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
6 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
8 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
12 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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
14 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
Strategic Oppor-tunity Area
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
Glen Iris Elementary
16th Avenue South between 14th and 19th Streets South Glen IrisElementary
Glen Iris Elementary
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.
LONG-TERM PRIORITIES
• 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
1/4 Mile Radius of Transit Stop
14 13
10
11
12
16 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
Strategic Oppor-tunity Area
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
18 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
LONG-TERM PRIORITIES
• 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.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
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
20 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
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 considered long-term priorities.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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
22 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
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 considered long-term priorities.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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
24 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
1/4 Mile Radius of Transit Stop
26 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
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 considered long-term priorities.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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
28 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
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 considered long-term priorities.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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
30 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
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 also be consid-ered long-term priorities.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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
32 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
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 also be consid-ered long-term priorities.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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
34 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
1/4 Mile Radius of Transit Stop
36 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
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 also be consid-ered long-term priorities.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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
1/4 Mile Radius of Transit Stop
38 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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.
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 also be consid-ered long-term priorities.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
40 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
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.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
42 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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
• 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.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
1/4 Mile Radius of Transit Stop
8
7
6
44 Birmingham Sidewalk Master Plan - DRAFT
STREET/SECTION Repair Construction SRTS Route RRRVT Trail Transit Stop
Mixed-Use Med Density Residential
Strategic Op-portunity Area
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.
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 also be consid-ered long-term priorities.
NO SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDED
• 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
Top Related