catalytic framework for indianapolis' bicycle network

Developing a short-term, catalytic framework for Indianapolis’ utilitarian bicycle network

Patrick BeyerSpring 2011Ball State UniversityDepartment of Landscape ArchitectureComprehensive Project

“When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race.” -H.G. Wells

ABSTRACT

Indianapolis has a growing bicycle community, but the city’s current network fails to safely connect cyclists to the places they wish to travel. Out of 51 cities, Indianapolis ranked 44th in bicycle ridership and 49th in bicycle safety. The city has ambitious plans to improve the mileage of bicycle facilities, but the cities plan is missing a few basic guiding principles. Bicycle transportation, planning, and smart growth theories have been analyzed to develop a short-term catalytic framework that will safely connect cyclists and boost ridership.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following people for their help and guidance:

Sean Rotar, faculty mentorBenjamin Hunt, The IndycogJamison Hutchins, The IndycogKevin Whitehead, The IndycogKevin Kastner, Urban IndyJeremy Moore, Indianapolis MPOKevin Mayfield, Indianapolis MPOThe BikeTexas TeamKaren and Stephen Beyer, my parents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 01Types of Cycling 02Types of Cyclists 05Bike Culture: Indianapolis 07Case Study: Portland Cyclists 09Current and Planned Facilities 11Conclusion 14

Project Statement 15Project Significance 15Comparative Analysis 17 Bicycle Ridership 17 Bicycle Safety 18 Common Attributes 20Goals and Objectives 22Site Challenges 23Clients 24Design Process and Methodology 25The Site 26Planning: Inventory and Analysis 27Conceptual Plan 29Master Plan 29 College Ave: Buffered Bicycle Lane 31 College Ave: A Closer Look 35 Looking South at 30th and College 37 North Harding St: Bicycle Boulevard 39 North Harding St: A Closer Look 43 Looking North on Harding 45 Vulnerable Street User Zone 47 Looking South on Mass Ave 49 The Commuter Bike Station 51 Looking South on Alabama 53Conclusion 56

Appendix A: Definitions 57Appendix B: Bibliography 59Appendix C: List of Figures 61Appendix D: Infographics 62

Background Information

The Project

Appendices

01

INTRODUCTION

In 1895, an Indianapolis community member said, “bicycles out numbered carriages by about a hundred to one (Stigoe, 103)”. One hundred and sixteen years later Indianapolis is ranked 13th by population, and 44th by bicycle commuter ridership, according to the League of American Bicyclist. Indianapolis has grown away from its bicycle heritage, but it is showing commitment to the issue by redeveloping its bicycle plan. The comprehensive project is meant to be act as a guiding framework in the development of future bicycle facilities and plans. Cities across the world have shown that safe and efficient bicycle networks have the power to change how a city functions, and with gas prices nearing five dollars a gallon, it is now, that Indianapolis needs to diversify its transportation system.

Figure 1.1 Indiana State Capitol

02

TYPES OF CYCLING

Two theories of bicycle transportation rival one another, the Vehicular Cycling Theory developed by John Forester and the Bikeway Theory. Both theories are practiced in the United States by cyclists and designers, but neither theory is accepted as correct (Forester, Bicycle Transportation, ix). Each theory has its own advantages and disadvantages in the American transportation infrastructure. The term “Vehicular Cycling” was not coined until the mid 20th century, but its practice dates back to the late 19th century – predating the modern automobile. The League of American Bicyclists (formerly the League of American Wheelmen) was founded in 1880 and spent much of its youthful years lobbying to Congress and President Benjamin Harrison to begin paving roads to allow for a smooth surface for their new “safety bicycle” (Stilgoe, 103). But with the success of the mass-produced automobile, the League of American Bicyclists began to shift their focus to protecting the bicyclists right to the road. Currently, every state categorizes the laws regarding bicycle use into their vehicle code (“A Cyclists’ Right to the Road”). And like other vehicles, the legally designated space for use of a bicycle is the street. Vehicular cyclists maintain the idea that bicycles are like any other vehicle on the road, by “driving” their bicycle like one would drive a car - stopping at stoplights and stop signs, using the full lane, signaling turns, and trying to keep up with traffic. Vehicular cyclists literally drive their bicycle by the mantra, “same rights, same rules, same road”. John Forester, a cycling transportation engineer, coined the term “vehicular cycling”. Forester claims that vehicular cycling is safer than bikeway cycling because cyclists are visible and their actions are easily predictable (Forester, “The Bicycle Transportation Controversy”). The argument that vehicular cycling is safe works well because the operators of both the motor vehicles and bicycles follow the same rules. Ideally all vehicle operators on the street have taken vehicular driving education courses, and know what to expect from other drivers. A vehicular cyclists should be signaling and

Background Information

Figure 1.1 Indiana State Capitol

03

communicating with other drivers just as a motorists would do. A motorist does not have to worry about what a cyclist will do at an intersection because they cyclist follows the same rules as the motorist. Vehicular cycling is usually considered to be much more efficient than bikeway cycling for two reasons. First, the existing vehicular street network is much more extensive than the bikeway network, allowing more options for vehicular cyclists to choose the most direct route. And second, vehicular cyclists maintain a high speed to keep up with the flow of traffic. One of the major drawbacks of vehicular cycling lies in the fact that many streets in the United States were not designed for cyclists. Many cyclists lack the physical ability and courage to keep up with motor traffic above 20 miles an hour. That being said a well-designed vehicular cycling street would use traffic calming elements to slow motor traffic. For example, many cyclists merely yield at stop signs because they do not want to be inconvenienced with stopping at an empty intersection. If roundabouts replace a four-way intersection, cyclists can follow the rules of the road by yielding, and traffic will be slowed. Other traffic calming techniques include narrowing or curving the street, and implementing designed speed humps. Again, the slower speeds force motorists to be more aware of their surroundings including bicyclists and pedestrians. The Bikeway Theory is based on the European model of cycling that separates bicyclists from pedestrians and motorists. One of the first separate bicycle paths was created in Copenhagen in 1910, to maintain the bicycle trends (Brief History About Copenhagen). These exclusive bicycle transportation systems lower the amount of accidents by limiting pedestrian and motorist access. Bike lanes, cycle tracks, bike boxes, greenways, and multi-use paths can all be part of the bikeway transit network. John Pucher is a lead advocate for the continuation of bikeway networks particularly in the United States. Pucher supports bikeways because of their ability to increase trips by bicycle and increase safety. For instance, in the United States less than one percent of urban trips are made by bicycle, while in the Netherlands 28 percent of trips are by bike (Pucher, “Cycling Safety”). The fatality rate (per 100

04

million bike trips) is 26.3 in the United States and 1.6 in the Netherlands (Pucher, “Cycling Safety”). Although, there are many factors contributing these statistics, bikeways are surely one of the major contributors to the increase in bicycle ridership and safety. Pusher points to Davis, California – an American city with an extensive bicycle facility network and a mode share split of 22 percent for bicycle trips (Pucher, “Cycling Safety”). This increase in mode share within the United States shows that bicycle facilities increase bicycle ridership. But again, there are some drawbacks to bikeways. For instance, under American law bicyclists and motorists are equal, but by giving another designated space to bicyclists, motorists begin to equate bikeways as the only designated space for bicyclists. Motorists are then often angered when a cyclist is seen riding in the street. Also, at some point bikeways must intersect with the street. In some cases the danger at these intersections is even greater because motorists are not accustom to checking for bicyclists. These problems can be addressed through more thorough driver education standards. Neither the Bikeway Theory nor the Vehicular Cycling Theory is the sole answer for bicycle transportation in the United States. Vehicular cycling is efficient and safe, but most current street conditions do not support vehicular cycling conditions; on most streets, traffic moves too quickly for a vehicle cyclist to keep with the flow. Conversely, bikeways encourage the timid and inexperienced to use active transportation, but they also give motorists the idea that bicyclists don’t have a right to the road. Both theories have their appropriate application. Higher speed, arterial streets can be retrofitted enough to add a type of bikeway,

Figure 1.3 Bikeway Cycling

05

while lower speed streets can be planned to cater to vehicular cyclists. If the bikeway theory and vehicular cycling theory were used in combination with a motorist education program, the design will have a high chance for success.

TYPES OF CYCLISTS

In general there are three main types of cyclists: the recreational cyclists, the utilitarian cyclists, and the competitive cyclists.

Recreational cyclists are riding for their amusement. They spend their Sunday afternoons riding greenways, mountain bike trails, and multiuse paths. Generally, they are concerned for their safety, enjoy the relaxed feeling of riding on a separated facility. In Indianapolis recreational cyclists can be seen riding on the Monon Trail, the Canal Tow Path, the White River Trail, the Downtown Canal, and the Cultural Trail.

Utilitarian cyclists are riding from point A to point B. They prefer for safe, direct routes that will save them time usually meaning city streets. Utilitarian cyclists often ride at various times of day for various reasons. Their bikes are usually equipped with bells, storage racks, and lights. Utilitarian cyclists will have the equipment necessary to change a flat tire, and they always have a bicycle lock with them. They can be seen wearing helmets because of their constant interaction with motorists on city streets. Currently the utilitarian cyclists in Indianapolis practice vehicular cycling because of the city’s lacking infrastructure.

Competitive cyclists are riding for their personal improvement. They race, train, and breathe cycling. The can be seen as a form of recreational cyclists because they think spending hours in a bicycle saddle is fun. These cyclists usually have a lack of fear that allows them to ride comfortably on country roads at high speeds. Indianapolis is home to Major Taylor velodrome where bicycle races are held every summer.

