Fishinger Road Transportation Plan

The Ohio State University

Knowlton School of Architecture
Department of City and Regional Planning
CRPLAN 6950 - Transportation Studio
Spring Semester 2016
Professor Chad Gibson

Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................4
Introduction/ Overview......................................................7
Process................................................................................11
Recommendations......................................................14

Corridor Characteristics...................................................15

Corridor Map..............................................................16

Land Use and Environmental........................................18

Average Property Values.............................................20

Regional Connectivity.................................................22

Road Condition and Utilities.........................................24

Traffic Volume and Speed............................................26

Pavement...................................................................28

Crash Data.................................................................30

Existing Conditions Summary.........................................32
Proposals............................................................................34
Introduction................................................................35

Option 1 - Base...........................................................36

Option 2 - Recommended...........................................38

Option 3 - Best Practices..............................................40

Branding/Wayfinding...................................................45
Funding...............................................................................46

Gap Analysis...............................................................47

Proposal Costs.............................................................48

Grant Funding.............................................................51
Outreach............................................................................54
Overview....................................................................55

City Outreach.............................................................56

Resident Engagement.................................................57
Appendix............................................................................62

Traffic Calming Best Practices/Definitions.......................63

Case Studies...............................................................69

Additional Transportation Data....................................70

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).....................76

Transit Costs................................................................78

Additional Outreach Materials......................................80

Letter of Approval.......................................................83
Sources.......................................................................84

Executive Summary

Writing a transportation plan is a collaborative effort!

Our team would like to take this opportunity to thank each
individual who has helped move this project forward. Without
your contribution, we wouldnt have acquired such a wealth
of knowledge about Upper Arlington. More importantly, each
student truly appreciates the time you spent talking to us
about improving Fishinger Road. Thank you for your support!
-Gabriel Filer, MCRP Candidate
City of Upper Arlington
Lt. Ernie Ankrom, Acting Police Chief
Chad Gibson, Senior Planning Officer/Instructor
Megan Hoffman, Community Affairs Coordinator
Carla Marseilles, Assistant City Engineer
Emma Speight, Community Affairs Director
Jackie Thiel, City Engineer
Upper Arlington City Council
John Adams, City Council
Carolyn Casper, City Council
David DeCapua, City Council
Kip Greenhill, Vice President of City Council
Debbie Johnson, President of City Council
Brendan King, City Council
Michael Schadek, City Council
Upper Arlington Board of Zoning & Planning
Daniel Barringer
Kevin Carpenter
Marianne Mitchell
Donald Osterhout
Shannon Tolliver
Robert Tullett, Chair
Thomas Ward II, Vice Chair

Acknowledgements

Carpenter Marty Transportation, Inc.

Kevin Carpenter, Principal
John Gallagher, Director of Traffic and Planning Services
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Nate Vogt, Senior Engineer
Ohio Department of Transportation
Julie Walcoff, Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager
The Ohio State University
Tom Komlanc, University Engineer
Upper Arlington Fire Division
Jeff Young, Fire Chief
Yay Bikes!
Meredith Joy, Program Director
Safe Routes to School
Julie Walcoff, Ohio Program Manager
Upper Arlington Parks and Forestry
Steve Cothrel, Superintendent

Our objective was to produce a transportation plan to enhance

the functionality, connectivity, and design of Fishinger Road
while considering infrastructure life cycle needs and financial
constraints.
The Fishinger Road Transportation Plan consists of seven
elements: Introduction, Process, Corridor Characteristics,
Proposals, Funding, Outreach, and Appendix. A significant
portion of this plan covers potential improvements. Each
proposal incorporates visual graphics and text to illustrate
our ideas.
The Introduction element provides regional context and offers
a brief explanation of current issues. The Process section
contains a list of goals and objectives. This section examines
the Citys adopted plans and policies.
The Corridor Characteristics section describes the physical
conditions of Fishinger Road. Traffic counts and crash data
are used to shed light on dangerous areas while maps of
underground utilities and surface conditions reveal which
places are in need of repair. Additionally, land use maps
and property value data are featured to highlight economic
characteristics.

The Funding element contains a full Needs Assessment

and includes a list of expenses related to this project. For
instance, this document lists the average cost for installing
new sidewalks and curb cuts. The final piece incorporates a
toolkit for city officials to explore grant opportunities.
The Outreach section discusses resident engagement and
analyzes survey results. This component highlights changes
residents want to see. In addition, a list of meetings and events
is provided to help city officials understand the process which
guided this project.
The Appendix contains a list of Best Management Practices
and case studies. More importantly, this component will
aid local officials while they apply for grants. Supplemental
research not included in previous sections is incorporated
here.

The Proposal section provides stakeholders with improvement

options. It includes three alternatives to enhance Fishinger
Road. Each design ranges in cost. Alternatives are provided
so the community can match needs with financial resources
to fund each improvement over time. In addition, this section
includes branding ideas.

Statement of Purpose

Introduction/Overview

A Team of 13 Graduate and PhD students from Ohio States City and Regional Planning
program have been tasked with completing a professional practicum focusing on the Fishinger
Road Corridor. This studio represents an uncommon opportunity for Upper Arlington residents,
leaders and Fishinger Road stakeholders: to have a team of exceptional and gifted individuals
work for the benefit of the community at no cost! As the studio instructor, I have had the
privilege of guiding these talented students in a way that will improve the city in which I live
and work. The projects location makes this effort personal in some aspects, tapping into
my strong desire as a planner to make the world a better place, except this time the place
happens to be my own backyard. Fishinger Road was selected as the studios topic for a
variety of reasons - its proximity to campus and its readily evident need for improvement,
just to name two. This effort is also timely, as the road is scheduled for resurfacing in the
Citys Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) within the next several years, and as there also are
grants available which can be secured as a means to lower the overall project cost to the
City. Securing grants and alternate funding sources also gives the project a better chance of
incorporating sidewalks, bike lanes, shared-use paths and other amenities which will benefit
residents and businesses alike.
It is also critical to note that the Columbus Region will likely see a population increase of
over 500,000 new residents in the next 34 years. Upper Arlington and the surrounding
communities are sure to see their share of this significant and historic growth. Fishinger Road,
a four-lane arterial that is mostly devoid of basic pedestrian amenities, does not adhere to
Councils complete streets policy, nor does it comply with the goals and objectives of the Citys
Transportation Plan. My hope is that Upper Arlingtons leadership will recognize the quality of
the work contained within these pages and take appropriate action in order to transform one
of their most heavily traveled streets into a welcoming corridor that is more representative of
the community they hold dear.
This studio experience has been designed to provide a framework in which the students can
thrive, allowing for the maximization of their talents and abilities in a real-world scenario. If I
have done my job properly, this product will be on par with any work produced by professional
consultants. Each semester, I am deeply impressed by the quality of the work these fine
students produce, and I am reminded how academically elite The Ohio State University has
become. It is the opportunity of a lifetime to help these students along their way to successful
and impactful careers, and it is a role which I cherish. Thanks for reading this document I
hope you find it contains real benefits just waiting to be put into practice.
Chad D. Gibson, AICP
Senior Planning Officer / Associated Faculty
City of Upper Arlington / The Ohio State University

The Studio

Regional Context

Upper Arlington is an inner-ring suburb northwest of downtown

Columbus. It is home to roughly 34,000 residents. Even
though Ohio State is located in Columbus, the University
has a significant presence within the City. Upper Arlington is
home to nearly 4,000 University employees. In addition, the
Wexner Medical Center is constructing new medical offices in
the Kingsdale Shopping Center. Upper Arlington is also home
to several attractions such as The Ohio State University Golf
Club and Scioto Country Club.

270

23

270

315

270

GAHANNA

Fishinger Rd.

UPPER
ARLINGTON

270

71

62

270

Obrien Rd

670

270

70

670

70

70

670

670

71

Cole Rd

VALLEYVIEW

WHITEHALL

COLUMBUS

62

Rd

71

Study Area

16

70

70

Upper Arlington City Boundary

BEXLEY

40

270

Alton Rd

an

Upper Arlington

33

270

rn
Mu

Upper Arlington is home to three major east-west corridors:

West Lane Avenue, Fishinger Road, and Henderson Road.
Each of these streets serve as important regional connectors.
Fishinger Road crosses through the center of Upper Arlington.
It begins at Kenny Road and terminates at Cemetery Road.

161

270

HILLIARD

MINERVA
PARK

71

40

According to the Citys Master Plan, 70% of the total land use
is zoned residential. 61.5% of the Citys land is designated
for single-family units and 6.1% is designated for multi-family
units. Commercial space only accounts for 4.7% of the citys
land use. The least abundant type of land use is office, which
only consumes 1.1% of the total land area.

71

161

Cha rter St

Upper Arlingtons geography is relatively compact

stretching 9.9 square miles. The City is surrounded by
other municipalities and therefore does not have the luxury
of expanding its boundaries. Given the limited amount of
undeveloped land, it is crucial for the City to pursue smart
investments.

WORTHINGTON

23

Columbus City Boundary

33

70

70 Gro
ves Rd

Local Context

23

270

23

33

Northwest
Park

71

33

Fancyburg
Park

Zollinger Rd

315

33

Scioto
Country
Club

Smith
Nature
Park

Upper
Arlington
High School

71

23

Saint
Agatha
Lane Ave School Cardiff
Woods
Westover
Park
Park
Mallway
Park
Miller
Park

270

Kenny Rd

Northam
Park

71

The Wellington
School
Redding Rd

Fishinger Rd.

Reed Road
Park

Griggs
Park
270

O.S.U.
Golf
Course

McCoy Rd

Olentan
gy
River

Oxford
Park

Rd

270

on
t

Langston
Park

Thompson
Park

Lane Rd

Tre
m

Scioto River

315

33

Local Context

Study Area

Rivers and Wetlands

Golf Course

Upper Arlington Schools

Park

Upper Arlington City Boundary

Process

Our team completed a comprehensive review of plans and

policies adopted by the City of Upper Arlington in order to
develop a full understanding of current conditions and to
ensure that our proposals honor existing guidelines and
requirements.
Seven key plans and policies are summarized below as they
relate to our project:
Upper Arlington Master Plan The Citys Master Plan was
last updated on March 11, 2013. Its overarching goal is to
provide a comprehensive transportation network that is safe,
convenient, and accessible to the entire community. Chapter
Seven of the plan details three important findings related to
transportation: congested roadways, unsafe speeds and high
cut-through traffic volumes on residential streets, and a lack
of sidewalks in many residential areas. Objectives identified in
this plan include maintaining the functionality of the roadway
network, encouraging mixed-use development with multimodal transportation, expanding walking opportunities, and
improving bicycling opportunities.
Guide to Neighborhood Lights in Upper Arlington This
guide was last updated October 2014. It aims to explain and set
guidelines for neighborhood lights which are eight-sided, 12foot Arcadia cast aluminum poles with an Edgewater lantern
luminaire top. These lights are designed to provide ambient
lighting for the benefit of homeowners and pedestrians as
well as vehicular traffic. The City aims to have lights about
150 feet apart, alternating from one side of the street to the
other, and at least five feet or more from driveways. Upper
Arlington officials have contracted with an engineering firm,
GDP Group, to implement street lighting upgrades in several

Plans and Policies

parts of the city with an expected completion date of 2018.

