birmingham sidewalk master plan · city center - southside ... neighborhood main, neighborhood...

Prepared by

BIRMINGHAM SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan was made possible with the help of the following:

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM PLANNING COMMISSION

Brian Ruggs, ChairmanPatrick Bodden, Vice-ChairmanElizabeth Barbaree-Tasker, Chairman Pro TemporeEboni EdmonsonJason FondrenBrian JohnsonMichael MorrisonPatty PilkertonDouglas RaglandSelena Rodgers-DickersonDevon SimsL’Tryce Slade

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND PERMITS

Tom MageeDoug HaleFred HawkinsStephanie CruseJason HjetlandWesley VaughnMichael WardDonald Wilborn

STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE

James Fowler, UABAdam Greene, Freshwater Land TrustAndrew Mitchell, Birmingham Education FoundationBarbara Newman, Jefferson County Department of HealthSherri Nielson, City of Birmingham Mayor’s OfficeDarrell O’Quinn, Birmingham Citizens Advisory BoardRyan Parker, United Way of Central AlabamaJohn Pittari, Auburn UniversityNichalaus Sims, United Way of Central AlabamaLindsey West, REV BirminghamZeke Willis, City of Birmingham

SPECIAL THANKS TO:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1Previous Planning Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

METHODOLOGY 3Sidewalk Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Public Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Establishing Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CITYWIDE RECOMMENDATIONS 9Ordinances and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS 11

Interpreting the Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

City Center - Northside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12City Center - Southside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Eastern Area - Airport Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Eastern Area - East Birmingham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Eastern Area - East Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Eastern Area - Woodlawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Northeastern Area - Cahaba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Northeastern Area - East Pinson Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Northeastern Area - Huffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Northeastern Area - Roebuck-South East Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Northern Area - North Birmingham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Pratt Ensley Area - Ensley - Dolomite Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Pratt Ensley Area - Ensley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Pratt Ensley Area - Pratt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Pratt Ensley Area - Pratt - Sherman Heights Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Southern Area - Crestline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Southern Area - Crestwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Southern Area - Red Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Southwestern Area - Brownville and Grasselli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48Southwestern Area - Southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Titusville Area - Titusville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Western Area - Five Points West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Western Area - Smithfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Western Area - West End . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

IMPLEMENTATION 61

Determining Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Typical Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62Potential Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65ADA Compliance Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

APPENDIX 67

Community Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Introduction and Purpose 1

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Sidewalks are an often-overlooked but essential component of any city’s transportation system, as they connect people to their destinations in a space reserved solely for them. The Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan is intended to ensure pedestrian connectivity within and among neighborhoods, dense areas of activity, and throughout the City and incorporate that connectivity into multi-modal transportation and transit systems. Sidewalks are essential because they provide a separate space for the pedestrian, the most vulnera-ble of all on our streets. While pedestrians are the most vulnerable, they are also the most universal, as everyone is a pedestrian at some point in every trip. Sidewalks offer a certain degree of protection from hazards on the road, and are especially important for people that are reliant on public transpor-tation. In Birmingham, almost thirteen (13) percent of all households do not have a vehicle available.

Sidewalks are important for the physical connections that they provide, but they also provide important social and emotional connections. They foster relationships among neighbors and serve as public gathering and meeting places. They also allow for interactions between strangers, people from var-ious backgrounds, education levels, income, and race. Sidewalks are great equalizers. Sidewalks also make places better. Most everyone would prefer to walk on a sidewalk instead of in the street. Sidewalks can provide places to sit, linger, and enjoy a place as well. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs described sidewalks as “uniquely vital and irreplaceable organs for city safety, public life, and child-rearing.” Sidewalks foster street activity and economic development, factors in the highly desirable “sense of place.”

Sidewalks also promote healthy lifestyles by allowing people to walk not only for recreation but also to meet their daily needs. There are many health ben-efits of walking, as it is an easy way to start and maintain a physically active lifestyle. In addition to the physical benefits and health improvements that walking can provide, the Surgeon General’s recent report, Step it Up!, also lists the benefits of walkable communities and more people walking as “making communities safer, supporting social cohesion, reducing air pollution, and benefiting local economies.”

People can only enjoy these benefits of sidewalks if they exist on their streets and are in good enough repair to be useable for all users, whether those users walk, use wheelchairs, or push strollers. This plan examines the sidewalk net-work throughout the City, documenting that network and the general con-dition of those sidewalks. It also establishes priorities for sidewalk repair and construction throughout the City.

2 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT

Previous Planning Efforts

THE BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Birmingham’s recently completed comprehensive plan (The Plan) em-phasizes the importance of sidewalks to the City’s character and overall well-being. Through the public input process for the Plan, the community indicated that walking and bicycling should be safe and comfortable, with better-maintained sidewalks without gaps citywide.

The Plan suggests that activity centers such as employment centers, shop-ping districts, high density residential areas, schools, transit stops, and parks as priorities for pedestrian system improvements. The Plan also es-tablishes a system of transit priority streets on which access to bus stops, commercial and entertainment districts, and civic destinations such as libraries, schools, and parks should be priority locations for pedestrian improvements and that should receive priority funding consideration for sidewalk access improvements. The transportation chapter includes the goal that streets and sidewalks are maintained and in good repair through-out the City.

The Plan is available on the City of Birmingham website:www.birminghamal.gov/work/birminghamcomprehensiveplan/

NORTH BIRMINGHAM COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK PLAN

The North Birmingham Community Framework Plan lists strees and side-walks being accessible and maintained as a goal in the transportation and infrastructure chapter. It also proposes new street types for the commu-nity, including industrial, neighborhood main, neighborhood connector, neighborhood residential, and shared streets. Each of the street types is described by the priority mode type, with all except industrial streets pri-oritizing pedestrians and bicyclists. As an action, this plan recommends the build-out of the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System within the North Birmingham Community. Many of the trails in this area are street-based trails, with sidewalks proposed on at least one side of those streets.

The Birmingham Framework Plans are available on the Imagine Bham site:www.imaginebham.com

TITUSVILLE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK PLAN

The Titusville Community Framework Plan includes several goals and actions related to community walkability, including the maintenance of sidewalks and streets in good repair. Residents participating in the planning process identified “more sidewalks” as a community need, and a “walkable and pedestrian-oriented community” as an opportunity. A short term action is the build-out of the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail system, which includes several street-based trails in the Titusville com-munity. The framework plan also includes “develop Complete Streets” as an action. Titusville is envisioned as a mixed-use, mixed-income, highly walkable community with high-quality transit services connecting the community to the greater area.

Introduction and Purpose 3

WESTERN AREA COMMUNITIES’ FRAMEWORK PLAN

The Western Area Communities’ Framework Plan also lists accessible, well-maintained streets and sidewalks as a goal. This plan acknowledg-es that there are noticeable gaps in the sidewalk system in the Western Area and that most are narrow, not meeting ADA requirements. Residents strongly support expaning walking and biking for both utilitarian and re-crecreational purposes. The plan identifies shopping at Five Points West, Arlington West End, and Central Park as important destinations for resi-dents to be able to access by walking. Several major destinations exist in the Western Area, including historic Rickwood Field and the Birmingham Crossplex. Developing Complete Streets is also a goal of this plan, and the plan provides a variety of street types that relate to the context and char-acter of the area’s diverse neighborhoods and districts.

RED ROCK RIDGE AND VALLEY TRAIL SYSTEM

The Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System is a greenway and path mas-ter plan for Jefferson County. The system is based on a series of green-ways and street-based trails that link corridors, destinations, and neigh-borhoods. Many of the trails are based on existing linear corridors, such as active or abandoned railroad lines, but the street-based trails utilize streets and sidewalk facilities to connect to the larger network. Sidewalks are necessary and valuable for the overall system because they serve as important local connections to the shared use paths. The plan recom-mends prioritizing sidewalk connections along streets and roads within one-half mile network distance of corridor and connector trails. This doc-ument also states that concrete sidewalks need replacing every 50 to 75 years, meaning that many of the City’s sidewalks are close to the end of their lifespan.

BIRMINGHAM COMPLETE STREETS RESOLUTION

The City of Birmingham’s Planning Commission passed a Complete Streets Resolution in 2011; it states that the City of Birmingham shall plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain all City streets to provide a com-prehensive and integrated network of facilities for people of all ages and abilities traveling by foot, bicycle, automobile, public transportation, and commercial vehicle. The Planning Commission adopted this resolution for a number of reasons, including economic and community develop-ment, increased pedestrian and bicycle safety, and improved transporta-tion options. The policy states that projects shall be consistent with the land use and transportation context of the area.

In order to further solidify the City’s commitment to Complete Streets, it is recommended that the City Council also endorse the Complete Streets Resolution, which will give neighborhoods and communities greater support when advocating for specific sidewalk, transit, and bicycle route projects.

ONGOING FRAMEWORK PLANS

The City continues to undertake the task of developing plans for each of the City’s framework areas, with an anticipated date of completion for all plans of 2018.

Methodology 5

METHODOLOGY

SIDEWALK INVENTORY

MAPPING DATA

The first phase of the planning process involved a sidewalk inventory for the entire City. The planning team drove and/or walked every street in the City and mapped sidewalk existence and condition. Sidewalks were evaluated and mapped based on blocks, so if a sidewalk had an area of poor condition, the entire portion of sidewalk along that block was denoted as being in poor condition.

This data was layered with existing city data, detailed in the “Establishing Pri-orities” section, and patterns and areas of poor sidewalk conditions became apparent. The map area to the right shows the Highland Avenue/Redmont area, in which sidewalk conditions vary widely and some streets have no side-walks.

The sidewalk inventory provides extremely valuable information for not only the Sidewalk Master Plan but also the City of Birmingham. When the ADA ac-cessibility study is completed, that information and the information provided in the sidewalk inventory will give Birmingham an extremely detailed picture of the condition and existence of sidewalks throughout the City.