06

Figure 1.4 Recreational Cyclists

Figure 1.6 Competitive Cyclists

Figure 1.5 Utilitarian Cyclists

07

BIKE CULTURE: INDIANAPOLIS

The concept of bike culture has escaped a concrete definition (Goodman). Partially because a bike culture has its own specific identity based on the cyclists that encompass it. But across any bike culture, three major groups of bicyclists can be found - the utilitarian, the recreational, and the competitive (Goodman), all of which must be passionate about bicycles. Jim, a passionate bicyclist in New York City, defines bike culture as:

“The integration of cycling into one’s everyday life. Relations? Obey the traffic laws. Recreation? Ride with friends and family. Racing? Yeah, fun to do and read about. I ask for commuting clothes come Christmas, and I find myself casting lusty looks at those single-gear things. When the weather gets warm, I enjoy putting on shorts and a jersey and riding in the country (Goodman).”

A bike culture can be beneficial to a city for several reasons. Statistically, bicyclists offer a steady tax base and disposable income. The average income for an American Bicyclist is $60,000 (“New Ideas for Creating Bike-Friendly Communities.”). The median income in Indianapolis’ citizens is $43,000; $17,000 less than the average American Bicyclist. Also bicyclists outnumber golfers, tennis players, and skiers combined (“New Ideas for Creating Bike-Friendly Communities.”). Offering a developed bicycle network creates an incentive for a large number of financially stable people. Cities cannot directly create a bike culture. But cities can create infrastructure, policies, and events that encourage the development of a bike culture. But the passion that defines bike culture, ultimately comes from the cyclists within it. Within Indianapolis’ bike culture, there are organizations and subgroups that are active in the continuation of Indianapolis bike-ability. The Indycog is a local bicycle advocacy group that represents a large portion of Indianapolis’ bike culture. The group focuses on celebrating all things cycling because each section of bike culture has its own energy, and cycling in Indianapolis can benefit from having everyone represented, and everyone involved (Theindycog.com, “About”). In February 2009, two Indianapolis citizens created the group which acts as a

venue for the acquisition and dissemination of local bicycle information ranging from bicycle facilities, resources, events, and other policy issues (Theindycog.com, “About”). The Central Indiana Bicycle association is large local group composed of more than 2000 members. The club focuses on bicycle touring, but members also have interests in other types of cycling. CIBA sponsors a lecture series at the Indianapolis public library, and many bike rides including the annual Navigate Indy This Evening or N.I.T.E. ride (cibaride.org). The N.I.T.E. ride is an all day event with the highlight being a 20 mile evening bike tour of downtown Indianapolis. In 2009, the N.I.T.E. ride had over 3000 participants (“FAQ”). Indianapolis also co-sponsors the annual Mayor’s Bike Ride with the Marion County Health Department to promote the use of active transportation and the recent addition of bicycle facilities. In 2010 the ride focused on the newest bicycle lanes on Allisonville road (Strosahl). Smaller bike ride events like the “Tweed Ride” and the “Courteous Mass, Critical Manners ride” occur more often, and usually have a smaller attendance. College students are a major part of the utilitarian sect (“New Ideas for creating Bike Friendly Communities”). Many cannot afford or choose not to drive an automobile. This leaves the student with public and active transportation options. Indianapolis is home to many universities near the downtown, including Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Marian University, University of Indianapolis, and Butler University. A total that’s over 45,000 students near the downtown. Indianapolis is full of people that are passionate about bicycling, and the number is growing. Groups are being formed and events are being planned for all types of cyclists - the utilitarian, the recreational, and the competitive. This growing bike culture will need a bicycle network that responds to their needs.

08

09

CASE STUDY: PORTLAND CYCLISTS

The city of Portland went a step further and researched the likelihood that residents would ride a bicycle as the primary mode of transportation; the statistics they came up with are quite interesting. The city found that the majority of the population is interested in becoming a utilitarian cyclists, but they are concerned about their safety. Many cities in industrialized nations have high mode share splits because they have broken the fear of the roadway by developing bicycle networks where bicycling is the most logical and enjoyable form of transportation (Geller). In these cities, bicycling safety is not a thought before most trips. Changing the perception of bicycling safety is necessary to increase cycling as a form of transportation. Figure 1.7 shows the data recorded by the Portland Bureau of Transportation. Nearly two thousand cyclists in Portland consider themselves “strong and fearless”. They will ride in a city street with or without a bicycle facility. Seven percent of Portland’s population considers themselves “enthused and confident”. They use the existing facilities, and are pushing for shorter-trip distances, better bicycle facilities, and better end of trip facilities. Sixty percent of the group is interested but the current network isn’t developed enough to remove their concern for safety. They hear messages from various groups about the benefits associated with cycling, and would ride if their were few cars that drove at slower speeds. Interestingly, if this group decided to commute by bicycle the amount of vehicles on the road would significantly decrease and the road would be safer place to ride. And finally, 32 percent of the population cannot be persuaded. The most you can hope for is that they are kind while they pass you.

This case study shows that most people are open to cycling as a form of transportation, as long as the infrastructure is available. Indianapolis shouldn’t be much different.

10

* 60%“Interested, but concerned”

* 7%“Enthused and Confident”

* .5%“Strong and Fearless”

* 32%“No way, No How”

*Figure 1.7 Portland Cyclists. Data from the Portland Bureau of Transportation.

11

CURRENT + PLANNED FACILITIES

Andy Lutz, the bicycle and pedestrian cooordinator of Indianapolis described Indy’s bicycle plan as being “in its infancy” (“New Ideas for creating Bike Friendly Communities”). This is neither a strength nor a weakness, but a fact that must be remembered. Former Mayor Bart Peterson created the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator position a little over three years ago (“New Ideas for creating Bike Friendly Communities”). “Infancy” is a great way to describe Indianapolis bicycle plan; the city is behind and it’s looking to grow and catch up. In 2009 the city was designated a bronze medal for bicycle-friendly communities from the League of American Bicyclists. The city provided almost 8 million dollars for the creation of almost 11 miles of bike lanes on New York and Michigan streets, major East – west thoroughfares that run through the downtown (“League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign”). Total the city has 28.99 miles of bike lanes, and the 10 year plan projects over 200 miles of bike lanes (Strosahl). Indianapolis’ many recreational, multiuse paths are a strength of the current bicycle plan. The Monon Trail, The Canal Tow Path, Fall Creek Trail, and the White River trail lead to the downtown connecting the North side to the downtown. Additionally, when the cultural trail is completed, the recreational path will circumnavigate the downtown. The recreational loop will boarder the edges of the downtown and give good connection points for other recreational, multiuse paths from the suburbs. Indianapolis has also recently proposed the renovation of a portion of The City Market building, adjacent to the Cultural Trail, to become a bike station. The bike station will provide secure bike parking, showers, food, and other amenities for bicycle commuters. More importantly, it can act as an educational venue for to inform Indianapolis bicyclists about rules of the road, new bicycle facilities and how to use them properly, and upcoming events. The city has many recreational trails available, but for the utilitarian cyclist’ options are very limited. The utilitarian cyclist should have safe routes throughout the entire city. In