Approximately 140 wooden light poles will be replaced as
part of this project, and wiring systems with conduits will be
installed in order to provide better excavation protection.
Phase 2 of this project will replace the poles and lights on
Fishinger Road from Riverside Drive to Tremont Road and is
expected to begin in the second half of 2016.
Complete Streets Policy This policy was adopted by City
Council on July 14, 2014, when Upper Arlington joined many
communities around the world in recognizing the importance of
roadways that safely and comfortably accommodate all users
within the public right-of-way. These users include motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, transit and school bus riders, delivery
and service personnel, freight haulers, and emergency
responders. Moreover, in this plan, the City affirmed its
desire to provide street networks that safely connect to all
properties, creating a more livable and welcoming lifelong
community for all citizens regardless of age or ability. The
following characteristics of Complete Streets are included in
the plan: wider sidewalks, pedestrian intersection treatments,
narrower streets in low-speed residential areas, pedestrian
refuge islands on moderate-speed arterial or collector
streets, on-street and/or off-street bicycle facilities, enhanced
landscaping and streetscape elements, more non-vehicular
connections between the public right-of-way and private
property, and transit accommodations along key corridors.
Upper Arlington Transportation Plan This plan was
prepared in 2001 but has not been adopted by the City.
Fishinger Road is recognized as a key corridor for the
community in this plan, but the authors found that the level
of traffic along Fishinger Road creates a barrier between

people and their destinations. In response to concerns raised

by residents who attended design charrettes during the
research process, the authors recommend that Fishinger be
reconfigured as a three-lane road with roundabouts at Kioka
Avenue and Mountview Road as well as Tremont Road,
Northwest Boulevard, and North Star Avenue. They note
that the roadway should incorporate five-foot, one-way offstreet bike paths and six-foot sidewalks along both sides of
the street. The authors cite traffic forecasts indicating little
traffic growth in the corridor to support their conclusion that
the three-lane road will be adequate to serve future travel
demand.
Upper Arlington Pedestrian Connectivity Plan This plan
was developed by Master of City and Regional Planning
students at The Ohio State University and published in
November 2013. It includes a street priority index that identifies
streets most in need of sidewalks based on factors such as
street type, proximity to community amenities, and current
sidewalk infrastructure. The authors conclude that Upper
Arlington should create a restricted Sidewalk Implementation
Fund that implements new sidewalk projects in accordance
with a Sidewalk Prioritization Schedule. They note that
Fishinger Road, a key arterial street, is lacking sidewalks in
many places, and they include it on their high priority list for
the Sidewalk Prioritization Schedule.
Street Tree Planting in Upper Arlington - This informational
document was published in March 2015. It establishes that
trees should be planted at least seven feet from fire hydrants
and street lights as well as driveways and street signs, six
feet from underground utility line valves or drain pipes, and
35 feet from the corner curb of street intersections. Small

species of trees (15-30 feet at maturity) like the ones that

already exist and could be planted in greater numbers along
Fishinger Road must be placed at least 24 inches from the
edge of the curb or sidewalk and 10 feet from the nearest
tree. Examples of these types of trees include certain Maples,
Buckeyes, and Hawthorns.
10-Year Capital Improvement Plan This plan was
expanded into a ten-year, $113 million plan in Autumn 2013
when the City recognized that its previous approach of
investing an average of $6 million per year into infrastructure
improvements was insufficient to address an increasing
backlog of needs. Throughout 2016, the City plans to continue
work on the Tremont Road reconstruction project and embark
on reconstruction or resurfacing work on 29 other streets.
Furthermore, wooden streetlight poles on Fishinger Road
will be replaced and three waterline replacement projects are
scheduled.

Recommendations

Goals

1. Implement Upper Arlingtons Complete Streets

policy on Fishinger Road in order to meet the needs of
all users.

2. Maintain access to regional destinations while

preserving UAs unique community character.
Improve livability, safety, and character along the corridor.

3. Position the plans for the corridor strategically in

order to maximize eligibility for future state and federal
funding.

Objectives

1. Design and implement Complete Streets

principles incrementally, including sidewalks, accessible
crossings, and bicycle accommodations.

2. Provide alternative access to areas of interest,

including educational, religious, recreational, and
commercial locations, while balancing demand with
residential character.

3. Enhance the character of the corridor by rightsizing

the road in a context-sensitive manner.

4. Align corridor proposals with state and federal

programs in order to ensure eligibility for potential
funding.

Objectives with Recommendations

1. Capitalize on conformance with UAs adopted

Complete Streets Policy

2. Emphasize connectivity to the Scioto River/Griggs

Park as a crucial destination for the community

3. Map the area parks and trails in relationship to

Fishinger Road with distances

4. Add banners to the proposed street lights to enhance

branding (if they are not already included)

5. Road diet three-lane configuration with center turn

lane and multi-use path or bike lane

6. Secure grant funding from multiple sources to ensure

the extra amenities make the cut

7. Identify obstructions and high cost items that might

impede sidewalk or path installations

8. Add embedded reflectors and other safety-enhancing

measures along both sides of the S-curve
9. Include signalization technology which allows for
more efficient traffic movement throughout the corridor

Corridor Characteristics

The stretch of Fishinger Road from Riverside to Tremont

is broken down into four reaches with corresponding
descriptions:
Riverside to Kioka
The intersection at Riverside Drive and Fishinger Road
functions as a gateway to Upper Arlington along the
western boundary. It is one of the busier intersections
in Upper Arlington. This section of the corridor, spanning
from Riverside Drive to Kioka Avenue, contains the fewest
number of intersecting roadways. In addition, it contains one
of the two major commercial nodes along the corridor. The
stretch contains few pedestrian facilities, which is a common
characteristic along the corridor, with the lone stretch of
sidewalk spanning just over 300 feet.
Kioka to Ramsgate
The existing land use along the corridor between Kioka Avenue
and Ramsgate Road is entirely residential, with a higher
household density south of Fishinger. The high concentration
of single-family households has resulted in consistent large
building setbacks. Additionally, there are a limited amount
of pedestrian amenities along the reach, which has only
increased the issues associated with pedestrian access and
connectivity along the corridor.

Corridor Map

Ramsgate to Reed
The land use along this stretch is mostly single-family
residential with the exception of a church and a commercial
parcel at the intersection of Mountview and Fishinger. All
parcels along this stretch are accessible from Fishinger
Road, so there is a significant number of curb cuts lining both
sides of the road. Sidewalks exist on both sides of the road
west of Mountview, but are found only sporadically between
Mountview and Ramsgate. Damage consistent with age is
present in the sidewalk, curbs, and roadway. Vehicle crashes
are relatively low along the stretch; however, the crashes that
do occur tend to be at the intersections of Mountview and
Reed.
Reed to Tremont
The land use in this stretch is a mix of commercial, office,
institutional, and single-family residential. The eastern
terminus is a major intersection of five road segments and an
entrance to the Kingsdale Shopping Center, a neighborhood
commercial shopping destination. This segment of Fishinger
curves significantly, and it is rated for 35mph traffic. The
roadway width at this curve is narrower than anywhere else
on the corridor, and it is the site of a majority of the accidents
along the length of the corridor under study. The crashes are
concerning because a school zone for the Wellington School
is in close proximity. Narrow sidewalks (4) exist on both
sides of the road throughout this section of the corridor.

Land Use and Environmental

SURREY HILL
RAMSGATE

CENTE
R
DORCHESTER

OVERDALE

NO RBROOK

KIOKA

Community Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood Mix
Office

KIOKA

TO
G
IN
IRL
FA
SUNSET

The existing land use composition is generally consistent

with the zoning of the properties. Zoning designates land
uses that are compatible and consistent. Zoning also dictates
development standards, which proposals for redevelopment
must meet. The properties north of Fishinger are zoned
R-1B, One-Family Residence District, and R-SC, ResidentialSuburban District. The properties south of Fishinger are
zoned R-1C, One-Family Residence District. The properties
located at the termini of the study area are zoned PMUD,
Planned Mixed Use District. There is one property zoned B-2,
Neighborhood Commercial District, and one property zoned
R-3A, Multi-Family Residence District.

IDE

There are nodes of commercial at the eastern and western

bounds of the study area at the intersections of Fishinger
Road with Riverside Drive and Tremont Road. Mountview
Church and The Wellington School are located along the
corridor and are both designated as public service.

RIVERS

More specifically, the land use is primarily residential with both

single-family and multi-family dwellings. Low and suburban
density single-family housing is concentrated north of the
corridor while medium-suburban and high-suburban density
single-family and multi-family is primarily located south of the
corridor.

Existing land use is the categorization of how land is currently

being used. Land use classification is intended to ensure
that adjacent uses are compatible and complementary. The
Fishinger Road corridor can be categorized as residential
with access to neighborhood level services and institutions.

Res High Urban (20+

Res Low Urban (8-20
Res High Suburban (
Res Mod Suburban (

LE

NGD
A

TR
E

SUNN
I

KIRKHAM

N
LEIGHTO

CO LCHESTER

SCIOTANGY

REDDING

MOUNTVIEW

+ units per acre)

0 units per acre)
(5-8 units per acre)
(3-5 units per acre)

ON

O RD

Y
NSE

SEA
F

PEV
E

R EED

ROMNAY

The existing land use and zoning suggest the composition

of structures along the corridor will remain the same for
the foreseeable future with the exception of the possibility
of redevelopment on the properties zoned PMUD.
Understanding that land use will likely remain unchanged is
important when considering amenities desirable for residential
neighborhoods.

Res Rural (2-5 acre lots)

Public Service
Vacant

Community Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood Mix
Office
Open Space
Park
Res High Urban (20+ units per acre)
Res Low Urban (8-20 units per acre)
Res High Suburban (5-8 units per acre)
Res Mod Suburban (3-5 units per acre)
Res Suburban (1.5-3 units per acre)
Res Low (0.5-1.5 units per acre)
Res Rural (2-5 acre lots)
Public Service
Vacant

Single-family residential homes are the predominant structure

along the corridor. The homes have an average construction
year of 1956 and are located on an average lot size of 23,214
sq. ft. or about half an acre.The residential density along the
corridor is 1.88 dwelling units-per-acre.
83% of homes along the corridor are one-story, and have an
average of three bedrooms, which is smaller than the average
home size for Upper Arlington as a whole. The average
appraised property value for homes fronting Fishinger, within
the project limits, is $233,601, which is below the average
2011 home sale price of $301,257 for all of Upper Arlington.
The properties on the north side of Fishinger generally are
located on larger lots and appraise higher than properties
on the south side. This is likely due to smaller lot size, with
generally large setbacks, and a greater number of homes
on the south side of Fishinger. Additionally, there are more
driveway access points on the south side.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, Upper Arlington
homes experienced an average annual appreciation rate
of 6.9 percent. Since the housing bubble burst and national
recession of the late 2000s, home prices have generally fallen
across the nation. Nationally, from 2006 to 2007, median
home sale prices fell approximately six percent. Locally, the
average selling price for a home in Upper Arlington in 2007
was $334,259 and fell to $301,257 in 2011, a 1.9 percent
average decline per year, which matched Franklin County as
a whole during that time. As of 2016, average property values
in UA increased significantly to $355,116. From 2007 to 2011,
the average Upper Arlington home was on the market for 98.2
days before selling, while the average for Franklin County
during the same time period was 92.4 days.

Average Property Value

Typical Housing Typologies on Fishinger Road

SWANSEA RD

LYON DR

PATRICIA DR

RITAMARIE DR

REED RD

LYTHAM CT
DR
ORD

Y DR

SEA
F

HOVE RD
SOMERFORD RD

LEIGHTON RD

COLCHESTER RD

KIRKHAM RD

M
ILL
W

BI
RC
O

HC

DR

RE
ST

RD

MILDEN RD
LANGHAM RD
KENTWELL RD
ZOLLINGER RD

JERVIS RD
INCHCLIFF RD

0.125

0.25

NORTHWEST BLVD

TR
EM
ON

TR

AVALON RD

ASBURY DR

DERBY RD

LEEDS RD

PKWY

HERRICK RD

CLIFTON

Non-ResidentialRDParcel

RIVERHILL RD

ARDLEIGH RD

AINWICK RD

EASTCLEFT DR

SUNDRIDGE DR

MERRIWEATHER DR

RIDGECLIFF RD

KENYON RD

WICKLIFFE RD

GLENRICH

$1,155,101+

PEV
ENS
E

WESLEYAN DR

$417,001 - $658,600
$658,601 - $1,155,100

ROMNAY RD

OAKMOUNT RD

CIMMARON RD

EASTCLEF

$262,201 T-DR
$417,001

SPRINGHILL DR

CRESTHILL DR

SWANSEA RD

<$262,200

HYTHE RD

SCIOTANGY DR

EDGEVALE RD

HASTINGS LN

REDDING RD

RAMSGATE RD

DORCHESTER RD

FISHINGER RD

GRAC E LN

MOUNTVIEW RD

SHOREHAM RD

WOODSTOCK RD

Residential Parcel
Value
WICKLIFF
E RD

NEW HALL RD

FENWICK RD
CHEVINGTON RD

WOODBRIDGE RD

WALHAVEN RD

SURREY HILL PL

CENTER DR

GLENMERE RD

NOTTINGHAM RD

DR
SUNSE
T

E DR
RIVERS
ID

KIOKA AVE

BRISTOL RD

SHREWSBURY RD

HILLVIEW DR

CHISELHURST PL

BICKLEY PL

OVERDALE DR

NORBROOK DR

EDGEVALE RD

CRANFORD RD

JOHNSTON RD

ANSON ST

KIOKA AVE

DR
TON
FAIR
LING

DONNA DR

ORD RD

RIVER PARK DR

LYTHAM RD

BRAMF

FAIRFAX DR

MIDDLESEX RD

GLENDA PL

RD

BICKLEY PL

LE
AR

0.5 Miles

Pedestrian amenities within the project extents or reaches

are inconsistent, and at points do not connect to crosswalks
or with existing segments. Most of the existing sidewalk is
located between Kioka and Tremont on the eastern edge of
the project extents. From Reed Road to Tremont Road, there
are consistent sidewalks on both sides of the street. Sidewalks
are generally located on the eastern half of the study area to
the intersection of Fishinger Road and Mountview Road, and
sidewalk is intermittently present west of the intersection. The
western edge of the project extent has no sidewalks, and four

marked crosswalks at Kioka Avenue. In terms of connections

to adjacent roads with sidewalks, pedestrians are often left
without options for safe connections to regional destinations.
Kioka Avenue, north of Fishinger, is the only connecting road
in the first two reaches that has sidewalk, and has sidewalk
on the west side only.

