lansing sidewalks august 2012

August 2012Jessica Yorko, Chair

Public Services CommitteeLansing City Council

1

Presentation and Ballot Language available online at

www.lansingsfourthward.com

“News and Events”

Or contact our -office at 517-483-4177

2

http://www.lansingsfourthward.com/

Why Care About Sidewalks

3

Sidewalks Increase Property Values

“Walkability [including sidewalks] adds anywhere from $4,000 to $34,000 to home values, according to the [CEOs for Cities 2009] study.” www.houselogic.com/home-advice/green-

living/does-walkability-raise-property-values

www.ceosforcities.org/pagefiles/WalkingTheWalk_CEOsforCities.pdf

4

http://www.houselogic.com/home-advice/green-living/does-walkability-raise-property-values













http://www.ceosforcities.org/pagefiles/WalkingTheWalk_CEOsforCities.pdf

Many People Do Not Drive

This includes:

• Many of the 21% of Americans who are over 65

• All children under 16

• Many low income Americans who cannot afford

automobiles More than 50% of non-drivers stay at home on a given day because they lack transportation options.

Sources:

Surface Transportation Policy Project. “Americans’ Attitudes Toward Walking and Creating Better Walking Communities.” 2003.

American Public Transportation Association. 2009 Public Transportation Fact Book.

2008 National Household Travel Survey. Non-drivers represent 29.8% of Americans. Of those over 65, non-drivers represent 20.79%.

Steven Raphael and Alan Berube. “Socioeconomic Differences in Household Automobile Ownership Rates: Implications for Evacuation Policy,” paper prepared

for the Berkeley Symposium on “Real Estate, Catastrophic Risk, and Public Policy,” March 23, 2006, http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/raphael.pdf5

More Americans will be Non-Drivers by 2030

Aging Population:

50% of Americans will be over 55 in 2030.

Photo: Michael Ronkin, ODOT

August 2012 Presentation from Jessica Yorko, Chair, Public Services Committee, Lansing City Council6

Americans Want to Walk and Bike More

55% of Americans would prefer to

drive less and walk more. STPP Poll

photos: Dan Burden, pedbikeimages.org


Sidewalks Encourage Walking

Residents are 65% more likely to walk in a neighborhood with sidewalks.

STPP Poll


Top Pedestrian Complaints AreIncomplete Streets

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Too Few Sidewalks

Insensitive Drivers

Poor Surface

Percentage of Pedestrians Experiencing Problematic Streets

Nondisabled

Disabled

2002 National Transportation

Availability & Use Survey10

Lansing Has Many Non-Drivers

Lansing:• 11,132 seniors over age 65• 9,594 people with two or more disabilities• 20,657 children between age 5 and 16

(Nearly 40% of our total population)

Ingham County:• 8,713 Ingham County households do not

have a vehicle

August 2012 Presentation from Jessica Yorko, Chair, Public Services Committee, Lansing City Council

Source: 2000 Census

11

SafetyOf the 13 pedestrians and bicyclists killed by cars in Lansing

between 2001 and 2005, most were children and seniors.


•MLK

•Cedar

•Penn

•Kalamazoo

•Malcom X/St

Joe

•Michigan

•Saginaw

•Oakland

•Willow

•Mt. Hope

•Jolly

•Miller

13

Non-motorized travel options allow people to save money on gas by making fewer car trips. Building walk and bike friendly features leads to more walking and bicycling.

Creating non-motorized travel options helps manage traffic demand, saves money on road and parking facilities, reduces congestion.

Cost-Savings for Individuals and Government

Sources: Igor Vojnovic’s study reported in Engaged Scholar Magazine, 2007 backs up a 2005 study by John Pucher and Ralph Buehler, reported in

Transport Policy 13 (2006).. American Journal of Health Promotion, 200314

Health

20% of Ingham County adults are obese and 1 in 3 is overweight.

The leading cause of death in Michigan is heart disease. 1/3 of all deaths in the United States attributable to coronary heart disease could have been prevented if all persons were highly active. Research continues to show a strong relationship between walkability and bikeability and residents’ overall physical health.

Sources. Michigan Department of Community Health-MDCH, 2000. Centers for Disease Control, 2007. n 2004, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

reported that in Marin, CA, 64% more kids were walking to school within two years of a Safe Routes to School effort that included infrastructure changes

and encouragement. In 2007, a RWJF study showed that people living in neighborhoods with a mix of shops and businesses within easy walking

distance have a 35% lower risk of obesity.Two studies by Lawrence Frank, published in 2006 in the Winter 2005/2006 Journal of the American Planning

Association show the relationship between walkability, physical activity, and physical health (taking into account other variables such as

age, income, education, and ethnicity), summarized online at www.planning.org/newsreleases/2006/ftp020706.htm. Capital Area Behavior Risk Factor

Survey.