12

PEN

NS

YL

VAN

IA

ST

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

Dit

ch

I-65

I-465

I-70

I-74

30TH ST

38TH ST

86TH ST

10TH ST

WASHINGTON ST

POST

RD

EMER

SON

AVE

ARLI

NG

TON

AVE

RAYMOND ST

COLL

EGE

AVE

MER

IDIA

N ST

16TH ST

FRAN

KLIN

RD

79TH ST

56TH ST

SOUTHPORT RD

I-69

EDGEWOOD AVE

82ND ST

BLU

FF R

D

MICHIGAN ST

71ST ST

ILLI

NO

IS S

T

MAN

N R

D

FALL CREEK RD

SHER

MAN

DR

STOP 11 RD

CAPI

TOL

AVE

THOMPSON RD

COUNTY LINE RD

HOLT

RD

LYN

HU

RST

DR

EAST

ST

SHAD

ELAN

D AV

E

21ST ST

46TH ST

PENDLETON PIKEUS 31

ALLI

SONV

ILLE

RD

NEW YORK ST

MAD

ISON

AVE

GU

ION

RD

MAZE RD

ROCKVILLE RD

FIVE

PO

INTS

RD

GER

MAN

CHU

RC

H R

D

SR 3

7

SHELBYVILLE RD

25TH ST

HAR

DIN

G S

T

WES

T ST

52ND ST

BROOKVILLE RD

CAR

RO

LL R

D

DEAN

RD

29TH ST

ACTO

N R

D

SOUTHEASTERN AVE

GEO

RG

ETO

WN

RD

MINNESOTA ST

ZIO

NSV

ILLE

RD

SARG

ENT

RD

MORRIS ST

96TH ST

TIBB

S AV

E

GIR

LS S

CH

OO

L R

D

WESTFIELD

BLVD

SEN

OU

R R

D

TROY AVE

KENTUCKY AVE

KESS

LER

BLV

D N

DR

DITC

H R

D

GR

ANDV

IEW

DR

BELM

ONT

AVE

PROSPECT ST

SUN

NYS

IDE

RD

CARSON AVE

HIC

KOR

Y R

D

KESSLER BLVD EDR

MO

ORE

RD

DAVI

S R

D

MC

FAR

LAN

D R

D

PEN

NSY

LVAN

IA S

T

MASSACHUSETTS AVE

HANNA AVE

22ND ST

COU

NTR

Y C

LUB

RD

DR M

L KING

JR ST

HIG

H SC

HOO

L R

D

OHIO ST

RALSTON RD

ENGLISH AVE

ALBANY ST

KESSLER BLVD WDR

FALL

CREEK P

KWY

NDR

73RD ST

FOX RD

62ND ST

WESTLANE RD

WAR

MAN

AVE

SHEL

BY S

T

REED

RD

SAM JONES EXPRESSWAY

INDIANA AVE

TOW

NSH

IP L

INE

RD

KNO

LLTO

N R

D

DR A

J B

RO

WN

AVE

SR 135

PAYN

E R

D

COO

PER

RD

AMERIPLEX PKWY

VANDERGRIFF R

D

RIVE

RSID

E D

R E

CRAWFORDSVILLE RD

RAC

EWAY

RD

MIT

THO

EFER

RD

BINFORD B

LVD

PAD

DO

CK

RD

DANDY TR

AIL

FRYE RD

MO

RG

ANTO

WN

RD

MCCARTY ST

RAWLES AVE

WILSON RD

BROAD RIPPLE AVE

MC GREGOR RD

MAI

N ST

REAL ST

COSSELL RD

EAGLE CR

EEK PKWY

CHURCHMAN RD

KEYS

TON

E AV

E

EMER

SON

WAY

MO

LLER R

D

MICHIGAN RD

MERIDIAN SCHOOL RD

VIRGINIA AVE

26TH ST

STAT

E AV

E

FRAN

KLIN W

AY

RUR

AL S

T

96TH ST

WES

TFIE

LD B

LVD

EAST

ST

FRAN

KLIN

RD

SHAD

ELAN

D AV

E

RAC

EWAY

RD

HIG

H SC

HOO

L R

D

I-70

SHEL

BY S

T

79TH ST

SOUTHPORT RD

SHER

MAN

DR

TROY AVE

I-70

GEO

RG

ETO

WN

RD

MO

LLER

RD

I-74

TROY AVE

46TH ST

THOMPSON RDTHOMPSON RD

HANNA AVE

86TH ST

TROY AVE

MER

IDIA

N ST

62ND ST

46TH ST

MICH

IGAN

RD

62ND ST

NORTH ST

PROSPECT ST

34TH ST

VANDERGRIFF RD

CAR

RO

LL R

D

21ST ST

56TH ST

71ST ST

I-70

KNO

LLTO

N R

D

I-65

I-465

I-69

I-465

FALL CREEK RD

I-70

10TH ST

I-465

16TH ST

79TH ST

SHER

MAN

DR

SOUTHEASTERN AVE

ENGLISH AVE

71ST ST

96TH ST

STOP 11 RD

HANNA AVE

MER

IDIA

N ST

p 0 2 4 Miles

Current BikeWays

LegendMajor StreetsActive Multi-PurposeBike LaneCultural Trail

*Figure 1.8 Indianapolis Current Bikeways

13

PEN

NS

YL

VAN

IA

ST

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

D

itc

hB

L -

Ho

ov

er

-

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

D

itc

hB

L -

Ho

ov

er

-

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

D

itc

hB

L -

Ho

ov

er

-

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

D

itc

hB

L -

Ho

ov

er

-

Dit

ch

BL

- H

oo

ve

r -

D

itc

hB

L -

Ho

ov

er

-

Dit

ch

I-65

I-465

I-70

I-74

30TH ST

38TH ST

86TH ST

10TH ST

WASHINGTON ST

POS

T R

D

EME

RS

ON

AV

E

ARLI

NG

TON

AV

E

RAYMOND ST

CO

LLE

GE

AV

E

ME

RID

IAN

ST

16TH ST

FRA

NK

LIN

RD

79TH ST

56TH ST

SOUTHPORT RD

I-69

EDGEWOOD AVE

82ND ST

BLU

FF R

D

MICHIGAN ST

71ST ST

ILLI

NO

IS S

T

MA

NN

RD

FALL CREEK RD

SHE

RM

AN

DR

STOP 11 RD

CA

PIT

OL

AVE

THOMPSON RD

COUNTY LINE RD

HO

LT R

D

LYN

HU

RS

T D

R

EAS

T S

T

SHA

DE

LAN

D A

VE

21ST ST

46TH ST

PENDLETON PIKE

US 31

ALLI

SON

VILL

E R

DNEW YORK ST

MAD

ISON

AVE

GU

ION

RD

MAZE RD

ROCKVILLE RD

FIV

E P

OIN

TS R

D

GE

RM

AN

CH

UR

CH

RD

SR 3

7

SHELBYVILLE RD

25TH ST

HA

RD

ING

ST

WE

ST

ST

52ND ST

BROOKVILLE RD

CA

RR

OLL

RD

DE

AN

RD

29TH ST

ACTO

N R

D

SOUTHEASTERN AVE

GE

OR

GE

TOW

N R

D

MINNESOTA ST

ZIO

NS

VIL

LE R

D

SAR

GEN

T R

D

MORRIS ST

96TH ST

TIB

BS

AV

E

GIR

LS S

CH

OO

L R

D

WE

STFIELD

BLV

D

SEN

OU

R R

D

TROY AVE

KENTUCKY AVE

KES

SLE

R B

LVD

ND

R

DIT

CH

RD

GR

AN

DV

IEW

DR

BELM

ON

T AV

E

PROSPECT ST

SUN

NY

SID

E R

D

CARSON AVE

HIC

KO

RY

RD

KESSLER BLVD EDR

MO

OR

E R

D

DAV

IS R

D

MC

FA

RLA

ND

RD

PEN

NS

YLV

AN

IA S

T

MASSACHUSETTS AVE

HANNA AVE

22ND ST

CO

UN

TRY

CLU

B R

D

DR

M L K

ING

JR S

T

HIG

H S

CH

OO

L R

D

OHIO ST

RALSTON RD

ENGLISH AVE

ALBANY ST

KESSLER BLVD WDR

FALL

CRE

EK P

KWY

NDR

73RD ST

FOX RD

62ND ST

WESTLANE RD

WA

RM

AN

AV

E

SHE

LBY

ST

RE

ED

RD

SAM JONES EXPRESSWAY

INDIANA AVE

TOW

NS

HIP

LIN

E R

D

KNO

LLTO

N R

D

DR

A J

BR

OW

N A

VE

SR 135

PAY

NE

RD

CO

OP

ER

RD

AMERIPLEX PKWY

VANDERGRIF

F RD

RIV

ER

SID

E D

R E

CRAWFORDSVILLE RD

RA

CE

WAY

RD

MIT

THO

EFE

R R

D

BINFO

RD BLV

D

PAD

DO

CK

RD

DANDY TRAIL

FRYE RD

MO

RG

AN

TOW

N R

D

MCCARTY ST

RAWLES AVE

WILSON RD

BROAD RIPPLE AVE

MC GREGOR RD

MA

IN S

T

REAL ST

COSSELL RD

EAG

LE C

REE

K P

KW

Y

CHURCHMAN RD

KEY

STO

NE

AV

E

EME

RS

ON

WAY

MO

LLER

RD

MICHIGAN RD

MERIDIAN SCHOOL RD

VIRGINIA AVE

26TH STST

ATE

AV

E

FRA

NK

LIN W

AY

RU

RA

L S

T

96TH ST

WES

TFIE

LD B

LVD

EAS

T S

T

FRA

NK

LIN

RD

SHA

DE

LAN

D A

VE

RA

CE

WAY

RD

HIG

H S

CH

OO

L R

D

I-70

SHE

LBY

ST

79TH ST

SOUTHPORT RD

SHE

RM

AN

DR

TROY AVE

I-70

GE

OR

GE

TOW

N R

D

MO

LLE

R R

D

I-74

TROY AVE

46TH ST

THOMPSON RDTHOMPSON RD

HANNA AVE

86TH ST

TROY AVE

ME

RID

IAN

ST

62ND ST

46TH ST

MIC

HIGAN

RD

62ND ST

NORTH ST

PROSPECT ST

34TH ST

VANDERGRIFF RD

CA

RR

OLL

RD

21ST ST

56TH ST

71ST ST

I-70

KNO

LLTO

N R

D

I-65

I-465

I-69

I-465

FALL CREEK RD

I-70

10TH ST

I-465

CA

RR

OLL

RD

16TH ST

79TH ST

SHE

RM

AN

DR

SOUTHEASTERN AVE

ENGLISH AVE

71ST ST

96TH ST

STOP 11 RD

HANNA AVE

ME

RID

IAN

ST

p 0 2 4 Miles

IndianapolisBikeWays Plan 10+ Years

LegendMajor StreetsActive Multi-PurposeBike LaneCultural Trail

*Figure 1.9 Indianapolis Proposed Bikeways

14

developing a catalytic bicycle framework, first priority will focus on connecting the utilitarian cyclist to the downtown and bicycle commuter station. Bicycle routes will be developed in detail throughout the downtown that respond to the needs of the bike culture.

CONCLUSION Indianapolis is making efforts to become more bike friendly. The city has done a great job addressing the needs of the recreational cyclist, but the network serving the utilitarian cyclist is not as extensive as it needs to be. The proposed catalytic bicycle network should focus on the integration of all types of bikeway facilities and the education of motorists on vehicular cycling and bikeway cycling practices. The proposed facilities should be used to connect the pieces of the growing bicycle culture with existing and planned facilities like the cultural trail, the monon, and the bicycle commuter station. By catering to Indianapolis college students and the current bicycle commuters, Indianapolis can quickly develop a stable core on which they can continue developing their ten year plan.

15

PROJECT STATEMENT

The purpose of the project is to explore the possibility of retrofitting Indianapolis streets to increase bicycle connectivity, efficiency, and safety according to Indianapolis’ growing bike culture. Theories of bicycle transportation have been analyzed to develop adequate routes for all types of cyclists. An analysis of the findings led to a catalytic bicycle network for the core of Indianapolis centered around a recently proposed bike station. The proposed network will quickly boost ridership and safety.

PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE

Developing a core bicycle network in Indianapolis offers many benefits to the community. First, the developed infrastructure will give residents the freedom to choose a safe, and efficient alternative to the automobile. Living without a car offers many financial advantages, and using active transportation as the alternative form of transportation offers many health benefits. Second, by prioritizing the development of the utilitarian bicycle network, and developing the urban core first, the city will offer a strong incentive for downtown living. The new form of urban mobility will increase the chances of urban revitalization and development. Incentivizing downtown living helps draw more people into the downtown, creates a stable tax base and develops the city’s identity. The increased standard of living should also help improve the migration patterns of the city (Figure 2.1). And finally, an adequate network will improve bicycle safety. The increased safety will encourage the timid to ride their bicycles, and as more people ride bicycles, bicycle awareness also increases, providing a safer cycling environment.