ROMNAY RD

MOUNTVIEW RD

SURREY HILL PL

KIOKA AVE

CENT
ER DR

33

R
REED

FAIRLINGTON DR

Fishinger Road Project Reaches

L
IL

RD

V
RI

Existing Sidewalk Status

Unmarked Crosswalk

Regional Connectivity

500
Feet

1,000

TR
E

MO

None

NORTHWEST BLVD

NT

RD

Sidewalk

Marked Crosswalk

RD

SUNNINGDALE

NT

H
ER

MO

DR

TR
E

ER
M

WAY

INVERNESS WA
Y

KIRKHAM RD

LEIGHTON RD

COLCHESTER RD

SCIOTANGY DR

REDDING RD

MOUNTVIEW RD

KIOKA AVE

RAMSGATE RD

RD

DORCHESTER RD

VE
HO

E DR

SUNSET DR

SID
RIVER

E
TH
EA
IW

According to data from the Mid Ohio Regional Planning

Commission (MORPC), there are dedicated bike lanes
on Tremont from Fishinger to Zollinger. There is also an
existing shared use path from Zollinger to Northam as well
as existing sharrows from Northam South to Lane. The
existing bikeway runs along Kioka, connects Zollinger Road
to Fishinger, and offers access to Fancyburg Park. Though
there are few existing bikeways connecting to the project
area, future bikeway plans see the corridor as a major east/
west connection to regional destinations. There are a number
of proposed projects throughout UA and the surrounding
area that have been noted in community and regional plans,
including a mention of a potential bikeway along Fishinger,
connecting to Kenny Road and the Ohio State University to
the east, and Hilliard to the west.

Northwest Kiwanis Park

Burbank Park

W HENDERSON RD

Sunny 95 Park

LANE RD
Wyandot Park
Thompson Park
Oxford Park

MCCOY RD
Stratford Park

REED RD

TR
EM
ON

REDDING RD

RD

NORTHW EST BLVD

Charing Ravine Park

NO RTHAM RD

BE

RT

DR

O
R
NT

Existing
DR

DR

AN

EM
TR

RE

LO W

Westover Park

G
SP
Bikeways
G
U

H OL

W LANE AVE

Parkway Park

LO

EN
STATUS
I SL

IL
QU A

Cardiff Woods Park

Tremont Fountain Park

NORTH STAR RD

RO

Bike facilities currently under

construction along Tremont

Northam Park

Crafton Park

RD

NY

Smith Nature Park

ZOLLING ER RD

Nursery Park

N
KE

Fancyburg Park

TR

FISHINGER RD
KIOKA AVE

DE DR

RIVERSI

MOUNTVIEW RD

Reed Rd. Park

Committed
Proposed

UE

Miller Park

RD

B
Proposed
TR A Local
VE

O
ParkBRITT

Mallway Park

KING AVE

NA

Triangle Park

W 5TH AVE

Columbus GIS

The utilities in the right of way, depicted in the cross-section

of a typical segment, have a unique relationship with the
roadway that cannot be ignored. The existing wooden utility
and light poles that line the corridor lack character and vary
in distance from the curb from six inches to two feet. Their
proximity to the road creates safety concerns when considered
in concert with the crash and speed data presented within
this section. The wooden lampposts along the corridor are
scheduled to be replaced with aluminum neighborhood lights
in accordance with the Guide to Neighborhood Lights in
Upper Arlington in the second half of 2016; therefore, any
recommendations made within this plan will minimize, if not
eliminate, the need to remove or relocate any of the newly
installed poles to minimize government waste and inefficient
construction practices.
The management of stormwater is always a concern in
roadway projects and citizens anecdotes have revealed
concerns about drainage along the corridor. Residents have
voiced concerns about improper drainage of stormwater
and snow melt causing problems, especially when ponding
water freezes. These stories, as well as the assessment
of the pavement in this section, are evidence of structural
problems in the pavement which suggest that more than
a simple resurfacing may be necessary to improve the
quality of the corridor. There is also an underground culvert
that allows a stream to flow under Fishinger Road. While
not being redesigned, a contingency will be included in
any recommendations in case problems in the culvert are
unearthed during construction.

Utilities

6-2
Typical

14

Storm

Sanitary

*Drawing not to scale

Typical Street Section Showing Utility Locations

Additionally, residents have voiced concerns about the

condition of aging water and sanitary sewer systems, reporting
frequent water main breaks and water of questionable
quality coming from their taps. Both the water and sanitary
treatment are handled by the City of Columbus, with water
originating from the Dublin Road and Morse Road plants
and sewage being treated at the Jackson Pike plant. The
city of Upper Arlington is responsible for the management
of the capital assets in the community, such as underground
pipes. It is recommended that as the roadwork is done within
this corridor, that the city inspect and spot repair assets as
needed to improve and maintain these services.

As part of the planning process, a traffic study was conducted

on Fishinger Road, which included traffic counts in two
locations along the roadway. The first location was between
Riverside and Sunset. The second location was between
Riverhill and the five points intersection. The traffic flow on
the road is typical for a minor arterial road, such as Fishinger.
At the Riverside location it was determined that on an
average day of the year 15,847 vehicles use the road. Near
the Five Points intersection 18,932 vehicles use the road on
an average day.
The traffic study revealed that about half of the drivers
were traveling near (38 mph) or below the speed limit of
35 mph at the five points intersection. Near the Riverside
intersection half the drivers studied were speeding, going 41
mph or faster in a 35 mph speed zone. Given the findings,
it is important to consider that traffic speeds in the longer
stretches of uninterrupted traffic flow are likely even faster.
These speeds could be dangerous, especially considering
that there are numerous homes and a school on this stretch
of road. Additionally, it is important to note that many utility
and light poles are located in close proximity to the road and
that losing control of a speeding car could easily result in a
more severe crash due to the utility location.
The heaviest traffic was observed between 5:00-6:00 PM
near Riverside and between 4:30-5:30 PM near five points. At
Riverside, over 11% of the traffic experienced on an average
day was seen during the 5-6 pm hour. At the five points
intersection, nearly 10% of daily traffic occurred between
4:30 and 5:30 pm.

Traffic Volume and Speed

The roadway section from Riverside to Redding was first built

in 1971, and the section east of that was built in 1960. The
entire road from Riverside to Tremont received maintenance
in 2008. In August of 2014, the study area was examined
by engineers to assess the condition of the pavement. Each
of the three segments tested at that time received a 65 out
of 100 Pavement Condition Rating which is a Fair to Poor
condition, which had significantly dropped from the 95 Very
Good rating the pavement received right after maintenance
only six years earlier. This measure of pavement condition is
based on an assessment of damage on the pavement, the
types of damage considered negatively affect the quality of
travel on the road (e.g. potholes), and that shows there are
potential structural issues underneath the pavement surface.
It is important to note that infrastructure deterioration is not
steady over time; as the pavement gets older, the condition will
get worse faster. This could mean a worsening of pavement
condition in the eight years between 2014 and the proposed
capital improvements in 2022 and 2023.

Pavement

LANE RD

KENNY RD

MCCOY RD

33

NN
KE

S C I O T O

REED RD

DE DR
RIVERSI

FISHINGER RD

NORTH STAR RD

NORTHWEST BLVD

Pavement Condition Rating

(PCR)

NORTH STAR RD

TR
EM

REDDING RD

ON
TR
D

RIVERSI
DE D

RD

33

W LANE AVE

0 - 40 (very poor)
41 - 55 (poor)
56 - 65 (fair to poor)

AR
LIN
G

TO

AV
E

Miles

0.5

RD

91 - 100 (very good)

0.25

T
ON

76 - 90 (good)

EM
TR

66 - 75 (fair)

Columbus GIS

The Crash data analyzed from 2012 to 2015 on Fishinger

Road showed that most of the incidents were rear end
(27.6%), angle (20%), fixed object (18.1%) and sideswipe
(16.2%) crashes. These types of crashes are indicative of
poor turning opportunities and congestion. Figure X shows
the hotspots of the accidents along Fishinger Road from
Riverside to Tremont. The hotspots are at Kioka Avenue,
Reed Road and Riverhill Road.

The majority of the crashes (77.1%) were property damage

crashes and 22.9% of the crashes were injury crashes.
Figure B shows the injury accidents along Fishinger Road.
The injury related accidents correlate to the hotspots shown
below.
The rate of crashes on Fishinger Rd from Tremont Road to
U.S Route 33 is 28.967 per hundred thousand vehicle miles.

Location
FrequencyFrequency
(2012-2015): Heat
Map
Crash
Location
(2012-2015):
Crash

Heat Map

Low

Crash Data
Middle

Y
LE WA
INGD
A

RIV

RH

Y
INGD
A

RD

SUNN
NT

D
ILL R
ERH L RD

MO

TR
E

IW
R R RI W
ME MER

LE WA

WA Y
R D
EDR
ER
THH
A
T
EA

INVER
N ES S
WA

INVERNESS WA
Y

KIRKHAM RD

KIRKHAM RD

LEIGHTON RD

LEIGHTON
R

COLCHESTER RD

COLCHESTER RD

IL

VE
RI

SCIOTANGY DR

EST BLV

SCIOTANGY DR

REDDING RD

W
NORTH

REDDING RD

TR
E

ON

TR

RD

SUNNINGDALE

INVER
NESSAY
ROMN
WAYRD

SUNN

ROMNAY RD

MOUNTVIEW RD

MOUNTVIEW RD

MILDEN RD

RIV

MO UNTVIEW RD

RAMSGATE RD

KIRKHAM RD

LEIGHTON
RD

COLCHESTER RD

HILL PL

SURREY HILL PL

RR EY
SCIOTANGYSU
DR

REDDING RD

MO UNTVIEW RD

DORC HESTER RD

RAMSGATE RD

CENTE
R DR

ROMNAY RD

SURREY HILL PL

CENT
ER DR

DORCHESTER RD

500

MILDEN RD

Feet

1,000

W
NORTH

NORTHWEST BLVD

6-9

L
FISH
ER INGER RD RHIL

TRTREM
EMON
OTNRD
TR

High
3-5

RAMSGATE RD

DR

DORCHESTER RD

KIOKA AVE
CENTE
R

VE
KA A
KIO

KIOKA AVE

SU
N

ETDR
SUNSET

DR

VE
KA A
KIO

FAIRLINGTON DR
SU
NS
ET
DR

1-2

V
HO

Injury Crashes

Adding exclusive left

turn lanes at significant
hotspots would reduce
frequency

D
ER

VE
HO DRD
RE

Middle

TH
EA

E DR

IDE DR

SID
RIVER

RIV ERS

Low

RIW

R
REED

33

RD
REED

TON DR

VE
HO D
R

DE DR
RIV ERSI

FAIRLING

KIOKA AVE

TON DR
FAIRLING

RD
REED

KIOKA AVE

Figure ARd:
- Fishinger
Rd: Crash
Location Frequency Heat Map 2012-2015
Fishinger
Injury Accidents
2012-2015

E ST B L V

ROMNAY RD

MOUNTVIEW RD

SURREY HILL PL

KIOKA AVE

CENT
ER DR

33

R
REED

FAIRLINGTON DR

Fishinger
Injury Accidents
2012-2015
Figure B Rd:
- Fishinger
Road: Injury
Crashes 2012-2015

RD
NT

DR

H
ER

L
IL

TR
EM
O

ER
M

SUNNINGDALE

E
TH
EA
IW

WAY

INVERNESS WA
Y

KIRKHAM RD

LEIGHTON RD

COLCHESTER RD

SCIOTANGY DR

REDDING RD

MOUNTVIEW RD

KIOKA AVE

RAMSGATE RD

RD

DORCHESTER RD

VE
HO

E DR

SUNSET DR

SID
RIVER

FISHINGER RD

RD

6-9

NT

Narrow lanes on curve

500
Feet

1,000

NORTHWEST BLVD

3-5

Exclusive left-turn turn

lane would resolve
most crashes

MO

1-2

TR
E

Injury Crashes

RD

V
RI

The approximately two-mile stretch of Fishinger Road

from Tremont Road to Riverside Drive is comprised of
mostly single-family suburban style residential properties.
Commercial properties are located at either end of the stretch
and at Mountview Rd about half way along the stretch. The
Wellington School is also located along Fishinger Road.
Property values tend to be higher on the north side of the
road. Sidewalks are available west of Mountview Road on
both sides of the road. The condition of the pavement and
curbs indicates that it will need to be replaced within the
few years. There are significantly more curb cuts on the
south side of the road. Traffic is heaviest during the evening
commute, and tends to be heavier on the north side of the
road. Crashes tend to occur at major signalized intersections.

7
driveways
Fairlington Dr

1
driveway
Kioka Ave

Center Dr

Commercial
Properties

Griggs
dam
park

Commercial
Properties

ide

Rivers

Sunset Dr

9
driveways

Dorche

19
driveways

Residential Property
Non-residential Property
Areas with Highest Vehicle Crashes
Signalized intersections
Areas without sidewalk with in ROW
* Driveways with access from Fishinger Rd
on the North and South sides of the Road are quantified.

