surveys, captured input from residents in all geographical areas and walks of life
across the Weinland Park neighborhood.
Closing Workshop Held at Grace Baptist Church on November 17, 2008, the closing
workshop provided a summary of the planning process and public input to date, as well as
information about the effectiveness of various traffic calming tools. Attendees then broke
into four groups and used mapping of Weinland Park to recommend potential solutions
for specific locations throughout the neighborhood. Approximately 40 attendees were at
the meeting.
University Area Commission Public (UAC) Meeting A presentation and opportunity
for public input on the WPCMP was incorporated into the January 15, 2009 UAC Executive
Committee meeting at the Eleventh Avenue Community Policing Center. UAC members
and other attendees were asked to share any comments or questions about the planning
process or transportation issues in the community. The resident survey was also handed
out to representatives of neighborhoods to the north of Weinland Park for distribution,
and the deadline for submittal moved back to allow for more input. About 20 people
attended this meeting.

Figure 12: Team members discussing mobility

issues at the Third Hand Bike Co-op.

14

Stakeholder Update Meeting On May 28, 2009 a project update meeting was held at
the Eleventh Avenue Community Policing Center. All stakeholders who, during the
initial interviews, expressed an interest in continued involvement in the project were
invited to attend. Team members presented the results of the public input process and
the technical data analyses along with the preliminary toolbox of solutions and location
specific recommendations for each tool.
Final Community Open House A second community open house meeting was held on
June 24, 2009 at the OSU Schoenbaum Family Center. The team presented the results of
the public input and technical study portions of the plan and were shown the preliminary
solutions recommended for the neighborhood. Attendees had the opportunity to discuss
questions and concerns regarding the plan with City engineers and to rank the solutions
based on which they felt should be given the highest priority. These rankings are
summarized in the Prioritization and Implementation chapter.
Several attendees expressed concern that safety issues on Summit and Fourth Streets,
which had been removed from the scope of the plan due to uncertainty of future traffic
demand and the potential for light rail, were not adequately addressed. Based on input
received at this meeting, the City determined that Summit and Fourth Streets would
again be included in the plan and that more detailed analyses of the corridor should be
done in order to adequately address the Communitys concerns.

Figure 13: Weinland Park resident Ken Johnson

describes the CMP process with the local media.

Steering Committee Meetings - A Steering Committee was formed from interested

residents and stakeholders to help prioritize the recommended solutions and develop an
implementation strategy. Summaries of these meetings are discussed in the Prioritization
and Implementation chapter.

Figure 14: Youth participation and input was

encouraged at all public involvement events.

15

Public Involvement Comments

In sum, nearly 1,000 comments were compiled from a wide range of sources such as
interviews, meeting notes, surveys, and emails. These comments were all compiled
and organized with respect to the corresponding public forum, location of concern (if
known), and category of concern. The following eleven categories were identified to
group the comments; the total number of comments received for each category are shown
in parentheses:




Figure 15: Team members talking with
residents at a farmers market on Fourth St and
18th Ave.
Figure 1: Comments by Category

Universal Design
4%

Education
2%

Maintenance
6%

Pedestrian
Crossing
21%

General
Comment
7%
Transit
7%
Pedestrian
Sidewalks
8%

Automobile
19%

Crime
8%
Bike
8%

Driver
Behavior
11%

Figure 16: Percent of total comments received

for each category.

16

Automobile (179) traffic flow and safety, parking, issues affecting motorists
Bike (78) concerns regarding the safety and comfort of cyclists
Crime (77) concerns for personal safety
Driver Behavior (108) issues with motorists impacting the safety and comfort of
other travel modes
Education (20) concerns to be addressed through education rather than
infrastructure
Maintenance (57) surface conditions, broken signs and signals, overgrown
vegetation, trash
Pedestrian Crossings (193) concerns for pedestrians crossing streets
Pedestrian Sidewalks (77) issues pedestrians face walking along sidewalks/
streets
Transit (66) comments regarding COTA, CABS, and other transit options
Universal Design (35) ADA and accessibility issues
General Comment (65) comments that do not fit into any of the other categories

The comments were then sorted by category in order to identify the key issues that are
of greatest concern to the community and by location to identify hot spot areas most
in need of attention. Figure 16 shows the percentage of comments for each of the eleven
categories mentioned above, while Figure 17 shows the most frequently discussed corridors
and intersection locations respectively. The most comments (21%) dealt with concerns
regarding unsafe pedestrian crossings. These comments were overwhelmingly related
to issues with crossing High, Summit, and Fourth Streets, with the most pertaining to the
offset intersection at Summit Street and Seventh Avenue.
Auto-oriented concerns were the second most prominent issue, comprising 19% of all
comments. Many of these comments related to discussions about converting Summit
and Fourth Streets from one-way to two-way operation; a topic consistently mentioned
at each public forum. Generally, opinions on the issue were split, with a slight majority

in favor of two-way operation. Those in favor tended to cite better traffic calming, slower
vehicle speeds improving pedestrian and bike safety, and better integration into the
neighborhood. Those opposed to conversion felt that traffic calming could be achieved
through other measures, access to downtown would be impaired, and that two-way
traffic would result in reduced safety and increased noise. Others felt that more public
input was needed outside of the Weinland Park area.
In addition to discussions about Summit and Fourth Streets, the automobile category
encompassed concerns about unsafe driving conditions. The most repeated concern
was poor sight distances, making for hazardous intersections. Parking too close to
the intersection was one reason cited for poor visibility, as were the numerous offset
intersections in the neighborhood.
Figure 18: Resident Chris Orban describes safety
concerns on Summit and Fourth Streets at a
public meeting.

Figure 17: Locations of greatest concern in the

study area
by number of by
comments
Figure
2: Comments
Key Location
5th Ave
5th St
High St
Indianola & 8th Ave
Summit & 9th Ave
7th Ave
Euclid Ave
11th Ave
Summit & 8th Ave

Corridor

High St & Euclid Ave

Intersection

Summit & 11th Ave

4th St & 7th Ave
Indianola Ave
Summit St
4th St
Summit & 7th Ave
Summit and 4th St
0

20

40

60

80

Number of Comments

100

120

17

Speeding is the most prevalent concern in the driver behavior category (11%), especially
on Summit and Fourth Streets, where people feel it divides the neighborhood and makes
walking and biking unsafe. The general consensus was that the speed limit should be
lowered on these streets or at least enforced at 35mph. Fifth, Indianola, and Euclid
avenues were also mentioned repeatedly with regards to speeding.
The bike, crime, and pedestrian sidewalk categories each accounted for 8% of the total.
Comments in each of these areas were fairly consistent among individuals. Bike concerns
centered around the lack of facilities and connection to downtown, especially on Summit
and Fourth Streets. Crime was mentioned as a deterrent to biking and walking and
the need for better lighting was consistently suggested. The generally poor condition
of sidewalks was mentioned repeatedly and observed on the walk audits. Attendees
identified poor walking conditions and locations of sidewalks in need of repair. Comments
about sidewalks were also closely tied to maintenance issues.
Comments regarding transit were generally favorable, stating that the area is one of the
best served by COTA; a few comments cited the need for more bus shelters and problems
getting to outlying areas. The general category encompassed all comments that did not
fit into other categories or were outside the scope of the mobility planning process. Some
of these were related to aesthetics and expressed a desire for better streetscaping and
gateway features. The maintenance and universal design categories generally called for
improved maintenance by the City and property owners and for improved accessibility.
Finally, some comments called for a need to better educate users of the transportation
system, particularly motorists, to safely travel with all modes.

18

Existing Conditions

Guiding Plans and Studies

Prior to the evaluation of current mobility conditions in Weinland Park, all existing
plans and studies for the study area were reviewed. These resources provided a better
understanding of the current conditions in the area and served as a basis from which the
Community Mobility Plan would be developed. Each document is listed below along
with a brief summary of the pertinent information to this plan.

Figure 19: Southbound traffic on Summit St

during morning rush hour.

LE
E

!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!

KIT
ZM
ILLE
R

BABBITT
DIXON

WAGGONER

MORRISON

BRICE

!!
!
!!!
!!

!!
!!
!

NOE-BIXB
Y

HAMILTON RD
(SR 317)

TAYLOR
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!

STYGLER

STELZER

CASSADY

JAMES

ALUM CREEK

EBRIGHT

!
!
!

HAMILTON

KARL

CLEVELAND

JOYCE
OHIO

LOCKBOURNE
AL
AN
C

!!
!!
!!

33

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

R3

TUSSIC

SUNBURY

T (S

ES

SPRING

ST
AT

I 71

HIGH ST (US 23)

SINCLAIR
MAIZE

AVERY

OLENTANGY RIVER

SAWMILL

REED

KENNY

PARSONS

!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!

GA
!!
!! LLOWA
Y
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!

GANT
Z

PIKE RD (SR 104)

US

GROVEP

HAYES

LIT
PO
HO
LIS

!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!!
!!
!!
!!
!

!!
!!

HOOVER

!
!!

!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!

!!
!!

!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!

BIXBY

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!

RO
WE

REFUGEE RD

LO
N

ORT

PONTIUS

!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
! JACKSO
!
N
!

TUSSIN

TE
R

MAIN

ROHR

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

ES

HOLT

WILLIAMS

CH

)
(SR 16

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!

W
IN

MAIN ST (US 40)

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

FRANK RD (SR 104)

BROA

ST (SR 16)

!
!!
!
!
!
!

LIVINGSTON

D ST

BROAD

!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!

MAIN

TAYLOR

!!
!
!!!
!!
!!

o
FIFTH

FREBIS

DYER

1
I7
(SR 665

!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!

!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!

ALKIRE

AR
CL

AT
ST

!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!

STIMMEL

CLIM
E

!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
LO
!
NDON
!
!
-GROV
!
!
EPORT
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!

!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

HIGH

GU
LONG

IVAN

!!
!!
!!
!!
!!

70
I6

HA

ON

HALL

MORSE

!!
!!
!!
!!

SR 31

S
WIL

SULL

EAKIN
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!

PER

DUBLIN

LEAP

I 67

BROAD ST (US 40)

!

COO

DUBLIN

I 270

WILCOX

COSGRA

ELLIOTT

NB

MOCK

FIFTH

FEDE

!!
!!
!!

!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!

SU

COLLEGE

161

SR

AGLER

WEBER

LANE

BEVELHEIMER

CENTRAL

Y
UR

FERRIS

!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!

5)

HOUCHARD

BETHEL

!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!

R 74

PARK

ROBERTS

RENNER

!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!

HARD

POST

RINGS

!!
!!

EM
HARL

D (S

33

SUMMIT VIEW

!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!

ND

POWELL

!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!!
!!
!!

!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!

IN R
DUBL

BRA

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!

!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!

!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
HAYDEN RUN
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ROBERT
!
S
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
I 70
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!

ST CLAIR

40)

TYPE
6-2DS
6-2D

MAIN

MAIN

OHIO

6-2
BRYDEN

4-2DS
4-2D
COLE

LIVIN

GSTO

(US 23)

WHITTIER

CHAMPION

NEIL AVE

Columbus Thoroughfare Plan

FREEWAY

LONG

AD ST (US

PARSONS

I 70

GRANT

I 71

ON
HARM

HIGH ST
FRONT

62)

RNON

MT VE

BRO

23)

(US
TOWN ST

SPRIN

GRANT

ST (US

MARCON

SOUDER

SR 315

OOD
GLENW

UN
MO

SOUDER

20

33)

FRONT

SR 315

RD (US

FOURTH

DUBLIN

I 670
MCKINLEY

LEONAR

HIGH

I-6
70

GOODALE

I 670

I 71

NEIL

ES
HW

SR 31

RT
NO

SECOND

JOYC

Figure 20: Columbus Thoroughfare Plan map.

4-2
3-1
2-1
C
Scenic Byway
Columbus 2010 Planning Area

Columbus Comprehensive Plan (1993)

As the guiding plan for development of the entire City, this plan is very general in scope.
With relation to community mobility, the following recommendations apply:
In central city neighborhoods consider policies to slow traffic and discourage heavy
non-local through traffic on local streets. Ways to achieve this include closing
sections of alleys to discourage through traffic and maintaining narrow streets that
are characteristic of neighborhoods
Expand existing transportation options and take a long-range perspective to future
changes in transportation needs and technologies
COTAs planning efforts should identify major transit corridors for busway and/
or light-rail development
Improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular linkages between neighborhoods to
promote a stronger link between residential areas and activity centers
Devise standard streetscape improvements and standards to reinforce identity
Columbus Thoroughfare Plan (1993)
This map identifies and classifies all streets in the City that are collector roads and above.
It makes recommendations for the total number of lanes, direction of traffic (one- or twoway), and the minimum right-of-way width for each. The following streets in the study
area are listed on the Thoroughfare Plan:
High Street and Fifth Avenue (4-2D) - four lanes of two-way traffic divided by a
median and a 120-foot right-of-way
Hudson Street and Eleventh Avenue east of Grant Avenue (4-2) - four lanes of
two-way traffic and a 100-foot right-of-way
Summit and Fourth Streets (3-1) - three one-way travel lanes and an 80-foot rightof-way
Eleventh and Chittenden Avenues west of Grant Avenue (2-1) - two one-way
travel lanes and a 60-foot right-of-way
Third, Seventeenth, and Lane Avenues (C) - these collector streets call for two or
three lanes with two-way traffic and a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet

University Neighborhoods Revitalization Plan (1996)

Developed by Campus Partners as a joint effort of the City of Columbus and The Ohio
State Univeristy (OSU), this plan provides a comprehensive vision and strategy to
revitalize the neighborhoods surrounding the Ohio State campus, including Weinland
Park. Recommendations of the plan include:
Maintain one-way operation on Summit and Fourth Streets in the near term,
while implementing traffic calming measures, removing parking restrictions,
recalibrating traffic signals, and increasing speed enforcement. In the long term,
reevaluate two-way operation
Examine closures on some local streets in Weinland Park to limit cut-through
traffic and create defensible space
Enhance the role of High Street as a major transit corridor
Provide a more effective public transportation/transit system
Enhance and improve pedestrian and bicycle movement to, from, and within the
University Neighborhoods
A Plan for High Street: Creating a 21st Century Main Street (2000)
This plan focuses on design concepts and implementation strategies for High Street in
the University District, with particular focus on the development of a Campus Gateway
Project. It calls for re-establishing High Street as the Main Street of the area, emphasizing
its role as a traffic artery, an economic development generator, and public gathering
space. In terms of mobility, the plan calls for wider sidewalks and on-street parking along
High Street, and a re-configuration of the Eleventh Avenue/High Street intersection. The
South Campus Gateway incorporates all of these recommendations.

Figure 21: A Plan for High Street cover.

