High Point Pedestrian Plan
The North Carolina Department of Transportation established a Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant Fund which provides funding to develop master plans which promote bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel and encourages citizen participation in these modes of travel. The City submitted a pedestrian grant application to the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation in December 2014. Notification of the award was received in June 2015 and Alta Planning was selected to complete the pedestrian plan for the City of High Point. The Draft Pedestrian Plan was recommended for approval by the Prosperity and Livability Committee at their April 5, 2017.
Public outreach was conducted through a variety of means, including a project website, public survey, sidewalk interviews, a display in the lobby of High Point City Hall, and a public open house. The public survey was offered in both English and Spanish. Steering committee members were encouraged to spread the word about the survey through their organizations and personal contacts. The survey was also advertised on the City of High Point’s website. Over 300 respondents filled out the public survey, which included questions about current walking conditions, where people currently walk, barriers to walking, and where pedestrian improvements are needed.
Here are the key findings from the survey results:
- 90% of survey respondents live in High Point. Others either work, own property, or visit High Point (for shopping, dining, or local services).
- 57% of respondents rated current walking conditions in High Point as poor. 40% rated the conditions as fair.
- 98% of respondents indicated that improving walking conditions is either very important (80%) or somewhat important (18%).
- Respondents were asked to indicate the primary purpose of their walking trips and were allowed to select more than one response. The top 3 trip purposes were exercise (84%), recreation (59%), to enjoy nature (57%).
- Of the survey respondents who indicated that they take the bus, 71% indicated that their current bus route does not have sidewalks.
- For those who do not currently take transit, 36% said that they would take the bus if there were sidewalks.
- Respondents would most like to reach the following destinations by walking: downtown High Point, parks, High Point Public Library, recreation centers, Piedmont Environmental Center.
- The factors that most discourage walking are lack of sidewalks (84%), unsafe street crossings (67%), heavy/fast motor vehicle traffic (59%), lack of pedestrian signals and crosswalks (49%), motorists failing to yield to pedestrians (46%). It is important to note that unsafe street crossings and lack of pedestrian signals and crosswalks are strongly interrelated while heavy/fast motor vehicle traffic and motorists failing to yield to pedestrians are strongly linked to one another.
- The top 3 locations for improving walking conditions are Lexington Avenue, Main Street, Westchester/Eastchester Avenue.
The prioritization process to score and rank potential sidewalk projects considered demand, safety, equity, speed limit, sidewalk gaps, and transit access. Lengthier recommended facilities were broken into segments according to logical points, such as major crossings or existing pedestrian facilities. Shorter segments that were close together were grouped into one project. Project prioritization was then carried out using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software which allows for a large number of projects to be prioritized systematically and for this process to be easily replicated.
141 projects were scored and the projects were divided into three categories: new sidewalks, micro gaps, and enhanced corridors. The following three tables list projects that had the highest score for each category. The intention was to show the top 5-10 projects per category. However, when projects tied with the same score, all projects with that same score are listed in the table. Map IDs correspond to the project ranking out of all 141 projects and can be viewed interactively here.
|MAP ID||ROADWAY||FROM||TO||MILES||SCORE||COST ESTIMATE|
|2||Triangle Lake Rd||189' south of E MLK Jr Dr||332' west of Kroll Ln||1.53||105||$403,920 - $504,900|
|7||Leonard Av||Meredith St||Brentwood St||0.38||90||$100,320 - $125,400|
|9||S University Pw||E Kearns Av||E Green Dr||0.68||90||$179,520 - $224,400|