Existing Conditions Summary

8
driveways

7
driveways

11
driveways

Surrey Hill Pl

Mountview Rd

6
driveways

Reed Rd

Mountview
Church
Wellington
School
Retail

Ramsgate Rd

15
driveways

In

ve

15
driveways

North to South Side Comparisons

North Side

Higher property values

Less Residential Driveways (curb cuts)
peak traffic volumes
Higher peek

South Side

Smaller Lots
Griggs Dam Park Access
More Driveway/Curb Cuts

Ri

ve

8
driveways

rh

ill

rn

es

sW

6
driveways

ay

Tre

Rd

on

tR

Commercial

Commercial

12
driveways

Redding Rd

Commercial

No

rth

we

st

Commercial

ester Rd

Blv

Proposals

After analyzing the existing conditions along the Fishinger

Road corridor and incorporating UA resident feedback, the
team developed three different proposals, each of which aims
to make the street more pedestrian accessible and more in
line with the UA adopted Complete Streets policy. The first of
these proposals, the Base proposal, has the lowest cost and
incorporates the fewest physical changes to the corridor. The
second Recommended proposal contains what the team
identified as the most feasible alternative considering the
financial and political constraints of the project. Finally, the
Preferred proposal incorporates new multimodal principles
for the corridor and is the most complete of the three, based
on industry standards and best practices for roadway design.
Any of the three proposals, if implemented, would move
the project into closer alignment with the identified goals
of implementing UAs Complete Street policy, strategically
positioning the plan for grant funding, and increasing access
to regional destinations while maintaining UAs unique
community character.

Introduction

Base Proposal - $6,144,600

The Base proposal for Fishinger Road consists of minimal cost
and minimal physical changes to the roads design. The typical
cross section for the Base Proposal includes a 3-lane configuration
and sidewalks on both sides of Fishinger Road, connecting to the
existing sidewalk. The 3-lane configuration will consist of a middle
turn lane and median that will include pedestrian refuge islands at
Dorchester Road, Redding Road, and Reed Road. This three-lane
configuration will serve to slow traffic to make the road safer for all
users. The traffic study found that the average traffic on the road
was low enough that a reduction in the number of lanes would not
reduce the level of service for the road, according to case studies
cited by the Federal Highway Administration. The recent Lane
Avenue lane configuration change made a similar lane reduction
on a road with higher traffic volumes, and Upper Arlington officials
have not noticed a significant reduction in service, and traffic
volumes have grown since the change. The traffic study revealed
very high traffic volume during the afternoon peak hour in the
westbound direction, which could result in a slight reduction of
level of service at the most congested time of day, according to the
same Federal Highway Administration case studies. To ameliorate
these effects, an on street parking lane is proposed on the north
side of the street, which can also serve as an additional travel lane
during peak hours similar to the on-street parking on Lane Avenue.
This on street-parking may also assist with driveway exiting, which
was a concern of the residents of the Fishinger Road corridor.
Providing sidewalks on both sides of the street and the pedestrian
refuge islands will increase walkability, make the road safer for
pedestrians, and has the potential to raise property values. The
proposal also includes marked crosswalk to enhance pedestrian
safety. To minimize cost we are proposing to use paint to mark the
crosswalks. Intersection features for the Base Proposal includes
traffic signal optimization, which will increase traffic flow and
minimize road congestion. The Base Proposal includes installation
of curb ramps at 40 locations, and painted crosswalks at 20
locations both parallel and perpendicular to Fishinger, including
two crossing Fishinger at the following signalized intersections:
Riverhill/Inverness Way, Reed Rd, Mountview Rd, and Kioka Ave.

Option 1 - Base

Typical T Intersection with Painted Pedestrian

Refuge

5
Sidewalk

3-6

Utility/
Vegetation

11
Travel Lane

10
Turn Lane

11
Travel Lane

56 - 62 Right of Way
Existing Right of Way ~ 80-90

Typical Cross Section

8
Parking Lane

3-6

Utility/
Vegetation

5
Sidewalk

Recommended Proposal - $7,181,400

The Recommended proposal incorporates improvements
beyond those included in the Base proposal, providing
the most economically and politically feasible path toward
complete streets. The proposal includes reconstruction of
existing sidewalk to a five-foot width for the entire corridor.
The sidewalk reconstruction would also necessitate the
installation of additional curb ramps beyond those included in
the Base Proposal, totalling 68. The typical cross section for
the Recommended Proposal includes the same three-lane
configuration included in the Base Proposal, but does not
include a parking lane. The proposal also includes bike lanes
on both sides of the road, with two-stage turn queue boxes
to assist cyclists wishing to make a left turn. Additionally, the
proposal calls for 22 curb extensions/bump outs throughout
the corridor, and pedestrian refuge islands located at crossings
at Dorchester Road, Redding Road, and Reed Road. These
recommended changes to the roadway character would not
require any widening of the roadway, fitting within the existing
40-foot pavement width. It should also be mentioned that a
detailed survey of residents driveways should be carried out
before considering any length of median or pedestrian refuge
as to not block any access points.

1
Buffer

Typical T Intersection with Left-Turn Bike Queue Box

and Curbed Pedestrian Refuge

Option 2 - Recommended

8
Multi- Use Path

5
Utility/
Vegetation

4
Bike Lane

11
Travel Lane

10
Turn Lane

63 Right of Way
Existing Right of Way ~ 80-90

Typical Cross Section

11
Travel Lane

4
Bike Lane

5
Utility/
Vegetation

5
Sidewalk

Best Practices Proposal - $8,967,000

The Best Practices proposal or the most complete of the
three options, includes transportation planning best practices
and is not constrained by economic or political feasibility.
The proposal includes a widening of the existing roadway
width from 40 to 50 feet. The typical cross section for this
proposal includes six-foot sidewalk on the north side of the
street, an eight-foot parking lane, two ten-foot travel lanes, a
ten-foot turn lane, a eight-foot protected two-way bike lane,
and a six-foot sidewalk on both sides of the street. The
proposal incorporates the same three-lane configuration
described in the previous proposals, but also includes more
robust amenities for cyclists and pedestrians. The sidewalk
reconstruction would also necessitate the installation of
additional curb ramps beyond those included in the Base
Proposal, totalling 68 as in the Recommended proposal.

1
Buffer

Typical T Intersection with Curb Extension

Option 3 - Best Practices

6
Sidewalk

5
Utility/
Vegetation

8
Protected
2-way
Bike Lane

Typical Cross Section

2
Buffer

11
Travel Lane

10
Turn Lane

72 Right of Way
Existing Right of Way ~ 80-90

11
Travel Lane

8
Parking
Lane

5
Utility/
Vegetation

6
Sidewalk

Additionally, the best practices proposal includes the

installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Fishinger
Road and Mountview Road, which is an improvement that
was included in the 2001 Upper Arlington Transportation Plan.
Accompanied imagery depicts the design of this intersection
and details the way it incorporates motor vehicle, bike, and
pedestrian traffic flows.
Although a roundabout is more costly upfront (+/- $1.2 million),
the long term maintenance costs will be lower. A roundabout
on this stretch of Fishinger Rd will required the City of Upper
Arlington to acquire additional right of way, because the
designed area required for a roundabout is larger than the
existing right of way. This intersection is unique because it is
surrounded by a zoned retail parcel, a church, in additional
to the typical residential properties. Proposing a roundabout
at Mountview limits the amount of right of way that the city
would be required to acquire from private residential property
owners.

95 = Right of Way Required

80-90 = Right of Way Available

160 = Right of Way Required

125 = Right of Way Available

Roundabout at the Intersection of Mountview Road and Fishinger Road

A Fishinger Road Community Branding and Wayfinding

Plan is proposed to enhance the character and promote
pedestrian/bike activity along the corridor. The proposal
includes designing multiple pole banners that will be mounted
using brackets on the new streetlights being installed as part
of the Upper Arlington Neighborhood Lights Master Plan.
This proposal incorporates wayfinding by providing directions
to major Upper Arlington destinations. The proposal also
promotes a healthy lifestyle by suggesting alternate ways
to get around. 18x36 banners are sized appropriately for
pedestrian visibility.
The proposal is for three categories that include Healthy
Transit Alternatives, Local Amenities, and Local Events. The
Healthy Transit Alternative banners depict distance, time, and
possible calories burned from walking, biking, and running
to the surrounding parks. The Local Amenities banners give
directions to the Shops on Lane, Reed Road Park and the
Upper Arlington Library. The Local Event banners being
proposed promote Upper Arlingtons major events such as,
the 4th of July Parade, Taste of UA and the Arts Festival.
This proposal offers the flexibility to evolve and change
depending on the values, events, and development happening
in the city. Citizens could be encouraged to participate in a
circulating banner art program. Public art has the potential
to increase neighborhood pride, livability, and in some cases
property values.

Branding/Wayfinding

18x36

7ftmin

Banners designed to be viewed by

Pedestrian and vehicular traffic are typically
installed about 7ft from the ground. These
banners will promote healthy transit
alternatives, local amenities, and local events.

Fishinger Road Community Branding

Healthy Transit Alternatives
UPPER ARLINGTON

Walks to...

1.8 mi
5 min
45 cal

Healthy UA

UPPER ARLINGTON

RUNS to...
2.2 mi
22 min
220 cal

Healthy UA

FANCYBURG PARK

NORTHAM PARK

.5 mi
10 min
50 cal

UPPER ARLINGTON

BIKES to...

GRIGGS DAM PARK

POLE BANNERS ENCOURAGE

RESIDENTS TO DEVELOP
A SENSE OF PRIDE
IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD
THROUGH THE PROMOTION OF:

Healthy UA

Local Amenities
UPPER ARLINGTON

UPPER ARLINGTON

READS at...
UA PUBLIC LIBRARY

Healthy UA

UPPER ARLINGTON

PLAYS at...

REED ROAD PARK

SHOPS ON LANE

SHOPS at...

Healthy UA

Healthy UA

Local Events
UPPER ARLINGTON

Sidewalk

Healthy UA

Taste of UA

Healthy UA

UPPER ARLINGTON

LABOR DAY
ART
MUSIC
FOOD

ARTS FESTIVAL

Bike Lane

Buffer

UPPER ARLINGTON

Northam Park

Vegetative
Buffer

Travel Lane

UA PARADE & FIREWORKS

Sidewalk

Travel Lane

Turn Lane

4th of July

Funding

Through an analysis of the current conditions and by

engaging with residents and the City, deficiencies with the
Fishinger Road corridor were identified helping to inform
where funding efforts should be concentrated. The current
conditions analysis included a site visit to the corridor and
subsequent traffic study. City and resident outreach efforts
included conducting a public meeting, creating an online
survey, obtaining traffic and pavement data, and engagement
of key stakeholders.
Poor physical condition of the roadway, curb gutter and
sidewalks were identified as one of Fishinger Roads primary
issues based on the existing condition analysis, also identified
as such in feedback provided by residents. Team members
documented potholes, crumbling curbs, and cracking,
disconnected sidewalks during our initial site visit. Results of
the Resident Survey supported our observations with 45% of
residents requesting that road conditions be prioritized in the
plan. The road was repaved in 2008, but a 2014 evaluation
of the pavement condition by engineers rated the condition at
65 out of 100, a range of fair to poor.
Traffic congestion is another primary issue along the Fishinger
Road corridor, reflected in count data and comments from
residents. Traffic counts are approximately equal in each
direction at each of the count sites; one between Sunset and
Riverside and one between Riverhill and five points.Total daily
traffic counts through the western reaches average 15,000
vehicles/day while the eastern two reaches average 18,000
vehicles/day. Some resident comments highlighted speed as
an issue, which was was measured at an average of 36 mph
through the eastern section of the corridor. Average speeds

Gap Analysis

were 6 mph higher through the western section (42 mph or 7

mph above the posted speed limit).
Fishinger Road was found to lack infrastructure for pedestrians
and cyclists forcing these users into unsafe conditions which
favor vehicular transportation. Approximately half of survey
respondents had walked along Fishinger Road, and those
who had not indicated the reasons for not doing so were
either not enough sidewalks (39%), felt unsafe (29%) or did
not live near the road/only travel by car (28%). About 33%
of respondents said that they had cycled along Fishinger
Road and of the reasons why those who had not cycled were
based on it feeling unsafe (48%), prefer to travel by some
other means (29%), cars travel too quickly (23%). And they
do not own a bicycle (21%). Just 9% of survey respondents
indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with bicycle
accessibility along Fishinger Road. Money for a bike lane,
multi-use path, and upgraded sidewalks is a priority along the
entire corridor.
Lastly, resident comments provided insight into specific
problems that users have encountered with Fishinger Road.
A summary of the top comments is below:
1.
Tension between traffic calming and traffic flow
2.
Residents difficulties in pulling out of their driveways
3.
Desire for more lighting and/or reflectors along the
road
4.
Narrowness of the S curve
5.
Desire for easier access to the river
6.
Problematic gutters/curbs

The base proposal has a three lane configuration instead of the current four lane con
Table X shows the cost break down of the base proposal.