University/High Street Development & Design Guidelines (2002)

These design guidelines, called for by the two aforementioned University District plans,
are intended to guide the implementation of strategies identified in those two documents.
They dictate a pedestrian-oriented development style with first floor retail uses, small
setbacks, wide sidewalks, and pedestrian scale signage and lighting.

Figure 22: University/High Street

Development & Design Guidelines cover.

21

Downtown Columbus Circulation Study (2004, not adopted)

This study analyzed existing and future traffic patterns along numerous corridors in and
around downtown Columbus. Numerous one-way pairs, including Summit and Fourth
Streets, were evaluated for potential conversion to two-way operation as a part of this
study. The following is a summary of the assumptions and recommendations made for
Summit and Fourth Streets in the study:
Existing traffic volumes (2000) were projected to 2030 using growth factors of 40%
and 20% for the AM and PM peak hours respectively
Three scenarios (existing conditions, one-way with reduced lane widths, and twoway) were analyzed
The reduced lane width and two-way scenarios assumed light rail operation along
the corridor
The one-way scenario maintained permanent parking on one side and off-peak
parking on the other side of both streets and included a bike lane on both streets,
while the two-way option maintained the off-peak parking but eliminated the
permanent parking from both streets and did not include bicycle facilities
Vehicle delays were comparable for the two new scenarios. They were higher
than the existing configuration, but were comparable to one another
The one-way reduced, lane width scenario was recommended over the two-way
scenario because it allowed shorter pedestrian crossing distances and wait times,
allowed for bus/light rail stops in the permanent parking lane, limited impacts to
on-street parking, and provided bicycle lanes

Figure 23: Weinland Park Neighborhood Plan

cover

22

Weinland Park Neighborhood Plan (2006)

This is a comprehensive plan for the Weinland Park community that addresses all aspects
of the neighborhood, including transportation and mobility. The public infrastructure
section of the plan emphasizes multi-modal accommodation and safety improvements
(Appendix C). Some of the recommendations include:
Take a multi-agency approach to calming Summit and Fourth Streets
Design streets to move traffic while recognizing the primarily residential nature of
the neighborhood and need for overall safety
Encourage cooperative transit agreements between COTA and OSU
When developing and implementing transportation facilities, place the needs of
residents, employees, and visitors to Weinland Park above those of persons merely
traveling through the neighborhood
Application of appropriate traffic calming techniques on streets throughout the
neighborhood

 New lighting within the public right-of-way shall be attractive, pedestrian-scale,

and resistant to vandalism
Priority of improvements shall be placed on areas near Weinland Park, the
elementary school, and the Schoenbaum Early Childhood Education Center
MORPC Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan (2006)
This document provides a regional perspective of the bicycle network in Central Ohio.
It highlights bicycle usage, safety concerns, existing facilities, and recommends future
improvements to the overall network. The plan includes the following information that
relates to the project area:
Two general groups of riders: Group A (advanced) and B/C (beginner/children)
must be considered in the planning and design of bicycle facilities
High Street and Fifth Avenue are two of the ten highest bicycle crash corridors in
the region
Summit and Fourth Streets are the only two existing bikeways in the study area
High, Summit, and Fourth Streets and Fifth Avenue are recommended as short
connectors according to MORPCs bikeway functional classification
Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan (2007, not adopted)
This document provides a guide to developing appropriate pedestrian facilities along
key routes throughout the City (Appendix C). Streets are classified from 1 (highest) to 5
(lowest) and given a recommended sidewalk width and clear walking zone. Each street
also receives a high/medium/low rating for traffic speed and volume to determine the
recommended lateral separation and vertical buffer to ensure safety and comfort. All
of the streets within Weinland Park that are included in that plan (High, Summit, and
Fourth Streets and Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Avenues) were rated as Class 1 or 2, which
have recommended sidewalk widths of 12 to 18 feet and 8 to 12 feet respectively.
Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan (2008)
The Citys bicycle master plan establishes an ambitious vision for bike facility development
within a ten year period, calling for 200 miles of new bikeways by 2018, the creation of 100
bike friendly intersections, and the installation of 1,000 new bike racks. Most significantly,
it sets the goal of achieving a 10% mode shift from automobiles to alternative modes of
transportation by the year 2012. Given the recent creation and adoption of the Bicentennial
Bikeways Plan, this Community Mobility Plan mirrors many of the recommendations
from that document for the development of bicycle facilities in the study area.

Figure 24: Bicentennial Bikeways Plan cover.

23

Automobiles
Road Network
As was discussed earlier, the streets in and around Weinland Park are laid out in a grid network.
The neighborhood is bounded by arterial streets on the north (Eleventh Avenue), south (Fifth
Avenue), and west (High Street). Fourth and Summit Streets, which run north-south through the
center of the neighborhood, are a one-way pair that also function as arterial roadways. Two eastwest collector streets (Chittenden and Seventh Avenues) and one north-south collector (Indianola
Avenue) provide further connectivity to the arterial roads and key locations throughout the
neighborhood for area residents. The remaining streets in Weinland Park are residential in nature
and generally serve only those users who live on them. These three different types of roadways
create a system that serves a wide range of motorists, from those traveling through Weinland Park,
to those making strictly local trips within the neighborhood.
Within the study area, the pavement width of Summit and Fourth Streets ranges from 40 to 52 feet,
with the majority of each being 46 feet wide. Currently, the typical section for Summit and Fourth
Streets, between Warren Street and Eleventh Avenue, includes a permanent parking lane that is
not striped, two variable width travel lanes, and one lane that functions as a travel lane during
the peak hour and a parking lane for the remainder of the day. From Weinland Park to Hudson
Street, Summit Street is wider both roads widen to provide three travel lanes with permanent onstreet parking on both sides. Fourth Street has the same section from Weinland Park to Wyandotte
Avenue where it narrows to three travel lanes and one unmarked permanent parking lane. Both
Summit and Fourth Streets have 35mph speed limits.
Through the study area, the Summit and Fourth Street corridor is the most prominent feature
of the transportation network. This one-way pair carries US 23 north of downtown Columbus
and is heavily used by commuters going to and from downtown from northern suburbs such as
Clintonville and Worthington; however, the importance of Summit and Fourth Streets as access
routes to and from downtown has diminished in recent years. With the completion of I-670,
motorists can easily travel between I-71 and SR 315, both of which provide freeway access to
communities north of downtown.

24

Between Fifth and Ninth Avenues, High Street is 48 feet wide with two travel lanes in each direction
and a center turn lane. North of Ninth Avenue, it widens between intersections to provide on-street
parking on one or both sides of the street, but remains 50 feet wide at intersections through the use
of curb extensions. The speed limit on High Street is 25 mph. Fifth Avenue is 44 feet in width,
has two lanes in each direction, and a posted speed of 25mph. With the exception of some sections
of residential street that are one-way, all other streets in the study area have one travel lane in each

direction and a speed limit of 25mph. Most streets also have on-street parking on at least one
side of the road.
Although it runs north-south along the entire eastern edge of Weinland Park, Grant Avenue is
not included in the analyses or recommendations of this plan. As part of the project to redevelop
the Columbus Coated Fabrics site, the entire road within Weinland Park is being reconstructed.
The improved Grant Avenue will consist of one travel lane in each direction, on-street parking
on both sides of the road, curb extensions at intersections, and a posted speed of 25mph (See
Appendix D). Construction of the Grant Avenue improvements is scheduled to begin in 2010.
Existing Volumes, Capacity, and Speeds
Existing traffic volumes and speeds in Weinland Park and along the Summit and Fourth
Street corridors were analyzed in order to gain the necessary understanding of traffic
conditions to develop mobility recommendations for the neighborhood. Traffic counts
conducted by the City between 2003 and 2007 were supplemented with new counts
at key locations (Exhibit 4). The vehicular speed and volume information collected
during these counts was then analyzed to determine if and where any capacity and/or
speeding problems exist. A summary of the traffic counts is included in Appendix E.
Determining the existing capacity of major roads in the study area is important in trying
to understand what changes to the system can be accommodated. Traffic capacity
is generally expressed in levels of service (LOS). LOS is a measure of vehicle delay
and is rated from A to F, with A being the best (no delay) and F being the worst
(gridlock). Table 2 shows LOS A through F and the corresponding delay in second per
vehicle for signalized intersections. In the past, LOS C has been the accepted standard
for transportation planning. However, in urban areas, particularly on roads where
multi-modal options and slower vehicle speeds are desired, LOS D and even E are
increasingly being recognized as acceptable standards. Because the capacity of a road
is generally constrained at its intersections, these are the locations on which analysis
was performed.
The intersections that most influence the roadway capacity in Weinland Park and their
associated LOS for the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Table 3. This analysis
shows that, even during the highest volume hours of the day, current traffic levels
on Summit and Fourth Streets are well within acceptable levels of service. This also
indicates that, for the remaining hours of the day, there is likely excess capacity on both
of these roads, which can contribute to excessive traffic speeds.

Table 2: Level of Service (LOS) and

corresponding vehicle delay
LOS

Delay in Seconds

< 10 sec

> 10 and < 20 sec

> 20 and < 35 sec

> 35 and < 55 sec

> 55 and < 80 sec

> 80

Table 3: LOS and delay in seconds for key

intersections during AM and PM peak hours
Intersection

AM Peak

PM Peak

Summit St & Fourth Ave

C (24.4)

C (24.6)

Fourth St & Fifth Ave

B (14.4)

C (24.7)

Summit St & Seventh Ave

B (15.2)

B (16.6)

Summit St & Eleventh Ave

B (15.2)

B (19.1)

Fourth St & Eleventh Ave

B (14.7)

C (24.4)

25

26

Exhibit 4: Weinland Park CMP Traffic Count Locations

The speed data collected for Summit and Fourth Street further confirm that, with
current traffic volumes, there is excess capacity in the corridor. Figures 25 and 26 show
the 85th percentile speeds for the locations where counts were taken along Summit
and Fourth Streets. With few exceptions, the 85th percentile vehilce speeds along
both roads are at or above 40mph, with some locations exceeding 45mph. This means
that a normal motorist is comfortable driving between five and twelve miles over the
speed limit through the study area. This poses safety concerns for motorists as well as
pedestrians and cyclists.

What is the 85th Percentile Speed?

The 85th percentile speed is the speed

at which 85% of vehicles on a road are
travelling at or below. It is generally
assumed that the 85th percentile speeds
represents the speeds that a normal
motorist feels comfortable driving based
on the design and conditions of the road.

How is it Used?

The 85th percentile speed is a common

factor in determining the speed limit for
a road. However, it does not take into
account the safety and comfort of cyclists
and pedestrians. In this study, this
measure was also used to identify where
road design and vehicle speeds may pose
safety concerns for cyclists and pedestrians.

85th Percentile Speeds on Summit Street

Figure 25: 85th percentile vehicle speeds on Summit Street (35mph posted speed limit)

50
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
South of
Warren St.

North of
Warren St.

South of 2nd
Ave.

South of 5th
Ave.

South of 6th
Ave.

Between 8th
& 9th Ave.

At
Chittenden
Ave.

Between
Chittenden &
12th Ave.

0
North of
Clinton St.

85th Percentile Speed

45

Location

27

85th Percentile Speeds on Fourth Street

Figure 26: 85th percentile vehicle speeds on Fourth Street (35mph posted speed limit)

50

85th Percentile Speed

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
South of
Warren Ave.

At Warren
Ave.

South of 2nd
Ave.

At 2nd Ave.

South of 5th
Ave.

At 5th Ave.

South of 6th
Ave.

Between 8th
Ave. and 9th
Ave.

Between
Chittenden &
12th Ave.

North of
Clinton St.

Location

The corridor of Fourth and Summit Streets is controlled by a pre-timed, coordinated

signal system. This means that the signals are connected so that they can communicate
with each other and the timing of the beginning of each green light is coordinated so
that a driver traveling at the speed limit will not have to stop. This keeps vehicles
traveling the corridor at the beginning of the green phase moving at the speed limit. It
can also allow vehicles catching up to the group to travel at speeds well above the speed
limit. If the green lights are significantly longer than is needed to clear the group, as
appears to be the case on these streets, then there is greater opportunity for vehicles to
speed without having to stop.

28

Several of the factors discussed above contribute to the high vehicle speeds along
Summit and Fourth Streets. The excess green band in the signal cycles allows motorists
to speed through multiple intersections unstopped, while the number of lanes and
relatively low vehicular volumes cause a lack of friction between moving vehicles and
fixed objects along the edges of the road such as parked cars.

Summit and Fourth Streets are not the only roads in Weinland Park on which speeding
is a problem. Figure 27 shows the streets with 25mph speed limits that have 85th
percentile speeds over 30mph. This information indicates that speeding on Fifth
Avenue is of particular concern given that most of the count locations registered 85th
percentile speeds near or above 35mph. Similar to Summit and Fourth Streets, the
excess lane capacity on Fifth Avenue allows vehicles to speed without being slowed by
congestion.
85th Percentile Speed on Streets with 25 MPH Posted Speed Limit

Figure 27: 85th percentile vehicle speeds on streets with a 25mph posted speed limit
45
40

85th Percentile Speed

35
30
25
20
15
10
5

High St South of
King Ave

High St South of
5th Ave

5th Ave West of

Mt. Pleasant Ave

5th Ave East of Mt.

Pleasant Ave

5th Ave East of

High St

5th Ave between

Cleveland Ave and
4th St

5th Ave at Mt.

Pleasant Ave

5th Ave at 4th St

11th Ave between

High St and
Summit St

11th Ave between

4th St and Grant
Ave

Chittenden Ave
between High St
and Summit St

Chittenden Ave
between 4th St
and Grant Ave

Location
* Note: This segment lies partially outside of the study area.

Vehicular Crashes
The most recent three-year crash data (2005-2007) was obtained from the Ohio
Department of Public Safety and reviewed to identify trends that might indicate
locations in need of safety improvements. A total of 1,571 crashes were recorded during
that period within the study area. Of those, 1,036 occurred within the Weinland Park
neighborhood, and the other 535 occurred along Summit and Fourth Streets to the north
and south of the neighborhood.