15

Obesity and Active Transportation

Obesity is lower in places where people use bicycles, public transportation, and their feet.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percen

t W

alk

, B

ike,T

ra

nsi

t

Percen

t o

f O

besi

ty

Obesity Walk, Bike, Transit

Pucher, “Walking and Cycling: Path to Improved Public Health,” Fit City Conference, NYC, June 200916

Diabetes and Active Transportation

Source:Bicycling and Walking in

the United States: 2010

Benchmarking Report, Alliance for

Biking and Walking

States with the highest

levels of biking and

walking have, on

average, the lowest rates

of obesity, diabetes, and

high blood pressure.

17

Businesses that provide opportunities for employees to walk and bicycle during the workday report a 28% reduction in sick-leave absenteeism, 26% reduction in use of health care benefits, and 30% reduction in worker’s compensation claims and disability management.

If just 1 in 20 sedentary Michigan adults became physically active, Michigan employers would save $575 million per year in healthcare costs and insurance premiums.

Walkability features in downtown Lodi, CA have led to a 30% overall increase in sales for downtown businesses, a drop in the vacancy rate from 18% to 6%, and the addition of 60 new businesses.

Financial Benefits for Business

Sources: Quantifying the benefits of non-motorized travel for achieving TDM Goals by Todd Litman, published in Transportation Research

Record, No. 1441 (“Nonmotorized Transportation Around the World”), 1994, pp. 134-140 and online at www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf.

Also, Economic Value of Walkability by Todd Litman, published in Transportation Research Record 1828, Transportation Research Board

(www.trb.org), 2003, pp. 3-11, and available online at www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf. The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities, by the

Local Government Commission. Online at www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/focus/walk_to_money.pdf

18

Environment and Climate Change

In Michigan, vehicles create 30% of Michigan’s ozone-forming pollutants. The more walkable a community, the lower the vehicle emissions.

Between 1960 and 2001, Michigan’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 46%— primarily as a result of oil combustion for transportation.


Sources. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Asthma Initiative of Michigan, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, www.ipcc.ch. U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund. 2006. The Carbon Boom: National and State Trends in

Carbon Dioxide Emissions since 1960. Washington, DC.

19

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Quality of LifeThe May/June 2012 edition of the Michigan

Municipal League magazine cover article is about Place Making: “Research shows that placemaking matters more than ever.” MML lists 8 placemaking assets, the first one is Physical Design and Walkability.

79% of Americans rate “sidewalks and places to take walks” as a top consideration in choosing where to live. Recent college graduates from Michigan schools say that safe streets and neighborhoods, walk-able streets, and affordable living are their top factors in choosing where to live.


Complete Streets: Improve Mobility for Older Americans, 2007., American’s Current Attitudes toward Walking and Creating More

Walkable Communities., The Surface Transportation Policy Project www.transact.org/library/reports_pdfs/pedpoll.pdf Michigan

Economic Development Corporation, 2004 “Cool Cities” Survey.

20

Sidewalks in Lansing

540-590 miles of sidewalk

Some are great! Some are broken.Some are missing.

Photos from http://lmb.org/Lansing/Sidewalks.html


http://lmb.org/Lansing/Sidewalks.html

What Residents Said About Sidewalks During 2009

Non-Motorized Planning Sessions

22

Most comments were about Waverly Road:

• Glasgow to Old Lansing: bridge over river is too tight and sidewalk is closed; needs sidewalks north to Grand River Park; no sidewalk or bike lane at bridge on Waverly at the River.

• Jolly to Old Lansing: need bike lane & sidewalk

• Miller to Grand River: needs sidewalks, bike trails

• Jolly to Saginaw: need regional cooperation on sidewalk maintenance and keeping bridge open in winter (3 comments)

Waverly Road


Waverly and Cooley



24


East and Northeast

• Michigan: Capitol to Clippert: sidewalks need improvement, floods in winter and spring. Has sidewalks but they’re in bad shape.