According to the research prepared for the Federal Highway

Administration, which is supported by the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation through its Active Living Research
program, the costs for the different recommendations were
estimated. The Additional Cost Breakdown in the appendix
shows the minimum, maximum, average and median costs for
different types of infrastructure needed. The recommended
contingency for projects such as this is ten percent, but our
team assumed a higher contingency due to the culverts
and underground utilities, which can provide a high level of
uncertainty. For this reason, the team assumed a twenty-five
percent contingency.
Our team estimated the cost breakdown for each of the
recommendations proposed. The tables below indicate
the costs for the Base, Best Practices, and Recommended
proposals.
The base proposal consists of adding sidewalks on both
sides and a parking lane on one side. The base proposal
has a three lane configuration instead of the current four lane
configuration. Table A shows the cost break down of the
base proposal.

Table X:
Table
A: Base
BaseProposal
Proposal
Base:
Description

Cost

Cost Unit

Total Cost

Wheelchair Ramp

$12

Square Foot $7,200

Striped Crosswalk

$340

Each

$6,800

Concrete Sidewalk

$40

Linear Foot

$479,025.60

Island Marking

$1.49 Square Foot $30,524.74

Shared Lane/Bike Marking

$92

Each

$1,840

School Crossing

$520

Each

$520

Curb and Gutter

$20

Linear Foot

$376,786.80

Total Estimated Reconstruction

$3,066,600

Signal Optimization

$43,648.33

Contingency

1.25

Total :

$6,144,553.25

The recommended proposal consists of adding sidewalks on both sides (six foot side
bike lanes on either sides of the street and a three lane configuration. Table X show
recommended proposal cost breakdowns and estimates.
Table X: Recommended Proposal

Proposal Costs

The Recommended Proposal consists of adding sidewalks Table B: Recommended Proposal

on both sides (six foot sidewalks), bike lanes on either
Recommended:
sides of the street and a three lane configuration. Table
B shows the Recommended Proposal cost breakdowns
Description
Cost
and estimates.

Cost Unit

Total Cost

Bike Lane

$25,000

Mile

$97,000.00

Pedestrian refuge

$10,460

Each

$148,212

Truncated Dome/Detectable Warning $37

Square Foot $15,984

Wheelchair Ramp

$412

Square Foot $9,504

Striped Crosswalk

$340

Each

$11,560

Concrete Sidewalk

$40

Linear Foot

$452,144.16

Multi-Use Trail Paved

$261,000 Mile

Island Marking

$1.49

Square Foot $213,673.15

Shared Lane/Bike Marking

$160

Each

$3,200

Curb and Gutter

$20

Linear Foot

$376,780

$1,120,093.92

Total Estimated Reconstruction

$3,066,600

Signal Optimization

$43,648.33

Contingency

1.25

Total:

$7,181,413.20

The preferred proposal consists of adding six foot sidewalks on each side, an eight foot mu
use, two-way protected bike lane, curb extensions and a three lane configurations.
Table X: Preferred Proposal
Preferred:
Description

Cost

Cost
Unit

Total Cos

Table X: Preferred Proposal

The Best Practices Proposal consists of

adding six foot sidewalks on each side,
an eight foot multi use, two-way protected
bike lane, curb extensions and a three
lane configurations. Table C shows the
Preferred Proposal cost breakdowns and
estimates.
Table C: Best Practices Proposal

Best
Practices:
Preferred:

Description

Cost

Cost
Unit

Total Cost

Separated Bikeway: 10 Foot paved shared-use

path with 2 foot shoulders and signage

$500,000

Mile

$970,000

Ped refugee

$10,460

Each

$148,212

Roundabout/Traffic Circle

$1,200,000 Each

$1,200,000

Truncated Dome/Detectable Warning

$37

Square
Foot

$15,984

High Visibility Crosswalk

$3,070

Each

$24,560

Striped Crosswalk

$340

Each

$8,840

Concrete Sidewalk

$40

Linear
Foot

$904,288.32

Island Marking

$1.49

Square
Foot

$213,673.15

Shared Lane/Bike Marking

$160

Each

$3,200

School Crossing

$520

Each

$520

Curb and Gutter

$20

Linear
Foot

$376,780

Total Estimated Reconstruction

$3,066,600

Signal Optimization

$43,648.33

Contingency

1.25

Total:

$8,967,006.00

MORPC Attributable Funds

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) annually
sub-allocates federal transportation funding to metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO) which are then distributed
to local projects. In central Ohio, the Mid-Ohio Regional
Planning Commission (MORPC) is the MPO that distributes
these funds to public agencies. The funds that are distributed
come from the Surface Transportation Program (STP),
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program
(CMAQ), and the Transportation Alternative Program (TAP).
These programs hold individualized purposes and goals.

The Surface Transportation Program provides

funding for projects that preserve and improve
condition and performance on Federal-aid
highway, bridge projects, as well as pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure and transit capital projects.
The Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality
Improvement Program provides funds for projects
that support air quality planning, which
includes initiatives to reduce the amount of allowable
tailpipe emissions.
The Transportation Alternative Program
provides funding for programs that includes
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure
projects improving non-driver access to
public transportation and enhanced mobility,
community improvement activities, and safe
routes to school projects.

MORPC conducts a process every two years to solicit

applications for funding, evaluating proposed projects,
and committing funds to those selected. As this process is

Grant Funding

overseen by the Attributable Funds Committee (AFC), the

AFC then reviews the policies and procedures for
managing and modifying these funding programs.
To be eligible for MORPCs attributable funds, the sponsor
submitting the application for funding must be a public agency
that is legally eligible to enter into a contract with ODOT. In
addition, the proposed activity must be either individually
identified on the MORPC Metropolitan Transportation Plan
(MTP), consistent with it, or be eligible to be included in a
MTP. The MTP is a long range planning document that
identifies transportation deficiencies, policies, strategies, and
projects over the next two decades. Plans that are eligible
for federal funding in accordance with the MTP include the
following:

Regional goals, objectives and performance

measurements

Socio-economic trends and their impact on
transportation

Evaluation of the current system and future needs

Listing of eligible regionally significant transportation

projects

Evaluation of the future transportation system

assuring that it will be fiscally balanced, meet federal

requirements regarding air quality and social equity

Implementation strategies

In addition to complying with MTP requirements, projects

applying for the MORPC Attributable Funds must adhere
to MORPCs Complete Streets Policy. This policys main
objective is to design and build roads that are able to safely
accommodate motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, transit
riders, individuals with disabilities, freight haulers, as well
as emergency responders. In addition to that policy, there
are additional eligibility guidelines for STP, CMAQ, and
TAP funding types. Although MORPC combines these
funding programs into a single selection process, there are
established funding targets for project type categories based
on the compatibility with a particular funding type (STP,
CMAQ, TAP).
As the MORPC Attributable Funds are derived from
federal funds, projects that are awarded are subjected to
requirements such as the National Environmental Policy
Act, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Act, and other ODOT regulations and standards.
More on these regulations can be found under the Additional
Funding Regulations section of this document. In addition,
MORPC expects project sponsors of construction projects
to undertake preliminary development and detailed design
activities without use of MORPC Attributable Funds. It is
also important to keep in mind that these funds are not grant
programs, but operates on a reimbursement basis as work
progresses.
The City of Upper Arlington has previously been granted
MORPC Attributable Funds for the improvements on Reed
Road. As the Reed Road project is similar in character to

Fishinger Road, the MORPC Attributable funds appear to

be the most practical option. The recommendations made
in this document for the improvement of Fishinger Road
also complies with the Complete Streets Policy, comply with
the MTP requirements, as well as match multiple eligibility
requirements from the STP, CMAQ, and TAP programs.
SRTS
In an effort to increase the safety of children within the
community, an analysis of the mobility challenges of Hastings
Middle School should be conducted to evaluate the degree
to which students are affected by poor conditions of the
surrounding pedestrian infrastructure. Such an analysis should
be documented in a School Travel Plan (STP), as schools
are only eligible for the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funds
if adequate research outlining the communitys intentions
for encouraging active transportation has been provided in
the STP. The existing STP in Upper Arlington identifies the
education programs in place that increase the areas safety
awareness, encourage activities that aim to improve public
health, enforce the communitys public safety strategies, and
evaluate the existing barriers to active transportation.
The SRTS program allocates federal funds to encourage
students grades K-8 to walk or bike to school. In Upper
Arlington, Barrington Elementary is the only school that has
been awarded SRTS funds. The documented processes of
obtaining this grant serves as an example that other schools
may follow. These funds are awarded on a point system, and
this information can be found on the ODOT SRTS website. In
order for Hastings Middle School to be eligible for the SRTS

funds, an update to the current STP should be modified to

include Hastings. During the application process for this
grant, the applicant must coordinate with ODOTs District 6
SRTS coordinator to establish school programs to educate
students on public safety as well as collect miscellaneous
student data.
While Hastings Middle School is situated within Upper
Arlington, a community with many resources, current
infrastructure and programs at the school are lacking. A need
exists to both enhance infrastructure at specific locations
around the school and institute safety programs for Hastings
to become eligible to receive funding from SRTS following
its incorporation into a STP. It should be noted that the
school does not have existing plans for either infrastructure
enhancement or new safety programs. Through our research,
we discovered that an STP was developed for Upper Arlington
elementary schools in 2011. Since infrastructure and program
recommendations are applicable to grades K-8, we advise
that Hastings be incorporated into the next STP Update.
Our research began with a current conditions assessment
of Hastings involving photo documentation and map making.
A total of 511 of the approximately 700 student addresses
(no names) were provided to us by the school. Almost 49%
of these 511 students live within one mile of Hastings, and
about 85% live within two miles of the school. With regards
to infrastructure, bike racks do exist on school grounds,
but crossings from the adjacent neighborhoods could use
additional improvements and signage. Specific infrastructure
needs include more crosswalk striping at the intersection of

Reed Road and the Wellington School driveway entrance,

and potentially the installation of pedestrian refuges.
Neighborhood sidewalks surrounding Hastings have some
connection and condition issues. Additionally, there are no
existing traffic calming measures in place. As mentioned
above, Barrington Elementary was awarded funding partially
as a result of their walk-to-school program implementation.
If Hastings were to implement programs on their own, they
would be much better positioned to receive funding to elevate
conditions and connectivity.

Outreach

Outreach efforts are central to any project especially if you are

trying to convey information to the public. The Fishinger Road
project is no exception to this rule and the team used a variety
of outreach methods to engage city officials and residents
alike. Central to the teams efforts was the website (www.
UAfishingerroad.weebly.com). The team used the website
to convey and share important information like meeting
dates, project updates, photographs, and documents. In
addition to the website a Facebook page and Twitter account
were created to engage the community in real time (See
Digital Assets for Web Address). Finally, a Gmail account
(Fishingerroad@gmail.com) was created so the community
could contact the group.
Apart from social outreach, the team also maintained a
survey that gave the community an opportunity to voice their
opinions about the current conditions of Fishinger Road.
Additionally, the survey gave the community an opportunity
to tell the team how they would like to see the future of
the road. Lastly, the team met with City leaders as well as
provided updates at a number of public meetings including
Board of Zoning and Planning (BZAP) Work Sessions and
City Council Conference Sessions.

Overview

Local officials like Mayor Debbie Johnson and City Council

Member Carolyn Casper generously answered many
questions and provided input as well as feedback that have
strengthened our recommendations.
In an effort to ensure that our plan is aligned with Upper
Arlingtons safety and aesthetic standards, we reached out to
community leaders in those areas. Ernie Ankrom, Acting Police
Chief, and Jeff Young, Fire Chief, provided us with guidance
to ensure that our recommendations were fully compatible
with the safety needs of the community. For example, Chief
Young explained to us the need to designate enough space
for emergency vehicles to travel along Fishinger Road and
shared with us the minimum lengths for right-of-way needed
to accommodate such activity. Steve Cothrel, Parks and
Forestry Superintendent, provided us with information about
forestry in the community and provided us with information
about appropriate landscaping and street tree choices for our
plan.
We presented our progress on a monthly basis to City Council
and the Board of Zoning and Planning between February
and April 2016. These presentations provided additional
opportunities for the community to learn about this project
and for our team to respond to questions and receive valuable
input at each stage of our work.

City Outreach

Resident Outreach

Survey

In addition to our aforementioned Internet and social media

efforts, we sent 190 postcards to invite residents along and
near Fishinger Road to attend a Coffee Hour in the Municipal
Services Center in the first few weeks of our project. During
this informal meeting, we engaged with 25 stakeholders
and received invaluable feedback that has informed our
recommendations.