The Project

16

*Figure 2.1 Migration Patterns of Indianapolis based on 2008 IRS Data. The graph shows that many Indianapolis residents move to more progressive areas (and warmer climates). Indianapolis also seems to be attracting people form rural communities.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS The comparative analysis looked at the League of American Cyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community Study to see how Indianapolis compared in bicycle ridership and safety to the four cities closest in population size: Jacksonvile (808,526), Detroit (808,327), Indianapolis (793,010), San Francisco (764,976), and Austin (749, 659). The data was then used to find correlating attributes between the most bicycle friendly cities to see how they could be incorporated into the bicycle network.

The graph above show the modeshare percentage of bicycle ridership. The graph on the left shows how the five cities compare to the 51 cities studied.

17

Portland, OR

Minneapolis

San Francisco

Seattle

Tucson

Sacramento

Washington, DC

New Orleans

Denver

Mesa11. Oakland12. Chicago13. Honolulu14. Philadelphia15. Boston16. Austin17. Long Beach18. San Diego19. Albuquerque20. Columbus21. New York22. San Jose23. Fresno24. Atlanta25. Milwaukee26. Las Vegas27. Los Angeles28. Phoenix29. Cleveland30. Colorado Springs31. Raleigh32. Detroit33. Memphis34. Houston35. Baltimore36. Jacksonville37. Louisville38. Kansas City, MO39. Omaha40. Virginia Beach41. Nashville42. Dallas43. Fort Worth44. Indianapolis45. San Antonio46. Arlington, TX47. El Paso48. Miami49. Tulsa50. Oklahoma City51. Charlotte

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

AustinSan FranciscoIndianapolisDetroitJacksonville

BICYCLE RIDERSHIP *Figure 2.2

18

The rankings on the right shows how Indiananapolis compares in overall safety. The graph above shows the three year average of annual bicycle fatalities. According to the director of the Marion County Safety Partnership, Don Bickel, between January 1, 2010 and October 20, 2010 there has been 160 reported collisions between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist, and between the same dates in 2009, there were 152 collisions (Herrmann). Based on these safety and ridership statistics, San Francisco and Austin can be used as American models for bicycle network development.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0


BICYCLE SAFETY *Figure 2.3

9.3%

15.3%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Oklahoma City

Omaha

San Francisco

Minneapolis

Seattle

Milwaukee

Portland, OR

Washington, DC

Austin

Denver11. Cleveland12. Boston13. Honolulu14. Chicago15. Columbus16. Oakland17. Colorado Springs18. Long Beach19. Sacramento20. Fort Worth21. Philadelphia22. New Orleans23. San Jose24. Tucson25. Kansas City, MO26. Los Angeles27. Baltimore28. Virginia Beach29. New York30. San Diego31. Memphis32. Dallas33. Houston34. Atlanta35. Mesa36. Fresno37. Las Vegas38. Raleigh39. Tulsa40. El Paso41. Albuquerque42. Phoenix43. Detroit44. San Antonio45. Louisville46. Jacksonville47. Nashville48. Arlington, TX49. Indianapolis50. Miami51. Charlotte

19

San Francisco = 9,999 PPSM

Jacksonville = 971 PPSM

Detroit = 6,885 PPSM

Indianapolis = 2163 PPSM

Austin = 2610 PPSM

DENSITY COMPARISON *Figure 2.4. PPSM = People Per Square Mile

20

COMMON ATTRIBUTES

San Francisco and Austin had three major commonalities that led to their strong performance: High density, high number of university students, and high percentage of bicycle facility to land area.

Density benefits cities in many ways. It increases social connectivity, reduces travel time, and lowers infrastructure and energy costs. Figure 2.4, shows the density of Indianapolis and its four peer cities. Each blue man represents 100,000 people. The pink line represents the land area of the selected city. Austin would be a good model for increasing density and developing bike routes because it is most similar to Indianapolis in Density.

NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLED

Figure 2.5 shows the number of enrolled college students in the studied cities. Analysis has shown that college students are likely to bicycle because of the health benefits, environmental benefits, and low cost of operating a bicycle. The high student populations may account for the high modeshare and safety statistics. By linking the universities in Indianapolis the network will be more likely to succeed.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000


21

AREA OF BICYCLE FACILITIES

Figure 2.6 shows the area of bicycle facility over the total land area for each of the studied cities. The correlation between increased bicycle facilities and ridership is well documented in a many cities across the world. San Francisco and Austin also fit the pattern. Indianapolis will need over 360 miles of bicycle facilities to reach a number similar near San Francisco and Austin. The current ten year plan calls for about 240 miles.

2

2

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10


22

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal 1: Create safe bicycle routes. -Provide a buffer zone for all bike lanes. -Place reflectors within the buffer zone to increase visibility. -Reduce the speed limit on streets with bicycle lanes. -Slow vehicular traffic adjacent to bicycle routes using various traffic calming techniques.

Goal 2: Create efficient bicycle routes. -Offer direct routes to central business district and bicycle commuter station. -Utilize wayfinding signage to effectively communicate estimated time to common destinations.

Goal 3: Increase student ridership -Connect the four major universities in Indianapolis. -Connect high schools and elementary schools where possible.

Goal 4: Increase resident ridership. -Connect the population dense portions of the city.

23

SITE CHALLENGES

Indianapolis envelops all of Marian county, almost 400 square miles. The city’s average density is only 2,163 people per square mile. This low density creates social and physical disconnects throughout the city. Routes were effectively evaluated and chosen to help unify the city. Forming the routes near the densest residential areas ensured visibility and sociability, increasing awareness and safety.

Many of the streets in Indianapolis were designed for motor vehicle traffic. Slowing motor vehicle traffic was needed to help increase the comfortability of the bicycle network. Traffic calming infrastructure forces motorists to slow down to a reasonable speed and would work well with policies and increased enforcement.

Bicycle safety education is also important for the success of the bicycle plan. Since both theories of bicycle transportation design were utilized in the proposed catalytic framework, all road users will need to be educated in vehicular cycling practices and bikeway cycling practices. Education helps reduce confusion and shows cyclist how to use the new bicycle facilities. Motorists violating the proposed bike policies will be required to take education classes from the point of view of a cyclist.

24

CLIENTS

The network was not designed for just one single user group. The hope is that the bicycle network would be used by all Indianapolis residents and any visitors through future bike share programs. Because Indianapolis has such a low density it is important to build the network on dependable, committed cyclists. As shown in the background information, university students tend to choose to ride bicycles for the financial and health benefits. The proposed route would also serve an immediate benefit to the lower socioeconomic class in Indianapolis.

Figure 2.7 Typical Indianapolis Client

25

DESIGN PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

Much was considered in the development of the short-term catalytic plan. In order to reach as many people as possible, a study was performed to see where residents were actually living. Using GIS data, a dot density map was created. The next objective was to estimate the distance a commuter would be willing to travel to work in the central business district. Using the standard 12 miles per hour as the average commuter cycling speed, a 6 mile radius or 30 minute bike was used as the perimeter of the focus site - the center being the proposed commuter station. Road volume was then analyzed using traffic count data from Indiana Department of Transportation. Roads were then categorized by projected bikeability according to the recorded vehicles per day. Routes were then designated based on the surrounding density and the most direct bikeable routes.

Once the preliminary utilitarian bicycle network was created the routes were visited to confirm the projected bikeability. The preliminary network was then refined based on data collected from the site visit. Alternative routes were developed to avoid problematic streets.

The redeveloped network was then critiqued by members of the Indycog, Jim Sayer, the executive director of the adventure cycling association, and other members from the Indianapolis cycling community. The some what impromptu meeting was arranged after Jim Sayer’s presentation at the Indianapolis central library in downtown Indianapolis. The group gave valuable feedback as most are active utilitarian cyclists in the city.

The information was then applied to the utilitarian network. The refined plan was then critiqued by BSU faculty that encouraged the development of unique cycling experiences through the use of infrastructure. The plan was then revised keeping in mind the professor’s advice and recent knowledge gained from Mia Birk’s presentation “Creating a Bike-Friendly City: Lessons from Portland”.

26

THE SITE

The large size of the site requires multiple scales to effectively communicate the design. The design will be looked at from a county scale, a contextual scale, and finally a street level scale. Sites were chosen based on the program or typology they represent.