• Michigan: sidewalks between Foster and Frandor are unlevel, broken, dirty

• Marshall and Saginaw: sidewalk ends at this point

• Clippert and Kalamazoo: bad sidewalks, narrow

• Saginaw and Grand River: no sidewalks on Northside

• Wood: needs sidewalks in Lansing section (3 comments)


Michigan Ave at US 127

25

Kalamazoo



26


Wood Street



27


Kalamazoo and Hosmer



28


Kalamazoo & Jones


Photos from http://lmb.org/Lansing/Sidewalks.html29


Homer and Sellers



30


Northeast and Northwest

• Old Town/ Pine and Willow: sidewalks are disconnected. Improve sidewalks and links to Old Town, connect sidewalks around the river.

• Saginaw: Cedar to Penn and Stanley to Waverly: no sidewalks

• Oakland: Cedar: sidewalk does not go through all sections

• Cedar: Oakland to Saginaw: spotty sidewalks

• Cedar: Downtown to Old Town: sidewalks should be continuous to Stadium District


• Mt Hope: Harrison to Moores River Drive: needs complete sidewalks

• Mt Hope and Washington: needs sidewalks

• Cedar: Cavanaugh to Holmes: complete sidewalks

• Cedar: Cavanaugh to Jolly: needs sidewalks

• Edgewood: Cedar to Washington: needs sidewalks, senior housing, worn footpaths (several comments about Edgewood)

• Pleasant Grove: Edgewood to Jolly: no sidewalks

Southeast and Southwest


Pleasant Grove near Hill Center




Mt Hope at Cemetery




Mt. Hope at Lindbergh



35


Southeast and Southwest

• Miller: Cedar to Wash: sidewalks are bumpy and uneven

• Mt. Hope: needs sidewalk to River Trail on north side of Mt. Hope

• Aurelius and Jolly: sidewalks need to be continuous in this area

• Aurelius and Mt. Hope: sidewalks needed by Fenner

• Ben Davis Park: sidewalks needed

• Frances Park to Moores Park: connect with River Trail

• Rosedale: Hilliard & Sawyer: no sidewalks


Jolly & Dunckel



37


Jolly



38


Jolly at Pennsylvania



39


Neighborhoods

• Grand Oak and Spanish Oak: needs sidewalks

• Everett and Jenison: bad sidewalks, make repairs

• Michigan and MLK: some sidewalks are broken

• Massachusetts and North: North Lansing, sidewalks need improvement

• North of Frandor, very poor sidewalks

• Cleo and Willow: no walk/bike facilities

• Northrup: MLK to Wash: sidewalks are bumpy and too skinny

• Viking: Holmes to Victor: no sidewalks


The Missing

41

Major Street Sidewalk Network Completion Analysis

• AKA “Gap Closure”

• Requested by Council in 2005 after death of 7-year old Chantell Buckner on Saginaw near Cedar

• Analyzed 76.1 miles of sidewalk gaps on major roads.

• Recommended construction of 39.5 miles@ $8.76M Total


Roadside Memorial for Chantell

Buckner, Age 7

42

Missing Sidewalks: Gap Closure

• 8.1 miles completed b/w 2004 and 2007 @ $1.58M total

Gaps filled on:LarchMLK

DouglasGrand River Ave

EdgewoodMarshall

MillerPennsylvania

SaginawWashingtonCity Share

$896,000 57%

Assessable Share

$685,000 43%

Cost of 8.1 miles of sidewalk gap completed2004-2007

City share was 57% of total because city pays for intersections and areas that border parks and other public facilities, and because of 2006 city ordinance.



• In 2006, City Council lowered the amount that the city can assess property owners for new sidewalks adjacent to their home from 100% to 50%, via city ordinance.

City Share$1,238,000

78%

Assessable Share

$342,000 22%

For comparison: cost-share ratio for same 8.1 miles under 50% assessment formula



• Net effect = $1.8M+ additional cost to city and 13+ additional years to complete gap closure

City Share$6.8M78%

Assessable Share$1.9M 22%



• This city was spending approximately $200,000 per year on sidewalk construction, to fill about 2 miles of sidewalk gaps per year.

• At this pace, the recommended gaps would have been filled by about 2024.

• After 2006, choice was for city to begin spending approx. $290,000 per year to continue at the same pace, or to continue spending $200k/year and extend plan completion to 2037.