6TH

CLIFF

5TH

CLAIRMONT

10TH

ALTAMONT

11TH

27TH

8TH

30TH

4TH

42ND

ARGYL

E

PU

BLI

C

33RD16TH

29TH

26TH

CARLISLE

21S

T

7TH

ELTON

B STEPHE

NS

15TH

13TH

MONTCLAIR

REDMONT

40TH

31ST

28TH

22N

D

34TH

ESSEX

9TH

12TH

32ND

ARLINGTON

CREST

3RD

HIG

HLA

ND

23RD

38TH

NIAZUMA

COUNTRY CLUB

14TH

UNIVERSITY

ABERDEENSM

OLI

AN

CALDWELL

PAWNEE

OVERLOOK

43RD

MILNER

MORNINGSIDE

CAHABA BERWICK

BLENHEIM

GLE

N V

IEW

RO

CKF

OR

D

39TH

LENOX

GLENWOOD

LINW

OO

D

HANO

VER

CO

NR

OY

WELLING

TON

24TH

STRATFORD

HILLSIDE

LANARK

WINDSOR

AVON

CIRCLE

TIM

BE

RLA

NE

ROSS

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

CLIFF

REDMONT

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

11TH

PUBLIC

HIGHLAND

13TH

PAWNEE

22ND

31ST

31ST

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

28TH

PUBLIC

27TH

39TH

10TH

7TH

PUBLIC

33RD

28TH

34TH

11TH

MONTCLAIR

PUBLIC

31ST

PUBLIC

8TH 32ND

PUBL

IC

9TH

29TH

3RD

PUBLIC

PU

BLI

C

PU

BLI

C

30TH

10TH

PUBLIC

32ND

22ND

7TH

27TH

PUBLIC

15TH

PUBLIC

16TH

0 1,300 2,600650Feet

1 inch = 677 feet


PUBLIC INPUT

The planning team held a series of community engagement meetings in the following locations:

• Roebuck Hawkins Rec Center• Birmingham Crossplex• Linn Henley Library, Birmingham Public Library

These locations were chosen in order to provide opportunities for interested citizens to participate in locations convenient to a broad cross-section of resi-dents. At these engagement meetings, residents were asked to score a series of destinations based on how important they believe walking access to those destinations is. Residents ranked destinations as follows:

1. Schools2. Parks3. Transit stops4. Community centers5. Grocery stores6. Libraries7. Commercial areas

Many residents also identified churches as important desintations as well. As can be seen in the quote below, many residents stated that accessibility is extremely important for sidewalks. Residents were grouped based on their place of residence and given a map that showed various destinations and sidewalk conditions in their particular areas. Residents were asked to identify

destinations that did not appear on the maps and also to highlight routes that need sidewalk construction and/or repair. Through this engagement process, the team gathered invaluable information on areas throughout the City, with residents providing their detailed knowledge of their neighbor-hoods’ needs and issues.

Those attending the meetings represented a wide array of neighborhoods. Each framework area map had public input at at least one of the engage-ment meetings.

The team converted the input from residents into ArcGIS format and overlaid it with the other information utilized in determining priorities for sidewalks, detailed in the following sections. Overlaying the public input with other data such as land use, schools, transit routes, etc. provided valuable insight into the residents’ identified needs as related to existing patterns and routes.

The team utilized this layering of information and input in determining pri-orities for sidewalk construction and repair in the Recommendations sec-tion. The destinations were given weighted values and routes were ranked based on their point scores determined by these values.

In order to make the priorities as legible and clear as possible, the maps in the Recommendations section show only the sidewalk priorities and streets. However, maps that show the data utilized to create the priorities can be found in the Appendix.

“ADA compliant sidewalks are a MUST!” - Input from citizen

Methodology 7

ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES

PREVIOUS EFFORTS

As outlined in the previous section, much detailed and informative work has already been conducted in determining priorities, including the plans described in that section, but also work such as the Safe Routes Walking Maps, identified through the Safe Routes to School program. Any mapping data from existing plans was layered with other data.

MAPPING DATA

The following places were mapped utilizing data from the City:

• Schools• Community facilities (places of interest, colleges/universities, hospitals,

libraries, transportation, etc.)• Community/recreation centers• Parks• Grocery stores• Transit stops• Transit shelters• Safe Routes to School (SRTS) routes• Streets• Land Use Plan

See the appendix for maps displaying this data.

The RRRVT System was also included to show the street-based paths recom-mended in that plan. As the RRRVT System has already designated certain streets as needing sidewalk connections, it was extremely useful to this ef-fort to utilize that data to inform sidewalk priorities.

The sidewalk inventory was added to this data to evaluate the condition and existence of sidewalks in proximity to these places and destinations.

DESTINATIONS

Important destinations for pedestrian connections were determined based on a number of factors, including public input. Another major factor in de-termining destinations is land use. Each framework area’s land use was ex-amined, and destinations within those areas were identified on maps. Spe-cific destinations such as schools, libraries, community centers, and grocery stores were mapped. Those within areas of mixed use were particularly not-ed as being important as walkable destinations. Mixed use areas are prior-ity areas for sidewalk connectivity as they provide a variety of destinations and uses within close proximity to one another and to residents who live in these areas or nearby.


LAND USE

The City has tremendous amounts of information regarding both existing and proposed land use throughout the City, and a new future land use map was developed for The Plan and is being refined in the Framework Planning process. As discussed, areas that are currently or are designated as future mixed use areas were of particular concern for determining sidewalk prior-ities. There are a number of designated mixed use areas throughout the city with no sidewalks, and many of the existing mixed use areas’ sidewalks are in poor condition. The city has four categories of mixed use: low, medium, high, and mixed use downtown. As an area of mixed use is, by definition, more dense than other types of land uses, all levels of mixed use were treated sim-ilarly in terms of determining sidewalk priorities.

Significant areas of commercial activity were also used in determining side-walk priority, particularly those surrounded within close proximity by resi-dential uses. Public input was extremely valuable in this aspect, as members of the community were able to identify the commercial areas to which those in their neighborhoods walk or would walk with adequate sidewalks. Grocery stores were mapped and considered important for walkability.

Some types of land use were useful to see as they would generally not be can-didates for sidewalk priorities, such as industrial. Birmingham has a consid-erable amount of industrial areas, which generally are separated from most other uses, are not walkable, and are not pedestrian-oriented. For the most part, streets that serve industrial areas do not need sidewalks unless they serve as major connections between communities or neighborhoods.

NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED

Many places in the City have not been built in a manner that is supportive of sidewalks, including vast areas of single-family residential neighborhoods built after World War II and industrial development. Most of these types of places have very low volumes of traffic and few destinations within walking distances, and often also have wide streets with ample room to accommo-date a variety of users. Many of these areas are not recommended for side-walk construction, but the City could consider other alternative methods of providing safer pedestrian accommodations, such as striping narrower travel lanes and providing shared-use areas on the wider shoulders of the roadway. These streets are also excellent candidates for traffic-calming features such as those specified in The Plan in order to slow vehicular traffic, making the streets safer for all users.

Recommendations 9

CITYWIDE RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

All sidewalk construction and repair should be conducted to a nationally ac-cepted standard such as National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Street Design Guide or the US Access Board’s Pedestrian Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

ZONING ORDINANCE

The City is currently working on an update to the zoning ordinance that will include some form-based requirements and will include requirements for the design of the public realm. This document provides a framework for those requirements, including the typical sections of four (4) different types of side-walks, found on pages 62-63. The other primary consideration of the zoning ordinance should involve the requirements for how buildings address the public realm. Buildings set far back from the street with large parking areas between the building face and the street are not conducive to creating walk-ability, and the zoning ordinance can ensure that buildings are placed appro-priately on the lot and that they contribute to an area’s vitality and pedestrian connectivity.

Recommendations:

• Ensure that new zoning regulations require the development of the pub-lic realm to occur concurrently with any new or redevelopment.

• New zoning regulations should ensure that buildings are designed and located on the lot in order to enhance the walkability of the area. Some re-quirements may include build-to-lines instead of setbacks, requirements for windows and doors in the facade, and reduced parking requirements.

SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

Currently, the City’s Subdivision Regulations reference a number of pedes-trian and bicycle plans and guidelines that provide important recommenda-tions and guides for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety. There is a pro-vision in the Streets section that states that “to the maximum extent possible, Complete Street design principles shall be used to guide future street design for both new and retrofit projects, and any exception to this approach shall be appropriately justified.” The regulations have a number of such provisions to ensure pedestrian and bicycle accommodation. However, the document needs updating to ensure that it is utilizing the most current guidelines and practices.

The Subdivision Regulations require sidewalks along both collector and local streets, with residential streets requiring a sidewalk four (4) feet in width. ADA guidelines state that a sidewalk at least five (5) feet in width is required for accessibility purposes, so all new sidewalks should meet this standard, while existing sidewalks can be repaired at four (4) feet.

Recommendations:

• Increase the required sidewalk width from four (4) feet to five (5) feet for new sidewalks. When repairing existing sidewalks at four (4) feet, ensure a 5’ x 5’ passing area at least every 200 feet, as recommended by the US Access Board.

• Develop sets of various traffic calming designs that would be acceptable in neighborhoods to slow traffic.

Recommendations 11

COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS

INTERPRETING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Prior to this project, the City was divided into 23 communities used for plan-ning and other purposes. Each community encompasses a number of neigh-borhoods, and provides a geographic area small enough to use to show side-walk priorities, but large enough to encompass a few neighborhoods and minimize the number of maps needed for the Sidewalk Plan.

The communities are organized according to framework area, as the Birming-ham Sidewalk Master Plan is meant to be used in conjunction with both The Plan and the framework area plans. Organizing the sidewalk priorities based on framework area and community allows for easy alignment with these oth-er planning efforts.

Sidewalk priorities are divided into four categories: short-term, mid-term, long-term, and no sidewalks recommended. The timeframe for these catego-ries is as follows:

Short-term 0-5 yearsMid-term 5-10 years

Long-term 10+ yearsNo sidewalks recommended

Recommendations are provided for each community in the form of a table. Each table outlines the reasons that particular sidewalk routes were chosen as priorities based on a number of factors,which were assigned rating scores and added to determine whether sidewalks are short-, mid-, or long-term pri-orities.

The glossary for the tables is as follows:

Repair: Identified sidewalk needs repair. Sidewalks needing repair were weighted more heavily than those that will require new construction.

Construction: Identified route does not have a sidewalk, so construction will be necessary.

SRTS Route: Identified sidewalk project is part of a Safe Routes to School designated route. See the maps in the Appendix for exact locations of these routes. As schools were the highest identified priority in the citizen input phase of the project, SRTS routes were weighted the most heavily of all rating factors in determining priorities.

RRRVT Trail: Identified sidewalk project is part of a trail designated by the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail system. While this was a rating factor, these trail routes were not weighted very heavily, as many routes focus more on bicycle traffic than pedestrian.