29

Table 4: Highest crash intersections in the

study area (2005-2007).
Intersection

# of Crashes

Fifth Ave & High St

47

Hudson St & Fourth St

44

Fifth Ave & Summit St

41

Eleventh Ave & High St

37

Twelfth Ave & High St

36

Fifth Ave & Fourth St

33

Eleventh Ave & Fourth St

32

Chittenden Ave & Fourth St

31

Tenth Ave & High St

30

Exhibits 5-7 illustrate the locations and number of crashes for each road segment
and intersection in the study area. As could be expected, the vast majority of crashes
occurred on or at the intersections of arterial streets, where traffic volumes are the
highest. Approximately one-third (357) of the crashes in Weinland Park occurred on
High Street, and another 30% occurred on Summit or Fourth Street, which saw 144
and 160 crashes respectively. A total of 168 crashes occurred along Fifth Avenue, 121
of which were at the High, Summit, or Fourth Street intersection. Similarly, Eleventh
Avenue had 176 crashes, with 104 occurring at the High, Summit, or Fourth Street
intersection. The nine highest crash intersections all had 30 or more crashes and are all
located on one of these three streets (Table 4).
A review of the crash severity shows that 81% (1,272) of the crashes resulted in no
damage or property damage only. There were also 304 injury accidents and one fatality
over the three year period. The fatality occurred at the intersection of Seventh Avenue
and Fifth Street and resulted from a vehicle running the stop sign and colliding with
another vehicle.
While fewer than 20% of all crashes in the study resulted in injury, there are several
corridors and intersections that had higher than average injury rates, suggesting that
safety may be of particular concern in those locations. Fifth Avenue presents the
greatest concerns, as 33% of the crashes along that corridor were injury crashes. The
injury rates for the full length of Summit and Fourth Streets (Warren Street to Hudson
Street) were comparable to one another and the rest of the study area. However, within
the boundaries of Weinland Park, the injury rates for both streets increase to about 25%.
For intersections in the study area, just over 20% of all accidents resulted in injury.
The intersections of Fifth Avenue with both Summit and Fourth Streets both have
significantly higher than average injury occurrences at 32% and 45% respectively.
The intersection of Seventh Avenue with High Street also has a higher than average
percentage at 32%. The high number of crashes combined with the high percentage of
injuries at these three intersections raises particular concern for the safety of motorists,
pedestrians, and cyclists, and may indicate that better intersection design, signal timing,
and/or speed control measures are necessary.

30

31

Exhibit 5: Recorded Vehicular Crashes (2005-2007) Summit and Fourth Streets Northern Section

32

Exhibit 6: Recorded Vehicular Crashes (2005-2007) - Weinland Park

33

Exhibit 7: Recorded Vehicular Crashes (2005-2007) Summit and Fourth Streets Southern Section

Geometric Issues
The intersection of Ninth Avenue with Indianola Avenue, and the intersections of
Summit Street with both Seventh and Eighth Avenues are all offset. This means
that two legs of the intersection do not line up across from each other creating safety
issues for drivers and pedestrians. Problems include poor visibility of vehicles and
pedestrians, and confusing signing and vehicle priority for drivers. The most extreme
example of this issue in Weinland Park is the intersection of Seventh Avenue and
Summit Street. Confusion regarding vehicle priority and driver expectations is created
when the light turns green for both the eastbound and westbound traffic at the same
time. Westbound vehicles turning left have difficulty determining whether vehicles
turning right onto Summit Street from Seventh Avenue are continuing east on Seventh
Avenue or south on Summit Street. Further exacerbating the problem, obstructions at
the intersection make it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians crossing the street. These
factors combine to create a confusing condition for motorists to manuever.
The intersection of High Street and Seventh/King Avenue contains an abrupt deflection
for vehicles traveling east and west. The change in direction in the middle of the
intersection makes it difficult to see oncoming vehicles while turning left, and to see
hazards on the far side of the intersection. These geometric deficiencies are likely a key
contributing factor to the high number and above average percentage of injury crashes
that occur at this intersection.

34

Pedestrians
Sidewalks
During October 2008, a sidewalk inventory was performed that graded the condition
of all 22.1 miles of sidewalk and all 818 curb ramps in the study area. While the City
of Columbus does have existing standards regarding sidewalks for the purposes of
code enforcement, it does not currently have an inventory rating system. Therefore, a
sidewalk and curb ramp rating system developed and used by the City of Richmond,
Virginia was utilized for this study. This system was selected because it is easy to
record and update and it can be conducted by a person with little to no engineering or
code enforcement knowledge, thus allowing members of the community to assist in
maintaining the sidewalk ratings in the future.
The rating system assigns grades from A (best) to F (worst) for a section of sidewalk
depending on the number of demerits present (Table 5). The individual conducting the
inventory identifies minor demerits (those that may be an inconvenience to mobility)
and major demerits (those that may make a section of sidewalk impassable, particularly
for someone using a mobility aid) in order to determine the appropriate grade. For
this inventory, examples of minor demerits include cracks that are less than one inch,
obstructions that slightly narrow the sidewalk, sidewalk widths that are below standard
but more are than three feet, and some trash and/or debris. Examples of serious
demerits include cracks and heaving that are greater than one inch, obstructions or
sidewalk widths that provide less than three feet of passable space (minimum required
for wheelchairs and some strollers), and substantial trash and/or debris. Similarly,
the curb ramp rating system assigns ratings of O (outstanding), S (satisfactory), or U
(unsatisfactory) depending on the number of demerits present (Table 6).

Figure 28: Example of an A rated sidewalk.

Figure 29: Example of a C rated sidewalk.

Table 5: Rating system used for neighborhood sidewalk inventory

Grade

Level of Service

Criteria

Excellent

Good

Fair

Exhibits 2-3 minor demerits or 1 major demerit and overall viewed as average

Poor

Exhibits 4-5 minor or 2-3 major demerits and overall viewed as below average

Very Poor

Exhibits more than 3 major demerits and overall viewed as well below average

Failing

A sidewalk in total disrepair/terrible condition/impassible for those using mobility aids

Missing

No sidewalk present

UC

Under Construction

New or recently improved: continuous for whole block, uniform material (brick, concrete), even surface with no
ponding, no trash/debris/dirt, no cracking/heaving/spalling, no roots or grass present, and having an overall
aesthetically pleasing appearance
Exhibits only 1-2 minor demerits but overall still viewed as above average

N/A

35

Table 6: Rating system used for neighborhood curb ramp inventory

Grade

Level of Service

Criteria

Above Average

Curb cut present and in good to excellent condition

Average

Curb cut/handicap access ramp present but in fair condition

Failing/No Ramp

Curb cut/handicap access ramp present but in failing

condition (severely cracked or broken) or no ramp present

Under Construction

N/A

UC

Figure 30: Example of an E rated sidewalk.

Table 7: Number of sidewalk segments by grade

A
B
C
D
E
F

Number of
Segments
9
32
75
160
83
13

Percent Within
Study Area
2%
8%
19%
41%
21%
3%

M
UC

8
16

2%
4%

Grade

Table 8: Number of curb ramps by grade

36

Grade

Number of Ramps

O
S
U
UC

195
281
334
8

Percent Within
Study Area
24%
34%
41%
1%

Sidewalks were divided into sections by breaks at streets and alleys. This resulted
in sections of varying lengths, meaning that a longer section would be more likely to
have demerits than a shorter section. This variation was minimized by photographing
every section and reviewing each grade once the entire inventory had been completed;
however, given the variation in length of sidewalk sections and the observational
nature of the grading system, the inventory must be viewed in the proper context. It is
not intended to be used for code enforcement, but rather as a tool to identify the overall
state of the sidewalk network in the neighborhood and to help prioritize the need for
repair and replacement efforts.
As shown in Table 7, 65% of the sidewalks in the Weinland Park and along the Fourth
and Summit Street corridors received a rating of poor (D) or worse. This means that
three-quarters of the sidewalks in the study area have at least two serious faults that
may make them impassable for some pedestrians. Exhibits 8-10 shows each section of
sidewalk that was inventoried and the rating it received. In general, High Street has the
best sidewalk conditions in the neighborhood, while all of the other arterials are badly
in need of repair, with D and E being the most common ratings. Of particular
concern along Summit and Fourth Streets are the presence of major obstructions (i.e.
utility poles, sign posts, debris) that reduce the clear walking zone to less than three
feet, making the route impassible for anyone using a mobility aid. With the completion
of the Seventh Avenue improvements in late 2008 and the upcoming reconstruction
of Grant Avenue, a small section of Sixth Avenue just east of Fifth Street is the only
location in Weinland Park with no existing or planned sidewalk.
Similar to the sidewalk inventory, Table 8 shows that many of the curb ramps in
Weinland Park are also in need of repair or replacement, with the greatest number
(41%) receiving a rating of unsatisfactory.

37

Exhibit 8: Sidewalk Inventory Summit and Fourth Streets Northern Section

38

Exhibit 9: Sidewalk Inventory - Weinland Park

39

Exhibit 10: Sidewalk Inventory Summit and Fourth Streets Southern Section

Pedestrian Crossings
In order to identify the areas of concern for pedestrian crossings, the results of the
public input process were reviewed along with reported pedestrian crash data from
2000-2007 (Exhibit 11). While vehicular crash data is analyzed in three year segments,
pedestrian crashes are comparatively infrequent. For this reason, a longer time period
was analyzed in an attempt to identify trends that could indicate an unsafe crossing
location. Despite being relatively few in number, crashes involving pedestrians are far
more likely to involve injuries and/or fatalities than crashes only involving vehicles.
Therefore, even a few crashes over several years can justify safety improvements at a
pedestrian crossing location.

Figure 31: Utility poles, signs, vegetation, and

other obstructions block visibility at the Seventh
Ave and Summit St intersection.

Figure 32: Pedestrians crossing Summit St

at Seventh Ave to access Weinland Park
Elementary School.

40

A total of 105 crashes involving pedestrians were recorded within the study area from
2000 to 2007. Of those, 90 (86%) resulted in injury, 15 (14%) involved property damage
only, and no reported fatal pedestrian crashes were reported. Just over half of the
crashes (54) occurred along High Street; Summit Street experienced the second most
crashes (22). Although the number of pedestrian crashes on High Street is substantially
higher than on any other street in the study area, a fact that can not be overlooked, there
are several factors that must be considered when reviewing these statistics. Foremost,
High Street has far more pedestrian traffic than any other street in the area, particularly
at the northern end of the neighborhood, adjacent to the Ohio State campus and an area
where there was a cluster of crash activity. Additionally, the completion of the South
Campus Gateway in late 2005 drastically improved the pedestrian environment along
High Street between Ninth and Chittenden Avenues. While these facts do not mean
that safety concerns do not exist along High Street, they do suggest that the number of
crashes may not be as disproportionately high as the raw numbers suggest.
Crossing locations that were identified by residents and that have a high number
of crashes were given the highest priority in the evaluation of existing conditions.
The locations of greatest concern for pedestrian crossings include the following
intersections:
Summit Street at Seventh Avenue: This offset intersection is located at the
northwest corner of Weinland Park Elementary School and is therefore used by
large numbers of students. It was the single most frequently identified safety
concern of area residents. The misalignment of Seventh Avenue creates longer
crossing distances for pedestrians and confusion for motorists. Utility poles and
signs on the southwest corner of the intersection also obstruct motorist views of
pedestrians in the south crosswalk of the intersection. Jaywalking was observed

frequently during both the walk audit and other field observations at this
intersection. Four crashes involving pedestrians were reported during the study
period, including one teacher who was struck during school dismissal.
High Street at Fifth Avenue: This intersection of high volume arterials, located
at the southwest corner of Weinland Park, had the highest number of crashes
involving pedestrians in the study area with eight. The combination of high
vehicular volumes, speeding on Fifth Avenue, and high pedestrian volumes (due
in part to the presence of four bus stops at this intersection) all lead to substantial
safety concerns for pedestrians crossing at this location.
High Street at Seventh/King Avenues: This intersection is a vital access point
into the Weinland Park neighborhood. The presence of Kroger on the southeast
corner draws significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and the presence of
Vision and Vocational Services on the southwest corner brings many vision
impaired pedestrians to the intersection. Despite being somewhat skewed, the
excessive width (42 feet for three lanes) and downward grade of Seventh Avenue
as it approaches the intersection accommodates motorist speeding to beat
the light at High Street. This creates a particularly unsafe situation for both
pedestrian and motorists. There were four recorded pedestrian crashes at this
location.
Summit Street at Fifth Avenue: Concerns regarding vehicle speeds on both
streets were raised by members of the public. The pedestrian walk phase was
also observed to be extremely short, providing less than ten seconds of walk time
before changing to a flashing dont walk. Since 2000, five crashes involving
pedestrians have been recorded at this intersection.
Residents also expressed a need for more crossing locations on both Summit and
Fourth Streets, and to a lesser degree across High Street. One resident commented that
there are not enough legal spaces to cross (Summit and Fourth Streets), particularly
between Fifth and Eighth Avenues. Beyond the comment, many pedestrians have been
observed crossing at indiscriminant locations between signalized intersections. While a
lack of pedestrian education (as to the legality of crossing at unmarked crosswalks) and
enforcement may provide some explanation, the lack of crosswalks where pedestrians
want to cross (and are crossing) is presumably the most significant factor contributing
to the prevalence of jaywalking in the area. Though there are marked crossings in
the area, these are often out of the way and located at signals with long cycle lengths
further delaying pedestrians. No marked crosswalks are located in convenient locations
for those traveling to or from the park or the south side of the school facility.

Figure 33: The Fifth Ave and High St

intersection has the highest number of vehicular
and pedestrian crashes in the neighborhood.

Figure 34: Facing south at the Seventh Ave and

High St intersection. Kroger is on the southeast
corner while Vision and Vocational Services and
the library sit just northwest of the intersection

41

Finally, although Weinland Park covers a relatively small area, it has numerous
resources and public facilities that are used by people from outside the neighborhood.
Those who are unfamiliar with the area have little to no guidance to find key
destinations such as the Godman Guild and the OSU Schoenbaum Center, both of
which are located in the core of Weinland Park away from High Street and Fifth
Avenue. A lack of good directional signage can prove very frustrating and even
intimidating for a pedestrian trying to find a destination in an unfamiliar area.

42

43

Exhibit 11: Recorded Pedestrian Crashes in Weinland Park (2000-2007)

Bicycles
The Columbus City Code identifies three distinct types of transportation facilities for
bicycles: Class I, Class II, and Class III Bikeways. As defined in the Code:

Figure 35: Bicycle route signs on Summit and

Fourth Streets are currently the only bike
facilities in Weinland Park .

Bikeway means a facility that explicitly provides for bicycle travel. A bikeway may
vary from a completely separated facility to simple signed streets as follows:
(a) Bike path (Class I Bikeway) is a facility for the exclusive use of bicycles
separated from motor vehicle traffic except at bike crossings.
(b) Bike lane (Class II Bikeway) utilizes existing roadways and is contiguous
thereto but provides a separate lane of travel for the exclusive or semi-exclusive
use of bicycles. The bike lane is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by
painted lines, pavement coloration, curbing, parked vehicles or other barriers.
(c) Bike route (Class III Bikeway) utilizes existing streets and roads. No separation
of motor vehicle and bicycle traffic is provided as only signs are present to indicate
the course of the bike route. (Ord. 1050-77.)
Currently the only bikeways in the Weinland Park neighborhood are Fourth and
Summit Streets, which function as a one-way pair Class III bikeway.
Bike parking facilities, while not prevalent in the neighborhood, have been incorporated
into many new buildings and developments in recent years such as the South Campus
Gateway and the new Community Policing Center. The majority of the bicycle parking
facilities are concentrated near the Ohio State campus as well as along High Street,
while they are conspicuously absent from other locations, such as the new Weinland
Park Elementary School and Schoenbaum Center.

