D’Iberville

Client Name
Sidewalk and
Pedestrian
Additional line of text if needed
City, ST | Month Day, Year

Study
DRAFT

D’Iberville, MS
December 2020
Prepared by
Section 1.0
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Section 2.0
Network Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Section 3.0
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Design Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Section 4.0
Local Development Policies
and Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Section 5.0
Non-Infrastructure Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Section 6.0
Implementation
and Funding Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Appendix A
Model Complete Streets Ordinance. . . . . . . ii
Section 1.0
Introduction
The purpose of the D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study
is to improve walkability along the primary corridors in the
Old Town District that connect the historic town center to
D’Iberville Middle School and apartment developments to the
north, businesses and neighborhoods to the west, and the
bayfront to the south. Taken together, the project, program,
and policy recommendations of the study will support a safe,
comfortable, and convenient pedestrian network throughout the
city, resulting in increased mobility choice, improved economic
opportunity, and healthier lifestyles.

Context of D’Iberville in the

Mississippi Gulf Coast Region
As shown in Figure 1-1, the City of D’Iberville is located on the eastern edge of
Harrison County, located immediately north of the City of Biloxi. The U.S. Census
Bureau estimated the city’s population at approximately 13,500 residents in 2018.
The city’s location provides a number of geographic advantages, including a strong
local seafood industry, proximity to other major employment centers in the region,
and a strategically-located commercial development, The Promenade, that attracts
residents and visitors from throughout the region.

2 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 1.0 | Introduction

Figure 1-1. Project Location

Ol d
D'Iberville, Mississippi

H
Krohn Rd

Hi g h w a
ig
Roads

hw

S t ep h e n

Ca m
ay
County Boundary

E a rl
y 15
15

Rd
e ll ia
Streams
Water Bodies
B a y ou

m
City Limits

Dobson Rd
Tu
ha
rs Cos t a p i a
H a ve P l

Tc h o u t a c a b o
ac
ha
nie
T
S

Ri v e r
67 La ia
me

Cr
y B ap
st

ee
rid

Co
ufa
ge

u
Rd

yo
Ba
B ro d n a x R d
Melvin Rd

st ou
ia
op
Co a y
B
Sta
Ho

L
wa

Jean St
cy
Hu d s
rd

Mason Rd
Cr e

Scott St
B ri
on K r

La m Rd
ek

dge

Rd
S parrow McClellan Rd

ey
ohn

Dr V i c t o ri a Ln

ide
r

Rd

e
Rd

rs
iv

Dana Rd
R
let

ve
fa

Ri
k il

uf
ks

bo
Li c

ca

Rd
o ut a

D ai sy Ve st r y
O ld H i g h w a y 67
Tc h

HARRISON T
S
15

Cr e e k Dr
COUNTY Cy p r e s s
Cy Parker Rd
Hi

p re
Ol d Hw y 67

ss
ckm

Cr
ee
k
a n Rd

s Cook Rd
k s
S an g a re
ni Cy ee
B l vd Cr
M a l l e t t Rd

W Gay Rd

W a y c ros s Dr
Re ec e
M unro Dr

McCann Rd
Tommy

Dr Big Ridge Rd
¨
¦
§
De nver Dr

10
Au to M a l l P k w y

Rd

Cypress
Boney

Po p p s F e r ry R d
Ave

Dr
Elli ngt on

vd
lo

w Dr Bl
Meado
Merigold Dr

enf
Dr

Lame y St
L a k e Rd

Di e
yn
Sundown
Ced ar

be o
Go r

rv
Ave

m
Le
ill
e Dismuke
Ric h ar d D r Brodie Rd Ave
Vee St

Brittany
B
l vd

Ave
Ave
3rd

Dr

R
Wells Dr

od
Martin Rd

Quave Rd
St

c ot

ri g
Saint

Ba
Ma u

ue z St
As

in
yo

gl u
rt i n
Lepoma

Brasher Rd Bi a yo Ra c e
Ave

B Ba y Rd
Sh o r Tra c k Ba ck
B
e Dr o f B il a y
oxi
Back Bay
of Biloxi
¨
¦
§110

r Biloxi Bay
D
i
st

Big Lake B a yv ie w
oe

Feet St
Pl

0 2,500 5,000

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 3

Project Purpose
Communities throughout the nation have increasingly recognized the benefits
of a built environment that offers residents and visitors meaningful mobility
choices, including, but not limited to, personal automobiles, reliable public transit,
walking, and bicycling. Consistent with national trends, the City of D’Iberville seeks
to improve its pedestrian environment in the historic population center of the
community. The local context of the city provides a number of built-in advantages
that can be capitalized upon to both effectively improve the pedestrian network and
reap the benefits of enhanced pedestrian mobility.

The City of D’Iberville’s citizenry consists primarily of the Millennial and Generation
Z age cohorts. In fact, according to the latest U.S. Census estimates, approximately
54 percent of D’Iberville residents are 39 years old or younger. As discussed in a
2015 study by The Rockefeller Foundation and Transportation for America, younger
generations value better walking and biking opportunities and generally prefer the
option to be less reliant on a personal automobile.

The city also has a development pattern conducive to walkability. Approximately

57 percent of the city’s population lives in 25 percent of its total area, in the older
portion of the city south of I-10. As noted by the League of American Bicyclists,
nearly 30 percent of all trips nationwide are one mile or shorter, which represents an
easily walkable distance for most users. While this statistic may be less applicable
in rural areas, it is fairly representative in more urban, compact development
patterns, including that in D’Iberville, particularly south of I-10.

Finally, the city’s recent economic development successes present an opportunity to

attract more residents and visitors, who may already frequent the city’s Promenade
development. With these factors in mind, the D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian
Study represents a framework to guide the development a citywide pedestrian
network going forward and, ultimately, to promote a more pedestrian-friendly
local culture.

4 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 1.0 | Introduction

1.1 Public and

Stakeholder Outreach
The D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study was developed in close coordination
with key stakeholders and members of the general public. A project advisory
committee – consisting of representatives from the City of D’Iberville, the Gulf
Regional Planning Commission (GRPC), Harrison County Schools, Coast Transit,
Harrison County Library, Heritage Trails Partnership, and local apartment complexes
– was convened at key project milestones to review the progress of the plan’s
development and provide guidance on draft work products and future milestones.

Two rounds of public workshops were held to solicit feedback from the residents
of D’Iberville. The first workshop, held on March 5, 2020, focused on the project’s
goals and objectives (discussed at greater length in the next section) and issues and
opportunities for walking in D’Iberville. The workshop was supported by an online
survey for those unable to attend the live event. Participants were asked to identify
the project goal(s) most consistent with their priorities for walking and sidewalks in
the city. They were also asked, in a visual preference survey, to identify the types of
pedestrian improvements they would most like to see implemented. The feedback
received on both of these activities is summarized in Tables 1-1 and 1-2.

Participants also engaged in a mapping exercise to identify the specific locations of

potential improvements. Taken together, the feedback from the first public workshop
formed the basis of the subsequent project, program, and policy recommendations.

Table 1-1. Goals for Walking and Sidewalks

Most More Less Least

Goals Important Important Important Important Important
(Percentage of Respondents)
Construct new sidewalks and crosswalks in areas without pedestrian facilities 48% 15% 21% 9% 6%
Improve existing sidewalks and crosswalks that are in poor condition 22% 48% 13% 17% 0%
Focus on filling gaps between existing sidewalks, including crosswalks 5% 48% 43% 5% 0%
Build pedestrian connections to schools, parks, and other public facilities 52% 13% 13% 17% 4%
Prioritize pedestrian connections to public transit and places where people work 15% 31% 4% 15% 35%
Make local business districts more walkable 52% 21% 15% 6% 6%

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 5

A second public workshop was held in September and October of 2020. Due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop was held in virtual space and participants
were encouraged to visit on their own time. The workshop provided an overview of
the draft network plan, inviting participants to participate in an online interactive
mapping exercise and survey. Both the interactive map and survey asked
participants to weigh in on the draft network plan and various implementation
options for key locations. This feedback was ultimately incorporated into the final
plan recommendations.