• 2008 and 2009 Construction

– M. L. King Jr. Blvd – Miller to Edgewood

– Edgewood – MLK to Georgetown Blvd

– Miller Road – Pennsylvania to Beechfield

– N Larch – Douglas to Thomas

• 2010 Construction

– N Grand River Ave

• 2012 Construction

– Waverly Road Non-motorized pathway

City Share

$210,918.70

Assessment

$ 69,158.63

Project

$280,077.33

Square feet of sidewalk

Constructed = 41,785

City Share

$175,131.98

Assessment

$107,839.90

Project

$282,971.88

Square feet of

sidewalk

Constructed = 41,284

Holmes Road

Jolly Road

Waverly Road

Non-Motorized

Path

2012 Construction

Federal CMAQ Project

City Share

$106,480

Federal Share

$425,920

Assessments $0

Project

$532,400

Work

Area

Cross Walk

Installation


• Current estimate by Public Service Department to construct the remaining 31.4 miles = $9.7M

• Cost has gone up from original estimates because of increases in material and labor costs and because of new ADA requirements for intersections (grading, pads with truncated domes)


The Broken

52

Broken Sidewalks:

• Need some facts here from PSD about how we handle sidewalk repair

• Amt fixed/year, and where

• Cost to fix

• Who pays



53


City Share

$235,491.23

Assessment

$ 50,614.63

Project

$286,105.86

Square feet of

sidewalk

Replacement =

52,811

Walkability Audits

• Started in 2010 by AARP and Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council

• So far approximately 75% streets audited for sidewalk condition and availability

• More volunteers needed to complete

• Details at www.midmeac.org or call

517-292-9078

• Public Service Department estimates cost of repairing sidewalks at $1M/year


http://www.midmeac.org/

Next Steps(The $9.7 million dollar question)

56

Step 1

1. Allow voters to decide on dedicating .5 mills to sidewalk repair and replacement for 2013-2016 (approximately $2.4 million total).

Fiscal Year

Projected Taxable Value

Percent Change

Projected Levy 19.44 Mills Amt Per Mill

Proposed .5 Mill Sidewalk Revenue

FY2014 $ 1,958,944,700 -9% $ 33,790,804 $ 1,738,210 $ 869,105

FY2015 $ 1,841,408,000 -6% $ 31,763,356 $ 1,633,917 $ 816,959

FY2016 $ 1,786,165,800 -3% $ 30,810,456 $ 1,584,900 $ 792,450

$ 2,478,514

57

House Value $100,000 $70,000 $50,000

Projected increase of .5 Sidewalk Mill $25 $17.50 $12.50

Annual Cost Per Household FY2014-FY2016

This amount can fund approximately16.2 miles of new sidewalks (nearly

half of remaining portion of gap closure) if Step 2 is also implemented.

Without Step 2, this amount can fund approximately 8.1 miles of gap

closure.58

Steps 2 & 3

2. Restore 100% assessment to property owners for new sidewalks in developed areas to equalize city-property owner shares for remaining gap closure plan (approximately $4.85 million if applied to the entire 31.5 remaining miles of gap closure).

3. Continue offering flexible payment plans and schedules and CDBG assistance in eligible low-income areas.

59

Step 4 & 5

4. Codify requirements for sidewalk installation with land development or redevelopment (currently handled administratively through site plan review)

5. Develop a program requiring property owners to handle sidewalk repair on sidewalks adjacent to their homes and dedicated funds for the city to handle sidewalk repair on sidewalks adjacent to city property.

60

Steps 6 & 7

6. Long-term (in 6-8 years): Revisit “Point of Sale” ordinance requiring property owners to make repairs upon sale of property. (Based on assumption of equity accumulation between the purchase and sale of property.)

7. Work with state and federal decision makers to improve funding sources for sidewalk installation, repair and maintenance, especially along state trunklines.

61

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Represent 12% of trips

Suffer 13% of fatalities

Receive 1% of federal funding

Bicyclists and Pedestrians

Sources:

Funding: Federal Highway Administration’s Fiscal Management Information System

Trips: 2008 National Household Travel Survey

Fatalities: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting

System

Federal Funding Disconnect

62

Sidewalks Repair in Other Cities

• Property Owners Responsible:

– In Cincinnatti, CMC §721-163 makes owners of abutting property responsible for funding construction and maintenance relating to sidewalks

– In Seattle, property owners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalks adjacent to their property. They must make sure snow and ice does not pose a hazard to pedestrians. They must also repair cracks and other damage

– www.tippcityohio.gov/sidewalk_replacement.cfm

• Point of Sale Program:

www.uctc.net/access/36/access-36brokensidewalks.pdf

63August 2012 Presentation from Jessica Yorko, Chair, Public Services Committee, Lansing City Council

Presentation and Ballot Language available online at

www.lansingsfourthward.com

“News and Events”

Or contact our -office at 517-483-4177

64

http://www.lansingsfourthward.com/

lansing sidewalks august 2012

Documents

jessica yorko

public policy

americans attitudes

transportation options

physical health

low income americans

people tosave money

lower risk of obesity