Figure 36: The South Campus Gateway provides

ample bicycle parking along High Street.

44

Although Weinland Park, like many other Columbus neighborhoods, has for years
suffered from a lack of bicycle facilities, the City has made strong commitments and
tangible strides toward becoming much more bicycle friendly. Approved in May
2008, the Bicentennial Bikeways Plan is a bicycle master plan for the City that sets an
ambitious path for facility development, enhanced funding, and increased ridership
over the next 10 years. Additionally, in January 2009, City Council adopted several City
Code revisions that improve cyclist safety and better guide the development of quality
facilities.

Transit
With High Street abutting the western edge of the neighborhood, and its close
proximity to both downtown and Ohio State, Weinland Park is currently one of the
best served areas of the City by transit service. However, available data and public
comments indicate a further need for increased and improved transit service in the
neighborhood.
The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) operates multiple bus routes through and
adjacent to the neighborhood; these include five local routes, two crosstown routes,
and three express routes, as well as Project Mainstream (on-call paratransit service).
Table 9 and Exhibit 12 show the existing transit routes and stops within the study area.
The majority of these routes can be accessed by Weinland Park residents along the
High Street corridor with the exception of the #4 (Fourth and Summit Streets) and #8
(Hamilton Ave) Local Routes, the #96 (Fifth Ave) Crosstown Route, and the #52 (OSU/
Airport) Express Route. Additionally, the OSU Campus Area Bus Service (CABS) East
Residential Route runs along Summit and Fourth Streets in the northern half of the
corridor.

Table 9: Bus routes serving Weinland Park.

Route

Type

Local

Local

Local

Local

21

Local (Night Owl)

31

Express

52

Express

54

Express

84

Crosstown

96

Crosstown

East Residential

Campus

While the availability of adequate transit service is vital to community mobility,

the presence of bus routes alone is not enough to serve the transit needs of the
neighborhood. A convenient and accessible transit system must also provide stops with
key facilities for riders. Signage with route information is key for wayfinding, sufficient
lighting is an important safety element, shelters and benches provide cover from wind
and rain and places to rest, and garbage receptacles help to promote clean facilities.
There are a total of 68 bus stops located within the project area. Of these, approximately
15% have shelters, benches, and/or garbage receptacles. One issue encountered at some
of the existing shelters is that they are situated in the center of the sidewalk, effectively
eliminating the walking route for pedestrians. This illustrates that the placement of
transit facilities must be carefully considered, particularly in areas where right-of-way
is constrained and multiple modes must compete for limited space. Lighting, which is
found at 55% of stops in the area, is more common, but this means that nearly half of
the stops in the community are not lit after dark. Every stop currently has some type
of signage, generally a sign post with the route names and numbers on them. A few
(those with shelters) have route maps and information as well.

Figure 37: The bus shelter at Sixth Ave & High

St sits in the middle of the sidewalk, blocking
the clear walking path for pedestrians.

45

46

Exhibit 12: Existing Bus Routes and Stops in Weinland Park

Recommended Solutions

The recommendations chapter of this plan is divided into two sections, a Toolbox
of Treatments and location based recommendations. The Toolbox of Treatments
describes numerous mobility improvements, grouped by travel mode. These tools
were selected to address the numerous issues and concerns expressed through public
input and observed during the planning process. The Toolbox is intended to serve as
an ongoing resource for use by the City and residents of Weinland Park to diagnose and
address future mobility issues in the neighborhood. Each tool includes a description
of its intended use and effects, pros and cons to consider, and a planning-level cost
estimate (or range of costs) for installation. Actual costs may widely vary based on
whether the improvement is completed at the same time as others to take advantage of
economies of scale.

Figure 38: Intersection curb extensions improve

the visibility of pedestrians by preventing cars
from parking too close to the intersection.

The Location Based Recommendations section applies the tools from the Toolbox of
Treatments to specific locations throughout the study area. For each location, the
most appropriate tool, or combination of tools, was selected and applied to address
the identified mobility problems. Some of the recommended improvements apply
to the entire neighborhood, some to a roadway corridor, and others to specific sites
or intersections. For each location, there is an explanation of the recommended
improvement(s) and a justification for why that tool was selected.

Toolbox of Treatments
Automobile Tools
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions are improvement measures that are used in locations with on-street
parking to improve pedestrian crossings and help control vehicle speeds by narrowing
the roadway. Also called bump-outs, chokers, or curb bulbs, curb extensions can be
installed at intersections or mid-block to reduce or reinforce lane widths by bringing the
curb line out into the parking lane and closer to the travel lane (Figure 38).

Figure 39: Example of an intersection curb

extension in Hilliard, Ohio. It narrows the
roadway through the intersection and shortens
the crossing distance for pedestirans.

48

When used at intersections, curb extensions improve both pedestrian and driver safety.
Crossing distances are shortened and pedestrians are made more visible to drivers
by moving them out from behind parked cars. Driver safety is improved by slowing
vehicle speeds and by preventing vehicles from parking too close to the intersection,
thus improving sight conditions. At mid-block locations they are most effective at
reinforcing lane widths where on-street parking is allowed but not heavily used, and at

improving the visibility and safety of pedestrians at mid-block crossings.

When considering the installation of curb extensions at an intersection, it is important
to consider the turning radius required by large vehicles such as buses, emergency
vehicles, and trucks. They must also not encroach into the travel lane or bike lanes. The
installation of mid-block curb extensions does require the removal of some on-street
parking, and thus may not be appropriate on streets where parking is in high demand.
Curb extensions can range from $2,000 to $20,000 per corner depending on aesthetic
treatments, street furniture and lighting, and drainage considerations.
Mini Circles
A mini circle is a raised island placed in an existing intersection around which traffic
circulates. This tool improves intersection safety for vehicles and pedestrians by
reducing vehicle speeds to 15mph or less. Vehicles circulate counterclockwise around
the circle, reducing potential conflicts (Figure 40). At many stop controlled residential
intersections, mini circles have replaced stop signs, resulting in reduced speeds, traffic
violations, and crashes.
Along a street corridor, mini circles can be used in combination with curb extensions
to calm traffic by alternately adding features to the center and the outside of the road
(Figure 41). The ability of large vehicles such as buses, emergency vehicles, and trucks
to navigate the intersection must be considered in the design of a mini circle. These
vehicles can generally be accommodated with a truck apron or by allowing them to turn
left in front of the circle. Adequate signage is also important to ensure drivers properly
navigate the intersection.

Figure 40: Because all vehicles circulate the mini

circle in the same direction, entering vehicles
only need to look left for oncoming traffic.

Mini circles are relatively easy and cheap to install as little to no modification to the
existing intersection is required. A landscaped mini-circle generally costs about $6,000.
Maintenance responsibilities for the landscaping can also be taken on by property
owners or a neighborhood association to help defray the costs of the improvement,
particularly when the mini circle serves as a gateway feature into a residential area.
Figure 41: Mini circles can be installed along
with curb extensions to provide maximum
speed control at an intersection.

49

Figure 42: Example of two small landscaped

medians with a break for pedestrians.

Raised Medians
This traffic calming measure controls vehicle speeds by introducing a raised barrier
in the middle of a street, forcing drivers to the outside. Medians narrow the roadway
(either physically or visually), provide motorists with left-turn pockets out of the flow
of traffic, and serve as a crossing refuge for pedestrians. Adding landscaping and/or
gateway signage to a median also serves as a cue to drivers that they are in a pedestrian
environment where high speeds are not appropriate. Similar to mini circles, medians
can be used in combination with curb extensions to calm traffic along a street corridor.
Landscaping in a median must not obstruct the view of motorists on the road,
particularly from pedestrians using the median as a crossing refuge. On streets without
a center turn lane, on-street parking will likely have to be removed in order to maintain
adequate lane widths; therefore, medians may not be an appropriate treatment on
streets where parking is in high demand.
Raised medians tend to be higher cost measures, costing between $15,000 and $30,000
per 100 feet. Cost can be minimized by installing two small medians with a break
in the middle for a pedestrian refuge (Figure 43). This also ensures that persons
using mobility aids and pushing strollers can easily navigate the crossing. As with
mini circles, landscaping maintenance can be taken on by property owners or a
neighborhood association to help reduce costs.

Figure 43: By angling the median break,

pedestrians and cyclists can better see oncoming
traffic before crossing.

Figure 44: Onstreet parking provides a

barrier between pedestrians and traffic on
the road.

50

On-Street Parking
The provision of on-street parking presents multiple mobility benefits to motorists as
well as users of other transportation modes. The availability of ample on-street parking
improves convenience for residents and other motorists with destinations in the area,
particularly in many urban neighborhoods where off-street parking is scarce or nonexistent. Additionally, on-street parking helps to control vehicle speeds by creating
some friction along the sides of a road. The presence of cars parked on the street
forces drivers to slow down and raises their peripheral awareness. Finally, on-street
parking creates a vertical barrier between the sidewalk and roadway, which improves
both the safety and comfort of pedestrians. In commercial locations where parking is in
particularly high demand, metered parking can be installed and function as a source of
revenue for the City.
The cost to implement on-street parking in areas where it is restricted is often minimal,
requiring only the removal of parking restriction signs and/or installation of parking
signs. The cost of a new parking sign is approximately $300 installed.

Road Diet
A road diet is a tool that can be used to slow vehicle speeds by narrowing a roadway
corridor either visually, by narrowing travel lanes, or by reducing the number of
travel lanes, generally from four (two lanes in each direction) to three (one lane in each
direction with either a two-way left turn lane or a median). The extra space created by
a road diet is then often dedicated to improving multi-modal travel along the corridor
through the creation of bike lanes, wider sidewalks, on-street parking, or landscaped
buffers. The mobility benefits of road diets can include lower vehicle speeds, improved
safety and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists, shorter crossing distances, and
improved visibility and access to businesses.
Road diets offer benefits for motorists as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. By
eliminating turning movements from the left through travel lane in each direction,
motorist behavior becomes more predictable. Reducing the road to one lane in each
direction also prevents the faster moving vehicles from weaving to pass slower moving
vehicles. A road diet can generally be implemented on roads with average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes of up to 18,000 with little impact to roadway capacity, although ADTs
of over 20,000 can be converted following detailed analysis.

Before - two travel lanes in each direction

Road diets can quickly and effectively be implemented for very little cost (as little
as $5,000/mile) by simply re-striping the road and altering signal operations. They
can also be completed as long-term projects that include construction of landscaped
medians, curb extensions, new pedestrian scale lighting, and gateway signage. These
longer-term, more complex projects can cost up to $100,000 per mile.
Improved Lane Striping
Restriping a roadway to better define and narrow the lanes is a low cost but effective
solution to improving safety. Narrowing the lanes to 10 or 11 feet can effectively slow
vehicle speeds while providing room for on-street parking and/or bike lanes. When
considering a change in road striping, it is important to consider the lane configuration
at intersections and potential impacts on the level of service of the road, as significant
changes could push unwanted traffic onto local streets. Additionally, the interaction of
bicycles with traffic and parked cars must be considered. Generally, the cost to remove
old lane striping and restripe new lanes is between $5,000 and $10,000 per mile.

After - one travel lane in each direction, one

bike lane in each direction, and one center
turn lane/landscaped median
Figure 45: Before and after images of a street
that received a road diet. The street width
remained the same and, aside from the median,
all changes were made through lane striping.

51

Improved Signal Timing

Signal timing of roadways can have a significant influence on traffic operations. By
timing the lights so that a vehicle traveling the speed limit proceeds without stopping,
coordinated signal timing can be very efficient for automobile travel. The down side
of extremely efficient auto travel is that it can adversely affect adjacent properties and
people. Just as a river flowing too swiftly erodes its banks and presents a major barrier,
a road along which large numbers of cars travel too quickly erodes away the adjacent
community and makes safe crossings difficult.
On one way streets, signal timing can be optimized so that it has an even greater
effect on roadway efficiency. Typically, roadway pairs were converted from two way
operation to one way operation to take advantage of the vehicle progression through
the corridor, moving large numbers of vehicles very quickly.
Long green times, accompanied by vehicle flows below capacity create a situation
where vehicles can travel well above the speed limit. By shortening the cycle length,
the free green time is reduced so that vehicles are rewarded for traveling at or below the
speed limit rather than above it. This improvement is very inexpensive as the only cost
is the staff hours required to re-time the signals.

52

Pedestrian Tools
Sidewalks
Of utmost importance to pedestrian mobility is the presence of a comprehensive, well
maintained sidewalk network that connects neighborhood residents to key destinations
such as shopping and employment centers, entertainment venues, and other
transportation modes such as transit.
The Columbus City Code calls for the provision of sidewalks in all subdivisions and
site developments, and states that the abutting property owner is responsible for the
construction, maintenance, and repair of sidewalk facilities. It also stipulates that the
minimum width for sidewalks is four feet when there is a three foot buffer present and
six feet when the sidewalk is next to the curb. While four feet is the minimum standard,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) both recommend a minimum width of five feet to allow two people to
pass or walk side-by-side comfortably, and a buffer of four to six feet.
In locations of heavy pedestrian activity such as schools, neighborhood retail centers,
and parks, wider sidewalks and additional features such as street furniture and bike
racks should be provided to accommodate multiple users and promote a vibrant and
comfortable pedestrian environment. Roads with heavy vehicular traffic volumes and
higher speeds should also have wider sidewalks and buffers between pedestrians and
traffic to ensure safe and comfortable walking.
In developed areas such as Weinland Park, sidewalk construction and repair often
occurs in bits and pieces over time. Key sections in need of repair or replacement
should therefore be identified and addressed first. It is important to provide a smooth
and continuous surface so that the sidewalk network is accessible to all users. This
means extending the sidewalk through driveway aprons and alleys or including
ADA compliant curb ramps. Equally important to the provision of sidewalks is
the maintenance of a clear walking zone, which requires the clearing of debris and
overgrown vegetation. While these maintenance issues are relatively easy to address,
other obstructions such as street furniture, signs, and utility poles present greater
challenges. If it is infeasible to move or remove these obstructions on their own, these
changes should be incorporated into a larger roadway or utility improvement project.
The cost to install a concrete sidewalk is approximately $11 per square foot

Figure 46: While street trees and furniture add

to the pedestrian environment, they should not
encroach into the clear walking zone.

Figure 47: The sidewalks at the South Campus

Gateway provide adequate shy space (brick), six
feet of clear walking zone, and street furniture.