Table 1-2. Preferred Improvement Options

Category Improvement Total % of Category

Walkways Sidewalks 6 11%
Sidewalks with Buffers 17 30%
Sidepaths for Walking and Biking 19 34%
Greenways for Walking and Biking 14 25%
Crosswalks Intersection Crosswalks 22 50%
Mid-Block Crosswalks 10 23%
Crossing Islands 9 20%
Medians 3 7%
Streetscapes Streets Trees & Pedestrian Lighting 28 52%
Parking Lot Landscape Screening 5 9%
Transit Shelters & Benches 11 20%
Outdoor Seating 10 19%

6 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 1.0 | Introduction

1.2 Goals and Objectives

Based on the input received at the first public workshop—as well as guidance from
the project advisory committee—the following goals and objectives were identified
to guide the development of the sidewalk and pedestrian network.

Goal 1: Build pedestrian connections to schools, parks, and other public facilities

• Construct pedestrian or shared-use facilities near key public

facilities and along major access routes to these facilities

• Prioritize projects that provide connections to

schools, parks, and other public facilities

Goal 2: Make local business districts more walkable

• Construct pedestrian facilities in local business districts, supported by user

amenities and aesthetic improvements to reinforce district walkability

• Prioritize projects that provide access to local business districts

Goal 3: Construct new sidewalks and crosswalks in areas without pedestrian

facilities

• Building on the city’s existing pedestrian facilities, develop a citywide network of

safe and accessible pedestrian facilities, suitable for users of all ages and abilities

• Prioritize projects that serve areas of higher population density

• Emphasize transportation equity by prioritizing projects that serve

lower-income populations, as these residents are likely to be more
reliant on active transportation and transit facilities and services

Goal 4: Improve existing sidewalks and crosswalks that are in poor condition

• Repair existing sidewalks and crosswalks that have fallen into poor
condition, including cracked pavement and faded pavement markings

• Ensure all facilities, including existing facilities, are consistent with

national best practices and suitable for users of all ages and abilities

Goal 5: Prioritize pedestrian connections to public transit and places where

people work

• Prioritize pedestrian facilities that provide direct access to Coast Transit bus stops

• Prioritize projects that serve areas of higher employment density

Goal 6: Focus on filling gaps between existing sidewalks, including crosswalks

• Identify locations in the existing network that would

be better served with new crosswalks

• Prioritize projects that fill a gap in or connect directly to the existing network

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 7

1.3 Existing
Conditions Analysis
An understanding of existing conditions is critical to the planning and
implementation of any transportation facility or network. A high-level analysis was
conducted for the study, with an emphasis on issues and opportunities related to
pedestrian mobility and potential. Topics of interest included existing plans and
studies; demographic, land use, environmental conditions; and transportation
system conditions. Key findings from the analysis are discussed below.

Existing Plans and Studies

The city’s 20 Year Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2010) identified pedestrian
mobility as a key transportation goal moving forward. Specifically, the plan
identifies “[providing] a safe means for vehicular and pedestrian circulation” as a
transportation goal moving forward. To this end, the plan identifies “[increasing] the
opportunity for pedestrian mobility throughout the city” as an objective in service to
this goal, supported by the following policies:

• The existence and condition of sidewalks should be evaluated, and

sidewalks should be installed or improved where needed;

• Sidewalk repairs or installations should be directed first toward areas

which are used to move children (connecting schools and adjacent
neighborhoods, second to connect residential neighborhoods to
downtown areas, and finally within other residential areas; and

• D’Iberville will consider the feasibility of installing or otherwise

providing for bike lanes along public streets.

The GRPC’s 2019 – 2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) outlines major
capital investments over the four-year period covered by the plan. One project is
listed for the City of D’Iberville. The project involves the realignment of Popps Ferry
Road to a new roadway from Belle Street to Galleria Parkway, including multimodal
facilities.

The City of D’Iberville has two projects currently under development:

• Auto Mall Parkway at Suzanne Drive – intersection improvement; and

• Auto Mall Parkway and Brodie Road – intersection improvement.

Finally, Jackson County, a neighboring jurisdiction to the east, is currently

constructing a roadway improvement along Cook Road, which connects directly to
Mallet Road at the county line, immediately east of a future park site.

The Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study will continue to promote the pedestrian mobility
goal outlined in the city’s comprehensive plan. Furthermore, the projects currently
under development are reflected in the study’s project recommendations.

8 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 1.0 | Introduction

Demographic, Land Use, and

Environmental Conditions
The City of D’Iberville has experienced steady growth since its founding in 1988. As
shown in Table 1-3, the city’s population has experienced increasingly-accelerated
growth since 1990, with the majority of population growth occurring since 2010.
This rate of growth has vastly outpaced those of both Harrison County and the State
of Mississippi.

Table 1-3. Population Trends (1990 – 2018)

City of D’Iberville Harrison County State of Mississippi

Year Population % Change Population % Change Population % Change
1990 6,566 -- 165,365 -- 2,573,216 --
2000 7,608 15.9% 189,601 14.7% 2,844,658 10.5%
2010 9,486 24.7% 187,105 -1.3% 2,967,297 4.3%
2018 14,012 47.7% 208,080 11.2% 2,976,149 0.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

The city has a relatively young population. Approximately 54 percent of current

residents are age 39 or younger, indicating that Millennial and Generation Z age
cohorts comprise most of the current population, which is consistent with age
distribution for both Harrison County and the State of Mississippi.

As shown in Table 1-4, just over one-third of D’Iberville’s population consists

of minority (non-white) residents, which represents a higher share than that of
Harrison County. Just under one in five residents had 2017 incomes below the
poverty line, consistent with countywide and state trends.

Table 1-4. Traditionally-Underserved Populations

Jurisdiction % Minority % Low-Income

D’Iberville 37.4% 17.1%

Harrison County 32.9% 16.9%
Mississippi 42.0% 19.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 9

Figure 1-2 illustrates the existing land use patterns in the city, with a focus on
the project area. Commercial development is most intense in The Promenade
development north of I-10, with the remaining commercial development largely
clustered along major roadways, including Auto Mall Parkway, Lamey Bridge
Road, and Central Avenue. Residential development is clustered “behind” these
linear commercial nodes, particularly east of Lamey Bridge Road and west of Auto
Mall Parkway. Residential development continues south to the bayfront, though it
becomes less dense and is interspersed with agricultural or open space parcels,
suggesting redevelopment potential in this area. Finally, a linear infrastructure
easement, owned by Mississippi Power, bisects the southern portion of the city,
creating an opportunity for active transportation facilities, as the land by definition
is not prone to development.

Figure 1-3 illustrates the primary environmental features in the city, with a focus
on the project area. Unsurprisingly, Biloxi Bay and its associated flood hazard
zones are the most prominent features, covering much of the southern portion of
the city. Several large wetland features are distributed throughout the city. Active
transportation facilities generally do not have any measurable impact on base flood
elevations, so flood hazard zones do not tend to act as barriers to implementation.
Impacts to wetlands would be addressed during the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) review process on a project by project basis for any facilities receiving
federal funds.