Transit Stop: Identified sidewalk project is on a transit route, within one-quar-ter (1/4) mile of a transit stop. Additionally, the solid blue areas represent a ra-dius of 1/4 mile from a selected transit stop, and are utilized to emphasize all sidewalks within that radius. The blue areas do not represent all transit stops, but provide a clear picture of the importance of connectivity to transit stops. As transit stops were rated as high priorities by citizens and are central to the development of a highly walkable community, transit stops are rated highly in the rating factors.

Medium Density Residential: The identified priority connects to medium density residential uses. This rating factor is not rated as highly as many others, but is a factor nonetheless.

Strategic Opportunity Area: Identified sidewalk project is within an area designated as a Strategic Opportunity Area (SOA) by The Plan. The goal for SOAs, as identified by The Plan, is to create successful mixed-income, racially diverse communities with a variety of housing choices. SOAs are rated highly in the rating factors, as the City has prioritized these areas in other plans as well.

Mixed Use: Identified sidewalk project is in an area that is either current-ly a mixed use area or is defined as a mixed use area for future land use planning, meaning the area has or will have a variety of uses within close proximity. Mixed use areas are weighted fairly heavily in the rating factors.

Civic: Identified sidewalk project connects users to a civic use such as a school, park, or library. Civic uses such as schools, parks, and libraries were identified by citizens are priorities for sidewalk connections, so civic desti-nations are rated very highly in the rating factors.

NOTE: Community health data, managed by the Health Action Partner-ship, may affect priorities in the implementation phases, as the City better understands this data and determines how sidewalks can help improve community health.


For the most part, sidewalks in the City Center proper in the Northside Com-munity are in fair condition. Sidewalks in this particular area are extremely important as the area contains many destinations within close proximity. Very few priorities for sidewalk construction and repair are recommended in the City Center south of Interstates 59/20, west of US Highway 31, and east of In-terstate 65. While there are a number of high-priority destinations in this area such as a high-density mixed-use district, the central library, and a number of schools, most sidewalks are in good condition and need to be monitored and maintained to ensure they remain in good condition.

The sidewalks in neighborhoods adjoining the City Center proper to the north - Fountain Heights, Druid Hills, and Norwood - have sidewalks along most streets, but almost all of those sidewalks within these neighborhoods are in poor condition and are in need of repair or reconstruction. Norwood Elementary is set to reopen soon, but does not have a designated SRTS route. As the school is located on Norwood Boulevard, this street was assumed to be a part of that SRTS route when one is created.

LONG-TERM PRIORITIES

• All sidewalks that are shown as needing repair, meaning the sidewalk is displayed on the map in red, but not highlighted, should be consid-ered long-term priorities, as sidewalks are especially important at an urban density such as that found in the Northside community.

CITY CENTER - NORTHSIDE

STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop

Mixed-Use

Med Density Residential

Strategic Oppor-tunity Area

Civic

SHO

RT-T

ERM Norwood Boulevard Norwood

ElementaryNorwood Ele-mentary, Park

12th Avenue North between railroad tracks and 31st Street North

Carraway Boulevard between 17th Street North and the railroad tracks

MID

-TER

M

18th Street North and 14th Court/Avenue North

16th Street North and 12th Court North

Vanderbilt Road between Norwood Blvd. and Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd.

Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard east of US Highway 31

31st Street between 12th and 15th Avenues North

LON

G-

TERM

15th Avenue and 11th Street - Fountain Heights Rec Center and connector under I-65

Ftn. Heights Rec Center

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Recommendations 13

4TH

1ST

2ND

25TH

6TH

12TH

I65

FINLEY

28TH

41S

T

I20 I5

9

26TH

39TH

13TH

35TH

9TH

40TH

14TH

37TH

CARRAWAY

15TH

27TH

42N

D

GRAYMONT

33R

D

REV ABRAHAM WOODS JR

19TH

36TH

30TH

18TH

RICHARD ARRINGTON JR

COO

SA

5TH

CLAIRMONT

8TH

24TH

MESSER AIRPORT

POWELL

7TH

I59

38TH

31ST

MORRIS

3RD

STOUTS

22ND

11TH

21ST

10TH

16TH

29TH

DR

UID

HIL

L

VAN

DE

RB

ILT

OLD JASPER

NORWOOD

32ND

HIGHLAND

ELTON B STEPHENS

PU

BLI

C34TH

20TH

17TH23RD

SIPSEY

PARK

RAILROAD

CEN

TER

SHORT

4TH

38TH34TH

PUBLIC

5TH

36TH

PUBLIC PU

BLIC

PUBLIC

17TH

PUBLIC

2ND

PUBLIC

37TH

PUBLIC

15TH

24TH

I59

PUBLIC

2ND

2ND

PUBLIC

5TH

37TH

PUBLIC

1ST

30TH

11TH

PUBLIC

5TH

PUBLIC

23RD

18TH

34TH

FINLEY

27TH5T

H PUBLIC

PUBLIC

20TH

13TH

13TH

4TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

20TH

PUBLIC

13TH

25TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

23RD

3RD

33RD

4TH

18TH

10TH4TH

10TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

23RD

26TH

17TH

8TH

41ST

PUBLIC

32ND

7TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

14TH

15TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

7TH

3RD

11TH

28TH

PUBLIC

32ND

4TH2ND

19TH

13TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

18TH

15TH

33RD

9TH

PU

BLI

C

12TH

7TH

20TH

3RD

PUBLIC3RD

1ST

PUBLIC

38TH

23RD

15TH

CE

NTE

R

PUBLIC

14TH

6TH

17TH

I59

20TH

3RD

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

10TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

4TH

3RD14TH

1ST

27TH3RD

37TH

32ND

18TH8TH

MORRIS

7TH

24TH

24TH

11TH

19TH

11TH

39TH

32ND

17TH

21ST

39TH

6TH

5TH

9TH

21ST

PUBLIC

14TH

14TH

PUBLIC

0 1,300 2,600650Feet

1 inch = 1,300 feet l

1

2

3

4

5

8

79

CITY CENTER - NORTHSIDE COMMUNITY

Sidewalk Condition

Poor/Needs Repair

Good

Priorities

Short-term

Mid-term

Street Centerline

Long-term

1/4 Mile Radius of Transit Stop

6



Mixed-Use Med Density Residential


Civic

SHO

RT-T

ERM

11th Place South between 14th and 18th Avenues South Glen IrisElementary

Glen Iris Elementary

10th Court South between 6th and 10th Streets South Glen IrisElementary


16th Avenue South between 14th and 19th Streets South Glen IrisElementary


Glen Iris Elementary SRTS routes on Idlewild Circle, 14th Avenue South, and 15th Street South

Glen IrisElementary

Glen IrisElementary

7th Avenue South between 29th and 32nd Streets South

15th Avenue South between 15th and 20th Streets South

MID

-TER

M

3rd Avenue South between 24th and 37th Streets South

20th Street South between 12th and 17th Avenues South Vulcan Trail/Park

Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard between 17th Avenue South and Vulcan Trail/Park Vulcan Trail/Park

LON

G-T

ERM

Greensprings Avenue between 11th Street South and Greensprings Highway

Greensprings Highway between George Ward Park and Valley Avenue

Valley Avenue between Greensprings Highway and Palisades Parkway

15th Street South between 3rd Avenue South and University Boulevard

6th Avenue South between RR tracks and 11th Street South

As in the Northside Community, sidewalks in the City Center proper in the Southside Community are in good condition. Sidewalks in this particular area are extremely important as the area contains many destinations within close proximity. Very few priorities for sidewalk construction and repair are recommended in the City Center south of the railroad tracks, west of US Highway 31, east of Interstate 65, and north of University Boulevard. While there are a number of high-priority destinations in this area such as a multiple high-density mixed-use districts, UAB, and Railroad and Regions Parks, most sidewalks are in good condition and need to be monitored and maintained to ensure they remain in good condition.

The sidewalks in neighborhoods adjoining the City Center proper to the south, Five Points South and Glen Iris, have sidewalks along most streets, but many of those sidewalks are in poor condition and are in need of repair or reconstruction. There are a number of street-based RRRVT System trails in this community, many of which do not yet include sidewalks. There are a number of important destinations in the community including Railroad Park, Regions Field, Vulcan, Five Points South, George Ward Park, and others. Citizens noted that several key locations are inaccessible to those with vision and mobility impairments because of the condition of sidewalks and existence of impediments such as light poles, driveways, etc.


• All sidewalks that are are shown as needing repair, meaning the sidewalk is displayed on the map in red, but not necessarily highlighted, should be con-sidered long-term priorities, as sidewalks are especially important at an ur-ban density such as that found in the Southside community.

CITY CENTER - SOUTHSIDE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Recommendations 15

I65

4TH2ND

7TH

14TH

1ST

13TH

3RD

LOMB

COTTON

35TH

28TH

27TH

HIGHLAND

TUSCALOOSA

37TH

VULCAN

VALLEY

FULTON

RIC

HAR

D A

RR

ING

TON

JR18TH

6TH

5TH

DENNISON

MCMILLAN

29TH

BEACON

GO

LDW

IRE

CLAIRMONT

19TH

30TH

36TH

IOTA

20TH

11TH

POWELL

33R

D

ARGYLE

25TH

16TH

ALABAMA

26THMAR

TIN

LUTH

ER K

ING

JR

GRAYMONT

CARLISLE

9TH

CAH

ABA

24TH22ND

ELTO

N B

STEP

HENS

MORRIS

PRINCETON

10TH

17TH

15TH

BAY

STEINE

R

MASON

BOLI

N

31ST

CLIFF

8TH

PUBLIC

MUNGER

PALISADES

PARK

APEN

BETA

GREEN SPRINGS

12TH

DELT

A

MONROE

32ND

OM

EGA

CREST

MAGNOLIA

JOYC

E

38TH

SAINT CHARLES

UNNAMED

NIAZUMA

SPA

ULD

ING

21ST

CENT

ER

KAPPA

MAYFIELD

23RD

UAB

VALLEY RIDGE

WARWICK

RAILROAD

HANOVER

IDLEWILD

LAN

E PA

RK

COLUMBIANA

ROBERTS SMITH

DOUGLAS

HERMOSA

OLYMPIA

PUBLIC

5TH

23RD

3RD

19TH13TH

PUBLIC

1ST

1ST

13TH

5TH

PUBLIC

13TH 36TH

PUBLIC

5TH

10TH

17TH

7TH

5TH

2ND

32ND

12TH

23RD

MCMILLAN

16TH

PUBLIC

8TH

BEACON

13TH

PU

BLIC

I65

PUBLIC

1ST

PUBL

IC

CAHABA5TH

11TH

PUBLIC

15TH

11TH

36TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

17TH

30TH

9TH

14TH

23RD

12TH2ND

16TH

15TH

6TH

7TH

10TH

9TH

15TH

1ST

15TH

37TH

4TH

19TH

7TH

21ST

4TH

9TH

14TH

PUBLIC

17TH

PUBLIC

17TH

3RD

0 1,600 3,200800Feet

1 inch = 1,600 feet

l1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CITY CENTER - SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY

Sidewalk Condition

Poor/Needs Repair

Good

Priorities

Short-term

Mid-term

Street Centerline

Long-term


14 13

10

11

12


Airport Hills is a primarily residential neighborhood with no sidewalks in the area. Sidewalk priorities in this area are limited, primarily to the identified trail routes. A large portion of the community encompasses the airport, an area that is closed to pedestrian traffic and that creates a large barrier to connec-tivity throughout the rest of the community.