*Figure 2.8 Indianapolis

PLANNING: INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

27

I 65

I 70

I 69

I 74

10th

Post

16th

East

US

Hw

y31

116th

Raymond

I 865

Stat

eH

wy

431

Keys

tone

38th

Stat

eRo

ad37

Mer

idia

n

56th

Har

ding

86th

Man

n

Brookville

Binford

Lafayette

US Hwy 52

Rockville

82nd

US Hwy 40

Gray

Hag

ue

US

Highw

ay31

59th

126th

Troy

146th

1st

91st

Airport

Northw

estern

Pendleton

Main

5P

oint

s

Madison

Shad

elan

d

US Hwy 136

Fall C

reek

Washington

Hanna

Morris

75th

Michigan

State Hwy 67

800

Crawfordsville

7th

Sargent

Ditc

h

Ho l

t

State Hwy 144

I 465

Geo

rget

own

US

31

Five

Poi

nts

Rocklane

US

Highw

ay421

Kessler Boulevard East

County Hwy 935

Rur

al

71st

Wes

t

Bethel

Col

dS

prin

g

Kent

ucky

Banta

Coo

per

Hig

hS

choo

l

Shelbyville

Men

denh

all

Mohawk

Hic

kor y

Car

roll

New York

Con

cord

Southport

Oak

Elmwood

County Hwy 950

StateH

wy

100

Camby

US

Hw

y36

Stat

eH

wy

135

US Highway 136

Stat

eR

oad

135

US Hwy 421

Hun

tingt

on

Ger

man

Chu

rch

Bran

dt

Kess

ler B

oule

var d

Nor

th

Cou

nty

Hw

y30

0

Sumner

River

30th

StateHwy

37

Vandergriff

Cou

nty

Line

Edgewood

Southeastern

Ger

man

tow

n

Emer

son

Northeastern

McF

arla

nd

Mitt

hoef

fer

Prospect

Minnesota

96th

Moo

resv

ille

Thompson

Bloyd

Exit 123

Exit 107

38th

Stat

eH

wy

37

38th38th

59th

I 70

I74

Thompson

I 70

US

Hw

y31

I 70

I 70

Stat

eH

wy

37

State Hwy 67

I 465

86th

I 65

East

1st

Keys

tone

US

Hw

y52

Southport

Troy

I 865

I 70

Gra

y

Morris

USHwy 52

Stat

eH

wy

431

Stat

eHw

y37

USHwy 421

Mer

idia

n

Mitt

hoef

fer

38th

I70

I 74

Raymond

I 70

East

I 70

Washington

Wes

t

US31

Binfor

d

Binf

ord

Troy

I465

US

Hw

y36

I 70

I 65

Airport

US

Hw

y31

75th

56th

I 70

Morris

Five

Poi

nts

Mer

idia

n

86th

800

I 70

5P

oint

s

Rur

al

I 465

37118 - 05

34305- 05

3411

4 - 09

4284

0-0

6

44789 - 06

6353 - 09

13057 - 09

21209 - 10

1555

1-0

9

25632- 10

29809 - 09

1041

4-0

9

24685- 09

1682

-09

4710

-09

13175 - 09

26410 - 07

24264 - 10

16161 - 09

22178 - 10

29916 - 05

15790 - 09

2804

6-1

0

1227

8-0

9

3391

4-1

0

4785

- 09

4305 - 09

21789- 05

1894

5-0

6

18364 - 10

19714 - 07

14302 - 09

24055 - 10

16144- 09

11277 - 10

1429

2-1

0

4357 - 09

8386 - 09

2177

4-1

0

3174

3 - 09

1785

7-0

7

20994 - 10

5056 - 09

19378 - 09

29589 - 09

30898 - 10

2451

9-1

0

5735 - 09

2441

8-1

0

1415

8-0

9

13076 - 10

1001

9-0

7

5780 - 09

1563

6-0

9

15688 - 06

34559 - 07

28748 - 09

8408

-09

6618 - 09

26976 - 06

5755 - 09

8874 - 09

485

-09

10234 - 09

21602 - 09

8717 - 09

1820 - 09

4177 - 09

2117

-09

2265

-09

2627- 09

2699

9-0

9

4484 - 09

8327

-09

1246

7-0

9

32858 - 05

1798

8-1

0

1497

-09

18821 - 07

2558

5-0

7

22135 - 09

19562 - 09

2063

4-0

6

7551

-09

8261

-09

4078

3-1

0

1331

0-0

6

21121 - 09

53753 - 07

17378 - 09

19587- 10

2264

-09

247 - 09

19199 - 07

1471

8-1

0

36308 - 07

25333 - 06

17236- 07

3972 - 09

2136

6-1

0

17272 - 09

6045

-09

6759

-09

25676 - 09

997 - 0

9

27552- 10

22206 - 10

20569 - 09

39882- 07

2767

-06

32113 - 09

22407 - 07

2376

- 10

2740

5-1

0

2224

6-1

0

1122

1-0

9

1918

4-0

619

10- 0

9

8229

- 10

4007

6 - 10

28089 - 09

16712 - 09

3105 - 09

2123

2 - 10

27714- 10

10425 - 09

26297- 05

1466 - 09

27763 - 09

3593 - 09

2973

5-0

7

2937 - 09

2374

1-1

0

23784 - 09

17839 - 09

6344 - 09

3646 - 09

8075 - 09

1883

2-0

9

2621 - 07

1086

7-0

9

1286

2- 1

0

18102 - 07

219

-09

17343- 06

3204

- 09

28107 - 10

21864 - 10

4169

2-0

5

8224

-09

1698

5-1

0

6001 - 09

3553

1-1

0

2150

4-1

0

4495

-09

15310 - 07

1455 - 09

7031 - 09

4446 - 09

41109 - 07

34068 - 06

4512

- 09

1519

7-1

0

32397 - 09

30950 - 10

12335- 09

16919 - 09

1701

9-1

0

1880

4-1

0

27715 - 05

5282

0- 0

5

2113

4-0

7

1076

2-1

0

1135 - 09

1422

6-0

9

1460

2- 1

0

2847

1- 0

6

1655

2-0

9

20189- 10

23564 - 07

27828 - 09

12294 - 07

2136 - 09

8299

-09

4134

4-0

9

23142 - 10

32385 - 09

199

-09

24146- 05

14492 - 07

29654 - 10

8750

-09

23888 - 05

3875

- 09

27513

- 09

16305 - 09

5174 - 09

1498

8-0

9

1361

4-0

6

9608

- 06

36155 - 07

22942 - 10

18783 - 09

14343 - 10

5995

0-0

927

319

-09

15172 - 09

22210- 10

25177- 10

1002

3-0

9

3771

7-0

7

17220 - 09

5674 - 09

32441 - 10

1086 - 09

28961- 05

2527

7-0

6

5662 - 09

5248

- 09

12467 - 09

10TH ST

POS

TR

D

WASHINGTON ST

21ST ST

EME

RS

ON

AVE

SOUTHPORT RD

SR37

79TH ST

56TH ST

LAFAYETTERD

KENTUCKY AVE

46TH ST

16TH ST

EDGEWOOD AVE

ARLI

NG

TON

AVE

FRA

NKL

INR

D

71ST ST

BLU

FFR

D

MAD

ISON

AVE

MICHIGAN ST

82ND ST

MAN

NR

D

30TH ST

RAYMOND ST

CAR

RO

LLR

D

KEY

STO

NE

AVE

ILLI

NO

ISS

T

MIC

HIG

ANR

D

SOUTHEASTERN AVE

CA

PIT

OL

AVE

GU

ION

RD

38TH ST

FALL CREEK RD

34TH ST

LYN

HU

RS

TD

R

RA

CE

WAY

RD

62ND ST

CE

NTR

AL

AVE

42ND ST

BROOKVILLE RD

MIT

THO

EFE

RR

D

ALLI

SON

VILL

ER

D

MAZE RD

ROCKVILLE RD

GE

RM

AN

CH

UR

CH

RD

SHELBYVILLE RD

EAS

TS

T

HA

RD

ING

ST

MER

IDIA

NS

T

RIT

TER

AVE

52ND ST

COUNTY LINE RD E

29TH ST

SHE

LBY

ST

HA

GU

ER

D

75TH ST

TIB

BS

AVE

BANTA RD

86TH ST

RU

RA

LST

CO

LLE

GE

AVE

DIT

CH

RD

GE

OR

GE

TOW

NR

D

ACTO

NR

D

63RD ST

SPR

ING

MIL

LR

D

MORRIS ST

SARG

ENT

RD

LEE

RD

EPLER AVE

ZIO

NS

VIL

LER

D

MINNESOTA ST

CAMBY RD

ENGLISH AVE

MASSACHUSETTS AVE

25TH ST

NEW YORK ST

96TH ST

DE

AN

RD

KES

SLE

RB

LVD

ND

R

WESTFIELD

BLVD

PENDLETON PIKE

BELM

ON

TAV

E

DA

ND

YTR

L

HI C

KO

RY

RD

MOORESVILLE RD

HIG

HS

CH

OO

LR

D

DAV

ISR

D

SUMNER AVE

HO

OV

ER

RD

65TH ST

FIV

EP

OIN

TSR

D

59TH ST

ALA

BAM

AS

T

MC

FAR

LAN

DR

D

CO

UN

TRY

CLB

RD

STAT

EAV

E

WESTLANE RD

BRID

GE

PO

RT

RD

HO

LTR

D

SHA

DE

LAN

DAV

E

HANNA AVE

91ST ST

SEN

OU

RR

D

DR

ML

KING

JRST

SUN

NY

SID

ER

D

OLIVER AVE

THOMPSON RD

PROSPECT ST

54TH ST

SR13

5

RALSTON RD

STOP 11 RD

TROY AVE

GIR

LSS

CH

OO

LR

D

RAWLES AVE

SHE

RM

AN

DR

MILHOUSE RD

KNO

LLTO

NR

D

ALBANY ST

FOX HILL DR

73RD ST

CO

LDS

PR

NG

RD

FOX RD

COUNTY LINE RD W

HA

RC

OU

RT

RD

WA

RM

AN

AVE

GR

AN

DV

IEW

DR

SENATE

AVE

MOORERD

BOU

LEVA

RD

PL

OHIO ST

CARSONAVE

CU

MB

ER

LAN

DR

DO

AK

LAN

DO

NR

D

WE

ST

ST

MARKET ST

CHURCHMAN AVE

I-69

TOW

NS

HIP

LIN

ER

D

DR

AJ

BR

OW

NAV

E

80TH ST

PAD

DO

CK

RD

MO

LLER

RD

22ND ST

RIV

ER

SID

ED

RE

MILLE

RSVILL

ERD

GR

AH

AM

RD

MAS

TER

SR

D

FRYE RD

VANDERGRIFF RD

BOY

SC

OU

TR

D

BASH

ST

MAI

NS

T

COSSELL RD

BROAD RIPPLE AVE

PIKE PLAZA RD

DE

LAW

AR

ES

T

BURDSAL PKWY

NORTH ST

CO

OP

ER

RD

SUN

SE

TAV

E

MOORE AVE

HA

UG

HE

YAV

E

THOMPSON RD

CA

RR

OLL

RD

46TH ST

86TH ST

OHIO ST

91ST ST

86TH ST

SHE

RM

AN

DR

RA

CE

WAY

RD

NEW YORK ST

MORRIS ST

10TH ST

16TH ST

THOMPSON RD