10 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 1.0 | Introduction

Figure 1-2. Existing Land Use

¯
Cyress

re ss
Creek

C yre
ek
D'Iberville Sidewalk and

C
Pedestrian Study Sa nga
n i Bl
Existing Land Use vd

Da is y Ve s try R d
Agriculture and Open Space
Parks and Recreation
Commercial Mallett Rd
Institutional
Manufacturing
Residential
Transportation and Infrastructure

b by vd
Bo us Bl
¨
¦ ¨
§ ¦
§ 10 10

e i
r
El eu t
O
ld
Hw
y

Highland Ave
67

Big Ridge Rd

Big
Ridge Rd

La me y Br id ge Rd
Po pp s
Rd
F e rr y

Cypress Dr

h a rd Dr

Octave St
Warrior
Dr
Su
za n

Nadine Dr
n e Dr
¨
¦
§ 110 O rc
3rd Ave
A ut o M a l l
Pk w y

D
ib L e m o yne
er Bl v d Le m o y n e B l v d
vi
ll

¨
¦
§
e

110
B
lv
d

Ba yo u St
Ma rti n
Central Ave
7th Ave

Talley St R od rig ue z S t
Rd
e
r u z Av

D ia z St
flo
r en

Ra c e
S a n ta C

Go

Tr a ck Rd
Boney Ave

Back Bay
of Biloxi Argo
Ba y S h o r e Dr St

Feet
0 500 1,000

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 11

Figure 1-3. Environmental Features

¯
Cyress

re ss
Creek

C yre
ek
D'Iberville Sidewalk and

C
Pedestrian Study Sa nga
n i Bl
Environmental Features vd

Da is y Ve s try R d
Flood Hazard Zones
Wetlands
Other Features
Mallett Rd
Roads
Parcels
Parks
School Campus

b by vd
Bo us Bl
¨
¦ ¨
§ ¦
§ 10 10

e i
r
El eu t
O
ld
Hw
y

Highland Ave
67

Big Ridge Rd

Big
Ridge Rd

La me y Br id ge Rd
Po pp s
Rd
F e rr y

Cypress Dr

h a rd Dr

Octave St
Warrior
Dr
Su
za n

Nadine Dr
n e Dr
¨
¦
§ 110 O rc
3rd Ave
A ut o M a l l
Pk w y

D
ib L e m o yne
er Bl v d Le m o y n e B l v d
vi
ll

¨
¦
§
e

110
B
lv
d

Ba yo u St
Ma rti n
Central Ave
7th Ave

Talley St R od rig ue z S t
Rd
e
r u z Av

D ia z St
flo
r en

Ra c e
S a n ta C

Go

Tr a ck Rd
Boney Ave

Back Bay
of Biloxi Argo
Ba y S h o r e Dr St

Feet
0 500 1,000

12 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 1.0 | Introduction

1.4 Existing
Pedestrian Demand
To better understand the existing potential of pedestrian mobility in D’Iberville,
a pedestrian demand analysis was conducted as part of the existing conditions
analysis. The analysis was location-based, focusing on where residents live, work,
play, learn, and shop. These locations, regardless of the presence or absence of
pedestrian facilities, are natural origins and destinations for existing users, or
those who would consider walking if safe, comfortable, and accessible facilities
were present.

The specific inputs to the analysis included:

• Population density; • Existing schools;

• Employment density; • Existing commercial land uses; and

• Existing parks and • Existing Coast Transit bus stops.

recreational facilities;

As shown in Figure 1-4, demand is highest in the areas around D’Iberville Middle
School, along major commercial corridors including Lamey Bridge Road and
D’Iberville Boulevard, and the commercial development north of I-10. This
pattern of demand reinforces the study’s primary corridors of focus, the 20 Year
Comprehensive Plan’s emphasis on school connections, and the need for effective
east-west connectivity across I-110.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 13

Figure 1-4. Existing Pedestrian Demand

¯
Cyress

re ss
Creek

C yre
ek
D'Iberville Sidewalk and

C
Pedestrian Study Sa nga
n i Bl
vd

Da is y Ve s try R d
Existing Pedestrian Demand
Higher Demand

Mallett Rd
Moderate Demand

Lower Demand

b by vd
Bo us Bl
¨
¦ ¨
§ ¦
§ 10 10

e i
r
El eu t
O
ld
Hw
y

Highland Ave
67

Big Ridge Rd

Big
Ridge Rd

La me y Br id ge Rd
Po pp s
Rd
F e rr y

Cypress Dr

h a rd Dr

Octave St
Warrior
Dr
Su
za n

Nadine Dr
n e Dr
¨
¦
§ 110 O rc
3rd Ave
A ut o M a l l
Pk w y

D
ib L e m o yne
er Bl v d Le m o y n e B l v d
vi
ll

¨
¦
§
e

110
B
lv
d

Ba yo u St
Ma rti n
Central Ave
7th Ave

Talley St R od rig ue z S t
Rd
e
r u z Av

D ia z St
flo
r en

Ra c e
S a n ta C

Go

Tr a ck Rd
Boney Ave

Back Bay
of Biloxi Argo
Ba y S h o r e Dr St

Feet
0 500 1,000

14 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 1.0 | Introduction

1.5 Planning Approach

In recent years, the practice of pedestrian planning has evolved to emphasize
facilities that are safe and accessible for users of all ages and abilities. This shift in
focus places a higher emphasis on providing a combination of routes and facility
types, coupled with safe and comfortable crossings, particularly across major
roadways that typically act as barriers for users.

Consistent with national best practices, guidance from the project advisory
committee, and input from the general public, the D’Iberville Sidewalk and
Pedestrian Study recommends a variety of projects, policies, programs, and
strategies to make D’Iberville a safe and comfortable place for pedestrians, while
also laying the groundwork for an increased emphasis on bicycle mobility as well.

To this end, the study’s design guidelines (Section 3.0) describe in greater
detail the preferred dimensions of different bicycle and pedestrian facilities
for implementation of study recommendations, as well as additional active
transportation investments going forward. Recommended modifications to local
development policies and regulations that promote a friendlier environment
for walking are discussed in Section 4.0, including a discussion of adopting a
Complete Streets ordinance. Non-infrastructure programs that promote pedestrian
awareness, enhance user safety, and improve the aesthetic environment of the city
are discussed in Section 5.0. Finally, identifying projects for implementation and
the funds necessary to underwrite the cost will be critical to the early and ongoing
success of implementation efforts. Section 6.0 includes a preliminary capital
improvement plan and potential funding sources the city, in cooperation with MDOT,
GRPC, and neighboring municipalities, may pursue going forward.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 15

Section 2.0
Network
Recommendations
The recommended sidewalk and pedestrian network for the City of
D’Iberville was informed by the transportation objectives identified
in the 20 Year Comprehensive Plan, public input collected over two
rounds of public workshops, guidance from the project advisory
committee, and the analysis of existing conditions and future needs.

While all issues and opportunities discussed in Section 1.0 were referenced during the
development of the recommendations, four primary concepts underscore the overall
approach to the development of the recommended network:

1. The three primary corridors of the study – Auto Mall Parkway, Lamey Bridge
Road, and D’Iberville Boulevard – serve as the “backbone” of the network,
including enhanced mobility along, across, and among each of the corridors;

2. Pedestrian circulation within and among three study districts was emphasized: 1) the
North district, including The Promenade and the future park facility on Mallet Road; 2)
the Central District, consisting of the city’s primary residential developments, schools
and public facilities, and commercial districts; and 3) the South district, consisting
of the bayfront, the Scarlet Pearl, and residences and open lands west of I-110;

3. Consistent with the comprehensive plan objectives, D’Iberville Middle School and Jerry
Lawrence Memorial Library served as key activity centers within the network; and

4. The Mississippi Power utility easement, identified by local officials

as a key opportunity, serves as the spine of a shared-use (bicycle and
pedestrian) active transportation route through the center of the city.

Consistent with the original scope of the study, guidance from local officials, and the
geographic approach to the study, the study’s area of emphasis is best described as
bounded by Mallet Road to the north, the Harrison / Jackson County line to the east, the
bayfront to the south, and Ginger Drive to the west.