• As many streets in the Airport Hills Community are low-density, low-traffic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not des-ignated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

EASTERN AREA - AIRPORT HILLS




Civic

MID

-TE

RM

Intersection of Zion City Road and Tarrant Huffman Road - within 1/2 mile onZion City Road

LON

G-

TERM

Zion City/Airport Road corridor between 90th Street North and Pape Avenue

Tarrant Huffman Road between Zion City Road and Airport Road

1

2

3

Recommendations 17

5TH

4TH

85TH

6TH

2ND

I59

7TH8TH

WEST

65TH

LAK

E

AIRPORT

80TH

3RD

84TH

LAW

SON

ZION CITY

RUNWAY

52N

D

9TH

86TH

88TH

1ST

87TH

TAR

RA

NT

HU

FFM

AN

81ST

73RD

BATES

99TH

54TH

15TH

DIVISION

19TH

A

79TH

RED MILL

47TH

MARSHALL

60TH

LIN

E

90TH

11TH

18TH

ELM

53R

D

78TH

PAPE

20THM

OO

NG

LOW

67TH

14TH

10TH

89TH

BE

LVO

IR

WADE

74TH

OAK

BEVE

RLY

PIN

E

TEDDY

48TH

82ND

91S

T

EL

CA

MIN

O

51ST

93R

D

68TH

CH

ER

I

TALLEY

PE

NFI

ELD

PU

BLI

C

17TH

TRE

AD

WE

LL

96TH

94TH

WOOD

TUCKER

64TH

WALKER

FOCHE

BE

LMA

R

CLI

FT

WE

STFI

ELD

DR

AK

E

CA

SC

AD

E

SUN

BUR

ST

92ND

83RD

SO

UTH

WO

OD

POPE

NO

RTH

WO

OD

WEDGEWOOD

75TH

ENGLAND

16TH

EASTPOINTE

MALINDA

POLA

RIS

EV

ER

GR

EE

N

TURNER

STOUDEMIRE

UN

NAM

ED

REDSTONE

MERCURY

86TH

I59

5TH

PUBLIC

2ND

8TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

83RD

84TH

90TH

PUBLIC

9TH

PINE

68TH

PUBLIC

6TH

9TH

85TH

PUBLIC

88TH

I59

52N

D

14TH

1ST

PUBLIC

8TH

1ST

88TH

7TH

87TH

89TH

PUBLIC

WOOD

86TH

90TH

93R

D

1ST

82ND

52N

D

90TH

90TH

82ND

86TH

3RD

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

1 in

ch =

1,0

00 fe

etl

EAST

ERN

ARE

A -

AIR

PORT

HIL

LS C

OM

MU

NIT

Y

13

2

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

Stre

et C

ente

rline

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op


East Birmingham is a community with a variety of uses, but those uses are pri-marily separated from each other. In the northern portion of the community is a significant area of low-density residential development adjacent to an industrial area. The southern portion of the community has a greater diversity of uses, with low-density residential, medium-density residential, industrial, and a corridor of mixed-use development along Richard Arrington Jr. Boule-vard.

There are a number of significant destinations within the East Birmingham Community, including schools, mixed-use districts, and a number of parks.

The RRRVT System also designates a number of routes through the commu-nity. While sidewalks exist on most streets in this community, most are in poor condition and there are a number of important routes lacking sidewalks.


• All sidewalks that are are shown as needing repair, meaning the sidewalk is displayed on the map in red, but not necessarily highlighted, should be considered long-term priorities.


• As many streets in the East Birmingham Community are low-density, low-traffic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need side-walks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

EASTERN AREA - EAST BIRMINGHAM



Strategic Op-portunity Area

Civic

SHO

RT-T

ERM

Messer Airport Highway between 33rd and 39th Streets North Whatley Elementary

Whatley Elementary

41s t Avenue North between Inglenook Elementary and 43rd Place North Inglenook Elementary

Inglenook Elementary

Whatley Elementary’s SRTS routes (see map in Appendix) Whatley Elementary

Whatley Elementary

1st Avenue North between 41st Street North and 45th Street North North Avon-dale Library

Coos a Street between 12th Avenue North and Vanderbilt Road Greenwood & Patton Parks

Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard between 42nd Place and 47th Street North

Inglenook Elementary’s SRTS routes (see map in Appendix) InglenookElementary

Inglenook Elem/Park

MID

-TER

M

Vanderbilt Road between Coosa Street and 38th Place North Greenwood Park

39th Street North between 36th and 39th Avenues North Inglenook Elementary

Inglenook Elementary

Messer Airport Highway between 1st Avenue North and 47th Street North

1st Avenue North between 32nd and 41st Streets North

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Photo Credit: Google Street View

Recommendations 19

LAKE

1ST

I20

I59

4TH2N

D

39TH40TH

VANDERBILT

41S

T

6TH

37TH

38TH

COOSA

MES

SER

AIRP

ORT

42ND

33RD

47TH

46TH

12TH

36TH

RICH

ARD

ARRI

NGTO

N JR

35TH

I59

I20

7TH

13TH

14TH

44TH

51ST

3RD

9TH

32ND

10TH

8TH

HALE

43RD

53RD

17TH

50TH

MO

RRIS

GE

OR

GIA

11TH

45TH

52ND

16TH

BALL

TARRANT

5TH

49TH

CR

ESTW

OO

D

TALL

APO

OSA

MAURY

55TH

PUBL

IC

LIN

WO

OD

57TH

POW

ELL

BOOKER

LIN

PAR

K

JEFFERSON

34TH

SHUTTLESWORTH

CAHABA

AVIA

TIO

N

DIVI

SIO

N

48TH

15TH

SIPSEY

MAIN

BU

RG

IN

WARRIOR

AIRPORT

BRISTOL

CLA

IRM

ON

T

APPA

LACH

EE

FLORENCE

TECHNOLOGY

APALACHEE

CEDAR

6TH

5TH

51ST 47TH

PU

BLI

C

4TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

40TH

7TH PUBLIC

8TH

PUBL

IC

PU

BLI

C

41ST

46TH

42ND

5TH

36TH

50TH

PUBL

IC

51ST

PUBLIC

8TH

9TH

PUBL

IC

PUBLIC 34TH

4TH

7TH

42ND

47TH

7TH

PU

BLI

C

1ST

PUBLIC

AIRPORT

39TH

44TH

47TH

42ND

48TH

43RD

50TH

I20

10TH

47TH

46TH

5TH

51S

T

PUBL

IC

PU

BLI

C

12TH

44TH

44TH

44TH

PUBL

IC

38TH

9TH

POW

ELL

50TH

PUBLIC

4TH

2ND

PUBLIC14

TH

4TH

14TH

7TH

37TH

36TH

41S

T

PU

BLI

C

7TH

50TH

13TH

40TH35

TH

42ND

PU

BLI

C

8TH

POW

ELL

DIVI

SIO

N

40TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

32ND

41ST

01,

200

2,40

060

0Fe

et1

inch

= 1

,200

feetl

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

EAST

ERN

ARE

A -

EAST

BIR

MIN

GH

AM

CO

MM

UN

ITY

Stre

et C

ente

rline

1

10

9

11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op


The East Lake Community has a significant and well-connected sidewalk sys-tem and is also a fairly mixed-use neighborhood. There are a number of des-tinations important for walkability in this community, including schools, East Lake Park, Roebuck Hawkins Park to the north, and the East Lake branch of the library. East Lake is also adjacent to the Woodlawn community, a mixed-use community and Strategic Opportunity Area

Most of the sidewalks in the East Lake community are in need of repair. Prior-ities were determined by looking at previous work done in the community, important destinations, and land use.


• All sidewalks that are shown as needing repair, meaning the sidewalk is displayed on the map in red, but not highlighted, should be considered long-term priorities.


• As many streets in the East Lake Community are low-density, low-traf-fic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

EASTERN AREA - EAST LAKE




Civic

SHO

RT-T

ERM

2nd Avenue South between 68th and 75th Streets South Barrett Elementary

Barrett Elementary

5th Avenue North between 78th and 85th Streets North Robinson Elementary

Robinson Elementary

SRTS Routes for Robinson Elementary (see map in Appendix) Robinson Elementary

Robinson Elementary

SRTS Routes for Barrett Elementary (see map in Appendix) Barrett Elementary

Robinson Elementary

Oporto Madrid Boulevard between 72nd Street South and Georgia Road Ruffner Moun-tain Park