As mentioned, we designed a survey with 13 questions in

order to better understand the existing and desired uses of
Fishinger Road. The survey was available between February
1 and March 20, 2016, and was advertised through a variety
of channels. Residents along Fishinger Road received a
postcard in their mailboxes inviting them to attend our Coffee
Hour and complete our online survey. We also advertised
the survey on our website, Facebook, and Twitter pages.
Furthermore, Mayor Debbie Johnson as well as Emma
Speight and Megan Hoffman from the City Managers Office
contributed invaluable assistance in spreading the word
about our survey to the community.

Some of the comments that residents shared with us included

a desire for more sidewalks and connectivity. In addition,
residents stressed the importance of reducing the speed at
which cars travel along Fishinger Road. We also heard a
great deal of interest in better lighting and new curbs.
On April 21st, we held a second Coffee Hour in order to
share our recommendations with residents and answer their
questions.

Resident Engagement

We received 624 responses to our survey. 11% of those

responses came from people who live on Fishinger Road,
and another 76% of responses came from people who live
elsewhere in Upper Arlington. The remaining responses
came from people who do not live in Upper Arlington but use
the road with some frequency. 62% of respondents indicated
that they use the road 5-7 days per week, and 100% of
respondents indicated that they have driven along the road.

Respondent Satisfaction with Current Conditions

When asked if they have avoided Fishinger Road for any
reason other than road closure, 67% of respondents indicated
that they have avoided the road due to traffic or congestion.
Furthermore, only 42% of respondents indicated that they
were satisfied or very satisfied with the current flow of traffic
along Fishinger Road. The same percentage of respondents
(42%) indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with
the speed of traffic along Fishinger Road.
58% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied or very
satisfied with the current condition of Fishinger Road. About
half of all respondents indicated that they were satisfied
or very satisfied with lighting (49%) and lane demarcation
(53%) along the road. At the same time, 45% of respondents
requested that road conditions (including lane demarcation)
be prioritized in this plan and 17% of respondents requested
that lighting improvements be prioritized.
It is worth noting that, while only a tiny percentage (2.5%)
of respondents indicated that they use public transportation
once or more per week, nearly one-fifth of respondents (18%)
indicated that they were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with
the current availability of public transportation along Fishinger
Road. The majority of respondents (65%) indicated that they
were neutral about this availability.

How satisfied are you with Fishinger Road?

Road Condition + Maintenance
300

150
speed
volume
lane markings
road condition
snow removal

Very
Unsatisfied

Neutral

Very
Satisfied

Neutral

Very
Satisfied

Complete Street Components

300

150
sidewalks
cyclist accessibility
pedestrian crossings
transit accessibility
lighting

Very
Unsatisfied

Which two aspects of Fishinger Road should be

prioritized in our plan to improve the road?
300

lane markings
road condition
snow removal

Sidewalks and Pedestrian Needs

Very

Very

Neutral

Unsatisfied
49% of respondents
said that they have walked alongSatisfied
Fishinger Road. Those who have not walked along the road
indicated that they had not done so for the following reasons:
not enough
sidewalks
(39%), felt unsafe (29%), do not live
Complete
Street
Components
near the road and therefore only travel by car (28%), and too
difficult to cross the road (20%).
300

Only 16% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied

or very satisfied with the sidewalks currently available along
Fishinger Road, and only 19% of respondents indicated
that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the pedestrian
crossings
150currently available along Fishinger Road.
sidewalks
Cyclist
Needs
cyclist accessibility
pedestrian crossings
transit accessibility
33% oflighting
respondents said that they have cycled along Fishinger

Road. Those who have not cycled along the road indicated
that they had not done so for the following reasons: felt unsafe
(48%), preferVery
to travel by some other
Neutralmeans (29%), cars Very
Unsatisfied
travel too quickly (23%), and do not have a bicycle (21%). Satisfied
Which two aspects of Fishinger Road should be
prioritized in our plan to improve the road?
300

150

Road
Condition

Sidewalks

Ped. +
Cyclist
Access

Intersections
for
Ped. +
Drivers

Lighting

Speed
Control

Public
Transportation

Only 9% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied

or very satisfied with current accessibility for cyclists along
Fishinger Road.
Respondent Priorities for Improvement
We provided respondents with the following list and asked
them to indicate two areas should be prioritized in this plan to
improve the road:

condition of the road (potholes, bumps, lane

demarcation, etc) - 45%

lighting - 17%

sidewalks - 38%

intersections (for drivers and/or pedestrians) - 25%

speed control - 17%

access for pedestrians and cyclists - 36%

availability of public transportation - 4%

other - 8%
The condition of the road and the elements of Complete
Streets (sidewalks and intersections for pedestrian and
cyclist access) emerged as clear priorities for respondents.

1-3
Days
What is your relationship to Fishinger Road?

76%

Live in UA, but not on Fishinger

12%

Live in UA, on Fishinger

10%

2%

Do not live in UA, but use

Fishinger regularly
Use Fishinger occasionally

How many days per week do you use

Fishinger Road?
500

250

1-3
Days

3-5
Days

5-7
Days

Not
Often

3-5
Days

Car

20%

Walk

14%

Bike

2%
1%

Motorcycle
Bus

If you have avoided traveling Fishinger

Road for a reason other than closure, what
made you do so? (Select all that apply.)

Not
Often

Respondent Comments

Have you been in an accident

on Fishinger Road?

Which
have
traveled
At
the ways
end of
the you
survey,
many Fishinger
respondents shared
Road? (Select
all and
thatsuggestions
apply.) that have informed the
insightful
comments
recommendations presented in this plan. Many residents
of Fishinger Road expressed difficulties in pulling out of
their driveways and problems with misaligned gutters and
95%
63% Car
curbs.No
Other respondents requested
more lighting and/or
2% Yes especially along the narrow S curve. Several
5%
reflectors,
20% Walk
respondents requested easier access to the river, and many
14%ofBike
of them mentioned the challenges
navigating the Five
Points intersection. Overall, respondents comments and
2% Motorcycle
suggestions highlighted the inherent tension
between traffic
calming and traffic flow. We have proposed
solutions
that strike
1%
Bus
Have you ever walked along
a balance between those two needs while paying particular
Fishinger Road?
attention to how the solutions can be implemented with little
to no financial impact on residents of Upper Arlington.
If you have avoided traveling Fishinger
51%
RoadNo
for a reason other than closure, what
2%
49%
made
you do so? (Select all that apply.)
Yes

Which ways have you traveled Fishinger

Road? (Select all that apply.)

63%

5-7
Days

If you have not walked along Fishinger ,

what is the reason? (You may choose more
than one reason.)
23%

Limited sidewalks

17%

11%

Feel unsafe
Prefer alternative
to walking
I do not live close
Speed of cars

12%

Difficult to cross

10%
17%

7%
3%

Dark at night
Poor sidewalk
condition

53%

Traffic

14%

Feel Unsafe

14%

Accident

11%

Speed

8%

Road Condition

Have you been in an accident

on Fishinger Road?

hinger

Have you ever walked along

Fishinger Road?

250

lly

95%

No

2%
5%

1-3
Yes
Days

3-5
Days

5-7
Days

Not
Often

51%

No

2%
49%

Yes

Which ways have you traveled Fishinger

Road? (Select all that apply.)
your relationship
toever
Fishinger
Road?
Have you
walked
along
Fishinger Road?
76%

Live in UA, but not on Fishinger

20%

Walk

12%

Live in UA, on Fishinger

14%

Bike

Do not live in UA, but use

Fishinger regularly51% No
Use Fishinger occasionally
2% Yes
49%

2%

Motorcycle

1%

Bus

10%

2%

any days per week do you use

er Road?

Have you been in an accident

on Fishinger Road?
63% Car

95%

No

2%
5%

Yes

If you have avoided traveling Fishinger

Road for a reason other than closure, what
made you do so? (Select all that apply.)

If you have not walked along Fishinger , Have you ever walked along
what is the reason? (You may choose more
Fishinger Road?
than one reason.)
53% Traffic
23%

Limited sidewalks

17%

11%

Feel unsafe
Prefer alternative
to walking
I do not live close
Speed of cars

12%

Difficult to cross

10%

3-5
Days

5-7
Days

Not
Often

ways have you traveled Fishinger

(Select all that apply.)

17%

7%
3%

Dark at night
Poor sidewalk

14%

Feel Unsafe

14%

Accident

11%

Speed

8%

No
Road Condition
2% Yes
49%
51%

If you have not walked along Fishinger ,

what is the reason? (You may choose more
than one reason.)
23%

Limited sidewalks

17%

11%

Feel unsafe
Prefer alternative
to walking
I do not live close
Speed of cars

12%

Difficult to cross

10%
17%

7%
3%

Dark at night
Poor sidewalk
condition

Appendix

Traffic Calming consists of strategies that reduce the negative

effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve
conditions for non-motorized street users.
Traffic calming goals include:

increasing the quality of life;

incorporating the preferences and requirements of
the people using the area;
creating safe and attractive streets;
helping to reduce pollution; and
promoting pedestrian, cycle, and transit use.

Traffic calming objectives include:

achieving slower speeds for motor vehicles,

reducing collision frequency and severity,
increasing the safety (and perception of safety) for
non-motorized street users,
reducing the need for police enforcement,
enhancing the street environment,
encouraging water infiltration into the ground,
increasing access for all modes of transportation, and
reducing cut-through motor vehicle traffic.

The needs of emergency vehicles must be considered in the

implementation of traffic calming measures so as to ensure
their safe and efficient passage through arterial streets.
Fishinger Road is used daily by fire trucks and by EMS
vehicles travelling between Hilliard and West Columbus.
Upper Arlington Fire Chief Jeff Young has confirmed that,

Traffic Calming Best Practices/Definitions

while speed bumps and sharp turns are difficult for emergency
vehicles to navigate, traffic circles and corner bump-outs do
not pose many challenges. GPS-based traffic signal preemption being expanded over the next two years along
Fishinger Road will assist emergency vehicles greatly when
they travel along Fishinger Road.
Traffic Calming is both science and art. Guidelines for traffic
calming best practices include the following measures:
1.
2.

3.





4.


5.


6.
7.

Include adequate public involvement.

Involve experts familiar with the latest traffic calming
resources and design standards.
Apply Complete Streets policies which
recognize that roadways often serve diverse
functions including through travel, recreational
walking, socializing, vending, and nearby living,
which must be considered and balanced in roadway
design and management.
Consider a variety of traffic calming devices rather
than relying on a single type, such as speed humps
or rumble strips.
Support multiple objectives, including more attractive
streets, improved walking and cycling conditions, and
lowered traffic speeds.
Do not use stop signs as traffic calming devices.
Implement new devices on a trial basis with adequate
signage. For example, the first traffic circles in an
area should have signs showing the path vehicles
should follow. After a few years, such signs
become unnecessary.

Of course, the effectiveness of traffic calming measures

depends greatly on their implementation. Three frequently
misapplied traffic calming techniques include lowering speed
limits, placing stop signs, and placing Children at Play signs.
Used properly, any of these techniques can be effective at
traffic calming. Used improperly, however, they may result in
a reduction in overall traffic safety.
Experience throughout North America, Europe, and Australia
has demonstrated that traffic calming measures, when
implemented correctly, reduce traffic speeds, the number
and severity of crashes, and noise levels.
When implemented properly, traffic calming can have many
positive impacts in a community. For example, traffic calming
measures can increase road safety by reducing traffic
accident frequency and severity. Such measures can also
increase comfort and mobility for pedestrians and cyclists
while promoting public health and encouraging interaction
between neighbors.
Indeed, research on traffic calming projects in the United
States supports their effectiveness at decreasing automobile
speeds, reducing the number and severity of crashes, and
reducing noise levels for specific contexts.
It is worth noting that traffic calming measures also can
increase property value by improving community livability.
Hughes and Sirmans (1992) found that residential properties
have higher values if located on a street with lower traffic
volumes and speeds. Furthermore, a study that compared

property values in a Grand Rapids, Michigan residential

neighborhood after a traffic management program was
implemented found that traffic volume reductions of a few
hundred motor vehicles per day increased adjacent residential
property values by 5-25% (Bagby 1980). Another study found
that homes in New Urbanist communities sold for $20,189
more on average than comparable homes in conventional
communities (an 11% increase in value) which is probably
due in part to the traffic calming measures integrated in New
Urbanist communities (Eppli and Tu 2000). In several case
studies, reducing traffic speeds and making streets more
pedestrian-friendly significantly increased retail sales as well
as property values (LGC 2001).
Various sources of funding are available for the implementation
of traffic calming measures in Upper Arlington. Some of these
potential sources include: Safe Routes to School, MORPC,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Grants, Community Oriented
Policing Services Funding, US Department of Justice
Funding, and Police One.
This chart explains many of the most common traffic calming
measures:

The team read and reviewed several transportation plans from

around the world. The plans ranged in scale from small city to
regional plans. The main takeaways were the existing condition
analysis, readability, and the recommendations sections.

based on 5 overarching goals. This plan focuses on best modeling

practices for travel demand in this region. This plan can be applied
to Fishinger Road by providing a framework and evaluation ideas
for existing conditions.