16 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 2.0 | Network Recommendations

2.1 Sidewalk and Pedestrian

Facility Recommendations
The D’Iberville sidewalk and pedestrian network (Figure 2-1) combines a system
of sidewalks, sidepaths, and shared-use paths to provide a range of options for
both pedestrian and bicycle mobility throughout the city. Key features of the
network include:

• Complete facility coverage along each of the three primary study corridors;

• East-west connections across I-110, including

Rodriguez Street and Popps Ferry Road;

• Shared-use path network, anchored by facility in

Mississippi Power utility easement; and

• Sidewalk connections into adjacent residential districts.

The network also includes two potential pedestrian bridge connections. The first, on
Popps Ferry Road where it crosses I-110, could be accomplished with a cantilever-
type addition to the existing bridge structure. This would provide sound east-west
connectivity in the northern portion of the study. The second, a connection to The
Promenade across I-10, would require a stand-alone bicycle / pedestrian bridge.
Both efforts would require close coordination with MDOT.

Table 2-1 lists all of the proposed facility improvements in the network plan. The
recommendations consist of approximately nine miles of new and improved
sidewalk facilities and seven miles of new sidepath and shared-use path facilities.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 17

Figure 2-1. Sidewalk and Pedestrian Network

D'Iberville Sidewalk and

Pedestrian Study
Existing Facilities
Sa nga
n i Bl
vd
¯

Da is y Ve s try R d
Sidewalk
Shared-Use Path / Sidepath

Proposed Facilities
!
. Mallett Rd
Sidewalk
Shared-Use Path / Sidepath
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing

Proposed Crossing Improvements

!
. Intersection Crossing

!
. Midblock Crossing

Parks
School Campus
Parcels
b by vd
Bo us Bl
¨
¦ ¨
§ ¦
§ 10 10

e i
r
El eu t
!
.
O
ld
Hw
y

Highland Ave
67

Big Ridge Rd
!
. !
. !
.
Big

!
.
Ridge Rd
. !
! . !
. !
.

La me y Br id ge Rd
Po pp s
Rd
F e rr y
!
.
Cypress Dr

!
.

h a rd Dr

Octave St
!
. Warrior
Su
za n !
. . Dr
!
Nadine Dr
n e Dr
!
. ¨
¦
§ 110
!
. O rc

!
.
3rd Ave
A ut o M a l l
Pk w y

D
ib L e m o yne
er Bl v d Le m o y n e B l v d

!
.
vi
ll !
.
!
. ¨
¦
§ !
.
e

110
B
lv
d

!
. !
. !
.

!
.
Central Ave

!
.
7th Ave

!
. !
.
Talley St
!
. !
. R od rig ue z S t
!
. !
.
Rd
e
r u z Av

D ia z St
flo
r en

Ra c e
S a n ta C

Go

Tr a ck Rd
Boney Ave

Argo
Ba y S h o r e Dr St
!
.
Feet
0 500 1,000

18 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 2.0 | Network Recommendations

Table 2-1. Sidewalk and Pedestrian Facilities

Estimated
ID Road From To Linear Feet Facility Type Cost

P-1 Mallet Road Cinema Drive Daisy Vestry Road 2,495 Sidewalk $623,750

P-2 Lamey Bridge Road Mallet Road Georgette Lane 2,239 SUP $335,850

P-3 McAlpine Street* Bobby Eleuterius Boulevard D'Iberville Boulevard 1,682 SUP $1,190,250

P-4 Lamey Bridge Road Georgette Lane Warrior Drive 3,692 SUP $553,800

P-5 Lamey Bridge Road Georgette Lane Warrior Drive 3,606 Sidewalk $901,500

P-6 Big Ridge Road Lamey Bridge Road Gorenflo Road 2,501 Sidewalk $625,250

P-7 "Popps Ferry Road (Phase II)**" Belle Street D'Iberville Boulevard 2,468 SUP $370,200

P-8 Popps Ferry Road* D'Iberville Boulevard Lamey Bridge Road 2,772 SUP $905,400

P-9 MS Power Easement SUP North of Cassimir Drive D'Iberville Boulevard 2,945 SUP $441,750

P-10 Gorenflo Road Big Ridge Road Lemoyne Boulevard 4,350 Sidewalk $1,087,500

School Property / East

P-11 Lamey Bridge Road Gorenflo Road 1,489 SUP $223,350
Orchard Loop

P-12 Lamey Bridge Road Warrior Drive D'Iberville Boulevard 4,358 Sidewalk $1,089,500

P-13 Lemoyne Boulevard Lamey Bridge Road Gorenflo Road 960 Sidewalk $240,000

P-14 3rd Avenue Existing Sidewalk D'Iberville Boulevard 586 Sidewalk $146,500

P-15 D'Iberville Boulevard Popps Ferry Road Lamey Bridge Road 5,275 SUP $791,250

P-16 MS Power Easement SUP Popps Ferry Road D'Iberville Boulevard 3,363 SUP $504,450

P-17 D'Iberville Boulevard Auto Mall Parkway Lamey Bridge Road 3,756 Sidewalk $939,000

P-18 Auto Mall Parkway D'Iberville Boulevard Brodie Road 6,904 Sidewalk $1,726,000

P-19 Suzanne Drive Meadow Drive Auto Mall Parkway 2,010 Sidewalk $502,500

P-20 Ginger Drive West of Auto Mall Parkway MS Power Easement SUP 2,239 Sidewalk $559,750

P-21 MS Power Easement SUP D'Iberville Boulevard Rodriguez Street 3,475 SUP $521,250

P-22 Rodriguez Street Auto Mall Parkway Gorenflo Road 6,125 Sidewalk $1,531,250

P-23 Gorenflo Road Lemoyne Boulevard Race Track Road 3,829 Sidewalk $957,250

P-24 Central Avenue West Race Track Road Bay Shore Drive 416 Sidewalk $104,000

P-25 Race Track Road Gorenflo Road Batia Avenue 2,430 Sidewalk $607,500

P-26 5th Avenue Rodriguez Street Talley Street 372 SUP $55,800

P-27 7th Avenue Brodie Road Santa Cruz Avenue 2,802 SUP $420,300

P-28 Talley Street / Boney Avenue 7th Avenue Bay Shore Drive 2,825 SUP $423,750

P-29 Santa Cruz Avenue Talley Street Bay Shore Drive 1,355 SUP $203,250

P-30 Bay Shore Drive Santa Cruz Avenue Central Avenue 2,204 SUP $330,600

P-31 Quave Road Central Avenue Gorenflo Road 991 Sidewalk $247,750

P-32 Warrior Drive 3rd Avenue Lamey Bridge Road 565 SUP $84,750

* Includes pedestrian bridge structure

** Facility included in programmed project

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 19

2.2 Intersection and
Crossing Recommendations
Supporting the sidewalk and pedestrian facilities are a citywide network of
strategically-located crossing improvements. Of the 34 crossing improvements
identified, 28 are located at existing intersections. An additional eight are located
at midblock locations. The exact scope of each of the crossing improvements
will be determined on a case-by-case basis; however, typical pedestrian crossing
treatments are shown in Table 2-2. Table 2-3 lists all of the proposed crossing
improvements in the network plan.

Table 2-2. Potential Crossing Treatments

Improvements Description

Bicycle/ Pedestrian and/or bicycle crossing signs warn drivers that a

Pedestrian school, pedestrian or bicycle crossing is ahead. "Must stop for
Crossing Signs a pedestrian in the crosswalk" signage may also be used.

Mini traffic circles direct users through intersections in a

predictable manner. They can help reduce the severity of
Mini Traffic crashes and can calm traffic on residential streets. They are
Circles most effective when grouped in a series of three. They can
be designed with mountable curbs to allow large vehicles to
travel through an intersection.

High Visibility High visibility crosswalks increase awareness of pedestrian

Crosswalks, crossing paths and discourage drivers from encroaching into
Curb Ramps, crosswalks. Curb ramps enable people in wheel chairs to
& Detectable cross streets and detectable warning pads direct people with
Warning Pads visual impairments through an intersection at a crosswalk.