1st Avenue North - east of 75th Street

MID

-TER

M 1st Avenue North - west of 75th Street

75th and 76th Streets South between 2nd and 5th Avenues South Barrett Elementary

Barrett Elementary

Georgia Road between Brussels Avenue and Oporto Madrid Boulevard

LON

G-T

ERM 5th Avenue North between 75th and 78th Streets North

43rd Avenue and 65th Street North between 75th Street and 38th Avenue North

Higdon Road between London Avenue and 67th Street South Higdon Park

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Recommendations 21

2ND

I20

4TH

3RD

5TH

85TH

72ND

I59

76TH

71ST

GE

OR

GIA

7TH

8TH

LAK

E

WEST

65TH

6TH

84TH

52N

D

81ST

73RD

67TH

1ST

HIG

DO

N

RUNWAY

59TH

9THZION CITY

OPORTO MADRID

86TH

88TH

43R

D87TH

TAR

RA

NT

HU

FFM

AN

69TH

I20 I59

74TH

54TH

15TH

DIVISION

PARIS

19TH

A

NAPLES

79TH

AVIA

TIO

N

ROME

45TH

60TH

77TH

LIN

E

80TH

90TH

LONDON

11TH

18TH

53R

D

96TH

57TH

KIMBERLY

58TH

OPORTO

20TH

55TH

14TH

78TH

10TH

89TH

BE

LVO

IR

75TH

WADE

41S

T

HARVE

70TH

61S

T

66TH

PUBLIC

68TH

94TH

EXETER

56TH

82ND

91S

T

51ST

62ND

93R

D

PE

NFI

ELD

17TH

MESSER AIRPORT

TRE

AD

WE

LL

KE

NTU

CK

Y

JOPPA

64TH

37TH

AIRPORT

63RD

RED OAK

BA

KE

R

VANDERBILT

35TH

ATHENS

BE

L A

IRE

RU

GB

Y

92N

D

BELMONT

PINE

BRUS

SELS

MARSHALL

83RD

WOODENGLAND

OAK

INTE

RLAKEN

16TH

OLD

OPO

RTO

RAI

LRO

AD

HARRIS

70TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

66TH

51S

T

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

2ND

PUBLIC

89TH

9TH

PUBLIC

5TH

87TH

DIVISION

3RD

55TH

PU

BLI

C

86TH

1ST

82ND

1ST

85TH

7TH

PUBLIC

84TH

PUBLIC

90TH

91S

T

PUBLIC 4TH

79TH PUBLIC

69TH

65TH

4TH

88TH

91S

T

90TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

I59

73RD

4TH

64TH

PUBLIC

5TH

PUBLIC

68TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

1ST

6TH

6TH

65TH

6TH

PUBLIC

93R

D

PUBLICPUBLIC

5TH

90TH

56TH

83RD

1ST

65TH

I20

1ST

01,

200

2,40

060

0Fe

et1

inch

= 1

,200

feetl

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

EAST

ERN

ARE

A -

EAST

LA

KE C

OM

MU

NIT

YSt

reet

Cen

terli

ne

112

10

11

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op

6


Woodlawn is a mixed-use community with a variety of uses in close prox-imity, and Woodlawn is identified as a Strategic Opportunity Area. There are a variety of important destinations within the community, including Wood-lawn High School, the historic Woodlawn mixed-use district, the Willow Wood Community Center, and new mixed-income housing.

Many of the sidewalks in the Woodlawn Community are in poor condition and need repair.




• Considering the mostly urban character of Woodlawn, the community has a surprising number of cul-de-sac and dead-end streets. As these and many other streets in the community are low-density, low-traf-fic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

EASTERN AREA - WOODLAWN




Civic

SHO

RT-

TERM

1st Avenue North between Interstate 20 and 7th Avenue North Woodlawn High School

1st/5th Avenue South between Georgia Road and northern RR tracks

53rd Street North, 52nd Place, and 52nd Way west of Willow Wood Park and Community Center - connection between Jones Valley and Village Creek Corridors

Willow Wood Rec Center/Park

MID

-TER

M Georgia Road and 55th Street North east of Willow Wood Park and Community Center -connection between Jones Valley and Village Creek Corridor

Willow Wood Rec Center/Park

Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard

Messer Airport Highway between Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard and 9th Avenue North

LON

G-T

ERM

Intersection of 5th Avenue South and Crestwood Boulevard; 5th Avenue South from intersection to RR tracks

Crestwood Boulevard east of Crest Green Road

65th Street North between Aviation Avenue and 43rd Avenue North; 43rd Avenue North to 68th Street North

55th Place South between 1st Avenue South and RR tracks

Georgia Road between 1st Avenue South and Brussels Road

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Recommendations 23

I20

LAKE

I20

I59

I59

72ND

7TH

71ST

5TH

MONTC

LAIR

1ST

CR

ESTW

OO

D

80TH

GE

OR

GIA

2ND

CLIFF

ALTA

MONT

4TH

9TH

76TH

CLA

IRM

ON

T

6TH

42ND

73RD

67TH

58TH

47TH

12TH

46TH

59TH

HIG

DO

N

65TH

78TH

69TH

77TH

MONTEVALLO

MESSER AIRPORT

74TH

14TH

11TH

44TH

51ST

52ND

53RD

3RD

CRESTHILL

10TH

8TH

AVIA

TIO

N

43RD

40TH

64TH

41S

T

39TH

17TH

MO

RRIS

63RD

45TH

60TH

HAGOOD

TARRANT

50TH

LINWOOD

54TH

13TH

KIMBERLY

GLA

DS

TON

E

55TH

PUBL

IC

75TH

SIM

S

DUBLIN

37TH

HARVE

70TH

66TH

68TH

REDWOOD

49TH

ESSEX

56TH

POW

ELL

SUNSE

T

LIN

PAR

K

UNNAMED

LARR

Y

MOUNTAIN

DALE

57TH

KE

NTU

CK

Y

WO

ODV

ALE

JOPPA

38TH

AIRPORT

DIVISION

48TH

KR

IN

SUMAR

BU

RG

IN

WIN

STO

NM

OR

NIN

GSI

DE

ATHENS

XAVI

ER

BRUSSELS

LEN

OX

OPORTO

COOPER HILL

ANTWERP

WOODLAWN

SUNRISE

41ST

7TH

PUBLIC

12TH

54TH

PUBL

IC

DIVI

SIO

N

70TH

47TH

PUBLICPUBLIC65TH

47TH

42ND

5TH

9TH

I59

PUBLIC

11TH

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

PUBL

IC

74TH

47TH

PUBLIC

6TH

55TH

4TH

2ND9T

H

52ND

60TH

JOPPA

7TH

44TH

64TH

52ND

48TH

78TH

54TH

4TH

44TH

6TH

4TH

PU

BLI

C

44TH

PUBLIC

1ST

I20

I59

4TH

5TH

8TH

PUBLIC

8TH

CR

ESTW

OO

D

MO

NTCL

AIR

3RD

PUBL

IC

58TH

59TH

4TH

11TH

68TH

8TH

PUBLIC

3RD

48TH

8TH

01,

500

3,00

075

0Fe

et1

inch

= 1

,500

feetl

EAST

ERN

ARE

A -

WO

OD

LAW

N C

OM

MU

NIT

Y

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

Stre

et C

ente

rline

1

10

9

112

3

4

5

6

7

8

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op


The Cahaba community encompasses a very large area of land, much of which is occupied by Lake Purdy. This community has very few streets and no real destinations other than the Lake.


• With the exception of roads in the US Highway 280 area and Alabama Highway 119, all streets in the Cahaba Community are low-density, low-traffic streets, no sidewalks are recommended. Streets with low vol-umes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety. As some streets were designated routes on the RRRVTS, these streets should be considered for bicycle lanes or extended shoulders in order to facilitate safer use.

NORTHEASTERN AREA - CAHABA

Recommendations 25

I20

I59

MONTCLAIR

7TH

GEORGIA

2ND

1ST

73RD

67TH

58TH

I459

ELDER

11TH

SUM

MIT

52ND

GR

ANTS M

ILL

BAILEY

LIBERTY

WARREN

HIGHWAY 78

BEACON

SICARD HOLLOW

PU

BLI

C

UNNA

MED

CAHABA VALLEY

RATLIFF

GLENWOOD

0 4,500 9,0002,250Feet

1 inch = 4,500 feetl

NORTHEASTERN AREA - CAHABA COMMUNITY

Sidewalk Condition

Poor/Needs Repair

Good

Priorities

Short-term

Mid-term

Street Centerline

Long-term



The East Pinson Valley Community is primarily composed of low-density res-idential areas with a large institutional use (Jefferson State Community Col-lege) in the northern portion. Much of the community is somewhat isolated from the rest of the City because of surrounding municipalities’ jurisdictions.

There are two future mixed-use districts in the community, one along Carson Road and one along Center Point Parkway. Both are located in the northern portion of the community. The City of Birmingham should work closely with the adjacent muncipalities to develop continuous sidewalks where the juris-dictional boundaries result in only small portions of the roads being within the City limits.

Citizens identified several priorities in the East Pinson Valley community, including Carson Road and several neighborhoods. However, low density neighborhoods were generally not identified as priorities in this plan for side-walks unless the streets also provide transit stops and other destinations.




• As most streets in the East Pinson Valley Community are low-density, low-traffic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need side-walks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

NORTHEASTERN AREA - EAST PINSON VALLEY

STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop Mixed-Use Med Density Residential


Civic

SHO

RT-T

ERM

Carson Road between 18th Avenue Northwest and Sunhill Road Jefferson State

Sunhill Road between Carson Road and Jefferson State Parkway Jefferson State

Westchester Road to west of intersection with Center Point Parkway

Sun Valley Elementary SRTS routes Sun Valley Elementary

Sun Valley Elementary

MID

-TE

RM

Center Point Parkway at the intersection of Westchester Road

Jefferson State Parkway Greenway Jefferson State

1

2

3

4

5

6

Recommendations 27

I59

PARK

WAY

T

GA

DS

DE

N

WEST

AIRPORT

10TH

CARSON

SUNH

ILL

HUFFMAN

RO

SE

LAW

SON

ZION CITY

GE

NE

RE

ED

PINSON VALLEY

WARE

18TH RE

D L

AN

E

EA

ST

86TH

88TH

13TH

24TH

RED MILL

PARK

VALL

EY C

REST

87TH

TAR

RAN

T H

UFF

MAN

BATES

MEG

ELM

OR

CH

ID

WIN

EWOOD

GLYNN

FIVE

MIL

E

LISA

7TH26TH

9TH

MAR

SH

ALL

LAY

4TH

SPRINGVILL

E

ZIN

NIA PUBLIC

90TH

6TH

AU

GU

ST

JEFFERSON STATE

FRE

DA

JAN

E

CA

RO

L

8TH

2ND

EDW

AR

DS

LAKE

PAPE

19TH

5THFOX

GLE

N

89TH

PAT

WADE

BO

WM

AN

RO

EB

UC

K

SELF

VALLEY

OLD M

T PIN

SON

LAK

E

PIN

E

HATFIELD

CENTER POINT

EL CAMINO

PARK

BRO

OK

CAM

P

PARAGON

TALLEY

HIG

HLA

ND

17TH

WIL

DW

OO

D

ESPLANADE

JEFFERY

23R

D

OLD FARM

TOD

D

HIAWATHA

STARTREK

56TH

16TH

ALICIA

DUNR

IDG

E

EA

RLI

NE

LYNN ACRES

NO

RTH

WO

OD

HO

US

TON

MALINDA

HARRIS

SIL

VE

RTO

N

AMY

CO

OP

ER

BUZBEE

RED LANE

16TH

89TH

PUBLIC8TH

CAR

SON

PARK

LAKE

02,

300

4,60

01,

150

Feet

1 in

ch =

2,3

00 fe

etl

NO

RTH

EAST

ERN

ARE

A -

EAST

PIN

SON

VA

LLEY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

14

3

2

5

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

Stre

et C

ente

rline

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op

6


The Huffman Community covers a particularly large area, and is a largely res-idential community with large industrial properties especially in the eastern and southern portions. It does have a number of significant commercial cor-ridors, including Parkway East and Gadsden Highway. The community is tra-versed by a number of trails in the RRRVT System.