One of the case studies was Beaverton, Oregon. Beaverton

consists of 93,000 residents and is 7 miles away from Portland, OR.
The transportation plan from Beaverton consisted of a background,
goals/policies, needs, special plan and an action plan section. This
plan focused on graphics (maps and graphs), in order to increase
readability. This plan can be applied to Fishinger Road by using
the existing conditions section, graphics and technical analysis as
a model.

The Seattle Bike Master Plan is a blueprint for enhancing Seattles

bike network. The plan outlines existing bike infrastructure,
identifies current gaps within bike routes and lists priority areas for
new investments. The plan is easy to read because it emphasizes
graphics. The plan can be applied to Fishinger Road by utilizing
the layout and format of the plan, as well as the connectivity ideas.

The plan of Boulder, Colorado provided a brief interactive summary

of that plan that lets the reader know what the plan is about. The
document also consisted of an action plan, prior conditions, and
an old plan section. This plan utilized simple language, explained
technical terms and had good graphics. One of the drawbacks of
this plan was the overuse of acronyms.
The New South Wales Long Term Transportation Master Plan is
an integrated transport strategy for New South Wales, Australia
(plan includes rail, bus, light rail, ferry, and road, walking and
cycling). The plan aims to serve New South Wales for 20 years.
This plan can be applied to Fishinger Road through the layout of
the plan, (references to other plans), social equity perspective and
the focus on the customers. Another takeaway from this plan is the
fact that this plan has a close alignment with community values,
which is a goal of the Fishinger Road plan.
The Marysville Thoroughfare Plan addressed the importance of
incorporating active transportation into the plan. This plan links to
Fishinger Road through the idea of incorporating and connecting
bike lanes to other bike trials and paths in the area.
The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council created a
regional transportation plan for 25 years (2010-2035). This plan
is an overarching guide for a broad metropolitan area. This plan is

Case Studies

The South State Street Corridor Plan is a small scale transportation

plan for Westerville, Ohio that guides the reader through the
history of the corridor and provides ideas for opportunities for
growth. The plan is well organized and incorporates many maps
as illustrations for existing conditions and recommendations.
The City of Westlake created a bike transportation plan that is
detailed in analysis but lacking in aesthetics. The plan did not
convey the information well to the reader. The takeaway from this
plan is to use graphics and maps to convey the information and
data about Fishinger Road.
The Hillsborough County Plan is a plan developed based on
community driven consensus. The county is an auto-centric
county whose main issues are infrastructure maintenance. The
takeaways from this plan are how to involve the community and
utilize community ideas to better Fishinger Road.
On top of researching various case studies, one of the team
members completed a site visit to Terrace Park, Ohio, a suburb
of Cincinnati. This area of Cincinnati has a road that is similar
in stature to Fishinger Road, and that road was redeveloped to
accommodate all modes of transportation. There were many
observations of people walking and using the bike paths despite
the cold weather. This is an example of a successful traffic calming
road redevelopment.

Eastbound
7,823 vehicles
40 mph

Curb Lane
2,928 vehicles
41 mph

Riverside

Through Lane
4,895 vehicles
39 mph

Westbound
8,024 vehicles
43 mph

Through Lane
4,282 vehicles
42 mph

Curb Lane
3,742 vehicles
45 mph

The following tables represent the percentage of the

seasonally adjusted average annual daily traffic that arrives
in each half hour increment at each traffic count location, both
two-way and directional figures are provided. As expected the
morning peak is more pronounced in the eastbound direction
towards downtown Columbus and The Ohio State University
campus and this trend is reversed in the afternoon peak. The
two locations are shown together for each of the selected
distributions for comparison.

Total Two-Way
15,847 vehicles
41 mph

Eastbound
9,823 vehicles
34 mph

Curb Lane
4,732 vehicles
34 mph

Tremont

Through Lane
4,761 vehicles
39 mph

The lane break down figures, to the left of the page, show the
amount of seasonally adjusted average annual daily traffic
observed in each lane, direction, and count location, as well
as the corresponding median speed. The finest grained
count (lane count) is represented with the smallest text, and
the most general summary (two-way traffic) is shown in the
largest text.

Westbound
9,308 vehicles
38 mph

Through Lane
4,076 vehicles
38 mph

Total Two-Way
18,932 vehicles
36 mph

Additional Transportation Data

Curb Lane
5,232 vehicles
38 mph

Percentage of Average Daily Traffic

Half Hour Two-Way Traffic Concentration between

Riverhill and Tremont
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Percentage of Average Daily Traffic

Time of Day

Half Hour Two-Way Traffic Concentration between

Sunset and Riverside
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Time of Day

Percentage of Average Daily Traffic

Half Hour Eastbound Traffic Concentration

between Riverhill and Tremont
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Time of Day

Percentage of Average Daily Traffic

Half Hour Westbound Traffic Concentrations between Sunset

and Riverside
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Percentage of Average Daily Traffic

Time of Day

Half Hour Westbound Traffic Concentration

between Riverhill and Tremont
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Time of Day

$1.2 M

$25,000/ mi

$500,000/ mi

$250

$500

$2.80/ sf

$60/ sf

Additional Cost Breakdown

$40

$92

$50

$525

$70

$25

When applying for MORPC Attributable Funds, the project

becomes subjected to various federal regulations as the project
would be federally funded. Requirements such as following
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), regulations as well
as the Ohio Department of Transportations (ODOT) Project
Development Process (PDP), become imposed on projects
using federal funding. In 2015, the federal transportation
program in the United States authorized the Fixing Americas
Surface Transportation Act, or FAST Act, which is a five-year
legislation to improve the Nations surface transportation
infrastructure. As a result, the NEPA process is now handled
by ODOT on behalf of Federal Highways (FHWA), as an
initiative to streamline the environmental review and project
approval process.
NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental
Policy, which requires the federal government to use all
practicable means to create and maintain conditions of
coexistence between man and nature. Section 106 in Title I
of the Act also requires federal agencies and agencies using
federal money to incorporate environmental considerations
in their planning and decision-making through a systematic
approach. Specifically, all agencies using federal funds
are required to prepare detailed statements assessing the
environmental impact of alternatives actions affecting the
environment.
When an agency plans to apply for federal funds, the
applicant must keep in mind that NEPA effects the beginning
planning stages of the project. ODOT requires that projects
using federal funds follow their Project Development Process

NEPA

(PDP), which aims to streamline the projects process by

merging the beginning stages of preliminary engineering
and environmental engineering, and to assess manage
any potential risks to the project. The PDP requires that the
applicant build a Project Initiation Package (PIP) at the start
of the project plans, so that the information can be used to
establish project tasks that need to be completed, establish
a project scope, and lets the applicant know of the degree
of flexibility based on the project type and need. The PDP is
involved in every stage of a projects process, from planning,
preliminary engineering and environmental engineering, final
engineering, and construction.
NEPA requires the assessment and has specific guidelines
for the following components:

Storm water
Ecological process- Aquatic Ecology/Terrestrial
Ecology, Threatened and Endangered Species
Ecological Survey Reports- Waterway Permits,
Natural Resources Mitigation
Public Involvement
Air and Noise Quality
Cultural Resources- Section 106, Section 4(f), 6(f)
Environmental Site Assessments
Environmental Justice
Farmlands
Land use/Relocations
Indirect and Cumulative effects

Depending on the level of impedance to the human or natural

environment, there are different levels of analysis that a
project may fall under. The Categorical Exclusion (CATEX)
category excludes projects from detailed environmental
analysis if the project does not individually or cumulatively
have significant effect on the human environment. In the case
that there is slightly above minimal impact, the Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact category calls
for the agency to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA),
which will determine whether or not a federal action has the
potential to cause significant environmental effects. Based
on the EA, the agency can either determine that the action
will not have significant environmental impact, and issue
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document that
presents the reasons why the agency concluded that there is
no significant environmental impact, or state that there will be
a significant impact, which will then result in the creation of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the event of an
Environmental Impact Statement, the following are the steps
to follow in order to document the environmental impacts:

The agency publishes a Notice of Intent in the

Federal Register. This serves to inform the
public of the upcoming environmental analysis and
describes how the public can become involved in the
EIS preparation. This Notice of Intent also initiates
the scoping process, where a range of issues and
possible alternatives are defined to be addressed in
the EIS.
A draft EIS is published for public review and
comment for a minimum of 45 days.

A final EIS is then published, which provides

responses to substantive comments.
The EIS process ends with the issuance of the
Record of Decision (ROD), which explains the
agencys decision, describes the alternatives the
agency considered, and discusses the agencys
plans for mitigation and monitoring if necessary.

The discussed regulations are taken in to account during the

preliminary stage of project development after funding has
been received. As the MORPC Attributable Funds are not
available until approximately year 2022, the amount of time
between now and 2022 and the length of time it takes to meet
all federal requirements will determine the actual project start
date.

In September 2015, the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)

eliminated the Express Route 60 Arlington due to what the
agency described as consistent low ridership. The route
started near Henderson Road in northern UA and offered
one express trip to downtown Columbus in the morning peak
hours, and one express trip from downtown Columbus to UA
in the evening peak hours. There were three eastbound stops
and three westbound stops for this route located on Fishinger
Road in the eastern part of the study area between Tremont
Road and Reed Road. Average daily ridership at these
stops was less than one passenger per day during the third
trimester of 2014. COTAs Transit System Redesign plan,
set for implementation in 2017, does not propose any service
in the study area. However, the current Crosstown Line 84
that operates on Nottingham Road, located approximately
1,500 ft to the south of Fishinger, will continue to be served
under the new plan. The line will be renumbered and renamed

Transit Costs

Line 32 North Broadway, providing all-day service to Hilliard,

Riverside Hospital, Northern Lights Shopping Center, and the
Easton Transit Center.
COTAs decision to discontinue service on Fishinger Road
while maintaining parallel service on Nottingham Road, was
justified by the Line 61s relatively low ridership, but the
Nottingham alignment also operates along a corridor that has
a higher residential and employment density. While the teams
proposals did not recommend the restoration of the transit
service within the project limits, the increased multimodal
connectivity accomplished by the installation of sidewalks,
multi-use paths, and bike lanes will increase accessibility for
Fishinger Road residents to reach the existing transit service
on Nottingham Road and the stops at the Kingsdale shopping
center.

COLCHESTER RD

RD
NT

!
P

LANGHAM RD

StopID: 4472
On: 2
Off: 0

DU

BL

NT
TR
E

MO

RD

RD

IN

RIDGEVIEW RD

FARLEIGH RD

*Service discontinued on September 7, 2015 due to low ridership

as recommended in Transit System Redesign (TSR) plan
0

0.25
Miles

0.5

StopID: 2896
On: 0
Off: 0

Kingsdale StopID: 7076

On: 0
Off: 1.1

"

P
!
P!

StopID: 4600
On: 0
Off: 0

ZOLLINGER RD

INCHCLIFF RD

EDINGTON RD

!
P
!
P

StopID: 2843
On: 0
Off: 0

RIDGECLIFF RD

ZOLLINGER RD

!
P

COTA Line 60

!
P

Bus Stop

"

COTA Park & Ride

NORTHWEST BLVD

MOUNTVIEW RD

RAMSGATE RD

StopID: 2842
On: 0.1
Off: 0

StopID: 4596
On: 0
Off: 0

WELSFORD RD

33

EASTCLEFT DR

REDDING RD

WICKLIFFE RD

CIMMARON RD

SWANSEA RD

Reach D

P
!
P!

StopID: 2841
On: 0
Off: 0
SCIOTANGY DR

WOODSTOCK RD

DORCHESTER RD

KIOKA AVE

ET DR
SU N S

SI D E D R

RIVER

"

StopID: 3354
On: 0
Off: 0.1

MO

Reach C

TR
E

!
P
!
P

FISHIN GER RD

Griggs
Dam

StopID: 3357
On: 0
Off: 0

D RD
REE

Reach B

SURREY HILL PL

KIOKA AVE

HI LLVIEW DR

IDE DR

RIVERS

Reach A

StopID: 4433
On: 0
Off: 0.7
ROMNAY RD

CHEVINGTON RD

COTA Line 60* Average Weekday Ridership

(Sept.-Dec. 2014 Automatic Passenger Counts)

P
!!
P

!
P

StopID: 3342
On: 0
Off: 0

Project Reach Boundaries

Digital Assets
With the creation of a website, Gmail account, Facebook page, and Twitter account
the project will have a chance to live on long after the team has completed the project.
Because of this the team will transfer control of all accounts to the City of Upper
Arlington so they can continue to use them for the benefit of the projects future.
Website: www.UAfishingerroad.weebly.com
Email: Fishingeroad@gmail.com
Facebook: Fishinger Road Transportation Plan
(https://www.facebook.com/Fishinger-Road-Transportation-Plan-570213379802643/)
Twitter: @Fishinger_Road
(https://twitter.com/Fishinger_Road?lang=en)

Additional Outreach Materials

HASTINGS MIDDLE SCHOOL

Hastings Middle School

FISHINGER ROAD
PLANNING TEAM

FISHINGER ROAD
PLANNING TEAM

ROA

LINW

The Ohio State University

Austin E. Knowlton School of
Architecture
Facebook: Fishinger Road
Transportation Plan
Transportation Plan
Transportation Plan
Student Addresses
FISHINGER ROAD

Twitter: @Fishinger_Road
Twitter: @Fishinger_RoadHastings Middle School:Twitter:
@Fishinger_Road
N
Web: UAfishingerroad.weebly.com Web: UAfishingerroad.weebly.com Web: UAfishingerroad.weebly.co
Email: Fishingerroad@gmail.com
Email: Fishingerroad@gmail.com
A significant number of Email: Fishingerroad@gmail.com
REED

TH

GODOWN RD

OR

RD

BETHEL RD

REED RD

students live within a mile of

their neighborhood.