Countdown pedestrian signals show the amount of time that

remains before a traffic signal changes from walk to do not
Countdown
walk. They are designed to reduce the number of pedestrians
Signals
who start crossing when there is not enough time to
complete the crossing safely.

20 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 2.0 | Network Recommendations

Improvements Description

The size of the corner relaters to the length of a crosswalks

Reduced Corner and the speed of turning traffic. Reducing curb radii creates
Radii a shorter crossing distance for pedestrians and encourages
drivers to slow down when making right turns.

Median refuge islands buffer and protect pedestrians and

Median Refuge
cyclists crossing wide or busy streets, enabling them to cross
Island
in two stages.

Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) are highly visible,

Rectangular
using flashing yellow LED lights to supplement standard
Rapid Flashing
pedestrian crossing warning signs and midblock and other
Beacon
unsignalized crossing locations.

Corner islands ("pork chop" islands) are triangular raised

Corner Island islands placed at an intersection between a right-turn slip
and Right-Turn lane and through-travel lanes. Well-designed right-turn slip
Slip Lane lanes provide pedestrians with refuges and a right-turn lane
Improvements that is designed to optimize the right turning motorist's view
of the pedestrian and of vehicles to their left.

Bump-outs provide shorter crossing distances for

pedestrians and improve sightlines for both drivers and
Curb Bump-Outs
pedestrians. They can slow the speed of turning traffic. They
(or Extensions)
are most appropriate for use on local roads where they
intersect arterial and collector streets.

Raised crosswalks typically serve as a tool for traffic calming

by bringing the level of the roadway to that of the sidewalk
Raised (e.g. roadway flush with the height of the curb). These
Crosswalks crosswalks force vehicles to slow down before passing over
the crosswalk while also providing a level pedestrian path of
travel from curb to curb.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 21

Table 2-3. Crossing Improvements

ID N/S Cross Street E/W Cross Street Type

I-1 Lamey Bridge Road Mallet Road Intersection

I-2 Lamey Bridge Road Georgette Lane Intersection

I-3 D'Iberville Boulevard McAlpine Street Intersection

I-4 Gorenflo Road Big Ridge Road Intersection

I-5 Popps Ferry Road West of Augustus Street Midblock

I-6 D'Iberville Boulevard Popps Ferry Road Intersection

I-7 Boney Avenue Popps Ferry Road Intersection

I-8 Ladner Road Popps Ferry Road Intersection

I-9 I-110 NB Off-Ramp Popps Ferry Road Intersection

I-10 Lamey Bridge Road Popps Ferry Road Intersection

I-11 D'Iberville Boulevard Auto Mall Parkway Intersection

I-12 Auto Mall Parkway Suzanne Drive Intersection

I-13 Lamey Bridge Road North of Warrior Drive Midblock

I-14 Lamey Bridge Road Warrior Drive Intersection

I-15 Warrior Drive 3rd Avenue Midblock

I-16 Gorenflo Road Douglas Drive Intersection

I-17 D'Iberville Boulevard MS Power Easement Midblock

I-18 Auto Mall Parkway Arbor View Apartments Midblock

I-19 Auto Mall Parkway Ginger Drive Intersection

I-20 West of Boney Avenue Ginger Drive Midblock

I-21 Gorenflo Road Lemoyne Boulevard Intersection

I-22 Lamey Bridge Road Lemoyne Boulevard Intersection

I-23 Lamey Bridge Road D'Iberville Boulevard Intersection

I-24 Gorenflo Road Quave Road Intersection

I-25 Auto Mall Parkway Brodie Road Intersection

I-26 5th Avenue Rodriguez Street Intersection

I-27 I-110 SB Off-Ramp Rodriguez Street Intersection

I-28 I-110 SB On-Ramp Rodriguez Street Intersection

I-29 I-110 NB Off-Ramp Rodriguez Street Intersection

I-30 I-110 NB On-Ramp Rodriguez Street Intersection

I-31 Gorenflo Road Rodriguez Street Intersection

I-32 Central Avenue Bay Shore Drive Intersection

I-33 Lamey Bridge Road Big Ridge Road Intersection

I-34 3rd Avenue D'Iberville Boulevard Midblock

22 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 2.0 | Network Recommendations

2.3 Corridor Concepts

The sidewalk and pedestrian facilities and crossing improvement recommendations
provide a conceptual level framework for facility types and locations in the
recommended citywide network. However, it should be noted that these
recommendations provide a level of flexibility with respect to implementation. To
better illustrate this idea, a number of corridor concepts were developed for key
locations on each of the network’s three primary corridors of focus: Auto Mall
Parkway, D’Iberville Boulevard, and Lamey Bridge Road. While engineering-level
concepts were only developed for these locations for the purpose of this study,
local leaders, key stakeholders, and the general public can assume that similar
flexibility in design and implementation can be achieved for any of the listed
recommended projects.

Auto Mall Parkway

Figure 2-2 shows the facilities from the network plan implemented as proposed.
On the northeastern side of Auto Mall Parkway an additional sidewalk has been
added. On the northwestern side the existing sidewalk is replaced with a new
facility consistent with national best practices. A raised crosswalk is recommended
at the existing bus stop to facilitate safer crossings for both Coast Transit users
and children using the local school bus. This design can be accomplished without
the acquisition of additional right-of-way, though permanent easements would
be required.

Figure 2-3 shows a “road diet” concept that would also allow for the accommodation
of two on-street bike lanes. Near the library driveway the west-side bike lane
transitions to a shared lane facility in order to maintain three lanes in front of the
library, city hall, and apartment complex. This design can be accomplished without
the acquisition of additional right-of-way, though permanent easements would
be required.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 23

Figure 2-2. Auto Mall Parkway: Concept #1

24 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 2.0 | Network Recommendations

Figure 2-3. Auto Mall Parkway: Concept #2

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 25

D’Iberville Boulevard
Figure 2-4 shows the facilities from the network plan implemented as proposed.
The right side allows room for a ten-foot shared use path and five-foot buffer, while
the left side provides space for a five-foot sidewalk and four-foot buffer. This layout
includes a mid-block crossing in the vicinity of a utility clearing and a shared use
path connection. This section layout can be achieved while remaining within the
existing right-of-way or utility clearing.

Figure 2-5 shows a concept that essentially the same, except the buffer widths
between the sidewalk and shared-use path have been increased to allow room for
future road widening. The buffer between the sidewalk and road on the left side has
been increased to 14 feet, and the buffer between the shared use path and the road
has been increased to 16 feet. This section layout can be achieved while remaining
within the existing ROW or utility clearing.

26 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 2.0 | Network Recommendations

Figure 2-4. D’Iberville Boulevard: Concept #1

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 27

Figure 2-5. D’Iberville Boulevard: Concept #2

28 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 2.0 | Network Recommendations

Lamey Bridge Road

In the network plan, Lamey Bridge Road north of Warrior Drive is recommended to
have a shared-use path on the west side complemented by a sidewalk on the east
side, underscoring a need to provide safe, comfortable facilities for pedestrians
while also accommodating bicyclists. However, there are several implementation
configurations the city could consider that represent different approaches to
pedestrian and bicycle mobility and roadway configuration.

Figure 2-6 shows a concept that maintains the existing lane configuration but
provides sidewalks on the east and west sides of Lamey Bridge Road. This layout
allows for the required five-foot sidewalks on both sides and the optimum buffer of
4’ on the west side. The east provides room for the five-foot sidewalk, but only allows
for a two-foot buffer between the sidewalk and the road. A raised crosswalk is
recommended to connect the two sidewalks. This option can be implemented within
the existing right-of-way.