53

Crosswalk Markings/Upgrades
Well positioned and well marked crosswalks are important features of a good
pedestrian network. Crosswalks designate crossing locations for pedestrians, and
indicate to motorists the presence of pedestrian activity and the need to yield to
pedestrians crossing the street. Crosswalks should generally be located at intersections
where other traffic control measures are often in place and motorists are more aware
and expectant of pedestrians and vehicles crossing their paths. However, when
crossing at the nearest intersection forces pedestrians to travel out of their way, it
may be necessary to install a mid-block crosswalk. In locations where a significant
number of pedestrians choose to cross a street mid-block rather than walk to the
nearest crosswalk, it likely indicates the need for a crosswalk. Efforts should be made
to create a safe, legal crossing at these locations, if possible, rather than trying to force
pedestrians to use existing but inconvenient facilities.

Figure 48: The three most common crosswalk

markings are continental (left), zebra stripe
(center), and standard/parallel (right).

Figure 49: Textured pavers can raise the

visibility of crosswalks and improve aesthetics
at an intersection.

54

Heavy pedestrian traffic areas often require high visibility crosswalks to alert drivers to
increased pedestrian activity. These crosswalks are particularly important near schools
where large numbers of children cross the street during school arrival and dismissal.
High visibility crosswalks can be installed using various striping patterns, colored
pavement, and/or textured paving materials (Figures 48 and 49). The effectiveness of
high visibility crosswalk markings is contingent on them catching a drivers attention.
For this reason, they should only be installed at a few key crossing locations so that
they remain distinctive. The materials and design of high visibility crosswalks must
also be carefully considered. Some striping and paving materials such as thermoplastic,
stamped/colored asphalt, and cobblestone can become slippery when wet. Ladderstyle striping should be designed such that vehicle wheels pass between the stripes to
maximize the durability of the striping. Both standard and high visibility crosswalks
should be accompanied by some other form of traffic control, traffic calming, and/or
signage in order to provide a benefit to pedestrian safety (Safety Effects of Marked Versus
Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. 2005. FHWA. Publication Number: HRT04-100).
The cost to install standard crosswalk markings is approximately $400 per intersection,
while the cost to install high visibility crosswalks can range from $1,200 per intersection
for ladder-style crosswalk markings to $80,000 per intersection for textured pavement.

Exclusive Pedestrian Signal Phase

At some signalized intersections, where pedestrian volumes are extremely high
or where the intersection size and/or configuration makes crossing particularly
dangerous, an exclusive pedestrian phase may be justified. This solution introduces
an additional phase into the traffic signal cycle where all directions of vehicular traffic
experience a red light and all directions of pedestrian traffic have a walk signal. During
this phase, pedestrians can cross in any direction, including diagonally, allowing
them to navigate the intersection in one crossing rather than crossing individual legs.
Implementation of an exclusive pedestrian phase should also be accompanied by the
prohibition of right turns on red at the intersection to avoid potential conflicts.
Prior to using this tool, the current operation of an intersection must be analyzed to
ensure that there is adequate capacity to accommodate a new signal phase. If the signal
is part of an interconnected corridor, this analysis is even more important. In locations
where this tool has not been used before, it may be necessary to install signage or
pavement markings instructing pedestrians on how the signal phase works. Navigation
of intersections with exclusive pedestrian phases presents a challenge to the visually
impaired as the standard audible cues used at intersections do not work when all legs
of an intersection have a walk signal at the same time. The use of the intersection
by visually impaired persons must be taken into account when planning to use this
measure.
The cost associated with adjusting an existing signal to include a pedestrian phase
is very inexpensive, requiring only city staff time to change the signal operation. If
new equipment or a new signal is required, the cost can elevate quickly, ranging from
$40,000 to $200,000.
HAWK Beacon
A High-intensity Activated crossWalK, or HAWK, beacon is a new type of pedestrian
beacon that is best used at mid-block crossing locations where high vehicle speeds and/
or volumes necessitate a traffic control device, but full signalization is not appropriate.
The HAWK beacon, first used in Tucson, Arizona, consists of two side-by-side red
lights above a central yellow light (Figures 51 and 52). The beacon remains dark until
activated by a pedestrian, at which point the single yellow light begins to flash and then
turns solid. It then turns solid red forcing vehicles to stop and giving the pedestrian a
walk sign. Next, the two red lights begin flashing alternately and the pedestrian sees
a flashing dont walk sign. At this time vehicles may proceed after yielding to any

Figure 50: Example of pavement markings and

signage allowing crossings in all directions at an
intersection with an exclusive pedestrian phase.

Figure 51: Example of a HAWK beacon and

associated signage.

55

pedestrians in the crosswalk. Finally, the flashing red light returns to dark, allowing
traffic to proceed, while pedestrians see a solid dont walk sign and must activate the
beacon to cross.
HAWK beacons create less vehicular traffic delay than a standard signal, and have been
shown to improve pedestrian safety and motorist compliance (Improving Pedestrian
Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. 2006. Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 112/
NCHRP Report 562). This treatment was included for the first time in the 2009 Edition
of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). As of late 2009, this device
has yet to be added to the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD)
and may require provisional approval before the device can be installed in Weinland
Park.
The cost to construct a HAWK beacon on a one-way road is approximately $50,000; the
cost for a two-way road is approximately $75,000. A warrant analysis will be necessary
before proceeding with an installation. If the standard is not met, a pedestrian-activated
LED rectangular rapid flashing beacon may substitute for each HAWK beacon.
Figure 52: Diagram of a HAWK beacon cycle.

Figure 53: Example of pedestrian scale lighting.

56

Pedestrian Scale Lighting

Pedestrian scale lighting typically utilizes light fixtures and poles that are more
comfortable and compatible with rest of the human environment. The poles are
shorter than the traditional roadway light poles and the fixture is oriented to provide
more uniform illumination levels in the travel lanes, parking lanes, and the sidewalk.
Pedestrian scale light fixtures should be spaced more closely together than standard
street lights and be present on both sides of the street to ensure even lighting levels.
Particular attention should be paid to street lighting at crossing locations to ensure that
pedestrians are visible to motorists.
Good street lighting facilitates surveillance, a key component of Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design, or CPTED. The concept of CPTED focuses on
designing the built environment to reduce or eliminate opportunities for criminal
behavior. Where traditional cobra-head street lights create both dark and bright spots
and are designed to illuminate the roadway, improved lighting design can minimize
dark and bright spots on sidewalks, improving surveillance potentially improving
personal safety.

Bicycle Tools
Bike Lanes
A bike lane is a striped or otherwise separated travel lane for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles. They are most commonly found on major collectors and
arterial streets where vehicle speeds and volumes warrant separation of the two modes.
In addition to providing a designated space for cyclists on the road, bike lanes help to
control vehicles speed by narrowing the roadway and improve pedestrian safety and
comfort by creating a buffer between the sidewalk and vehicle travel lanes. When
installing bike lanes, it is critical to provide adequate room from on-street parking to
prevent dooring issues. The merging of right-turning vehicles and cyclists in a bike
lane is also an important consideration, particularly when an intersection includes
a dedicated right turn lane. One issue that should be addressed through education
rather than design is the perception that cyclists are required to use a bike lane if one
is provided. This misconception often leads to driver frustration and safety concerns
when a cyclist is seen using other travel lanes.

Figure 54: The bike lanes on this arterial road

are wide enough to for cyclists to avoid doors
opening in the parking lane while remaining out
of traffic.

The cost to re-stripe an existing roadway with bike lanes is approximately $5,000 per
mile for the pavement markings. Upgrades such as new signage, colored pavement,
and signal alterations will all increase the cost of installation.
Shared Lane Markings (Sharrows)
The sharrow is a relatively new type of pavement marking that indicates the
recommended location for cyclists to ride in a shared travel lane. It also serves as a
reminder to motorists to be attentive to bicycles using the road. Sharrow markings
consist of two chevrons above a bicyclist symbol and are most often placed on the righthand side of wide outside lanes (14+ feet wide).
Although not yet officially approved for general use by FHWA (will be included in
the next update to the MUTCD), sharrows have been widely tested and well received.
They are most effective in locations where dooring is a problem and where aggressive
motorist behavior squeezes cyclists to the outside edge of the road.
The cost to place sharrows along a mile of road is approximately $5,000 (assumes
markings every 100 feet at $100 per marking).

Figure 55: Example of a sharrow pavement

marking in Hilliard. Columbus recently
installed similar markings on Milton Ave.

57

Bike Boulevard
A bicycle boulevard is a public street on which bicycles are given priority over other
modes of travel. Cut-through vehicular traffic is often prohibited by allowing through
movements only to cyclists. This can be accomplished through signage, pavement
markings, traffic calming measures, signalization or more commonly some combination
of these. Bike boulevards can be implemented on low volume roads to connect gaps
in a bicycle route or to provide a safe alternative parallel to an arterial roadway that is
not conducive to bicycle travel. Some of the most common tools used to create a bike
boulevard include: pavement marking and signs identifying the facility, mini-circles
and curb extensions to calm traffic, and diverters and medians which force vehicles to
turn while allowing the through movement by cyclists.
Careful consideration must be given to the location and design of bike boulevards,
because they often involve limiting vehicular movements along a road, creating
potential access problems for residents and businesses. Adequate directional and
identification signage alerting cyclists to the bike boulevard is also important since they
are often on smaller, less obvious streets.

Figure 56: Diagram of the elements used

to prioritize bikes and discourage through
vehicular traffic on a bicycle boulevard.

Figure 57: Covered bicycle parking with U-style

racks.

58

There can be a wide range of costs associated with the construction of a bike boulevard.
If only signage and pavement markings are used, the cost can be very similar to that of
bike lanes or sharrows at approximately $5,000 per mile. As traffic calming measures
and signalization elements are added the cost can elevate quickly to well over $100,000.
Bike Parking
As with the motorized transportation network, a complete bicycle network must
include adequate and convenient parking for its users once they reach their
destinations. Bike racks should be readily visible and accessible at key destinations
such as retail locations, places of employment, and entertainment destinations. Onstreet bicycle parking should also be provided within the right-of-way along major
transportation corridors. Bike lockers should also be made available in certain locations
where longer-term, more secure parking is required.
Nearly as important as the provision of bicycle parking is the type and location of the
parking facilities. Bike racks that support the frame of a bike (preferably two points
of contact), such as the U-style and serpentine racks, are preferable to traditional fence
style racks, which only support the wheel and are more likely to damage bikes attached
to them. Bike racks/lockers should be installed on a paved surface and be located near

building entrances, transit stops, and other high traffic, highly visible areas. Installing
bike parking behind buildings, in poorly lit areas, or otherwise out of sight not only
makes them less convenient to find and use, but it also makes them less secure due to a
lack of surveillance.
The cost to install bike racks can range greatly based on style and materials. Bike racks
generally cost between $75 and $150 per bike to install; bike lockers cost between $500
and $2,000 per bike to install, but are usually paid for through rental fees.

Transit Tools
Increased Frequency and Span of Service
Increasing the frequency and/or extending the hours of service on existing bus routes
can be a low cost way to improve mobility options for area residents for whom transit
is not currently convenient or feasible. An increase in the frequency of buses along a
route reduces the potential wait time for riders by increasing the likelihood that a bus
will come when the rider needs it. This improved convenience can play an important
role in the decision making process of potential riders, particularly if it means getting to
work on time or if the travel time becomes comparable to driving and parking.

Figure 58: Bike lockers, which provide

secure, long-term storage, are ideal at
airports and transit stops.

Extending the hours of service of an existing route can be an even more important factor
in making transit a viable transportation option. Reliable transit service during off-peak
hours is especially important to individuals who work evening and nighttime jobs.
Many people can currently take the bus to work, but service does not run late enough
for them to make the return trip home. Along with serving people who work evening
and night shifts, late night/early morning transit service also provides people with an
alternative to driving to entertainment venues.
There may be no cost associated with increasing the frequency of service on a route
if the number of stops can be condensed by eliminating those that are under-utilized.
However, if no stops can be eliminated it may be necessary to add an additional bus to
the route, of which may cost around $250,000 per year.
Upgraded Bus Stops
The comfort, safety, and accessibility of the stops along a bus route can have a
significant impact on how individuals perceive, and whether or not they use public
transit. Because every transit rider begins and ends their trip as a pedestrian, the

Figure 59: COTAs new system maps, like this

one at Seventeenth Ave & Summit St provide
riders with important route information.

59

presence of good pedestrian facilities around a bus stop is important. Easy access to bus
stops for disabled and elderly users is of particular importance because these groups are
often more reliant on transit service than other members of the community.
In addition to good pedestrian facilities adjacent to a bus stop, there are also several
other amenities that can improve the comfort and safety of users while waiting for the
bus. The provision of benches and shelters improves comfort, especially for elderly and
disabled users, while waiting for the bus. Route maps and schedules provide important
wayfinding information to non-regular users of the system. Good lighting increases
visibility at the stop, thus improving safety and comfort while waiting at night. Finally,
trash receptacles help to keep the stop and surrounding area free of trash and debris,
which improves the aesthetic character of the stop and the comfort of users.
Figure 60: COTAs new standards for bus stop
design provide riders with key amenities such
as shelters, benches, trash recepticles, and maps.

Did you know?

COTA saw a 10% increase

in overall ridership in 2008
over 2007, and unlike past
spikes when fuel costs
rose, ridership continues to
climb despite a retreat in
gas prices .

60

In 2004, COTA developed new standards for bus stop design, location, and amenities
(see Figure 60, and in this Plans appendix). These include new typical sections and
plans, as well as an updated shelter design and route mapping. According to COTA
policy, a new shelter can be installed at a stop if a daily average of at least 25 riders
board at that location, while benches, trash receptacles, and signage can be installed
by special request. When considering the installation of a new bus shelter or bench,
it is important to ensure that there is enough space to maintain adequate pedestrian
facilities. In areas with limited right-of-way, this may mean that an easement needs to
be acquired that allows the bus stop facilities to be placed outside of the right-of-way.
Neighborhood Circulator (LINK) Route
A neighborhood circulator is a bus route that serves a small area with frequent service.
The purpose of a circulator route is to connect residents of the neighborhood to larger
regional transit routes, such as High Street and Eleventh Avenue in Weinland Park,
and key local destinations, such as grocery stores, community facilities, and/or large
employment centers. COTA currently runs one circulator route, called a LINK, in the
Linden neighborhood. The vehicle used for the LINK route is smaller (30 feet long)
than a normal bus (40 feet) and is much quieter, allowing it to primarily run on collector
and residential streets. The Linden LINK operates on a 30 minute loop through the
neighborhood, which is designed to maximize convenience and access. The cost to ride
the LINK is $0.50. Opperating costs for a LINK route in Weinland Park may range from
between $300,000 and $500,000 per year.