42ND ST

TROY AVE

96TH ST

BRID

GE

PO

RT

RD

86TH ST

SHE

LBY

ST

SR37

HA

RD

ING

ST

46TH ST

30TH ST

86TH ST

EAS

TS

T

CAR

SO

NAV

E

RAYMOND ST

82ND ST OA

KLA

ND

ON

RD

62ND ST

79TH ST

75TH ST

MORRIS ST

TROY AVE

MER

IDIA

NS

T

38TH ST

96TH ST

34TH ST

SHA

DE

LAN

DAV

E

71ST ST

16TH ST

SEN

OU

RR

D

TROY AVE

FIV

EP

OIN

TSR

D

SEN

OU

RR

D

MO

OR

ER

D

38TH ST

46TH ST

CO

LLE

GE

AVE

THOMPSON RD

25TH ST

RA

CE

WAY

RD

MER

IDIA

NS

T

RAYMOND ST

TROY AVE

EPLER AVE

MER

IDIA

NS

T

HIG

HS

CH

OO

LR

D

GIR

LSS

CH

OO

LR

D

TIB

BS

AVE

GE

OR

GE

TOW

NR

D

75TH ST

96TH ST

56TH ST56TH ST

56TH ST

MO

LLE

RR

D

FIV

EP

OIN

TSR

D

PROSPECT ST

ENGLISH AVE

25TH ST

ARLI

NG

TON

AVE

FRA

NK

LIN

RD

SHE

RM

AND

R

71ST ST

21ST ST

STOP 11 RD

79TH ST

96TH ST

CO

LLEG

EAV

E

65TH ST

79TH ST

30TH ST

65TH ST

HANNA AVE

96TH ST

10TH ST

TROY AVE

46TH ST

HANNA AVE

11192 - 10

54493 - 06 25225 - 06

1517

4- 0

9

1209

9- 1

0

8694 - 10

1046

8- 0

91 0

4 68

- 09

18979 - 09

5180

-09

1 46 2

0- 1

0

20154 - 09

32385 - 09

2616

4-1

0

25537 - 09

3175 - 09

12275 - 09

17268 - 10

1022

4- 1

0

5142 - 09

29852 - 10

24362- 06

13743- 09

41568 - 07

1253

-09

41340 - 06

27369- 10

7143

-06

5755

- 10

1699

3- 0

7

3682 - 09

9180 - 06

23784 - 06

10914- 10

43148 - 07

3712

- 09

1618

7-0

9

6804

- 09

42910- 07

17571 - 09

18539 - 10

37022 - 07

2063

1-1

0

7014- 09

13602 - 10

5701 - 09

48924 - 07

4858

6-0

7

25784 - 10

12002 - 10

24834 - 09

26269 - 05

16924 - 07

8830 - 10

16096 - 09

1643

- 09

13452 - 10

22644- 10

8632 - 09

28901 - 10

32121 - 09

3775 - 09

33900 - 06

1948

2-0

7

23055 - 06

13609 - 09

14793 - 09

1883

2- 0

7

3183

5-1

0

9958

- 10

22001- 10

19282- 07

58634 - 06

3067

4-1

0

48324 - 09

1000

5 - 10

22010- 10

33398 - 07

18776 - 09

8236 - 102492 - 10

19594 - 09

1568

7- 1

0

1 60 6

0- 0

9 13013 - 10

1461

5-0

9

13834 - 09

22152 - 09

11103 - 10

3325

3- 1

035

07-0

9

77 - 07

7270- 10

7906 - 10

1045

6- 1

0

2684

0- 1

0

4537

- 09

1443

9-0

9

1326

7- 1

0

22 544- 07

3232

4-0

915

300

- 09

28157 - 10

17004 - 09

6844

- 10

1911

8-1

0

20784 - 09

13243 - 09

16305- 09

21121 - 09

LegendHPMS System Segments

HPMS TeleAtlas Segments

DPW Traffic Count Segments

County Boundaries

5,400 0 5,4002,700 Meters

HPMS Traffic Counts

TextS

Sources: HPMS draft segment file, INDOT 2009

8229

- 10

11192 - 10

1286

2- 1

0

1517

4-0

9

3553

1- 1

0

1 209

9- 1

0

8694 - 10

1046

8-0

9

1460

2- 1

0

1462

0- 1

0

8750

-09

22942 - 1014343 - 10

1022

4- 1

0

5674 - 09

27369- 10

1699

3- 0

7

10914- 10

6804

- 09

1076

2-1

0

2221

0-1

0

13602 - 10

21209 - 10

8830 - 10

16096 - 09

13452 - 10

24834 - 09

9958

- 10

5248 - 09

2492 - 10

1045

6- 1

0

1046

8- 0

9

I70

I 65

East

10th

Cap

itol

Co l

l ege

Del

awa r

e

Michigan

New York

North

Sena

te

South

Virginia

Washington

11th

US

Hw

y31

Vermont

Wes

t

Pen n

s ylv

ania

Saint Clair

Indiana

US Hwy 40

State Hwy 67

Maryland

Can

al

Morris

Prospect

12th

Blac

kfor

d

Kentuc

kyFletcher

Wabash

McCarty

Roa

nokeBla k

e

Massa

chus

etts

Ray

Bates

Pine

Fulto

nSp

ring

Pearl

Mer

idia

n

Elm

Market

Calvar

y

Kansas

Ohio

Wilkins

Fort

Way

ne

Walnut

Hud

son

Mad

ison

Miami

Broo

ks

Lew

is

Paca

Arch

Oliver

Orange

Fayette

University

Cen

t ral

P ier

son

9th

Chesapeake

Hosbrook

7th

Alab

ama

Cam

p

Lord

Cle

vela

nd

St Joseph

Commons

Broa

dway

Middle

Sand

David

son

Brig

ht

No b

l e

Uni

on Sanders

Puryear

Mei

kel

Russell

Whi

teR

iver

Gre

er

Henry

Merrill

English

Stevens

Mis

sour

i

P ark

L af a

y et t e

Georgia

Peck

Wrig

ht

Woodlawn

Gardner

Daly

California

Alley

Broo

k

Louisiana

Talb

ott

Dou

glas

Kenw

ood

Lexington

Leon

Hom

e

Harrison

Cha

rles

Sahm

Court

Cha

dwi c

k

Illin

ois

Ogd

en

Scio

to

Tole

do

Government

New

Jersey

Dak

ota

Exit

110B

Har

mo n

Dic

kson

Chu

r ch

Ram

p

Parking Lot

Driv

eway

Lockerbie

Cin

c inn

ati

Alley 1050

Belle

font

a in e

Sycamore

Mus

k ing

um

Center

Allegheny

Her

man

Gardenbrook

McC

r ea

Firehouse

Warsaw

Rca Dome

Emmett

Cal

iforn

ia

A lab

ama

I 70

McCarty

Madison

Park

S pr in

g

Wes

t

Allegheny

Henry

12th

Blak

e 9th

Talb

ott

P ark

I l li n

ois

Bla k

e

11th

Sena

te

Scio

to

Ramp

Wabash

Court

Dav

idso

n

Driveway

Sanders

Park

ing

Lot

Alley

Washington

Maryland

Scio

to

Wes

t

12th

Blak

e

Washington

Ohio

Cha

rles R

amp

Allegheny

9th

Walnut

Sanders

North

Henry

Hud

son

Lord

Merrill

11th

Mer

idi a

n

Scio

to

Gre

er

Alley

Merrill

Walnut

Park

Vermont

Park

Elm

I70

Ohio

New

J ers

ey

Sprin

g

Louisiana

I65

10th

Illin

ois

Walnut

California

Dav

idso

n

11th

Park

Lord

Pier

son

Illin

ois

9th

Walnut

Merrill

Sahm

Court

Ray

Talb

ott

Ray

Walnut

9th

1692

4 - 07

6618 - 09

8236 - 101568

7-1

0

1606

0- 0

9

13013 - 10

1461

5- 0

9

13834 - 09

3325

3-1

0

3507

-09

7270- 10

7906 - 10

1326

7- 1

0

28157 - 10

17004 - 09

6844

-10

2136

- 09

The density map, Figure 2.9, shows where people in Indianapolis are living. The map was generated using 2000 census data. According to the map, much of Indianapolis’ population is dispersed evenly throughout the city. The majority of the city is filled with single family housing. The city has not seen much residential development toward the south west and south east.

Using traffic count data (Figure 2.10) from the Indianapolis MPO, the designer was able to designate streets that should be avoided. Any street over 30,000 vehicles per day or over six lanes wide was not used within the network. The analysis also showed a series of low traffic arterials, and when overlaid with the density map a series of promising routes could be seen.

28

The proposed growth boundary (Figure 2.11) was calculated using a 30 minute commute and the average travel speed of cyclists. This distance was then used as a guide to focus development of the catalytic, bicycle network. The proposed boundary holds half of the cities population in a third of the land area. The increased density (3321 PPSM) will greatly benefit ridership numbers.

Figure 2.12 shows the four major universities in Indianapolis. All of the universities all within a half an hour bicycle commute to the commuter bike station. These universities are major nodes and places of interest for the bicycle network. Direct routes to the central business district are important for the success of the network. These routes should also be well lit for night use.

30 min.

29

CONCEPTUAL PLAN

Conceptually the plan is simple. First, shrink the focus site to the urban core of Indianapolis. Second, develop safe routes where the most people are living using low traffic streets. Third, calm traffic within the central business district to increase livability. Once completed the catalytic framework will supply Indianapolis with a strong cycling network upon which the city can continue to build.

