Section 6: Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement Project Priorities
Identification and Prioritization
What needs to be done to establish the core pedestrian infrastructure network identified in Section 5? A few of the City CNS on core connective routes are in good condition due to recent construction and replacement. Most core network sidewalks, however, have gaps, need to be completed, or are in disrepair. In order to address these needs the Pedestrian Safety Board has assembled a list of projects based on multiple sources of input which include: the Greater Morgantown Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Morgantown Public Works and Traffic Commission records, recommendations from neighborhood associations and City Council members, and the work of the Pedestrian Safety Board.
Like many other cities, the City of Morgantown has limited resources to address these needs. The list of 147 projects has been evaluated utilizing a rating system (below) based on a system established by the City of Bloomington, Indiana, and modified by Kane County in Illinois.
Table 1: Pedestrian Project Impact Scoring Rubric
Prioritization Category |
Category Detail |
Range |
Point Value |
Safety Characteristics (12 points max) |
Traffic Speed |
≥ 45 mph |
3 |
30-40 mph |
2 |
||
≤ 25 mph |
1 |
||
Lanes |
5 |
3 |
|
3-4 |
2 |
||
2 |
1 |
||
Traffic Volume |
> 15,000 ADT |
3 |
|
9000 >15,000 ADT |
2 |
||
≤ 9000 ADT |
1 |
||
Street Classification |
Primary arterial |
3 |
|
Secondary arterial |
2 |
||
Collector |
1 |
||
Pedestrian Usage (12 points max) |
Proximity Attractor |
< 1/3 mile |
3 per attractor |
1/3 to 2/3 mile |
2 per attractor |
||
2/3 to 1 mile |
1 per attractor |
||
Project Feasibility (10 points max) |
Intuitive point assignment based on field observations of political “doability” and cost |
10 |
|
Potential Pedestrian Volume (10 points max) |
Intuitive point assignment of actual or potential pedestrian volume |
10 |
|
Additional Factors (9 points max) |
Located near or along a bus route |
3 |
|
No sidewalk on either side of street or high safety hazard |
6 |
||
|
|
||
*adapted from Kane County (IL) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, p. 66
With this scoring system higher total point values represent a higher priority for pedestrian infrastructure projects.
Rating of Recommended Pedestrian Infrastructure Projects and Priorities
A list of pedestrian infrastructure projects may be found on following pages in this section. Each project is given a designation of which entity, or combination of entities, is responsible for the road/project in the “R” column, with possibilities of: “C” – City; “S” – State, “U” – West Virginia University.
The total points assigned to each project was used to create a relative ranking to other projects in a specific neighborhood (“Hood “) area. It was also used to rank projects relative to the overall project list (“City”), with the exception of projects on the campus of WVU.. The plotting of each project on a neighborhood map follows the overall project list.
Table 2: Pedestrian infrastructure project impact scoring and rankings
# |
R |
Project |
Traffic Speed |
# of lanes |
Traffic Volume |
Street Classification |
Proximity Attractor |
Feasibility (polit. Doable, cost) |
Pedestrian Volume |
Transit Route |
No sidewalk/high safety hazard |
TOTAL |
RANKING |
||
Example: Most powerful impact project ratings |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
12 |
10 |
10 |
3 |
6 |
53 |
|||||
Neighborhood Pedestrian Network Maps

There are several priorities which the Pedestrian Safety Board has identified which related to pedestrian needs throughout the City as well as to various types of projects listed. These policy goals are listed in numbers 148 to 160 at the end of the list. For convenience and clarity, the projects are also listed as follows:
** MPO denotes a pedestrian project or priority identified in Non-Motorized System Improvement Priorities section (pages 112-115) of the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan of the Greater Morgantown Metropolitan Planning Organization