33

W HENDERSON RD

LANE RD

MCCOY RD
OLENTAN

HIGHLAND DR

E DR

GY RIV

RIVERSID

g
j

315

RD

TH BROADWAY
W NOR

MO

NT

R RD

NN

KE

REDDING RD

FISHINGE

ER RD

Improving the surrounding

infrastructure will enable
students to safely use active
transportation to school.

TR
E

The Ohio State University

Austin E. Knowlton School of
Architecture
Facebook: Fishinger Road
Transportation Plan
Twitter: @Fishinger_Road
Web: UAfishingerroad.weebly.com
Email: Fishingerroad@gmail.com

FISHINGER ROAD
PLANNING TEAM

SAWMILL RD

FISHINGER ROAD
PLANNING TEAM

Inadequate infrastructure in a successful suburb

The
inadequate
infrastructure of the
surrounding roads directly
affects the students walking
and from Hastings Middle
School. The SRTS grantThe
would
The Ohio State University
Ohio State University
promote
andE. Knowlton School o
Austin E. Knowlton School
of walkability,
Austin
encouraging students to gain a
Architecture
Architecture
new, pedestrian, perspective
Facebook: Fishinger Road
Facebook:
Fishinger
Road
of their neighborhood.

0.5

33

Miles

g
j

Hastings Middle School

Student Address
2-Mile Buffer
1-Mile Buffer
0.5-Mile Buffer

FISHINGER ROAD
PLANNING TEAM

The Ohio State University

Austin E. Knowlton School of
Architecture
Facebook: Fishinger Road
Transportation Plan
Twitter: @Fishinger_Road
Web: UAfishingerroad.weebly.com
Email: Fishingerroad@gmail.com

0.25 Mile Buffer

FISHINGER ROAD
FISHINGER ROAD
PLANNING
TEAM
PLANNING TEAM
The lack of complete sidewalks and faded or

The
Ohio State University
The Ohio State University
non-existent crosswalk striping at specific instersections
Austin
E. Knowlton
Schoolto
ofcurrent bikers
Austin
E. walkers.
Knowlton School of
is potentially
hazardous
and
Architecture
Architecture
Facebook: Fishinger Road
Facebook: Fishinger Road
By providing
adequate infrastructure,
we
Transportation Plan
Transportation
Plan
introduce a healthy, active, and social
Twitter: @Fishinger_Road
Twitter: @Fishinger_Road
lifestyle to children.
Web: UAfishingerroad.weebly.com Web: UAfishingerroad.weebly.com
Email: Fishingerroad@gmail.com
Email: Fishingerroad@gmail.com

NORTH STAR RD

NORTHWEST BLVD

RD

ZOLLINGER RD

W LANE AVE

Students within:
0.25 mile
.5 mile
KINNEAR RD
1 mile
2 miles

13
41
195
242

Students Outside 2 Miles

Total Enrollment

19
510

FISHINGER ROAD
PLANNING TEAM

The Ohio State University

Austin E. Knowlton School o
Architecture
Facebook: Fishinger Road
Transportation Plan
Twitter: @Fishinger_Road
Web: UAfishingerroad.weebly.co
Email: Fishingerroad@gmail.com

Come Join Us for Free

Coffee & Donuts!
Graduate students from The Ohio State University
are holding a follow-up public meeting to
showcase a study of Fishinger Road, and we
hope you can make it.

MCCOY RD

E
KIOKA AV

FISHINGER RD

NOTTINGHAM RD

REED RD

LYTHAM RD

MOUNTVIEW RD

DE DR

RIVERSI

MIDDLESEX RD

WHEN: Thursday, April 21, 2016

6:30 - 7PM
WHERE: Upper Arlington Lutheran Church
2300 Lytham Road
Connect With Us!

SHARE

Fishinger Road Transportation Plan on Facebook

TWEET

@Fishinger_Road on Twitter

EMAIL

FishingerRoad@gmail.com

READ

http://uafishingerroad.weebly.com/

Cc:
Subject:

Laura Cooke; Lisa Pickett

Wellington supports Fishinger Road enhancements

Dear City Council and Chad,

We understand Ohio State University is working on recommendations for enhancements to Fishinger
Road. The Wellington School would support pedestrian and bicycle safety enhancements for the
corridor.
Sincerely,

Robert D. Brisk P 13 15 | Head of School

The Wellington School

3650 Reed Rd, Columbus, OH 43220 | Voice: 614-324-1655 Fax: 614-442-3286

www.wellington.org

Letter of Approval

Graph, Map, Photo, Rendering, and Table Citations

Executive Summary (4-6)
4:

Photograph Taken by Nichole Martin

Introduction/Overview (7-10)
7:
9:
10:

Photograph Taken by Nichole Martin

Map Created by Nick Warren Using Data from MORPC
Map Created by Nick Warren Using Data from MORPC

Process (11-14)
11:

Photograph Taken by Melinda Vonstein

Corridor Characteristic (15-33)

15:
16:
17:
18:
19:
20:
21:
22:
23:
24:
25:
26:
27:
28:
29:
30:
31:
32:
33:

Photograph Taken by Eric Gayetsky

Map Created by Melinda Vonstein
Map Created by Melinda Vonstein
Map Created by Nick Warren Using Data from MORPC
Map Created by Nick Warren Using Data from MORPC
Photographs Taken by Nichole Martin
Map Created by Jonathan Heider Using 2016 Data from the Franklin County Auditor
Map Created by Jonathan Heider Using Data from MORPC
Map Created by Jonathan Heider Using Data from MORPC
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Photographs Taken by Melinda Vonstein, Nichole Martin, and Brandon Creagan
Map Created by Nick Warren and Nathan Shay Using Data from UA Engineering Division
Photograph Taken by Brandon Creagan
Map Created by Jonathan Heider Using Data from MORPC
Map Created by Jonathan Heider Using Data from ODOT
Map Created by Jonathan Heider Using Data from ODOT
Map Created by Melinda Vonstein
Map Created by Melinda Vonstein

Sources

Proposals (34-45)
34:
36:
37:
38:
39:
40:
41:
42:
43:
44:
45:

Photograph Taken by Class

Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Photograph Taken by Melinda Vonstein; Diagram Made by Melinda Vonstein
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein
Rendering Created by Erik Engle and Melinda Vonstein

Funding (46-53)
46:
48:

49:

50:

Photograph Taken by Chad Gibson

Funding Calculations Based On; Bushell, M. A., Poole, B. W., Zegeer, C. V., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2013). Cost for Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Infrastructure Improvements (pp. 1-45) (United States, Federal Highway Administration). UNC Highway Safety Research Center.
Funding Calculations Based On; Bushell, M. A., Poole, B. W., Zegeer, C. V., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2013). Cost for Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Infrastructure Improvements (pp. 1-45) (United States, Federal Highway Administration). UNC Highway Safety Research Center.
Funding Calculations Based On; Bushell, M. A., Poole, B. W., Zegeer, C. V., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2013). Cost for Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Infrastructure Improvements (pp. 1-45) (United States, Federal Highway Administration). UNC Highway Safety Research Center.

Outreach (54-61)
54:
56:
58:
59:
60:
61:

Photograph Taken by Nichole Martin

Photograph Taken by Brandon Creagan
Graphs Created Using Results from the Fishinger Road Survey
Graphs Created Using Results from the Fishinger Road Survey
Graphs Created Using Results from the Fishinger Road Survey
Graphs Created Using Results from the Fishinger Road Survey

Appendix (62-85)
62:
70:
71:
72:

Photograph Taken by Nichole Martin

Data Collected from Speed Monitors Laid Out by the City of Upper Arlington
Data Collected from Speed Monitors Laid Out by the City of Upper Arlington
Data Collected from Speed Monitors Laid Out by the City of Upper Arlington

73: Data Collected from Speed Monitors Laid Out by the City of Upper Arlington
74: Funding Calculations Based On; Bushell, M. A., Poole, B. W., Zegeer, C. V., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2013). Cost for Pedestrian and Bicyclist

Infrastructure Improvements (pp. 1-45) (United States, Federal Highway Administration). UNC Highway Safety Research Center.
75: Funding Calculations Based On; Bushell, M. A., Poole, B. W., Zegeer, C. V., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2013). Cost for Pedestrian and Bicyclist

Infrastructure Improvements (pp. 1-45) (United States, Federal Highway Administration). UNC Highway Safety Research Center.
79: Map Created by Jon Heider Using Data from Franklin County Auditor/COTA
80-81:

Postcard One: Designed by Pattarin Jarupan

Postcard Two: Designed by Brandon Creagan

Web: Created and Maintained by Brandon Creagan

Twitter Account: Setup and Maintained by Gabe Filer

Facebook Page: Setup and Maintained by Brandon Creagan

Business Card: Designed by Brandon Creagan

Safe Routes to School Poster: Designed by Eric Gayetsky and Pattarin Jarupan
Back Cover Photograph Taken by Nichole Martin
Appendix: Text Citations
Process (11-14)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.

Upper Arlington Master Plan - http://www.uaoh.net/department/division.php?structureid=203

A Guide to Neighborhood Lights in Upper Arlington - http://www.uaoh.net/egov/documents/1414077896_49331.pdf
Complete Streets Policy - http://www.morpc.org/Assets/MORPC/files/2014_UpperArlingtonCompleteStreets.pdf
Upper Arlington Transportation Plan - http://www.uaoh.net/department/division.php?structureid=203
Upper Arlington Pedestrian Connectivity Plan http://knowlton.osu.edu/sites/default/files/student_gallery/media_files/UA_ConnectivityPlan_
FINAL_v.4.pdf
Street Tree Planting in Upper Arlington no link (taken from information emailed to Katie)
10-Year Capital Improvement Plan - http://www.uaoh.net/department/division.php?structureid=484

Proposals (34-45)
MORPC Attributable Funds
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

Web Address: http://transportation.house.gov/fast-act/

Web Address: http://www.morpc.org/Assets/MORPC/files/012116FinalDraft
PoliciesforAttributableFunds.pdf
Web Address: http://www.morpc.org/transportation/funding-grants/morpc-attributable-funding/index
Web Address: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/stp.cfm
Web Address: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/
Web Address: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_alternatives/

7.

Web Address: http://www.morpc.org/transportation/metropolitan-transportation-plan/index

STRS Grant
1.


3.

4.

Web Address: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/Program

Management/HighwaySafety/ActiveTransportation/ProjectDocuments
/ApplicationsGuidance_2016.pdf
Web Address: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramMangement
/HighwaySafety/ActiveTransportation/STP%20Examples/UA%20STP.pdf
Web Address:http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramMangement
/HighwaySafety/ActiveTransportation/Pages/Develop_SRTS_Program.aspx

Appendix Citations (62-85)

Best Management Practices (Traffic Calming)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

9.

10.

11.
12.

Lockwood, Ian. ITE Traffic Calming Definition. ITE Journal, July 1997, pg. 22.
email from Jeff Young on February 5. 2016
Web Address: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm4.htm
Web Address: http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Transportation/Traffic-Codes,-Regulation-and-Enforcement/Traffic-Calming.aspx
Web address:http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Transportation/design/trafficcalming
Web Address: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm4.htm
Web Address: http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Transportation/design/trafficcalming
Gordon Bagby (1980), Effects of Traffic Flow on Residential Property Values, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 46, No. 1,
January 1980, pp. 88-94.
Mark Eppli and Charles C. Tu (2000), Valuing the New Urbanism; The Impact of New Urbanism on Prices of Single-Family Homes, Urban
Land Institute (www.uli.org).
William Hughes and C.F. Sirmans (1992), Traffic Externalities and Single-Family House Prices, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 32, No. 4,
pp. 487-500.
LGC (2001), The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org).
Web Address: http://trafficlogix.com/trafficcalming/trafficcalming

Additional Funding Regulations

1.
2.
3.

Web Address: http://transportation.house.gov/fast-act/

Web Addres: https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-review-process
Web Address: https://www.epa.gov/nepa