Most streets in the community do not have sidewalks. The area is also poorly served by transit, with the primary transit route in the community along Park-way East and Huffman Road. Many residents of this community were able to attend one of the community engagement meetings and provide invaluable information on where sidewalks are needed.




• As most streets in the Huffman Community are low-density, low-traf-fic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVTS Trail Transit Stop

Mixed-Use Med Density Residentail


Civic

SHO

RT-

TERM

Huffman Academy SRTS route Huffman Academy

Huffman Academy

MID

-TE

RM

Huffman Road between Springville Road and Parkway East

LON

G-T

ERM

Edwards Lake Drive between Springville Road and Falcon Drive

Springville Road from Twin Lake Drive to City limits

Jefferson State Connector

NORTHEASTERN AREA - HUFFMAN

1

2

3

4

5

Recommendations 29

I59

4TH2ND

3RD

85TH

5TH

81ST

I459

76TH

72ND

JOHN R

OGERS

T

LAW

SO

N

73R

D

GA

DS

DE

N

WEST

86TH

CARSON

6TH

SUNH

ILL

PARKWAY

RID

GE

HUFFMAN

RO

SE

77TH

DER

BY

ELM

HANLIN

WARE

18TH

RE

D L

AN

E

ZION CITY

EA

ST

ALTON

13TH

1ST

RED MILL

MEDICAL PARK

RUFFNER

SERVICE

PINSON VALLEY

RUNWAY 79

TH

MEG

PINE TREE

OA

K

OR

CH

ID

WIN

EWOOD

VALL

EY C

REST

7TH

84TH

MAIN

83RD26

TH

LAY

80TH

LAKE

SPRINGVILL

E

PU

BLI

C

90TH

AU

GU

ST

88TH

JEFFERSON STATE

FREDA JANE

8TH

96TH

ED

WA

RD

S L

AK

E

AIRPORT

HIG

HLA

ND

VALLEY HILLBROWNLE

E HILL

S

10TH

FOX

GLEN

89TH

BREW

STER

RO

EBU

CK

ENG

LIS

HPARAGON

QUEENSTOWN

CENTER POINT

42N

D

SUNSET

69TH

TALLEY

WIL

DW

OO

D

CALLAHAN

CALD

WEL

L

HIAWATHA

HIG

HW

AY 7

8

FOR

EST

HALF MOON

OLD PINSON

EAR

LIN

E

BLACK JACK RIDGE

UNNAMED

6TH

ALTO

N

DERBY

86TH

7TH

I459

4TH

GA

DS

DE

N

5TH

1ST

RUFFNER

PUBL

IC

I59

I459

JOHN R

OGERS

DER

BY

HANLIN

ALTON

PINE TREE

OA

K

MILLER

MAIN

DAW

NS

TRACE

MOUNTAIN VIEW

HIG

HW

AY 7

8

QUEENSTOWN MONROE

WR

IGH

T

FLOYD BRADFORD

WOMACK

CALD

WEL

L

VALLEY

WEST

SUNSETROBIN

I20

GADSDEN

HIC

KO

RY

OA

K C

RE

ST

EAST

CROSS

ALTON

HIG

HW

AY 7

8

I59

I59

I59

I459

MAIN

DERB

Y

DERBY

ALTON

03,

000

6,00

01,

500

Feet

1 in

ch =

3,0

00 fe

etl

NO

RTH

EAST

ERN

ARE

A -

HU

FFM

AN

CO

MM

UN

ITY

1 23

4

5

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

dds

Repa

ir

Goo

d

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

Stre

et C

ente

rline

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op


The Roebuck-South East Lake Community covers a large area and also in-cludes very diverse types of areas, from a walkable area with gridded streets in the southern portion of the community, to very suburban neighborhoods with large commercial corridors and many cul-de-sac single-family neighbor-hoods in the northern areas. While the portion of the community with grid-ded streets has a significant sidewalk system, many of these sidewalks are in poor condition.

There are a number of important destinations in the community, including Robinson Elementary School, Ruffner Mountain Park, and mixed-use areas along Parkway East, which was identified in The Plan as a Strategic Opportu-nity Area.

Citizens identified numerous routes in the community that need sidewalk re-pair or construction, including Oporto Madrid Boulevard, roads connecting to Ruffner Mountain Park, and 83rd Street, identified as having heavy school traffic. One citizen wrote that the whole neighborhood needs serious help, and the data collected and displayed on the map shows that most sidewalks in the area are in poor condition.


• All sidewalks that are shown as needing repair, meaning the sidewalk is displayed on the map in red, but not highlighted, should also be consid-ered long-term priorities.


• As many streets in the Roebuck-South East Lake Community are low-density, low-traffic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

NORTHEASTERN AREA - ROEBUCK- SOUTH EAST LAKE




Civic

SHO

RT-T

ERM

Parkway East between 1st Avenue North and Roebuck Plaza Drive Roebuck Haw-kins Park/Rec

Robinson Elementary SRTS Routes (see map in Appendix) Robinson Elementary

Robinson Elementary

Barrett Elementary SRTS Routes (see map in Appendix) BarrettElementary

Barrett Elementary

1st Avenue North between 83rd Street North and Parkway East Roebuck Haw-kins Park

Oporto Madrid Boulevard between 1st Avenue North and 5th Avenue South Eastlake Li-brary Branch

MID

-TE

RM

Parkway East between Red Lane Road and Gene Reed Road

86th Street South and Roebuck Springs Road between 86th Place South and Observatory Drive

Ruffner Moun-tain Park

LON

G-T

ERM Five Mile Road/Jefferson State Connector

West Boulevard and Red Lane Road

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Recommendations 31

4TH

I59

2ND

I20

3RD

5TH

8TH

85TH

81ST

76TH

T

86TH

GA

DS

DE

N

WESTLA

WS

ON

66TH

10TH

72ND

9TH

HUFFMAN

77TH

6TH

PARK

WAY

RID

GE

73R

D

RO

SE

7TH

71S

T

GE

OR

GIA

GE

NE

RE

ED

67TH

ELM

RE

D L

AN

E

EA

ST

HIG

DO

N

RED MILL

PARK

RUFFNER

74TH

79TH

DIVISION

78TH

ZIO

N

GLYNN

LISA84

TH

83RD

CO

VIN

GTO

N

MARSHALL

OAK

VALLEY

80TH

PUBLIC

90TH LONDON

88TH

CA

RO

L

MEG

96TH

FIVE MILE

RUNWAY

87TH

VALLEY H

ILL

91S

T

HA

GW

OO

D

DALTON

MO

ON

GLO

W

CLI

FT

WEAR

EDW

ARD

S LA

KE

VASSAR

AZA

LEA

12TH

89TH

CH

ERI

JOHN R

OGERS

BO

WM

AN

ROEBUCK

SELF

82ND

1ST

YELLOWSTONE

EL

CA

MIN

O

93R

D

TALLEY

HIG

HLA

ND

13THROEBUCK PLAZA

WIL

DW

OO

D

PE

NFI

ELD

IDLE

WO

OD

NELSON

PINE

NO

RTH

TOULON

HICKORY

JEFFERY

75TH

OPORTO MADRID

WE

STFI

ELD

ROBISON

SUNRISE

SCH

OO

L HALF MOON

69TH

SHERMAN OAKSR

ED

STO

NE

UNNA

MED

NORRIS YARDS

PUBLIC

87TH

5TH

RO

EB

UC

K

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

6TH

GADSDEN

PUBLIC

2ND

6TH

PUBLIC

1ST

RUFFNER

78TH

I59

I20

PU

BLI

C

4TH

85TH

PARKWAY

PUBLIC

03,

500

7,00

01,

750

Feet

1 in

ch =

1,7

50 fe

etlN

ORT

HEA

STER

N A

REA

- RO

EBU

CK -

SOU

TH E

AST

LAKE

CO

MM

UN

ITY

1

2

3

6

7

4

5

8

9

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Stre

et C

ente

rline

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

i-us

of T

rans

it St

op


The North Birmingham Community includes very diverse types of areas, from a walkable area with gridded streets in the southern portion of the commu-nity, to very suburban neighborhoods with large commercial corridors and many low-density residential neighborhoods in the northern and western areas. While the portion of the community with gridded streets has a signif-icant sidewalk system, many of these sidewalks are in poor condition. There are also a number of significant physical barriers in the community, including railroad tracks separating this community from the Northside community, and other tracks bisecting and dividing the community. Large corridors such as Highway 31 and Finley Boulevard also act as barriers.