Figure 2-7 shows a concept that employs a “road diet” and often provides new
multimodal facilities within the right-of-way using the extra space created. This
concept reduces the four-lane section down to two lanes to allow room for two bike
lanes and two sidewalks. This design allows for bike lanes at five feet wide and
appropriate buffer widths of four feet. This design also provides space for sidewalks
along the east and west side, and buffer space between the sidewalk and the bike
lanes. A raised crosswalk is recommended to connect the two sidewalks. This option
can be implemented within the existing right-of-way.

Figure 2-8 shows a concept that also employs a “road diet,” narrowing Lamey Bridge
Road to three lanes through the section that runs in front of the school. This design
provides room for the optimum four-foot buffers between the sidewalk and traffic on
both the east and west sides of Lamey Bridge Road. The layout also accommodates
the five foot minimum width sidewalk. A raised crosswalk is recommended to
connect the two sidewalks. This option remains within the existing right-of-way.

The concept in Figure 2-9 shifts Lamey Bridge Road to the east to accommodate a
ten-foot shared-use path and five-foot buffer on the west side. This option would
require asphalt being removed on the west side to make space for the buffer zone
and added to the east side to maintain four lanes. A small portion of additional
right-of-way or easement would be required to connect the recommended raised
crosswalk between the school and parking lot.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 29

Figure 2-6. Lamey Bridge Road: Concept #1

30 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 2.0 | Network Recommendations

Figure 2-7. Lamey Bridge Road: Concept #2

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 31

Figure 2-8. Lamey Bridge Road: Concept #13

32 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 2.0 | Network Recommendations

Figure 2-9. Lamey Bridge Road: Concept #4

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 33

2.4 Programmed Projects
As discussed previously, four projects are currently programmed or
under development:

1. Popps Ferry Road from Belle Street to Galleria

Parkway – new roadway construction;

2. I-10/Cook Road Connector Project – roadway improvement (Jackson County);

3. Auto Mall Parkway at Suzanne Drive – intersection improvement; and

4. Auto Mall Parkway and Brodie Road – intersection improvement.

These projects have been incorporated into the network recommendations. Project
design is expected to be consistent with the study recommendations.

34 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

Section 3.0
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Design Guidelines
The D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study seeks to
catalyze a citywide active transportation network. While the
network recommendations focus primarily on pedestrian
facilities, they include shared-use facilities suitable for
bicyclists as well. As shown in the corridor concepts, there are
also existing opportunities to include on-street bikeways to
complement the pedestrian facilities. Furthermore, the 20 Year
Comprehensive Plan identified exploring bikeway facilities as a
key transportation objective.

An important aspect of the study’s success specifically, and active transportation

in D’Iberville generally, is to ensure that the facilities are consistently safe and
comfortable for users. To this end, design guidelines have been developed for
D’Iberville to help ensure that any and all bicycle and pedestrian improvements
meet national best practices and to ultimately support the implementation of the
recommended network plan.

The design guidelines (Figures 3-1 through 3-4), based largely on National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) standards, cover the following
facility types and, with the network plan, serve as the blueprint for improving
walking and bicycling in D’Iberville:

• Bike lanes; • Signalized intersections;

• Buffered bike lanes; • Shared-use paths;

• Separated bike lanes; • Sidepaths; and

• Advisory bike lanes; • Sidewalks.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 35

Figure 3-1. Design Guidelines: Bikeways

36 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 3.0 | Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines

Figure 3-2. Design Guidelines: Intersections

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 37

 Figure 3-3. Design Guidelines: Shared-Use Paths and Sidepaths

38 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 3.0 | Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines

Figure 3-4. Design Guidelines: Sidewalks

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 39

Section 4.0
Local Development
Policies and
Regulations
The capital improvement recommendations and associated
design guidelines ensure that future active transportation
infrastructure in D’Iberville will be part of a citywide network
of state-of-the-practice facilities. Three primary tools can be
deployed by the City of D’Iberville to promote a more walkable
and bikeable community going forward – specifically, a
Complete Streets ordinance, zoning ordinance, and subdivision
regulations. These strategies represent a cost-effective
approach to implementation, as they encourage smaller
changes to the built environment that, over time, both improve
user safety and comfort and integrate active transportation in
the city’s local culture.

Complete Streets policies have been adopted by many communities throughout the
country and represent an effective strategy to ensure the needs of bicyclists and
pedestrians are considered by all public agencies with jurisdiction within the local
transportation right-of-way.

While there is no universal definition of a Complete Street, Smart Growth

America suggests that Complete Streets may include some or all of the following:
sidewalks, bicycle facilities, frequent and safe crossing opportunities, median
islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, narrower travel lanes, and
roundabouts, among other potential treatments.

40 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 4.0 | Local Development Policies and Regulations

A Complete Streets ordinance would require that the needs of all users, including
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, be accommodated on all future transportation
system maintenance and improvement projects, with few exceptions. The most
successful policies tend to include the following:

• Applying the Complete Streets policy in all phases of

transportation project development, including planning,
programming, design, construction, and maintenance;

• Updating all department and agencies policies and standards

for consistency with the Complete Streets policy; and

• Measuring outcomes, including design (e.g. percentage of planned

sidewalks constructed), and administrative (e.g. the number of
exceptions granted and why) performance measures.

A model Complete Streets ordinance for D’Iberville is included as Appendix A.

One of the most effective implementation strategies for the city is to establish
land development regulations and street design standards that promote Complete
Streets and walkable development. Based on best practices from around the U.S.,
Table 4-1 includes recommendations for strengthening the city’s zoning ordinance
and subdivision regulations. For each best practice, local regulations and standards
were reviewed and changes recommended, where applicable.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 41

Table 4-1. Land Development Regulations Review and Recommendations

Existing Policies
Strategy Description and Standards Review / Recommendation

The city does not currently have

Adopt a Complete A Complete Streets policy allows cities and towns
a Complete Streets ordinance
Streets policy and to work towards creating a street network that
None Found in place. A model ordinance
Complete Streets encourages pedestrian and bicycle travel and provides
has been included with the
design guidelines safe and comfortable roadways for all users.
study for future consideration.
Sidewalks are the primary mode of pedestrian travel
and are a crucial element in any pedestrian network.
Sidewalks should be part of a continuous network,
connected with crosswalks and separated from traffic 316.1 Sidewalks shall be
Require pedestrian
with a buffer. Communities should also consider constructed in all residential
facilities (e.g.
developing sidewalk infill and maintenance programs subdivisions and at all new The city could consider
sidewalks,
where government staff periodically inventory the commercial building locations, including redeveloped parcels
crosswalks) during
street network to identify sidewalk gaps, and develop with said sidewalks being in sidewalk requirement.
new construction
strategies, project prioritization criteria and funding for constructed in the street right-
or redevelopment.
completing these gaps. Potential project prioritization of-way in every case practicable.
criteria include filling gaps along key pedestrian
routes, near major pedestrian trip generators like
schools, and along streets with high vehicle volumes.
Best standards would require or provide sidewalks on
both sides of all collector and arterial streets and on at
least one side of local streets where warranted by density
and/or system connectivity. Five foot-wide sidewalks
along local streets and six foot-wide sidewalks along The city could consider revising
collectors and arterials are suggested minimum widths. the sidewalk standards in
Require sidewalks
In areas of higher density and mixed-use development, None Found Section 316 of the Subdivision
by roadway type
the minimum required width for sidewalks should be Regulations to reflect described
six feet or more. The land use context and density of widths by roadway type.
development necessitates a greater level of requirement
for sidewalk specifications. In mixed-used districts with
buildings at the back of the sidewalk and ground level
retail, sidewalks should be as wide as 10-18 feet wide.
“318.2 Lighting shall be
provided at intersections, along
walkways, between buildings,
and in parking areas.
Pedestrian-scale lighting should not exceed eighteen
Require pedestrian- (18) feet in height over the sidewalk and should be
318.3 The height and shielding
scaled lighting (< 18’ located at key intersections or crossings and along No additional action
of lighting standards shall
tall) along streets preferred pedestrian routes. Pedestrian-scale lighting also is recommended.
provide proper lighting without
and pathways enhances the illumination of bicycle facilities since the
hazards to drivers or nuisance
lighting is located closer to the sidewalk and roadway.
to residents and the design
of lighting standards shall be
of a type appropriate to the
development and municipality.”
In addition to their value for improving the air quality,
water quality, and beauty of a community, street trees
can help slow traffic and improve comfort for pedestrians. The city could consider requiring
Require street
Trees add visual interest to streets and narrow the trees on both sides of all
trees between None Found
street’s visual corridor, which may cause drivers to streets, in accordance with
sidewalk and curb.
slow down. When planted in a planting strip between an overall landscape plan.
the sidewalk and the curb, street trees also provide a
buffer between the pedestrian zone and the street.
325.4 All plans for residential
subdivisions of land or residential
land development ten (10)
Require dedication, Consider adding requirements for greenway reservation, acres or larger shall provide
The city could consider counting
reservation or dedication, or construction in new developments where a for dedication of civic space
greenway right-of-way toward
development of greenway or trail is shown on an adopted plan or where a as provided in this section. All
the open space requirements.
greenways property connects to an existing or proposed greenway. dedications of land for civic
space shall be consistent with
any standards contained in
the comprehensive plan.
Requiring connectivity or cross-access between The city consider mandating
Require connectivity / adjacent developments is a great tool for reducing cross access between adjacent
cross-access between the amount of traffic on major roads while None Found developments, including
adjacent land parcels increasing connectivity for pedestrians, bicylists, connection preservation
service vehicles, and neighborhood access. in new developments.