|10||S University Pw||E Green Dr||345' south of E MLK Jr Dr||0.54||90||$142,560 - $178,200|
|13||Brentwood St||Bus I-85/ US-29/ US-70||E Fairfield Rd||1.13||851.13||$298,320 - $372,900|
|14||Allen Jay Rd/E Springfield Rd||E Fairfield Rd||Ernest St||0.77||85||$203,280 - $254,100|
|16||Cedrow Dr||Gordon St||N Scientific St||1.66||85||$438,240 - $547,800|
|17||Hickory Chapel Rd||Triangle Lake Rd||E MLK Jr Dr||0.72||85||$190,080 - $237,600|
|18||Russell Av||Brentwood St||S University Pw||0.70||85||$185,800 - $231,000|
|19||Burton Av||Dorothy St||Wright St||0.37||85||$97,680 - $122,100|
|20||Dorothy St||W English Rd||Burton Av||0.61||85||$161,040 - $201,300|
|21||W English Rd||Dorothy St||Westchester Dr||0.54||85||$142,560 - $178,200|
|22||W Green Dr/W Fairfield Rd||Trinity Av||Surrett Dr||1.01||85||$266,640 - $333,300|
|23||Baker Rd||Townsend Av||Archdale city limit||1.37||85||$361,680 - $452,100|
|24||Taylor Av||W Green Dr||Grayson St||0.17||85||$44,880 - $56,100|
|25||Boundary Av||N University Pw||Henry Pl||0.24||85||$63,360 - $79,200|
|26||E Parris Av||N Main St||Johnson St||0.46||85||$121,440 - $151,800|
|30||E Kearns Av||S University Pw||Nathan Humt Dr||0.68||85||$179,520 - $224,400|
|31||Asheboro St||Kearns Av||Russell Av||0.57||85||$150,480 - $188,100|
|32||Woodruff Av||Wiltshire St||Deep River Rd||0.59||85||$155,760 - $194,700|
|33||Burton Av||Westchester Dr||English Rd||0.35||85||$92,400 - $115,500|
|34||Model Farm Rd||Brentwood St||S Main St||0.69||85||$182,160 - $227,700|
|MAP ID||ROADWAY||FROM||TO||MILES||SCORE||COST ESTIMATE|
|6||Chestnut Dr||540' east of N Rotary Dr||Carr St||0.03||95||$7,920 - $9,900|
|40||Franklin Av||120' west of Caudell Pl||73' east of Hines St||0.08||80||$21,120 - $26,400|
|59||Vail Av||Fairview St||Hilltop St||0.12||65||$31,680 - $39,600|
|66||Vail Av||200' east of Fairview St||S Elm St||0.05||65||$13,200 - $16,500|
|69||Vail Av||120' west of Hilltop St||Mobile St||0.03||65||$7,920 - $9,900|
|68||Fairview St||320' north of Vail Av||115' south of Loflin Av||0.01||65||$2,640 - $3,300|
|60||E Grimes Av||Centennial St||Park St||0.21||65||$55,440 - $69,300|
|61||Centennial St, Tate St, Wise Av||160' west of Park St||E Grimes Av||0.18||65||$47,520 - $59,400|
|62||Briggs Pl||W MLK Jr Dr||295' east of Markley St||0.04||65||$10,560 - $13,200|
|63||Chestnut Dr||N Rotary Dr||435' west of Carr St||0.05||65||$13,200 - $16,500|
|64||Chestnut Dr||105' east of Carr St||430' west of Dale Pl||0.01||65||$2,640 - $3,300|
|65||Chestnut Dr||475' east of Carr St||Dale Pl||0.02||65||$5,280 - $6,600|
|67||Brentwood Av||Lamb Av||Hayes Av||0.07||65||$18,480 - $23,100|
|5||Main St||Idol St||E High Av||1.76||105|
|1||S Main St||E High Av||Bus I-85/US-29/US70||1.83||105|
|4||S Main St||Bus I-85/US-29/US-70||High Point City Limits||1.51||105|
|3||N Main St||Old Plank Rd||374' north of W Parris Av||1.61||105|
|8||E Lexington Av||Fifth St||Montlieu Av||1.15||90|
|11||E MLK Jr Dr||Hickory Chapel Rd||Triangle Lake Rd||0.92||90|
|12||Westchester Dr||W Lexington Av||N Main St||1.00||90|
COST ESTIMATES CALCULATIONS
The planning level cost estimates are based on the average per-mile cost of built projects:
• Multi-Use Path/Sidepaths (10-12’) $600,000/mile• Sidewalk (5’ minimum) $264,000/mile
Per unit cost estimate for additional elements included in select priority projects and priority investments are as follows:
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon $22,250/each• Median Refuge Island $13,520/each• High-visibility Crosswalk $2,540/each• Curb Extensions $13,000/each• Wayfinding Signage $250/each
The source for the above costs utilizes a combination of recently constructed bicycle and pedestrian projects in North Carolina and the 2013 report, ‘Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements’ by the UNC Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), prepared for the Federal Highway Administration. Planning level cost estimates for priority projects include 15% mobility/ contingency factor. Priority investments include 20% mobility/contingency due to their complexity.
All cost estimates should be used only for estimating purposes and not necessarily for determining actual bid prices for a specific infrastructure project. It does not include right-of-way acquisition, utility conflicts, and other potential costs. These cost estimates should be reevaluated by an engineer or project designer prior to implementation.