MASTER PLAN

The network uses both bikeway cycling and vehicular cycling to connect Indianapolis cyclists through Indianapolis’ street network. On minor arterials, bikeway cycling is utilized through buffered bike lanes. On these roads, labeled in navy blue, a spatial buffer separates the bike lane from motor vehicle traffic. The buffered bike lanes offer direct routes around Indianapolis while also providing a comfortable cycling experience. On low traffic streets vehicular cycling is encouraged. Traffic calming infrastructure slows motor vehicle traffic. Signage and sharrows also communicate to motorists, the cyclists’ right to the roadway. On these streets cyclists drive their bike as a motorist would drive a car. At the center of the network is the central business district, or the vulnerable street user zone. Within the zone policy and enforcement help govern vehicle speed and mobility. Near the center of the vulnerable street user zone is the proposed bike commuter station. The station will offer food, showers, and storage for over 200 bicycles. Together these pieces form a bicycle network that can comfortably be used by everyone.

*Figure 2.13Concept Plan

30

1

2

3 4

THE MASTER PLAN *Figure 2..14

Apartments

31

Broadripple

Mass Ave.

Fountain Square

Col

lege

Ave

nue

30th Street

COLLEGE AVE: BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

College Avenue is the only street that runs continuously from Broadripple to Mass Ave and onward to Fountain Square. These three neighborhoods are huge cultural nodes for the city of Indianapolis. Along the avenue there are restaurants, grocery stores, bars, and residential houses. The three nodes offer life to the city that often continues deep into evening hours, but currently there isn’t’ an evening-safe bicycle connection.

The portion of college avenue studied is just under eight miles long and the average right of way is about 82 feet. In general, the road has five driving lanes, two of which are used for on street parking. The avenue has a strong and continuous street edge with few vacant buildings. The majority of the street is alley loaded eliminating the hindrance of driveway intersections. By removing the majority of the on-street parking, buffered bike lanes are added without too much disturbance to the vehicle driving lanes.

30th and College was chosen as a specific site to represent the changes made to College Avenue. The intersection is the junction of two routes within the bicycle network.

* Figure 2.16 Inventory Streetview looking South at 30th and College

*Figure 2.15 Inventory and

Vicinity Diagram

VACANT RETAIL

30bBL

32

* Figure 2.16 Inventory Streetview looking South at 30th and College

30th StreetC

olle

ge A

venu

e

COLLEGE AVE: REPRESENTATIVE SITE

33

COLLEGE AVE: BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

By limiting changes to the existing road footprint (between the sidewalks) the feasibility of the short-term catalytic plan increases. The design calls for the removal of one traffic lane and both sides of on-street parking. The acquired space is used for the implementation of five foot bike lanes with three and a half foot buffers and traffic calming median/turn lane. Bicycle boxes are used along college avenue as the street intersects other portions of the bicycle network. The bike boxes, create a road user hierarchy making the street easier to navigate. Specifically, the boxes give cyclists priority over motorists, increasing visibility and awareness. On street bicycle parking occurs on the sidewalk side of the bike lane. The bicycle parking takes the place of the sidewalk, and the sidewalks are rerouted around the bicycle parking using the additional space from the right-of-way.

In addition to becoming more bike friendly, College Avenue remains a bus route. Buses stop in the driving lane, loading passengers then move from the sidewalk, across the bike lane to the buffer area where they load the bus. The step down requires loading passengers to look before the cross into the loading zone.

Proposed Thermoplastic: Bike Lane and Buffer

Proposed Vegetation

Proposed Traffic Calming Median

Existing Alleys

Existing Street Edge

Google Reference

EXPLODED PLAN *Figure 2.17

35

30bBL

COLLEGE AVE: PLAN *Figure 2.18

BicycleParking

BicycleParking

Bicycle Box

Crosswalk

Median/Turn Lane

Alley

35

COLLEGE AVE: A CLOSER LOOK

In addition to the buffer zone, cyclists are also protected by lit bollards as shown in the construction detail, Figure 2.19. During the evening the bollards brighten the bike lane. Reflectors within the buffer zone also increase awareness in the evening. The street section begins to show how the street can be retrofitted to support the design. Sections of asphalt are removed to implement a traffic calming street median.

Figure 2.21 shows an enlarged plan of College Avenue. The median ends and becomes the turning lane for motor vehicles. Cyclists are able to join the turn lane through the use of the bicycle box. Despite the addition of buffered bicycle lanes, the majority of the space on the road is used by motor vehicles.

Buffered Bicycle lanes give more distance between cyclists and motorists. They tend to increase a cyclists’ perceived sense of safety. Pylon Lights and reflectors increase visibility at night

CONSTRUCTION DETAIL: PYLONS *Figure 2.19

36

Directional Markings

Buffer

Sidewalk Curb

Bike Lane

End Median/Begin Turn Lane

7’ 11’ 11’

PedestrianSpace

Median/Turn Lane

Driving LaneBufferedBike Lane

8.5’11’8.5’

PedestrianSpace

BufferedBike Lane

7’

Driving Lane

30bBL

COLLEGE AVE: 82’ R.O.W. SECTION *Figure 2.20

COLLEGE AVE: ENLARGED PLAN *Figure 2.21

37

LOOKING SOUTH AT 30TH AND COLLEGE

Lights guide the way for cyclists heading north in the buffered bike lane toward Broadripple. A bicycle box designates a waiting space for both cyclists and motor vehicular traffic at the red light. Cyclist can move within the box to prepare for the green light. Sharrows point the direction in the intersection for beginner cyclists. (Figure 2.22)

38

30bBL

VACANT RETAIL RESIDENTIAL

*Figure 2.23 Inventory Streetview looking South on Harding Street

NORTH HARDING ST: BICYCLE BOULEVARD

North Harding street is a proposed bicycle boulevard in a low traffic residential area on a route connecting Marian University, a private university with over 2000 students to the Central Business District. The route allows safe 24 hour access to and from the downtown.

The proposed bicycle boulevard is just under one and half miles long with a 60 foot average right-of-way. Currently the road is two driving lanes with on-street parking lining both sidewalks. The street is alley loaded decreasing unnecessary driveway intersections. North Harding also has a strong residential street edge helping create a more social street.

21st and North Harding was the chosen site to represent the bicycle boulevard.

39

Nor

th H

ardi

ng S

tree

t

21st street Street

NORTH HARDING: REPRESENTATIVE SITE

40

Marian University

Central Business District

BLVD 20

21st Street

N.

Har

din

g S

t.

*Figure 2.24 Inventory and Vicinity Map

NORTH HARDING ST: BICYCLE BOULEVARD

Retrofitting North Harding Street is necessary to effectively slow vehicle traffic. Portions of the on-street parking are removed and replaced with traffic calming infiltration basins. By alternating the infiltration basins, a vehicle road user feels compressed slowing traffic along the bicycle boulevard. The remaining negative space along the sidewalks remains on-street parking for the homes lining the street. At intersections, the roadway compresses through the use of a traffic kneckdown. The kneckdown slows vehicle traffic and creates a shorter walking distance for pedestrians. A traffic light replaces a roundabout, alleviating unnecessary energy costs. Speed bumps are placed every 140 feet to ensure that motor vehicles do not travel above the proposed 20 mph speed limit. Together these infrastructure improvements create an even playing field for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

41Speed Bumps, Roundabouts

and Infiltration Basins

Proposed Vegetation

Existing Street Edge

Existing Alleys

Existing Limitations

Google Reference

EXPLODED PLAN *Figure 2.25

42

BLVD 20

NORTH HARDING ST: PLAN *Figure 2.26

Infiltration Basin

Speed Bump

Kneckdown

Roundabout

On-streetBike Parking

43

NORTH HARDING ST: A CLOSER LOOK

Figure 2.28 shows a typical cross section of the proposed bicycle boulevard. The infiltration basins compress the shared space for cyclists and pedestrians. Hydrologically, storm water falls on street runs to the sides using the existing crown and then into the infiltration basins. This can also be seen in Figure 2.27.

The enlarged plan, figure 2.29 shows how lane markings communicate to road users. Sharrows convey the proposed position of cyclists while chevrons help position vehicles traveling over a speed bump. On-street parking guides help define parking spaces. Across from every basin there is enough space to park two vehicles or twenty bikes.

INFILTRATION BASIN:DRAINAGE DETAIL *Figure 2.27

Curb Cut

Overflow:To City Sewer

Falling storm water runs from the existing crown to the side of the street. The water then flows along the street to a curb cut where it can enter the infiltration basin.

44

Shared Lane Markings

Traffic Calming Infiltration Basins

On-Street Parking Guides

Speed Bump

Sidewalk Curb

6.5’ 11’ 8’

PedestrianSpace

Shared SpaceShared SpaceOn StreetParking

6.5’11’8’

PedestrianSpace

On StreetParking

BLVD 20

NORTH HARDING ST: 60 R.O.W. SECTION *Figure 2.28

NORTH HARDING ST: ENLARGED PLAN *Figure 2.29

45

LOOKING NORTH ON HARDING

Figure 2.30 shows a perspective of the proposed bicycle boulevard. As the traffic of the street is slowed, the social health of the street is restored. The street also helps alleviate Indianapolis’ combined sewer problem through the implementation of traffic calming infiltration basins.

46

BLVD 20

47

VULNERABLE STREET USER ZONE

Figure 2.31 shows the designation of the vulnerable street user zone. The zone is boarder by interstate 65 to the North and the East, Interstate 70 to the South, and the White River to the West. Within this important area the street speed limits are reduced to 20 mph and traffic laws are strictly enforced to protect pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users. The strict regulations on motor vehicles encourage alternate forms of travel. Cyclists and pedestrians are also encouraged through various wayfinding signage indicating travel time (Figure 2.32). Street intersections are calmed through textured walks that mimic the design style of monument circle. Both buffered bike lanes and vehicular cycling are utilized throughout the zone. The slowed traffic encourages growth in the downtown by fostering livable streets.