• As many streets in the North Birmingham Community are low-density, low-traffic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need side-walks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

NORTHERN AREA - NORTH BIRMINGHAM




Civic

SHO

RT-T

ERM

27th Street North between 29th and 35th Avenues North North Birming-ham Library, Park

35th Avenue between 25th Street and 34th Place North North Birming-ham Park

Shuttlesworth Drive between 33rd Terrace North and 41st Avenue North Hudson Middle School

Hudson Middle School

16th Street North between 19th and 33rd Avenues North

24th Street North North Birming-ham Library

33rd Terrace North between 30th Street North and Shuttlesworth Drive Hudson Middle School

Hudson Middle School

29th Avenue between 24th and 33rd Streets North; Shuttlesworth Drive Maclin Park

LON

G-

TERM

38th Avenue West between 1st and 4th Streets West; 1st Street West between 38th and 40th Avenues West; 40th Avenue West between 1st Street West and Center Street

Daniel Payne Drive

Shuttlesworth Drive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Recommendations 33

25TH

2ND

I65

35TH

7TH

33R

D

FINL

EY

12TH

24TH

26TH

I20

I59

27TH

4TH

22ND

1ST

GR

AYM

ON

T

COALBURG

9TH

14TH

LOM

B

34TH

13TH

18TH

DECATUR

CARRAWAY29TH

15TH

CHEEK

SHUTTLESWORTH

UNIV

ERSI

TY

DA

NIE

L PA

YN

E

36TH

30TH

REV

ABRA

HAM

WO

ODS

JR

31ST

19TH

51S

T

6TH

IOTA

8TH

POW

ELL

42N

D

5TH

43R

D

I59

49TH

RICH

ARD

ARRI

NGTO

N JR

SAYR

ETO

N MO

RR

IS

3RD

32N

D

44TH

PRINCETO

N

10TH

38TH

ARKADELPHIAST

OU

TS

28TH

54TH

BAN

KHEA

D

37TH

11TH

21ST

16TH

47TH

41ST

VANDERBILT

PUBLIC

HIG

HLA

ND

52N

D

39TH

HIL

LTO

P

FAIRMONT

OLD JASPER

NO

RW

OO

D

CENTER

HAYES

ALABAMA

48TH

UNNAMED

40TH

20TH

17TH

23R

D KA

PPA

PARK

RAIL

ROAD

CHURCH

VIRGIN

IA

ALICE 7TH

10TH

PUBL

IC

PUBL

IC

4TH

5TH

17TH

35TH

10TH

12TH

4TH

14TH

34TH

4TH

24TH

6TH

9TH

12TH

11TH

PUBLIC

12TH

PUBLIC

6TH

35TH

14TH

PU

BLI

C

17TH

PU

BLI

C

4TH

PUBL

IC

MO

RRIS

11TH

PUBLIC

2ND

16TH

35TH

PUBL

IC

PUBL

IC

7TH23RD

16TH

34TH

PUBLIC

32ND

PU

BLI

C

31ST

7TH

28TH

27TH

2ND

3RD

I65

COALBURG

PU

BLI

C

1ST

9TH

34TH

PUBL

IC

7TH 5T

H

23RD

18TH

3RD

37TH

4TH

36TH

12TH

PUBL

IC

17TH

7TH

6TH

19TH

3RD

13TH

11TH

5TH

1ST

23RD

22N

D

5TH

33RD

2ND

16TH

1ST

COALBURG

REPUBLIC

SHADY GROVE

FIVE MILE CREEK

RACEWAY PARK

RAILROAD

COALBURG COALBURG

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

1 in

ch =

2,0

00 fe

etl

NO

RTH

ERN

ARE

A -

NO

RTH

BIR

MIN

GH

AM

CO

MM

UN

ITY

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Stre

et C

ente

rline

123

6

7

4

9

5

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

Long

-ter

m

8

10

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op


Dolomite is largely separated from the remainder of the Pratt Ensley Frame-work Area, and therefore necessitated a separate map because of its isolat-ed location. The Dolomite neighborhood is largely residential in nature, with some areas of large industrial development. There is also a large park, the Dolomite-Westfield Park.

Dolomite’s streets are extremely narrow with very little, if any, shoulder space on the sides.

While a number of citizens from Dolomite attended the public engagement meetings and provided input regarding sidewalks that are needed in Dolo-mite, the extremely low density, isolated location, and lack of destinations in the area meant that no sidewalks were identified as priorities when the identified streets were ranked according to the rating system. This does not mean that Dolomite’s streets will never be provided with sidewalks, just that the area is not identified as a priority in this plan.


• As many streets in the Dolomite neighborhood are low-density, low-traffic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need side-walks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

PRATT ENSLEY AREA - DOLOMITE NEIGHBORHOOD

Recommendations 35

TIN

MIL

L

SIMMONS

PLEASANT GRO

VE

MILE

S

LOUIS

FIVE

AC

RE

BELL

RAILR

OAD

HIL

L

CHARLES

ED

WA

RD

S

ALE

XA

ND

ER

1STVALL

EY

JACKSO

N

BOO

KER

2ND

4TH

CO

UN

CIL

LIN

E

3RD

SMITHFIELD

SOUTH

PUBLIC

TURNER

HUDSON

UN

NA

ME

D

JEFFERY

SOUTH

1ST

0 2,000 4,0001,000Feet

1 inch = 1,000 feetl

PRATT ENSLEY AREA - ENSLEY COMMUNITYDOLOMITE NEIGHBORHOOD

Sidewalk Condition

Poor/Needs Repair

Good

Priorities

Short-term

Mid-term

Street Centerline

Long-term



The Ensley community has one of the most complete sidewalk systems in the city. Unfortunately, most of the sidewalks in the community are in disre-pair. There are number of significant destinations in Ensley, including historic Tuxedo Junction; elementary, middle, and high schools; two library branches; and multiple parks and rec centers. Ensley also has significant areas of mixed use within a tightly gridded street system, making the area highly walkable. Identifying priorities in Ensley was difficult, as most sidewalks need repair.

Ensley, like other communities, has a number of physical barriers that make walkability outside of the primary area difficult. To the north it is bounded by railroad tracks, while to the south Interstate 20/59 separates the community

from the Five Points West community. It is important to provide pedestrian access across these barriers. Among other streets, citizens identified 18th Street as an important priority in Ensley.




• While most streets in the Ensley community have sidewalks, those not identified as priorities are low-density, low-traffic streets, with no sidewalks recommended for those streets. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with rela-tive ease and safety.

PRATT ENSLEY AREA - ENSLEY

STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop Mixed-Use Med Density Residential


Civic

SHO

RT-T

ERM

Baker Elementary and Bush Middle Schools’ SRTS routes (see map in Appendix) Baker and Bush Baker Elementary

Wylam Elementary’s SRTS routes (see map in Appendix) Wylam Elementary

Wylam Elementary

20th Street between Avenue C and Avenue J

18th Street between Avenue I and Avenue S

LON

G-T

ERM

20th Street and Birmingport Road from Avenue C to Taylor Avenue

Slayden Avenue and Taylor Avenue

Scranton Avenue and Pittsburg Avenue Sherman Heights Park

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Recommendations 37

PIKE

20TH

AVEN

UE F

18TH

41ST

ER

IE

AVEN

UE E

I20 I59

32ND

21ST

15TH

30TH

33RD

SLAYDEN

31ST

AVEN

UE C

13TH

43RD

34TH

BESSEMER

PUBLIC

24TH

8TH

9TH

47TH

35TH

RAY

42ND

12TH

27TH

LEXINGTON

4TH

28TH

7TH

WARRIOR

AVE

NU

E S

BUSH

40TH

AVE

NU

E B

RE

PU

BLI

C

23RD

36TH

KN

OX

VIL

LE17TH

BIRMINGPORT

ALB

AN

Y

55TH

2ND

14TH

AVE

NU

E T

5TH

10TH

16TH

ENSLEY

AVE

NU

E L

19TH

BU

FFA

LO

STEELTON

TAY

LOR

AVEN

UE K

AVE

NU

E U

AVENUE W

LOMB

6TH

MADISON

26TH29TH

FULTON

AVE

NU

E M

48TH

MIDLAND

FRIS

CO

AVE

NU

E D

22ND

JER

SE

Y

SERVICE

RAILROAD

46TH

ALD

ER

25TH

AVE

NU

E V

CO

UR

T U

AVEN

UE J

MAPLE

MINO

R

IND

IAN

A3RD

HU

RO

N

44TH

AVEN

UE I

INLAND

MULGA LOOP

CO

UR

T G

11TH

AVE

NU

E Y

CO

UR

T J

BR

OC

K IN

DU

STR

IAL

PARK

YU

KO

N

AVEN

UE G

AVE

NU

E H

KISKA

PUBL

IC

16TH

29TH

PU

BLI

C

5TH

14TH

8TH

PU

BLI

C

33RD

11TH

PUBLIC

I20 I59

MIN

OR

BIRMINGPORT

PIKE

6TH

9TH

PUBLIC

28TH

PUBLIC

AVE

NU

E V

9TH

4TH

BIRMINGPORT

PUBLIC

10TH

0 1,500 3,000750Feet

1 inch = 1,500 feet l1

2

3

4

56

PRATT ENSLEY AREA -ENSLEY COMMUNITY

Sidewalk Condition

Poor/Needs Repair

Good

Priorities

Short-term

Mid-term

Street Centerline

Long-term

7






Civic

SHO

RT-

TERM

Cherry Avenue between Smithfield Lane and Daniel Payne Drive

South Hampton K-8 SRTS Routes (see map in Appendix) South HamptonK-8

South Hampton K-8

MID

-TE

RM

Dugan Avenue between Hibernian Street and Lafayette Street Pratt City Library

Carline Avenue between Avenue T and Avenue W

LON

G-

TERM

16th Avenue West; 2nd Street West; Arkadelphia Road

Bankhead Highway between Hibernian Street and 2nd Street West

1

2

3

4

5

The Pratt community encompasses a wide variety of areas, including a fairly compact central area designated for future mixed use and including some existing mixed use. The area also includes large industrial properties and significant single-family residential neighborhoods. Pratt City was hit partic-ularly hard by the tornadoes of 2011, and so there is some significant new development in the area, including a number of multi-family homes. While the community continues to rebuild after the devastation it suffered in 2011, it is in a prime position to incorporate sidewalks and walkability throughout the community.

A number of destinations are located in Pratt City, including major parks and recreation centers, South Hampton K-8 School, and a library branch. US High-way 78 acts as a physical barrier in the community, bisecting it, but also pro-viding commercial businesses and services to the surrounding community.

Citizens attending the public engagement meetings identified Dugan Ave-nue connecting to the library and nursing home as a priority. These citizens also identified Bankhead Highway, a high-traffic commercial corridor that needs sidewalks, as this street provides numerous services to the surround-ing neighborhoods.