42 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 5.0 | Non-Infrastructure Programs

Section 5.0
Non-Infrastructure
Programs
The League of American Bicyclists identify five “E’s” that
are consistent with making great places for both bicycling
and walking: 1) engineering, 2) education, 3) enforcement, 4)
encouragement, and 5) evaluation. Addressing the first “E,”
capital pedestrian and shared-use facility improvements
provide safe, designated spaces for people to walk and bike.
However, these – in addition to the design guidelines – only
provide physical space for users. In order to fully promote active
transportation as both safe and viable to the public, a set of
non-infrastructure programs are recommended to complement
the facility improvements, addressing the remaining four
“E’s.” Taken together, these programs can strengthen the city’s
active transportation culture for existing users and provide
reassurance to potential users who may be hesitant to walk
or bike.

The program recommendations in this section rely heavily on partnerships,

both within the public sector and across the private and non-profit sectors,
including businesses, community organizations, and civic groups. Since many
non-infrastructure programs typically depend on in-kind staff and resources,
establishing strong relationships with interested partners is critical to the initial and
ongoing success of each recommendation. Table 5-1 describes programs that could
be deployed in the short-term, concurrently with the implementation of network
recommendations, along with potential partner(s) and funding source(s).

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 43

Table 5-1. Priority Short-Term Non-Infrastructure Programs

Category Program Responsible Party/Partners Funding Source(s)

Education Pop-up demonstrations (“tactical urbanism”) City; Community organizations City; Gulf Regional
to test out potential infrastructure projects Planning Commission
and generate community interest
Pedestrian safety awareness City; Gulf Regional Planning Commission Grants
campiagn for motorists
Encouragement Pedestrian network maps; City; Gulf Regional Planning Commission; City; Gulf Regional
information on website Regional Pathways Nonprofit Planning Commission
Open street events City; Community organizations City; Sponsorships
Enforcement Step up pedestrian safety enforcement at key City; County City; County
locations or as new facilities come online
Evaluation Annual pedestrian counts at key locations City; Gulf Regional Planning City; Gulf Regional Planning
Commission; Community organizations Commission; Mississippi
Department of Transportation

Since many non-infrastructure programs typically depend on in-kind staff and

resources, the key to building awareness, education, and participation is offering a
regular schedule of events that engage both participants and volunteers. In addition
to the short-term priorities, other potential non-infrastructure programs that can
help improve walking in D’Iberville include:

Education Encouragement Evaluation

• Provide information and • Host launch parties for new facilities • Conduct roadway and trail
educational materials in Spanish, safety audits with volunteers
• Celebrate pedestrian-oriented
in addition to English
national events, such as “Walktober”
• Offer Safe Routes to
• Promote access to recreation
Schools programming
opportunities (e.g. “Five-Dollar
5k Run;” bike share stations
at greenway trailheads)

44 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 5.0 | Non-Infrastructure Programs

5.1 Public Art Programs

Consistent with a non-infrastructure emphasis on education and encouragement,
public arts programs associated with a city’s pedestrian network can increase
local public interest and awareness of facilities while also bolstering the city’s
attractiveness to visitors. This is particularly true in D’Iberville, which is located in
a region that already attracts regional and national tourism for shopping, coastal
recreation, and gaming. As with the other non-infrastructure programs, public art
programs will rely heavily on local partnerships, including partners who may not
have previously been involved in civic programs.

Americans for the Arts emphasizes that cities gain value through public art,
consisting of cultural, social, and economic value. Specific benefits cities can realize
by embracing a public arts program include:

• Adding cultural value and reinforcing community identity;

• Supporting local artists by providing local opportunities for exhibition;

• Reinforcing a city’s sense of place and culture;

• Increasing collaboration among public leaders, nonprofit

actors, and the arts community; and

• Generating economic value through local promotion and boosterism.

Figure 5-1. On-Street Art

Photo Credit: Ophelia Chambliss

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 45

 Figure 5-2.
Street Mural
Photo Credit:
Trevor Reid

Figure 5-3.
Trailhead
or Trailside
Installation
Photo Credit:
Bike Bentonville

One way to enhance the city’s aesthetic environment is to issue a call to artists
for murals, sculptures, or temporary projects. The program can be a one-off, or
done annually, depending on funding. As the pedestrian network begins to add
key facilities, key sites adjacent to these facilities could be identified as candidate
installation sites, possibly in coordination with property owners, if applicable.
Figures 5-1 through Figure 5-3 show examples of artwork identified as providing
enhancement in pedestrian spaces.

Another way to incorporate art or aesthetic improvements into a city’s pedestrian

network is through the use of creative crosswalks or street art. These benefits of
these installations can be twofold, as they 1) add to the local aesthetic environment
while also generating community interest in the pedestrian network, and 2) acting
as a traffic calming device. Locally-led movements, such as Paint the Pavement,
have increasingly turned to non-conventional crosswalk design and sprawling
murals across intersections.

46 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 5.0 | Non-Infrastructure Programs

Figure
5-4. Traffic
Calming
Mural
Photo Credit:
Paint the
Pavement

Figure 5-5.
Creative
Crosswalk
Photo Credit:
Downtown Long
Beach Alliance

It should be noted that on-street public art has not been embraced by national
standard-bearers, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation, and are not
consistent with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). As such,
these treatments can be controversial if installed on a federal aid roadway. Also,
public art could be detrimentally distracting to motorists in some contexts, including
high-volume or high-speed locations. Such strategies are likely most effective in
places where people are driving slowly anyway, such as near schools, parks, and
residential neighborhoods. Figures 5-4 and 5-5 show examples on on-street, traffic
calming public art.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 47

5.2 Branding
and Wayfinding
Improving sidewalk and pedestrian connectivity increases public access and
community awareness, creating an ideal opportunity for D’Iberville to revisit its
existing brand and visual identity. Highly functioning networks utilize a variety of
signage and wayfinding components to help identify key destinations and local
points of interest, provide direction, and communicate necessary information.
Collectively, each system component offers a unique opportunity to capture and
promote the community brand, connecting people with place, and further enhancing
the user experience.