Other Tools
Gateway Features
Whether on a grand scale, such as a signature development or roundabout, or on a
smaller scale, such as landscaping or distinct signage, gateways serve many important
purposes for a community. Most importantly, they create a focal point that reinforces
the unique identity of a neighborhood and can foster a sense of pride and belonging
among residents.
Gateway features also serve as physical and psychological cues to motorists that htey
are entering a different type of driving environment, one in which pedestrians and
slower speeds should be expected. In order to ensure their effectiveness as a traffic
calming measure, gateways should be combined with other tools such as medians, curb
extensions, or roadway narrowing.

Figure 61: Arches, such as these in the

Short North, once helped to define the
character of Columbus and carried
electric lines up High Street.

The placement of a gateway feature must be carefully considered prior to installation.

Particularly when placed at an intersection or in the median of a road, it must not
block motorists view of oncoming traffic or traffic control devices. Additionally,
when placed on the side of the road, gateway features should not encroach on the clear
walking zone for pedestrians.
The cost for gateway features/signage can vary greatly depending on the size and
scale of the improvement. Signs can range from several hundred dollars installed
for standard street signs, to approximately $100,000 for an arch similar to those along
High Street (Figure 61), to several million dollars for a roundabout or other large scale
improvement.

Figure 62: Wayfinding signage, like

this map kiosk, are important tools for
pedestrians and cyclists.

Wayfinding Signage
Similar to motorists following street signs, pedestrians and cyclists rely on visual cues
to orient themselves and navigate their surroundings. For this reason, wayfinding and
destination signage are important components of a multi-modal environment. The
scale, appearance, placement, and visibility of signage should be consistent and easily
understood by both local and visiting travelers. Wayfinding signage also benefits area
businesses by making them more visible and easily accessible to potential customers.
The cost of wayfinding map kiosks like those in downtown Columbus (Figure 62) is
approximately $5,000-$6,000 installed, while the cost of destination signs like those
downtown (Figure 63) is approximately $1,000 installed.

Figure 63: Destination signs also help

visitors to an area find key locations.

61

Streetscape Improvements
The presence of landscaping and street furniture (benches, trash receptacles, bus
stops, etc.) along a road can improve safety for all users while greatly enhancing the
pedestrian environment and aesthetics of a corridor. A street that is lined with trees
and other landscaping appears narrower to motorists than the same street without
any vegetation. This induces slower vehicle speeds and helps differentiate the
vehicular and pedestrian environments. More concretely, street trees and other vertical
treatments such as benches and planters provide a physical barrier between vehicles
and pedestrians, which reduces the potential for conflicts between the two modes.
A welcoming pedestrian environment should include benches and other furniture that
improves comfort and encourages interaction and activity on the street. These features,
along with aesthetic landscape enhancements have positive benefits for adjacent
properties as well, adding vibrancy to commercial and residential areas. Landscaping
can also reduce the environmental impacts of a road corridor by capturing and treating
stormwater on-site rather than allowing it to flow directly into the sewer.
In urban areas, where right-of-way is often tight, it can be difficult to identify adequate
space for streetscape improvements. Street furniture and landscaping should not be
installed at the expense of the clear walking zone; however, in many locations this
can be overcome by combining them with other improvements such as medians,
mini-circles, and curb extensions. Continued maintenance cost is another issue that
must be considered in the planning and budgeting of improvements. The cost of
streetscape improvements can range from as little at $1,000 to over $10,000 depending
on the planting materials and use of street furniture. As suggested with previous
tools, some of the maintenance costs can be offset by having residents take-on upkeep
responsibilities for the landscaping.

62

Location Based Recommendations

The following location based recommendations apply the previously discussed tools
to specific areas and sites in Weinland Park. Descriptions are provided for each
recommended project and a number is assigned in parentheses. The project number
corresponds with Table 10, which lists, for each recommendation, number, suggested tool,
location, travel mode impacted, and relevent comment categories that the improvement
will address. Finally, Exhibits 14-17 are maps that illustrate the type and location of the
recommended improvements, with the corresponding number listed next to each.

Neighborhood Improvements
Sidewalk maintenance and replacement program (1)
Given the number of resident concerns related to poor sidewalk conditions, the extensive
need for improvements identified during the sidewalk inventory, and the importance of
creating a safe and continuous network, sidewalk improvements should be addressed
at a neighborhood scale. In Columbus, installation and maintenance of sidewalks is the
responsibility of the adjacent property owner. In Weinland Park, this has resulted in
inconsistent sidewalk conditions, with some owners performing necessary maintenance
and others allowing the sidewalk to fall into disrepair.
In order to achieve a consistently high quality sidewalk network it is recommended that
an assessment program be instituted throughout the neighborhood. Upon agreement
by a certain percentage of property owners in the neighborhood (generally 60%) an
assessment would be applied to each property. The funds generated by the assessment
would then be used to pay for sidewalk improvements using the Citys existing
contracts to reduce costs. The sidewalk inventory completed for this plan should be
used to prioritize the improvements, with those sections rated F (impassible or complete
disrepair) being completed first. The key benefit of a neighborhood-wide assessment
program is that the cost of sidewalk improvements is spread among all property owners.
This reduces the impacts on any given resident, and, over several years, will result in
improved sidewalk conditions throughout the entire neighborhood, which benefits all
residents.
As an alternative to developing a neighborhood assessment program, the Weinland
Park Community Civic Association could begin a systematic code enforcement
initiative to improve sidewalks. Specific streets could be selected by the community
for code enforcement efforts by the City as a way to spur property owners to repair

63

their sidewalks. A certain percentage of residents on the street should agree to the
enforcement efforts to ensure it is supported. Existing City contracts could be used to
repair sidewalks along selected streets using this approach as well.
Bicycle Parking (2)
Convenient and secure bicycle parking is needed throughout Weinland Park. Numerous
comments highlighted the lack of bike parking, particularly at major destinations, in the
neighborhood. Bike racks should be installed in highly visible locations, preferably near
the main entrance of the following facilities/businesses:
COTA stop at Fifth Avenue and High Street
Third Hand Bike Co-op Fifth Avenue between Summit and Fourth Streets
Godman Guild corner of Sixth Avenue and Sixth Street
Weinland Park between Fourth and Summit Streets
Weinland Park Elementary corner of Seventh Avenue and Fourth Street
Schoenbaum Family Center corner of Seventh Avenue and Summit Street
Kroger southeast corner of Seventh Avenue and High Street
Dollar Tree plaza northeast corner of Seventh Avenue and High Street
Indianola Park Indianola Avenue between Eighth and Ninth Avenues
Directions for Youth and Families corner of Ninth and Indianola Avenues
Kellys Carry-Out corner of Eleventh Avenue and Fourth Street
The City of Columbus currently installs bike racks within the public right-of-way upon
request using its 311 Call Center. Residents or business owners can simply place a
request and, as long as adequate right-of-way exists, a rack will be installed. This service
can be used to install racks at some of the above listed locations, as well as other high
demand locations in the neighborhood.

64

Gateway Features (3)

The installation of gateway features/signs is recommended for the key entrances to
Weinland Park along arterial and collector streets to reinforce the neighborhood setting
and encourage slower vehicle speeds. Uniform entrance features should be installed at
the following intersections:
Fifth Avenue at High Street
Fifth Avenue at the railroad bridge
Fourth Street at Fifth Avenue
Seventh Avenue at High Street
Summit Street at Twelfth Avenue
Eleventh Avenue at the railroad bridge

The University Area Commission has been working on a project to develop gateway
signage for the entire district for several years. Gateway features at these locations for
Weinland Park are consistent with those efforts, and could be completed as a part of that
project. Arches would be ideal gateway features for the neighborhood as they would
provide continuity with other gateway signs installed in adjacent neighborhoods and
would maintain a link to the history of th area.
Wayfinding/Destination Signage (4)
The presence of wayfinding signage throughout Weinland Park will help guide
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike to key destinations in and around the area.
A wayfinding system should be developed for the entire University Area to provide
continuity for users and to ensure the inclusion of all important businesses and attractions
in the area. Examples of some destinations in Weinland Park could include the South
Campus Gateway, Weinland Park, Indianola Park, and the Godman Guild, along with
any other businesses and/or facilities identified by the community.
Neighborhood Circulator (LINK) Route (5)
A COTA LINK route through Weinland Park would add transit connections from the
residential areas of the neighborhood to nearby retail, employment, and community
destinations. Additionally, the circulator would connect residents to larger transit routes,
thus improving access to other areas of the City. A potential route for the circulator is
shown in Exhibit 13.

Corridor Improvements

Road Diet and Bicycle Lanes on Fifth Avenue (6)

This improvement will help to alleviate the observed speeding problem and improve
pedestrian and bike safety along Fifth Avenue by narrowing the corridor for vehicles and
providing additional space for other modes. This recommendation would likely reduce
the number of through automobile travel lanes from four to two.
Preliminary traffic analyses indicates that the combination of a road diet (utilizing
existing pavement) and the reduction of the cycle length at the intersections of Fifth
Avenue and both Fourth and Summit streets would result in the intersections not having
sufficient capacity for peak-hour volumes. Further study is needed to determine what
would be needed to be done to ensure sufficient capacity at these intersections to allow
a road diet to be implemented on Fifth Avenue as well as other improvements along the
Fourth and Stummit streets corridor.

65

66

Exhibit 13: Potential Weinland Park COTA LINK Route

The Bicentennial Bikeways Plan calls for the installation of bike lanes on Fifth Avenue, a
need that was also raised during the public input stage of the project. Implementation of
the road diet on Fifth Avenue may result in the space necessary to install a five-foot bike
lane in each direction. The bike lane will not only provide cyclists with dedicated space
on the road, but will also help to control vehicle speeds and provide a buffer between
vehicular traffic and pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Sidewalk Installation on Sixth Avenue (7)
Installing new sidewalk along Sixth Avenue from Indianola Avenue to Summit Street and
from Fifth Street to Sixth Street will complete the sidewalk network in Weinland Park.
These improvements will make connections to key pedestrian destinations including
Weinland Park and Godman Guild from the residential areas of the neighborhood.
Sharrows on Eleventh Avenue (8)
The addition of sharrows along Eleventh Avenue between High Street and Grant Avenue
will create an east-west bike route on the north side of Weinland Park. This improvement
is recommended in the Bicentennial Bikeways Plan and was expressed as a need in public
comments.
Shared Signed Roadway on High Street (9)
The bike safety improvements along High Street coincide with the recommendations of
the Bicentennial Bikeways Plan, which include the installation of sharrows, Share the
Road signage, and a public education campaign. Given the high volume of vehicles and
cyclists, this is a high priority project for the City and some of these improvements are
already in place.
Bicycle Boulevard on Pearl Street and Courtland Avenue (10)
The conversion of Pearl Street and Courtland Avenue to a bike boulevard from Fifth
Avenue to Twelfth Avenue would provide cyclists with an alternative route to High,
Summit, and Fourth Streets, all of which are high volume and higher speed streets. The
Bicentennial Bikeways Plan calls for a bike boulevard on Pearl Street; however, it would
only extend as far south as Seventh Avenue. Continuing the facility south to Fifth
Avenue on Courtland Avenue will connect the bike boulevard with the bike lanes to be
installed on Fifth Avenue, thus creating a more continuous network. It also allows for the
extension of the bike boulevard further south into the short north along Pearl Street.
67

Summit and Fourth Street Improvements

The one-way pair of Summit and Fourth Streets is, by far, the most significant concern of
Weinland Park residents and project stakeholders alike. The vehicular speed, volume,
and crash analyses support these concerns, showing that speeding and safety problems
exist throughout this corridor.

Figure 64: Existing signal timing on Summit

and 4th St permits vehicles moving at excessive
Existing
Signal
Timing
speeds to pass
through
all green
lights.

Street

Existing

Excessive Speed
Posted Speed

11th
7th
5th
0

60

120

180

Time (sec)

Figure 65: The proposed signal timing will

reduce the green band so that speeding cars can
Upgraded
Signal
not pass through
multiple
greenTiming
lights.

Street

Proposed

Excessive Speed
Posted Speed

11th
7th
5th
0

60

120
Time (sec)

68

180

Efforts to plan for how to improve the corridor were complicated by several transit initiatives, specifically plans to build a regional light rail transit line or streetcar on either
Fourth and Summit or High Street. Though these initiatives would provide significant
mobility enhancements to the Weinland Park neighborhood, both proposals had the potential to significantly affect Fourth and Summit streets by changing traffic volumes and/
or adding transit vehicles to the corridor. Both possibilities made it particularly difficult
for project planners to establish reasonable future vehicular volumes.
Both transit proposals have since stalled out and this now permits project planners and
engineers to make reasonable assumptions about the future of the Fourth and Summit
streets corridor. Of those reasonable assumptions, project planners and engineers need
to determine if projected traffic volumes would be accommodated within certain levels
of service within 20 years given any changes made to the corridor. These traffic capacity
analyses are currently under study and will impact what improvements are able to be
made. A preliminary engineering analysis will determine which improvements to include and which may not be possible at this time.
Providing guidance, this plan recommends the following improvements for Fourth and
Summit streets:
Improved signal timing (11)
This improvement will help to address the speeding issue on Summit and Fourth
Streets, thereby improving safety as well. The timing of traffic signals throughout
the corridor will be altered to encourage vehicles to travel at or below the posted
speed limit rather than rewarding motorists for traveling above it. This will be
accomplished by reducing the green band of the signals so that vehicles traveling above the speed limit will be stopped at red lights while vehicles traveling at or
below the speed limit will receive green lights (see Figures 64 and 65). Altering the
signal timing will also improve connectivity across Summit and Fourth Streets by
decreasing the amount of time a pedestrian has to wait to cross them at a signalized
intersection. Future changes to signal timing must be compatible with any and all
other recommended projects for the Fourth and Summit corridor.

Lane Reconfiguration (12)

Today, Summit and Fourth Streets have irregular sections and unclear pavement
markings in some areas, as well as what appears to be excess traffic capacity during most hours of the day. These factors and others contribute to the prevalence of
speeding and crashes along this corridor.
Varying lane width, peak-hour on-street parking restrictions, insufficient intersection
sight distances, and other factors contribute to hinder safety in the Fourth and Summit corridor. Standardizing the roadway section and providing clear, concise signage
and striping to identify changes will improve motorist safety and provide new opportunities to accommodate bicyclists and improve pedestrian crossing safety and
convenience.
Though specific improvements will be subject to additional traffic and feasibility
studies, preliminary improvements recommended for the corridor include:
Reducing the number of automobile travel lanes from three to two will permit room for
bike lanes, permanent on-street parking on both sides of the street, will help control vehicle speeds, and will virtually eliminate instances of vehicles parked in
peak-hour travel lanes.
Adding a bike lane and buffer space (where possible) along on-street parking spaces.
This will provide a safer facility for bicyclists traveling along the corridor. This is a
recommendation of the Bicentennial Bikeways Plan.
Eliminating peak-hour parking restrictions, providing much-desired on-street parking, shielding pedestrians from fast-moving automobile traffic, and reducing the
complexity of parking signage.
Constructing curb extensions to shorten crossing distances and improve visibility of oncoming traffic for those (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists) trying to cross or turn
onto Fourth and Summit Streets. Extensions are recommended at all intersections.
The (traffic) capacity of a corridor is most greatly affected by the capacity of intersections
along it. As such, preliminary traffic analysis was conducted to determine if two through
travel lanes and appropriately located turn lanes would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate peak-hour traffic volumes at most signalized intersections in the corridor.
Such a configuration would permit a typical section of two through automobile travel
lanes, a bike lane, and on-street parking on both sides of each street between signalized
intersections. Should such a configuration sufficiently accomodate automobile traffic,
69

curb extensions should be placed at signalized and unsignalized intersections to shorten crossing distances, improve
pedestrian (and driver) visibility, and better manage the duration of pedestrian signal walk phases at signals. Figures 66
and 67 show the existing and recommended typical sections
for Summit and Fourth Streets.

