🚶🚴 Pedestrian & Cycling Infrastructure

About Complete Streets Analysis

This tool analyzes pedestrian and cycling infrastructure around transit stations by measuring the presence and coverage of sidewalks, dedicated pedestrian paths, and bicycle lanes. The analysis evaluates how well the street network serves people walking and cycling to and from the station.

What We Measure

The analysis examines infrastructure within an 800-meter (½ mile) walking radius and categorizes streets and pathways into several types:

Streets with Sidewalks

• Streets that have sidewalk infrastructure tagged in OpenStreetMap
• Shown in dark gray on the visualization

Streets without Sidewalks

• Streets lacking sidewalk infrastructure or where sidewalk presence is unknown
• Shown in red on the visualization

Dedicated Pedestrian Paths

• Sidewalks mapped as separate features from streets
• Footways, pedestrian-only paths, and walking trails
• Shown in green on the visualization

Cycling Infrastructure

• Dedicated bike lanes, cycle tracks, and shared-use paths
• Includes both on-street bike lanes and separated cycling facilities
• Shown in orange on the visualization

How the Analysis Works

This analysis uses OpenStreetMap data to build a comprehensive inventory of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure:

1. Network Retrieval: The system queries OpenStreetMap's database for all streets, paths, and ways within 800 meters of the station, including:
   • All street types with sidewalk tags (sidewalk=both/left/right/no)
   • Dedicated pedestrian ways (highway=footway/pedestrian/path)
   • Cycling infrastructure (highway=cycleway or cycleway=* tags)
   • The spatial geometry of all features
2. Infrastructure Classification: Each street segment is categorized based on OpenStreetMap tags:
   • Streets are classified by sidewalk presence using the sidewalk=* tag
   • Footways and pedestrian paths are identified by highway=footway/pedestrian/path tags
   • Cycling facilities are identified by highway=cycleway or street-level cycleway=* tags
   • Features are validated and cleaned to remove duplicates
3. Metric Calculation: The analysis measures infrastructure coverage:
   • Total street length in the study area
   • Sidewalk coverage percentage: Length of streets with sidewalks ÷ Total street length
   • Dedicated pedestrian path length: Total length of footways and pedestrian-only paths
   • Cycling infrastructure length: Total length of bike lanes, cycle tracks, and paths
   • All measurements use UTM projections for geographic accuracy

Why This Matters

Complete streets infrastructure is essential for safe, comfortable access to transit:

Safety and Accessibility

• Sidewalks separate pedestrians from vehicle traffic, reducing crash risk
• Dedicated infrastructure makes transit accessible to people of all ages and abilities
• Cycling facilities provide car-free alternatives for longer station access trips
• Infrastructure gaps force vulnerable users into dangerous situations

Transit Ridership

• Good pedestrian infrastructure expands the effective station catchment area
• People are more likely to walk to transit when sidewalks are present and well-maintained
• Cycling infrastructure extends the practical distance people can travel to stations

Equity Considerations

• Transit-dependent populations rely heavily on pedestrian infrastructure
• Infrastructure gaps disproportionately affect elderly, disabled, and low-income residents
• Children and families need safe walking routes to access transit
• Complete streets ensure equitable access to transit and opportunities

Development Potential

• Comprehensive pedestrian infrastructure supports transit-oriented development
• Mixed-use development requires safe, comfortable walking environments
• Property values may be higher near stations with good pedestrian access
• Complete streets make station areas more attractive to developers and residents

Active Transportation

• Cycling infrastructure provides healthy, sustainable access to transit
• Bike-transit integration reduces parking demand and auto dependency
• Protected bike facilities encourage cycling among hesitant riders
• Multi-modal access expands station catchment beyond walking distance

Important Notes

Data Source: This analysis relies on OpenStreetMap data, which is crowd-sourced and maintained by volunteers. Data quality and completeness vary significantly by location. Areas with active mapping communities have more comprehensive infrastructure tagging.

Sidewalk Tagging: OpenStreetMap uses the sidewalk=* tag on streets to indicate sidewalk presence. However:

• Not all streets have sidewalk tags, even where sidewalks exist
• Tagging practices vary by region and mapper
• Absence of a sidewalk tag doesn't necessarily mean no sidewalk exists
• This analysis shows what's documented in OSM, which may undercount actual infrastructure

Scope Limitations: This analysis measures infrastructure presence, not quality. It does not account for:

• Sidewalk width, surface condition, or maintenance quality
• Accessibility features (curb ramps, tactile paving)
• Presence of street trees, lighting, or other amenities
• Actual pedestrian comfort or perceived safety
• Sidewalk obstructions (utility poles, snow, debris)
• Crosswalk locations or signal timing
• Other pedestrian features such as curb cuts, crosswalks, and traffic islands

Cycling Infrastructure Detail: The analysis identifies cycling facilities but doesn't distinguish between:

• Protected cycle tracks vs. painted bike lanes
• On-street bike lanes vs. separated paths
• Continuity and connectivity of cycling networks

Comparative Use: This analysis is most valuable for:

• Comparing infrastructure coverage across different stations
• Identifying stations with critical infrastructure gaps
• Prioritizing locations for pedestrian and cycling improvements
• Monitoring infrastructure development over time as OSM data improves