• As many streets in the Pratt community are low-density, low-traf-fic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

PRATT ENSLEY AREA - PRATT

6

Recommendations 39

I20

I59

PRAT

T

18TH

14TH

CHERRY

DA

NIE

L PA

YN

E

13TH

11TH

BAN

KHEA

D

16TH

AVENUE F

COALBURG

2ND

PIK

E

AVENUE E

9TH

SHERIDAN

AVENUE U

PIPER

8TH

FORESTDALE

7TH4TH

20TH

3RD

HEFLIN

1ST

HIB

ER

NIA

N

5TH

FINL

EY

REPUBLIC

6THGRAND

32ND

HIL

LTO

P

17TH

10TH

AVENUE C

38TH

TRIL

BY

25TH

SLAYDEN

BLOUNT

STEELT

ON

21ST

35TH

LINDEN

BIB

B

MIT

CH

ELL

19TH

AVENUE T

12TH

PU

BLI

C

CANDLE

15TH

RU

SS

ELL

U W

CLE

MO

N

BAYBERRY

MA

RIO

N

MA

CO

N

GR

AH

AM

RID

GE

AVENUE Z

GREEN

SH

OR

T

BANKHEAD

21ST

14TH

7TH

10TH

8TH

5TH

FORESTDALE

5TH

COALBURG

9TH

I20

I59

COALBURG

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

1 in

ch =

2,0

00 fe

etl

PRAT

T EN

SLEY

ARE

A -

PRAT

T CO

MM

UN

ITY

1

2

64

6

5

3

4

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

Stre

et C

ente

rline

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op


Like Dolomite, this portion of the Sherman Heights neighborhood is largely separated from the remainder of the Pratt Ensley Framework Area. The neigh-borhood is largely rural in nature, with some areas of natural gas extraction and other operations. There are no destinations in the neighborhood.

One street-based trail traverses the neighborhood, the AL North-South Bike Route #2. It may be unnecessary for an off-road path to be constructed, as Birmingport Road is fairly rural in nature, but the project should be explored.


• As all streets in this portion of the Sherman Heights neighborhood are low-density, low-traffic streets, no sidewalks are recommended. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

PRATT ENSLEY AREA - WESTERN-MOST PORTION OF SHERMAN HEIGHTS

Recommendations 41

LAC

Y

PERCY VINES

FLAT TOP

PINE

BIRMINGPORT

PAR

SON

S LO

OP

OLD PORT

BR

AS

FIE

LD

CH

ES

TNU

T

SHO

RT

CR

EEK

LACY

03,

000

6,00

01,

500

Feet

1 in

ch =

3,0

00 fe

etl

PRAT

T EN

SLEY

ARE

A -

PRAT

T CO

MM

UN

ITY

SHER

MA

N H

EIG

HTS

NEI

GH

BORH

OO

D

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

Stre

et C

ente

rline

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op





Civic

SHO

RT-

TERM

Montclair Road between Montevallo Road and I 20/59 Putnam Middle

MID

-TE

RM

Montclair Road between 52nd Street and Oporto Madrid Boulevard

LON

G-T

ERM

Oporto Madrid Boulevard between Montclair Road and Crestwood Boulevard

Montclair Road

Crestwood Boulevard from Cresthill Road to I 20/59

Elder Street between Montclair Road and Scenic View Drive; Scenic View Drive east of Elder

Elder Street Park

Oporto Madrid Boulevard between Luddington Lane and Georgia Road Lawson Field

Hagood Street from Montclair Road to Monarch Avenue; Monarch Avenue to Montevallo Road; Montevallo Road to Swallow Lane

Crestline Park

Oporto Avenue/Redwood Street South

1

2

3

4

5

The Crestline community is already somewhat walkable, and while it is large-ly composed of single-family dwellings, small lot sizes mean that the area is fairly compact. It is traversed by two significantly traveled roadways, Mont-clair Road and Crestwood Boulevard. Both of these roads are significant com-mercial corridors and connections to other communities. Their intersections with Oporto Madrid Boulevard provide the area with many of its commercial resources. Most roads in the community do not have sidewalks. Other signifi-cant destinations in the community include Shades Creek Park, Lawson Field, a library branch, and several grocery stores.

Citizens identified Scenic View Drive and Elder Street as priorities, as these

streets connect to a park/walking trail, but also because the streets feature a number of blind curves. While these streets are identified as priorities in this plan, they are long-term priorities simply because of the lack of destinations and density along these routes. LONG-TERM PRIORITIES



• Many streets in the Crestline community are low-density, low-traf-fic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

SOUTHERN AREA - CRESTLINE

9

8

7

6

Recommendations 43

I20

MONTCLAIR

CRESTWOOD

7TH

9TH

1ST

MONTEVALLO

58TH

12TH

6TH

ELD

ER

11TH

51ST

52ND

50TH

53R

D CRESTHILL10TH

CLAIR

MONT

8TH

DA

LY

64TH

5TH

61S

T

MARYLAND

GEORGIA

HAG

OO

D

SCENIC VIEW

54TH

DUNSTON

WARREN

GLADSTONE

BU

SH

BEACON

SIMS

ALTAMONT

DU

BLI

N

48TH

RE

DW

OO

D

49TH

56TH

SUNSET

UNNAMED

LARRY

PUBLIC

BR

US

SE

LS

SOUTHCREST

WILDO

AK

SOUTHALL

DUKE

57TH

MOUNTAIN

RID

GE

59TH

55TH

KIN

GS

BU

RY

WO

OD

SID

E

KRIN

LEACH

2ND

WINSTON

SUNRISE

BE

EC

H

CO

OP

ER

HIL

L

OP

OR

TO

MIM

OSA

AN

TWE

RP

TRAILER

DU

LAIN

E

7TH

PUBLIC

10TH

I20

PUBLIC

PUBLIC

PUBL

IC

PU

BLI

C

PUBLIC

52ND

56TH

CRESTWOOD51ST

5TH

7TH

SCENIC VIEW

PUBLIC

0 1,300 2,600650Feet

1 inch = 1,300 feet l

SOUTHERN AREA -CRESTLINE COMMUNITY

2

3

9

4

5 1

Sidewalk Condition

Poor/Needs Repair

Good

Priorities

Short-term

Mid-term

Street Centerline

Long-term


8

7

6





Civic

SHO

RT-

TERM

5th Avenue South between the RR tracks and 55th Street North

MID

-TER

M

Crestwood Boulevard between 5th Avenue South and 56th Street Crestwood Park

Montclair Road east of 52nd Street

56th Street from RR tracks to Crestwood Boulevard Crestwood Park

LON

G-T

ERM

Montclair Road

Crestwood Boulevard east of 56th Street

Clairmont Road east of the end of the Clairmont Walking Trail

1

2

3

4

7

5

6

The Crestwood community is divided into two neighborhoods, with Crest-wood Boulevard being the dividing line. This major corridor acts as a physical division as well, with very few places to cross safely from Crestwood South to North. This corridor is also a major route through the community and the pri-mary connection from the more urban neighborhoods to the north and west to the more suburban areas to the east. There are a number of destinations in the community as well, including a commercial area at the intersection of Crestwood Boulevard and 56th Street, Crestwood Park, and the Clairmont Walking Trail.

Crestwood Boulevard also provides a boundary dividing the fairly urban, walkable Crestwood North from the more suburban, less walkable Crest-wood South. The streets in Crestwood South are largely narrow and winding, with significant topography changes throughout as the neighborhood rests on the base of Red Mountain. Many of these streets are strictly residential in

nature, with low traffic volumes. Clairmont Road is strictly residential, but is also a major connection from the Crestwood community to Forest Park and Avondale, and is therefore important to include pedestrian connections.

Citizens noted that there are no sidewalks in Crestwood South, which is why Clairmont Road and 56th Street are such important connections. While new sidewalks have been constructed in the median along Clairmont Avenue, cit-izens would like to see those sidewalks continued to 56th Street South. Citi-zens also stated that access to Crestwood Park is a priority.




• As many streets in the Crestwood community are low-density, low-traf-fic streets, no sidewalks are recommended for the streets that were not designated as priorities. Streets with low volumes of traffic and low-density development patterns do not necessarily need sidewalks to be “Complete Streets,” as all users can use them with relative ease and safety.

SOUTHERN AREA - CRESTWOOD

Recommendations 45

I20

7TH

MONTCLA

IR

9TH

CR

ESTW

OO

D

I59

GE

OR

GIA

58TH

12TH

6TH

59TH

I20

I59

50TH

3RD

66TH

CLA

IRM

ON

T

11TH

51ST

52N

D

53RD

10TH

8TH

CRES

THIL

L

64TH

5TH

63RD

62ND

MONTEVALLO

1ST

60TH

HAGOOD54TH

13TH

ALTA

MONT

DU

NS

TON

WARREN

GLA

DS

TON

E

55TH

HOADLEY

SIM

S

DUBLIN

48TH

HARVE

PUBL

IC

65TH

MO

NA

RC

H

49TH

56TH

SUNSE

T

47TH

UNNAMED

SO

UTH

CR

ES

T

MOUNTAIN

DALE

LARR

Y

SOUTHALL

4TH

57TH

KE

NTU

CK

Y

CR

ES

T G

RE

EN

MOUNTAIN RIDGE

67TH

FRANKFORT

61ST

2ND

DIVI

SIO

NKINGSBURY

EMMA

LEACH

WIN

STO

N

ATHENS

XAVI

ER

ROCKFORD

BEECH

GLE

NVIE

W

BRUSS

ELS

ART HANES

OV

ER

WO

OD

POW

ELL

BR

OW

NIN

G

DEL RAY

OAK

ANTWERP

JOH

N W

ESLE

Y

CAROL

CHURCHILL

RAI

LRO

AD

69TH

SHORT

TIMBERLANE

9TH

55TH

ANTWERP

47THPUBLIC

56TH

6TH

CRESTWOOD

3RD

I20

I59

6TH

49TH

63RD

GE

OR

GIA

PUBLIC

11TH

PUBL

IC

60TH

50TH

51ST

PU

BLI

C

55TH

59TH

PUBLIC

6TH

64TH

48TH

54TH

63RD

64TH

51ST

53RD

59TH

12TH

CRES

TWO

OD

52ND52ND

1ST

52ND

PUBLIC

PUBL

IC

5TH

10TH

8TH

PUBL

IC

57TH

50TH

2ND

DIVI

SIO

N

I59

I59

47TH

8TH

8TH

55TH

01,

000

2,00

050

0Fe

et1

inch

= 1

,000

feetl

2

37

4

6

5

1

SOU

THER

N A

REA

-CR

ESTW

OO

OD

CO

MM

UN

ITY

Side

wal

k Co

nditi

on

Poor

/Nee

ds R

epai

r

Goo

d

Prio

ritie

s Shor

t-te

rm

Mid

-ter

m

Stre

et C

ente

rline

Long

-ter

m

1/4

Mile

Rad

ius

of T

rans

it St

op

birmingham sidewalk master plan · city center - southside ... neighborhood main, neighborhood...

Documents