Existing

Figure 66: The existing lane striping on Summit and 4th St is poorly defined and
provides overly travel lanes, which can lead to higher intances of speeding and
crashes

Proposed

The preliminary analysis showed that several intersections

would not operate at a sufficient level of service if other
recommendations were also implemented (e.g. an exclusive
pedestrian phase at Summit Street and 7th Avenue, and a
road diet to be implemented on Fifth Avenue). Continued
study will be required to determine what improvements may
improve safety at the intersecion of Summit Street and 7th
Avenue, and provide sufficient capacity at the intersections of
E Fifth Avenue and both Summit and Fourth Streets to allow
for a typical section of two through travel lanes, a bike lane
and two parking lanes along Fourth and Summit streets.

Though peak-hour level of service may experience an acceptable reduction at some intersections, the conversion of the
typical section from three to two appropriately sized travel
Figure 67: The proposed lane striping will better define the travel lanes, provide room
for a bicycle lane, and increase permanent on-street parking, all within the existing right- lanes will improve the multi-modal level of service and, more
importantly, is a critical need to address a present and pressof-way.
ing safety problem affecting all users of the corridor. The reduction in the number of lanes
will better control vehicular speeds, a significant hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Other safety benefits include a reduction in instances side-swipe crashes, a reduction of the
risk of multiple threat pedestrian (or vehicular) crashes at unsignalized intersections, the
accommodation of a needed bike lane, and a reduction of the number of locations where a
travel lane ends at the bumper of a parked vehicle.

70

Though the plan provides recommendations that continue maintaining Fourth and Summit
Streets as a one-way pair, the intent of this plan is not to suggest that one-way operation is
preferable to two-way operation in the long-term. Conversion of the corridor to two-way
operation would be a more permanent solutionone that would require substantial alterations to both streets, greatly affecting corridor traffic patterns. Solutions provided in this
plan are intermediate steps that are comparatively easier to implement, generally signal
timing, signing and striping, and minor hardscape improvements (curb extensions).

Site Specific Improvements

Textured Pavement Crosswalks at the High Street/Fifth Avenue Intersection (13)
Since 2000, this intersection has had the highest number of pedestrian crashes in the study
area. Due to traffic volumes and right-of-way constraints, alterations to the traffic signal
and/or intersection configuration are not currently feasible. Changing the crosswalks to
textured pavers will raise the visibility of the intersection for motorists, giving particular
emphasis to the pedestrian crossing areas.
Raised Median on Fifth Avenue East of High Street (14)
A raised median is recommended for Fifth Avenue at the western end of the study area.
This median, of which should occur in combination with Road Diet and Bicycle Lanes
on Fifth Avenue (6) will produce numerous benefits to mobility. Specifically, the median
provides an opportunity to serve as a gateway to the neighborhood and, as such, reduce
traffic speeds. Additionally, it can provide a pedestrian crossing refuge, reinforce the bike
boulevard and improve access management by allowing bikes to cross Fifth Avenue on
Courtland Avenue, but preventing vehicles from doing the same. The median should
begin just east of the westbound left turn lane on Fifth Avenue and extend east across
Courtland Avenue. The entire median could be raised and landscaped, or it could be a
combination of raised and painted median to help reduce costs.
HAWK Beacons on Summit and Fourth Streets at Weinland Park (16 & 17)
These beacons are recommended to improve the safety of pedestrians crossing Summit
and Fourth Streets to access the park, Weinland Park Elementary School, and the OSU
Schoenbaum Center. Currently there are no marked crosswalks on Forth or Summit
Streets between Fifth and Seventh Avenues. The HAWK signals will create controlled
pedestrian crossings at the path along the south side of the park that will have less impact
to vehicular traffic than full pedestrian signals.
Projected pedestrian volumes at these new crossing locations are not known as there is no
way to accurately predict the latent demand for a crossing that does not currently exist.
Through further study, it may be possible to estimate potential usage by identifying the
number of pedestrians crossing mid-block and those using adjacent crossing locations
and then identifying their origins and destinations. This study could be completed as a
part of the Safe Routes to School Travel Plan for Weinland Park Elementary School.
In this plan, HAWK beacons are recommended at these locations as a demonstration
project. Based on their use in other cities, the mid-block location of the crossings, vehicle

71

Page Reserved for

Graphic Rendering

72

speeds and volumes on Summit and Fourth Streets, and the presence of substantial
pedestrian destinations, the beacons were identified as an appropriate measure. There
use would be on an experimental basis until the MUTCD-approved beacons are included
in the Ohio-MUTCD. Should warrants for the beacons not be met, highly visible
pedestrian-activated LED Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon may substitute. These
beacons should be located on curb extensions to be more visible to drivers, and include
signage indicating motorists should yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Intersection Safety Improvements at Summit Street/Seventh Avenue (18)
This intersection was the most frequently noted problem location by residents, is the site
of several pedestrian crashes, and is heavily used by children walking to school and the
park. Problems at the intersection are linked to several factors notably that the intersection
is off-set and there is a desire for users to cross through the middle of the offset
intersection when walking toward High Street (Kroger). Whereas an exclusive pedestrian
phase was studied and discussed during public involvement, preliminary traffic analysis
indicates this method would result in excessive delay on Summit Street during the AM
peak, resulting in queues for motorists and transit users starting north of 8th Avenue.
Continued study is necessary to develop a package of improvements that will eliminate
or at least reduce potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. This Plan
recommends such improvements reduce the width (i.e. curb extensions) and length
(e.g. consolidate to one of the two T intersections) size of the intersection, permit
the placement of a crosswalk between the southwest and northeast corners of the
current intersection, and include a leading pedestrian phase to improve the visibility
of pedestrians). These improvements should coincide with a pedestrian education
effort primarily targeted toward students at Weinland Park Elementary School. Such a
program could be incorporated into a Safe Routes to School program.
Crosswalk, Improved Pedestrian Signage, and Pedestrian Refuge on High Street (21, 54)
Through resident input, the need for a new marked pedestrian crossing of High Street at
Euclid Avenue (21) was identified to improve safe access to the library on the west side
of High Street. Similarly, a refuge island is recommended for an existing crosswalk at the
intersection of E 6th Avenue and High Street, just south of Kroger (54).
The provision of a refuge island with ladder style crosswalk markings and high visibility
signage at these locations (south leg of the intersection of Euclid Avenue and High Street,
and the south leg of the intersection of E 6th Avenue and High Street) is recommended to
73

Page Reserved for

Graphic Rendering

74

provide safer pedestrian crossings across High Street, and improve access to community
amenities such as the library and other retail establishments in the area.
Raised Median on Eighth Avenue at Pearl Street (22)
The installation of a raised median at this location will aid in the creation of a bike
boulevard along Pearl Street by managing access. The intersection will become a
right-in/right-out for vehicles, while a small break in the median will allow cyclists to
make left turns and through movements on Pearl Street as well. This will reinforce the
priority of cyclists on Pearl Street and encourage vehicles to use High Street.
Curb Extensions
These measures are recommended for numerous intersections throughout Weinland
Park as a means of improving walkability by reducing pedestrian crossing distances.
The curb extensions may provide some vehicular speed reduction on long straight
stretches of road, particularly when used in conjunction with other tools. Preliminary
analysis of vehicle turning movements indicates that buses and fire trucks can navigate
these devices even on the local streets in Weinland Park. However, the final dimensions
for these improvements will need to be developed for each location individually during
detailed design. Curb extensions are recommended at the following locations:
Seventh Avenue east of High Street (23) North side of Seventh Avenue from
High Street to Pearl Street. This will better align the Seventh Avenue/High
Street intersection and help control vehicle speeds. The lanes on Seventh Avenue
will shift slightly to better align with King Avenue to the west of High Street. It
will also shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians and help control the speed
of westbound traffic on Seventh Avenue. Speeding at this location was raised as
a concern in public comments and verified with speed and volume counts.
Euclid Avenue east of High Street (24) Both sides of Euclid Avenue for
approximately 300 feet. This section of road is overly wide for a local street (38
feet), which encourages cut-through traffic and speeding. The curb extensions
will narrow the west end of Euclid to match the width along the rest of the street
(26 feet), creating a uniform width that is appropriate for a residential street.
Ninth Avenue east of High Street (25) South side of Ninth Avenue for
approximately 330 feet. This will narrow the eastbound travel lane on Ninth
Avenue, which is currently 16 feet wide.
Courtland Avenue at Sixth Avenue (26) This split intersection is approximately
halfway between Fifth and Seventh Avenues. It is a good location for curb
extensions as a way to break-up the long straight stretch that otherwise has no
traffic controls for vehicles on Courtland. The offset alignment will create a

75

76

chicane effect that will effectively control speeds. Curb extensions here will also
help to emphasize Courtland Avenue as a bike boulevard.
Courtland Avenue at Seventh Avenue (27) Along the north side of Seventh
Avenue at this intersection. This will help shorten crossing distances and
improve sight distance for pedestrians walking to Kroger. The curb extension
should prevent parking in the crosswalk.
Pearl Street at Eleventh Avenue (28) All but the northwest corner (which is
required for a right turn lane) of this split intersection. They will control vehicle
speeds and improve walkability along Eleventh Avenue and help to reinforce
Pearl Street as a bicycle boulevard.
Pearl Street at Chittenden Avenue (29) The eastern two corners of the
intersection. Provides vehicular speed control and continues bicycle boulevard
on Pearl Street.
Pearl Street at Twelfth Avenue (30) The eastern two corners of the intersection.
Provides vehicular speed control and enforces bicycle boulevard on Pearl Street.
Indianola Avenue at Fifth Avenue (31) Will help to define the transition from
Fifth Avenue, a minor arterial street, to Indianola Avenue, which is residential in
nature. They should only be located on the Indianola Avenue side of the corners
to avoid conflicts with the new bike lanes, which are recommended as a part of
the Fifth Avenue road diet.
Indianola Avenue at Seventh Avenue (32)
Indianola Avenue at Euclid Avenue (33) The two western corners of the
intersection. This will continue traffic calming along both streets and discourage
cut-though traffic on Euclid Avenue.
Indianola Avenue at Ninth Avenue (34) - The addition of curb bulbs in
combination with a raised median will provide enforced vehicle path deflection
and controlled speeds through this intersection.
Indianola Avenue at Chittenden Avenue (35)
Indianola Avenue at Twelfth Avenue (36)
Hamlet Street at Seventh Avenue (37) Two northern corners of the intersection.
Provides speed control and shortens the crossing distance at the entrance to
Weinland Park Elementary School and the Schoenbaum Center.
Hamlet Street at Eighth Avenue (38)
Hamlet Street at Eleventh Avenue (39)
Fifth Street at Fifth Avenue (40) Helps to define the transition from Fifth
Avenue, a minor arterial street, to Fifth Street, a residential street. They should
only be located on the Fifth Street side of the corners to avoid conflicts with the

new bike lanes, which are recommended as a part of the Fifth Avenue road diet.
Fifth Street at Sixth Avenue (41)
Fifth Street at Eighth Avenue (42)
Fifth Street at Eleventh Avenue (43)
Sixth Street at Seventh Avenue (44)
Sixth Street at Ninth Avenue (45)
Sixth Street at Eleventh Avenue (46)
Indianola Avenue at Eleventh Avenue (49) Public comments and traffic counts
identified speeding along Indianola Avenue.

Mini Circles
These traffic calming measures are recommended for numerous intersections
throughout Weinland Park as a means of controlling vehicle speeds and improving
intersection safety. They are most effective when alternated with curb extensions
in order to break-up long straight stretches of road. As with the curb extensions,
preliminary analysis indicates that these tools can be navigated by buses and emergency
vehicles in the neighborhood, but the final dimensions will be set during detailed
design. Mini circles are recommended at the following locations:
Indianola Avenue at Sixth Avenue (47) Public comments and traffic counts
identified speeding along Indianola Avenue. Will work in conjunction with curb
extensions to calm traffic along the corridor.
Indianola Avenue at Eighth Avenue (48) Public comments and traffic counts
identified speeding along Indianola Avenue. Will work in conjunction with
curb extensions to calm traffic along the corridor. Consultation with the fire
department must occur during design to ensure that access is not impeded.
Hamlet Street at Ninth Avenue (50)
Fifth Street at Seventh Avenue (51) Addresses comments received regarding
speeding at this intersection.
Fifth Street at Ninth Avenue (52)
Sixth Street at Eighth Avenue (53)

77

Page Reserved for

Graphic Rendering

78

79

Exhibit 14: Recommended Solutions Map - Northwest Quadrant

80

Exhibit 15: Recommended Solutions Map - Northeast Quadrant

81

Exhibit 16: Recommended Solutions Map - Southwest Quadrant

82

Exhibit 17: Recommended Solutions Map - Southeast Quadrant

Prioritization and
Implementation

Possibly the most important part of any plan is the prioritization of recommendations
and development of an implementation strategy. Without these key elements, it is
unlikely that the improvements called for in the plan will ever come to fruition. During
this final stage of the planning process, members of the project team and City staff
worked closely with the Steering Committee, consisting of Weinland Park residents
and stakeholders, to identify which mobility improvements are the most critical to the
community and how to best implement those solutions over the coming years.
This stage also represents a transition of roles in the planning process. Up to this
point, the City and the project team have guided the planning process through the
identification and analysis of issues and the development of recommendations.
From this point forward, the community is responsible for working with the City to
implement the plan according to the strategy set forth in this chapter.

Plan Prioritization
As with the identification of critical mobility concerns and locations, the community
was called upon to prioritize the recommended improvements. The first step in
this process was to gain preliminary input from the entire community regarding the
recommendations called for by the project team. As previously mentioned in the
Issues and Concerns chapter, a community open house meeting was held in June 2009
at which the draft recommendations were presented and attendees were given the
opportunity to identify those which they felt should be given the highest priority, as
well as those that they felt should be given the lowest priority. Several blank spaces
also allowed residents to write-in improvements that they felt should be included.
Those improvements that garnered the most positive and negative support at the open
house are shown in Table 10. Of those solutions, one that was written-in (converison of
Summit and Fourth Streets to two-way operation) and two that were recommended by
the team (curb extensions on Summit and Fourth Streets at Fifth Avenue) were deemed
infeasible due to the need to consider light rail accommodation in the future. However,
they are still shown in this table to reflect the level of support each gained.