48

20bBL

*Figure 2.31Vulnerable Street User Zone

Diagram

*Figure 2.32Wayfinding Signage

49

LOOKING SOUTH ON MASS AVE

Figure 2.33 shows the comfort within the vulnerable street user zone. The strict zone policies tame the downtown streets. Pictured in the rendering is Massachusetts Avenue. The street is also home to the cultural trail, a recreational trail that circumnavigates the downtown. Sharrows point to a quicker, direct way to move around the central business district by bicycle.

50

20bBL

51

THE COMMUTER BIKE STATION

The Commuter Bike Station, shown in Figure 2.34, acts as the center of the network. The station will be housed in the renovated City Market Building. The station consists of 200 secure bike storage lockers, showers, locker rooms and some concession sales. The east wing is planned to be razed. The proposed plaza provides farmers market flexible plaza in its place. The conceptual plan for the city market space was derived from historic high wheel bicycles pictured in Figure 2.35. The spoke of the wheel are represented in the plan by the plaza sidewalks. The radial pattern form strong connections to the commuter station and also designate spaces for the proposed farmers market.

The site is located directly in the downtown just North of the City-county building and a few blocks East of Monument Circle. The station is within walking distance from many businesses and is projected to receive heavy use.

52

Commuter Station

Market Street(Bi-Directional)

DismountingZone

Cultural Trail

Ala

bam

a(O

ne w

ay S

outh

)

Del

awar

e(O

ne w

ay N

orth

)

Proposed Plaza/Farmers Market

20

COMMUTER BIKE STATION: PLAN *Figure 2.34

*Figure 2.35High Wheel Bicycle

53

LOOKING SOUTH ON ALABAMA

Figure 2.36 shows the proximity of the commuter bike station to places of work such as the city-county building in the distance. Motorists are required to yield for pedestrians crossing from the cultural trail to the bike station. A dismounting zone near the station gives utilitarian cyclists a protected place to dismount their bikes.

54

20

56

CONCLUSION

Indianapolis has a growing bicycle community, but the city’s current utilitarian network fails to safely connect cyclists to the places they wish to travel. The city’s bicycle plan is ambitious, but it is missing a few guiding principles. The proposed catalytic framework uses Indy’s universities and dense populations as a backbone to support safe and direct cycling facilities. By focusing the development of bicycle facilities within the urban core, Indianapolis can quickly develop a stable and adequate cycling population, on which they can continue developing their ten year plan.

57

APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS

-Active transportation is a type of transportation that requires extensive cardiovascular work. Examples: Biking, running, walking.

-A Bicycle facility is any type of infrastructure that promotes the use of a bicycle. Common bicycle facilities include bike storage, bike lanes, and bike stations.

-A Bicyclist is a person that uses a bicycle as a form of transportation.

-A bike boulevard is a type of roadway that discourages non-local traffic through the use of various traffic calming measures, making the road the optimum travel speed of most bicyclists.

-A bike station is a type of bicycle facility that provides showers, lockers, bicycle parking, and food/beverage options to encourage commuter ridership.

-A contra-flow bike lane is a type of bicycle facility that goes in the opposite direction of the motor traffic down a one-way road.

-Cycle track is a type of bicycle facility on street level that physically separates a bicyclist from vehicular traffic through bollards, medians, green space etc. Cycle tracks may also be referred to as separated bike lanes, or protected bikeways.

-The Indianapolis Bicycle plan is a written and graphic document describing future plans for increasing bicycle mobility in the city. Currently the plan is being redeveloped in the city.

-The League of American Bicyclists is the oldest national bicycle advocacy group in the United States. The group focuses on the cyclists right to the road, and recently has developed a bicycle benchmark study to compare cities’ progress on bicycle issues.

Appendices

58

-A Motorist is a person that uses a motor vehicle as a form of transportation.

-Shared Lane Markings or “sharrows” refer to a type of bicycle facility used to communicate with cyclists and motorists that cyclists are encouraged to share the lane. The markings are typically used when space is limited and traffic speed is slow enough that cyclists can comfortable keep up with motorists. The chevron markings associated with sharrows help aligns cyclists with the center of the lane.

-Vehicular cycling refers to the act of riding a bicycle according the policies and laws of motor vehicles.

- A Road Diet is a technique in transportation planning where the number of travel lanes for motor traffic is reduced in total number or lane width in order to improve other designated uses.

-Smart Growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl and advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including neighborhood schools, complete streets, and mixed-use development.

-Urban Growth Boundary is a is a regional boundary, set in an attempt to control urban sprawl by mandating that the area inside the boundary be used for higher density urban development and the area outside be used for lower density development. Urban growth Boundaries are usually created to protect valuable farmland.

59

APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Balshone, Bruce L., Paul L. Deering, and Brian D. McCarl. Bicycle Transit: Its Planning and Design. New York: Praeger, 1975. Print.

Birk, Mia. Alta Planning + Design Principal and “Joyride” author. Creating a Bike-Friendly City - Lessons from Portland. 28 February, 2011.

“Brief History About Copenhagen”. Copenhagen Portal. Web. 23 Nov. 2010.

Burkhardt, Shane, Lutz, Andy, and Fritz, Pete. “New Ideas for Creating Bike-Friendly Communities.” Lecture. Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Planning Conference. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1 Oct. 2010.

Cibaride.org. Central Indiana Bicycle Association Web. 22 Oct. 2010.

“FAQ.” N.I.T.E. Ride. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.

Forester, John. Bicycle Transportation. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1983. Print.

Forester, John. “The Bicycle Transportation Controversy.” Transportation Quarterly. Vol 55 No 2 Spring (2001). Web. 27 Sept. 2010.

Goodman, J. David. “What Is Bike Culture?” Metro - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com. 30 Mar. 2010. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.

Herrmann, Angela. “City Rolls out Its 15-year Bikeway Plan | Environment.” NUVO Newsweekly | Indianapolis, IN. 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.

INDYCOG. 'About’. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.

60

Krizek, Kevin. “Two Approaches to Valuing Some of Bicycle Facilities’ Presumed Benefits.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol 72 No 3 Summer (2006). Web. 26 Sept. 2010.

League of American Bicyclists.”A Cyclists’ Rights to the Road”. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.

League of American Bicyclists. “Bicycle Commuter Rates in U.S. 70 largest cities: 2008-2009”. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.

League of American Bicyclists. . “Bicycle Safety Education”. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.

“League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign.” League of American Bicyclists * Home. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.

Portland Bureau of Transportation. “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists. Web. 21 March 2011.

Pucher, John. “Cycling Safety on Bikeways vs. Roads.” Transportation Quarterly. Vol 55 No 4 Fall (2001). Web. 27 Sept. 2010.

Pucher, John. “Cycling in New York: Innovative Policies at the Urban Frontier.” World Transport Policy and Practice. Vol 16 Summer (2010). Web. 27 Sept. 2010.

Stilgoe, John. “Wheels, Safeties, and Bicycles-To-Be”. Harvard Design Magazine. Spring/Sumer 2009: 97-104. Print.

Strosahl, Amanda. “Join Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard for the Mayor’s Bike Ride on June 5 -Indianapolis Healthy Living | Examiner.com.” | Examiner.com. 27 May 2010. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.

61

APPENDIX C: LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Indiana State Capitol. Personal Photo. 01Figure 1.2 Vehicular Cycling. Photo Credit: BikeTexas 02Figure 1.3 Bikeway Cycling. Photo Credit: BikeTexas 04Figure 1.4 Recreational Cyclists. Personal Photo. 06Figure 1.5 Utilitarian Cyclists. Photo Credit: BikeTexas 06Figure 1.6 Competitive Cyclists. Photo Credit: BikeTexas 06Figure 1.7 Portland Cyclists Graph 10Figure 1.8 Current Bikeways. City of Indianapolis. 12Figure 1.9 Proposed Bikeways. City of Indianapolis 13Figure 2.1 Migration Patterns. Forbes. 16Figure 2.2 Bicycle Ridership Graph. Data from LAB 17Figure 2.3 Bicycle Safety Graph. Data from LAB 18Figure 2.4 Density Comparison Graph 19Figure 2.5 Number of Students Enrolled Graph 20Figure 2.6 Area of Bicycle Facilities Graph 21Figure 2.7 Indianapolis Resident. Personal Photo 24Figure 2.8 The City of Indianapolis 26Figure 2.9 Density Map. 2000 Census Data. GIS. 27Figure 2.10 HPMS Traffic Counts. Indianapolis MPO 27Figure 2.11 Focus Site 28Figure 2.12 Local Universities 28Figure 2.13 Concept Plan 29Figure 2.14 The Master Plan 30Figure 2.15 Inventory and Vicinity Diagram 31Figure 2.16 Inventory Streetview looking South on College 31Figure 2.17 Exploded Plan 33Figure 2.18 College Ave: Plan 34Figure 2.19 Construction Detail: Pylons 35Figure 2.20 College Ave: 82’ R.O.W. Section 36Figure 2.21 College Ave: Enlarged Plan 36Figure 2.22 Looking South at 30th and College 37Figure 2.23 Inventory Streetview looking South on Harding 39Figure 2.24 Inventory and Vicinity Diagram 40Figure 2.25 Exploded Plan 41Figure 2.26 North Harding St: Plan 42Figure 2.27 Infiltration Basin: Drainage Detail 43

62

Figure 2.28 North Harding St: 60 R.O.W. Section 44Figure 2.29 North Harding St: Enlarged Plan 44Figure 2.30 Looking North on Harding 45 Figure 2.31 Vulnerable Street User Zone Diagram 48Figure 2.32 Wayfinding Signage 48Figure 2.33 Looking South on Mass Ave 49Figure 2.34 Commuter Bike Station: Plan 52Figure 2.36 High Wheel Bicycle. Photo Credit: Clemson 53

APPENDIX D: INFOGRAPHICS

While not directly related to the project the following infographics help frame the United States’ mobility and transportation problem. The graphics reveal powerful information about sprawl, commute time, pedestrian fatalities, spatial allocation, economics, and social stigmas. The infographics are left in their raw format. Source information is directly on the image.