84

Table 10: Initial prioritization of improvements from June 2009 open house meeting

Recommendation
Rec #s
Exclusive Pedestrian Signal*
18
Improved Signal Timing
11
Bike Lanes
12
Gateway Feature
3
Road Diet
6
Conversion to two-way
-Curb extensions
-Bicycle parking
2
Curb extensions
-HAWK signal
17
Shared signed roadway
9
Textured pavement crosswalk
13
Mini circle
49

Location
Positive Votes Negative Votes
Seventh Ave/Summit St intersection
8
0
Summit and Fourth St - Warren St to Hudson St
8
0
Summit and Fourth St - Warren St to Hudson St
7
0
Fifth Ave at Fourth St
5
0
Fifth Ave - High St to railroad tracks
5
0
Summit and Fourth St - Warren St to Hudson St
4
2
Fifth Ave/Summit St intersection
3
0
Third Hand Bike Co-op
3
0
Fifth Ave/Fourth St intersection
3
0
Summit St at south park path
3
0
High St - Fifth Ave to Twelfth Ave
3
0
Fifth Ave/High St intersection
0
1
Indianola Ave at Eleventh Ave
0
1

Using this initial input from the community open house, the Steering Committee
worked to further refine and prioritize the recommended improvements. Prior to the
first Steering Committee meeting, held in February 2010, the group reviewed the draft
plan and recommendations. At the meeting, the Steering Committee went through a
two-step prioritization exercise to rank all of the recommendations in the plan.
For the first step, the individual recommendations were combined into 16 groups by
like projects, and the Steering Committee ranked the groups (Table 11). This provided
the team with general guidance on which types of projects were of most importance to
the community. For the second step, the Steering Committee considered each individual
project and assigned a priority level of high, medium, or low. High priority projects are
those that should be implemented within the next three years, medium priority projects
within three to seven years, and low priority projects in greater than seven years. When
assigning the priority levels, members were asked to consider the benefits of the project,
the estimated cost, the complexity of design and implementation, and logical grouping
with other projects. The resulting prioritization of groups and individual projects was
used by the City to develop the plan implementation strategy.
*The Exclusive Pedestrian Phase was determined by preliminary traffic analysis to be unfeasible. See recommendation Intersection Safety Improvements (18) for alternative approaches and more information.

Table 11: Project group rankings

Rank

Group Name

Summit & Fourth St - Crossings

Summit & Fourth St - Corridors

Sidewalk Improvements

Seventh Ave - Traffic Calming

Indianola Ave - Traffic Calming

Fifth Ave - Road Diet

Residential Streets - Traffic Calming

High St - Crossings

Bicycle Parking

10

11th Ave - Shared Lane Markings

11

Pearl St - Bike Boulevard

12

Gateway Features

13

Neighborhood Circulator Route

14

Wayfinding/Destination Signage

15

Relocate Bus Shelter

16

High St - Shared Signed Roadway

85

Implementation Strategy
In sum, the Weinland Park Community Mobility Plan includes 54 separate recommendations with a construction cost of approximately $2.5-$3 million. As with any plan,
implementation of these projects will occur over a period of several years as funding and other resources can be obtained. Because mobility improvements throughout
Weinland Park will occur incrementally, it is critical to establish a plan for implementation that will guide these efforts and consistently improve conditions throughout the
community.

86

Tables 12-14 group the projects into short-term (0-3 years), medium-term (4-7 years),
and long-term (7+ years) recommendations for development. These groupings were
based on the following evaluation criteria:
Project location - In identifying timeframes for project implementation, projects
that address safety or other mobility concerns at key locations were given top
priority. Projects along a corridor, particularly those aimed at calming traffic
speeds, were also clustered together to maximize effectiveness. Additionally, an
attempt was made to evenly spread improvements throughout the community
while also considering other evaluation factors.
Steering Committee input - The group ranking and the individual project priority assigned by the Steering Committee were considered in tandem. Those
projects that were individually ranked as high priority and that were are a part
of a highly ranked group were given the greatest preference. However, a project
with a high group ranking but that was individually designated as low priority
may be recommended for construction after a project from a lower ranked group
that was individually identified as a high priority.
Effectiveness at achieving the plan goals - Each project was evaluated for its
ability to achieve the goals of the plan. Projects that will result in progress toward several goals and benefit multiple transportation modes were considered
highly effective, those that improve only one or two goals or benefit only one
mode of transportation were listed as medium, and those that work toward only
one goal and benefit only one mode were listed as low having low effectiveness.
Estimated cost and availability of funding from various sources - The design
and construction cost of improvements, along with potential funding sources
were important factors in determining the implementation strategy. Numerous funding sources were identified to expedite the implementation of projects.
Those projects that rely on different funding sources could be recommended
simultaneously, while those reliant on the same source were dispersed over time

to account for annual budgeting. A description of the recommended funding sources is

included in the Appendix.
Party responsible for implementing the project - In general the City of Columbus DOMO
and the WPCCA will be responsible for the implementation of the plan. However, numerous other individuals and agencies will have varying roles in the development of improvements. Definitions of the agency acronyms can be found in the Appendix.
Table 12: Recommended Short-Term Projects (0-3 Years)

Project
Number

Recommended
Improvement

Location

Steering
Committee Input
Group Project
Rank
Priority

Effectiveness

Cost

Potential Funding
Sources
CIP, OSU, Private,
SRTS

Responsible
Party
DOMO, RPD,
OSU, Private

Bicycle Parking

Various Locations

High

Low

$22,000

Sidewalk Installation

Sixth Ave - Fifth St to Sixth St

High

High

$25,000 CDBG, CIP, UIRF

Shared Signed
Roadway

High St - Fifth Ave to Twelfth

Ave

16

Low

Medium

11

Improved Signal
Timing

Summit & Fourth St - Warren

St to Hudson St

High

High

City Staff
Time

12

Restripe Lanes &

Remove Parking
Restrictions

Summit & Fourth St - Warren

St to Hudson St

High

High

$310,000^ Safety

16

HAWK Beacon#+

Summit St at south park path

High

Medium

$75,000 Safety, SRTS

DOMO, ODOT

17

HAWK

Beacon#+

Fourth St at south park path

High

Medium

$75,000 Safety, SRTS

DOMO, ODOT

18

Exclusive Pedestrian
Signal Phase*, **

Seventh Ave & Summit St

intersection

High

High

$35,000 Safety

DOMO,
DOPO, ODOT

19

Crosswalk with Rapid Eighth Ave & Summit St

Flash Beacon+
intersection

n/a ^^

Medium

$25,000 Safety

DOMO, ODOT

20

Crosswalk with Rapid Eighth Ave & Fourth St

Flash Beacon+
intersection

n/a ^^

Medium

$25,000 Safety

DOMO, ODOT

$2,000 CIP
CIP

# A warrant analysis has not been conducted to determine whether HAWK Beacons are warranted. If the standard is not met, pedestrian-activated
LED rectangular rapid flashing beacons may substitute.
* The Exclusive Pedestrian Phase was determined by preliminary traffic analysis to not be feasible. See recommendation Intersection Safety Improvements (18) for alternative approaches and more information.
** These projects will require additional study and may likely cost more than their estimates based on information discussed in their respective project
descriptions (pages 63-77).
^ Project costs may be significantly less if implemented as a part of a repaving project.
^^ These projects were not included in prioritization activities.
+ Per city policy, a pedestrian volume threshold must be met to justify marking a crosswalk.

DOMO
DOMO
DOMO,
DOPO, ODOT
DOMO, ODOT

87

Table 12: Recommended Short-Term Projects (0-3 Years) (Continued)

Steering
Committee Input
Group Project
Rank
Priority

Project
Number

Recommended
Improvement

23

Curb Extensions with

Lane Shift

Seventh Ave east of High St

Medium

High

$37,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

27

Curb Extension

Seventh Ave at Courtland Ave

Low

Medium

$14,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

31

Curb Extensions

Indianola Ave & Fifth Ave

Medium

Medium

$26,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

32

Curb Extensions

Indianola Ave & Seventh Ave

intersection

Medium

Medium

$54,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

49

Curb Extensions

Indianola Ave & Eleventh Ave

Medium

Medium

$26,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

21

Crosswalk, Improved
Pedestrian Signage,
and Refuge Island

High St & Euclid Ave

intersection

High

High

$18,000 CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

54

Crosswalk, Improved
Pedestrian Signage,
and Refuge Island

High St & E Sixth Ave

intersection

n/a ^^

n/a ^^

High

$18,000 CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

Location

Effectiveness

Cost

Potential Funding
Sources

Responsible
Party

Table 13: Recommended Medium-Term Projects (4-7 Years)

Project
Number

88

Recommended
Improvement

Location

Steering
Committee Input
Group Project
Rank
Priority

Effectiveness

Cost

Potential Funding
Sources

Responsible
Party

33

Curb Extensions

Indianola Ave & Euclid Ave

Low

Medium

$26,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

34

Curb Extensions with

Raised Median

Indianola Ave & Ninth Ave

Medium

Medium

$54,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

47

Mini Circle

Indianola Ave & Sixth Ave

Medium

Medium

$6,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

48

Mini Circle

Indianola Ave & Eighth Ave

Medium

Medium

$6,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

Shared Lane Markings Eleventh Ave - High St to

(Sharrows)
railroad tracks

10

Medium

Low

$8,000 BBC, CIP, TIF, TE

DOMO

Road Diet and Bike

Lanes**

High

High

Fifth Ave - High St to railroad

tracks

$110,000^ CDBG, CIP, TE, TIF

DOMO

** This projects will require additional study and may likely cost more than their estimates based on information discussed in their respective project
descriptions (pages 63-77).
^ Project costs may be significantly less if implemented as a part of a repaving project.
^^ These projects were not included in prioritization activities.

Table 13: Recommended Medium-Term Projects (4-7 Years) (Continued)

Project
Number

Recommended
Improvement

Location

Steering
Committee Input
Group Project
Rank
Priority

Effectiveness

Cost

Potential Funding
Sources

Responsible
Party

10

Bicycle Boulevard

Pearl St - Fifth Ave to Twelfth

Ave

11

Medium

Medium

$12,000

BBC, CIP, TE

DOMO

13

Textured Pavement
and Right Turn on
Red Restriction

High St & Fifth Ave

intersection

Medium

High

$30,000

CDBG, CIP, Safety

DOMO

14

Raised Median

Fifth Ave just east of High St

11

Medium

Medium

$10,000

CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

22

Raised Median

Eighth Ave & Pearl St

intersection

11

Medium

Medium

$10,000 CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

24

Curb Extensions

Euclid Ave east of High St

Medium

Medium

$60,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

28

Curb Extensions

Eleventh Ave & Pearl St

intersection

11

Medium

Medium

$35,000 CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

37

Curb Extensions

Hamlet St & Seventh Ave

intersection

High

Medium

$17,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

39

Curb Extensions

Hamlet St & Eleventh Ave

intersection

Medium

Medium

$26,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

40

Curb Extensions

Fifth St & Fifth Ave

intersection

Medium

Low/Medium

$26,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

41

Curb Extensions

Fifth St & Sixth Ave

intersection

Medium

Low/Medium

$26,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

42

Curb Extensions

Fifth St & Eighth Ave

intersection

Medium

Low/Medium

$54,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

43

Curb Extensions

Fifth St & Eleventh Ave

intersection

Medium

Low/Medium

$26,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

50

Mini Circle

Hamlet St & Ninth Ave

intersection

Medium

Low

$6,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

51

Mini Circle

Fifth St & Seventh Ave

intersection

Medium

Low/Medium

$6,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

52

Mini Circle

Fifth St & Ninth Ave

intersection

Medium

Low/Medium

$6,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

89

Table 14: Recommended Long-Term Projects (7+ Years)

Project
Number

90

Recommended
Improvement

Location

Steering
Committee Input
Group Project
Rank
Priority

Effectiveness

Cost

Potential Funding
Sources

$50,000CDBG, Private,
$100,000/
Operation Safewalks
year

Responsible
Party

Sidewalk Installation
and Replacement
Program

Weinland Park neighborhood

Medium

High

Gateway Features

Various Locations

12

Low

Low

$600,000

CDBG, Private, TE

UDO

Wayfinding/
Destination Signage

University Area

14

Low

Low

$80,000

CDBG, Private, TE

UDO

Neighborhood
Circulator Route
(LINK)

Weinland Park neighborhood

13

Medium

Low

$250,000/ COTA, OSU, Rider

year
Fees

COTA

25

Curb Extensions

Ninth Ave & High St

intersection

Low

Low

$39,000

CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

26

Curb Extensions

Courtland Ave & Sixth Ave

intersection

11

Low

Low

$26,000

CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

29

Curb Extensions

Pearl St & Chittenden Ave

intersection

11

Medium

Medium

$26,000 CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

30

Curb Extensions

Pearl St & Twelth Ave

intersection

11

Medium

Medium

$54,000 CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

35

Curb Extensions

Indianola Ave & Chittenden

Ave intersection

Low

Medium

$44,000 CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

36

Curb Extensions

Indianola Ave & Twelfth Ave

intersection

Low

Medium

$54,000 CDBG, CIP, TE

DOMO

38

Curb Extensions

Hamlet St & Eighth Ave

intersection

Medium

Low

$54,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

44

Curb Extensions

Sixth St & Seventh Ave

intersection

Low

Low/Medium

$54,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

45

Curb Extensions

Sixth St & Ninth Ave

intersection

Low

Low/Medium

$54,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

46

Curb Extensions

Sixth St & Eleventh Ave

intersection

Low

Low/Medium

$26,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

53

Mini Circle

Sixth St & Eighth Ave

intersection

Medium

Low/Medium

$6,000 CDBG, CIP, SRTS, TE

DOMO

Sidewalk Installation

Sixth Ave - Indianola Ave to

Summit St

High

High

$25,000 CDBG, CIP, UIRF

WPCCA,
DOMO

DOMO

Updating the Plan

This implementation strategy should be used as a guide by the WPCCA and City of
Columbus to develop mobility improvements over the life of the plan. However, the
strategy should also remain flexible and be adapted to changing priorities and funding
availability in the coming years. Approximately every five years, the plan should be
re-evaluated to reflect improvements that have been made and to ensure that the needs
of the community are still accurately addressed. The plan revision should include a reprioritization of projects, addition of new projects, updated cost estimates, and consideration of changing funding sources and avialability.

91