An effective branding process must be locally driven - exploring D’Iberville’s

past, present, and future demographics and culture; identifying a team of key
stakeholders; and developing a visual brand and identity which reinforces
community, promotes its values, and applies itself to all necessary forms of
communication. Figure 5-6 shows an example of an updated branded logo for the
city. This branded logo is both conceptual and preliminary and would need to be
considered within a formal citywide branding exercise prior to being implemented.

A system signage and wayfinding program could be designed with a goal to provide
necessary and useful information, encourage system usage, facilitate proper
circulation, and promote D’Iberville’s community brand loyalty. Signage system
components would account for differing levels of user mobility and designed
with durability and cost-effective maintenance in mind. Figures 5-7 and 5-8 show
examples of potential signage and wayfinding components that could be included
as part of a larger signage and wayfinding program. Like the brand identity, these
examples are both conceptual and preliminary, and would need to be considered
within a larger citywide signage and wayfinding study prior to being implemented.

48 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 5.0 | Non-Infrastructure Programs

A comprehensive branding and wayfinding program, should the city seek to

implement one, would likely include the following design and development
processes and services:

• Survey of D’Iberville’s existing brand and signage components,

as well as relevant local/regional communities;

• Review of all applicable regulatory and city code compliance;

• Brand exploration and visioning workshop(s) with project stakeholders;

• Conceptual and Final Design Development of a visual

brand identity (e.g. logo, wordmark, slogan);

• Conceptual and Final Design Development of a signage and wayfinding

program ‘sign family’ (to include, but not be limited to: Gateway/
Welcome Feature, Directional Signs, Directory/Informational
Signs, Pathway/Landmark Identification, Light Pole/Banner);

• Sign Location Plans and Message Schedule;

• Construction Documentation Package, to include final

specifications (sizes, materials, finishes, fabrication / installation
details) for all unique sign type layouts in the program;

• Design Development of a ‘D’Iberville Brand Standards & Signage

and Wayfinding Guidelines’ – to serve as a governing document
for future brand and signage system initiatives;

• Pricing and Bid Facilitation, as required; and

• Construction Administration, as required.

Figure 5-6. Conceptual Brand Logo

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 49

Figure 5-7. Example Wayfinding Signage

Destination Destination

Destination

Destination

DECEMBER 5TH

Trail / Pathway TBD

1. Destination 4. Destination 7. Destination

2. Destination 5. Destination 8. Destination
3. Destination 6. Destination

WAYFINDING SIGNAGE INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE BANNER SYSTEM

(TRAIL / PATHWAY MARKER, (SEASONAL, EVENT,
SHOPPING DISTRICT DIRECTORY, PROMOTIONAL, BRANDING)
SECONDARY WELCOME SIGN)

Figure 5-8. Example Welcome Signage

Welcome to

PRIMARY WELCOME SIGN / ENTRY FEATURE

50 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 6.0 | Implementation and Funding Strategies

Section 6.0
Implementation and
Funding Strategies

6.1 Project Prioritization

The D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study provides an overall framework for
improving pedestrian user safety and comfort in the city. The lists of improvements
outlined in Section 2.0 identify specific segments of roadways, intersections,
or potential trail locations where improvements are needed. However, some
projects can provide greater or more immediate benefits to users than others.
As such, a prioritization framework was developed to provide a draft project
implementation schedule.

Criteria were identified to help prioritize streets, roads, intersections, and corridors
with facility recommendations in the study. As shown in Table 6-1, the criteria
are closely tied to the master plan’s goals and objectives and include three
primary categories: 1) safety, 2) demand, and 3) equity. Improvements were also
checked for consistency with other programmed improvements (discussed in
Section 2.0). While other considerations, such as requirements of grant funding
or a change in political leadership may alter the city’s specific strategy to plan
implementation, the implementation schedule provided in Table 6-2 provides
preliminary recommendations of project priorities for short-term, mid-term, and
long-term consideration. Table 6-3 provides priorities for intersection and crossing
improvements. While these may be implemented strategically with complementary
facility projects, they may also be implemented as stand-alone projects by the
city directly, or in coordination with GRPC and MDOT. A map of the scheduled
improvements are shown in Figure 6-1.

Table 6-1. Project Prioritization Criteria

Category Criterion
Safety ADT - Is the project adjacent to a high traffic volume roadway?
Gap - Does the project fill an existing gap in the network of extend an existing facility?
Demand Schools - Does the project provide access to a school?
Parks - Does the project improve accessibility to existing or planned parks?
Population Density - Is the project located in a Census Block Group with a high population density?
Commercial/Retail - Does the project provide access to land determined to consist of a commercial/retail or office use?
Equity Low-Income - Is the project located in a Census Block Group with a high percentage of low-income residents?
Transit - Does the project provide access to an existing Coast Transit bus stop?

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 51

Table 6-2. Capital Improvement Program – Pedestrian Facilities

Road From To Linear Feet Facility Type*** Estimated Cost

Tier One Projects - Higher Priority
Auto Mall Parkway D’Iberville Boulevard Brodie Road 6,904 Sidewalk $1,726,000
D’Iberville Boulevard Popp’s Ferry Road Lamey Bridge Road 5,275 SUP $791,250
Rodriguez Street Auto Mall Parkway Gorenflo Road 6,125 Sidewalk $1,531,250
Lamey Bridge Road Mallet Road Georgette Lane 2,239 SUP $335,850
Lamey Bridge Road Georgette Lane Warrior Drive 3,692 SUP $553,800
Popp’s Ferry Road* D’Iberville Boulevard Lamey Bridge Road 2,772 SUP $905,400
Lamey Bridge Road Warrior Drive D’Iberville Boulevard 4,358 Sidewalk $1,089,500
Gorenflo Road Lemoyne Boulevard Race Track Road 3,829 Sidewalk $957,250
Mallet Road Cinema Drive Daisy Vestry Road 2,495 Sidewalk $623,750
Tier One Projects - Total Cost $8,514,050

Tier Two Projects - Moderate Priority

Lamey Bridge Road Georgette Lane Warrior Drive 3,606 Sidewalk $901,500
Warrior Drive 3rd Avenue Lamey Bridge Road 565 SUP $84,750
Race Track Road Gorenflo Road Batia Avenue 2,430 Sidewalk $607,500
Quave Road Central Avenue Gorenflo Road 991 Sidewalk $247,750
MS Power Easement SUP North of Cassimir Drive D’Iberville Boulevard 2,945 SUP $441,750
Suzanne Drive Meadow Drive Auto Mall Parkway 2,010 Sidewalk $502,500
Big Ridge Road Lamey Bridge Road Gorenflo Road 2,501 Sidewalk $625,250
Gorenflo Road Big Ridge Road Lemoyne Boulevard 4,350 Sidewalk $1,087,500
School Property / East
Lamey Bridge Road Gorenflo Road 1,489 SUP $223,350
Orchard Loop
Lemoyne Boulevard Lamey Bridge Road Gorenflo Road 960 Sidewalk $240,000
3rd Avenue Existing Sidewalk D’Iberville Boulevard 586 Sidewalk $146,500
Central Avenue West Race Track Road Bay Shore Drive 416 Sidewalk $104,000
Tier Two Projects - Total Cost $5,212,350

Tier Three Projects - Lower Priority

“Popp’s Ferry Road (Phase II)**” Belle Street D’Iberville Boulevard 2,468 SUP $370,200
MS Power Easement SUP Popp’s Ferry Road D’Iberville Boulevard 3,363 SUP $504,450
D’Iberville Boulevard Auto Mall Parkway Lamey Bridge Road 3,756 Sidewalk $939,000
Ginger Drive West of Auto Mall Parkway MS Power Easement SUP 2,239 Sidewalk $559,750
MS Power Easement SUP D’Iberville Boulevard Rodriguez Street 3,475 SUP $521,250
McAlpine Street* Bobby Eleuterius Boulevard D’Iberville Boulevard 1,682 SUP $1,190,250
5th Avenue Rodriguez Street Talley Street 372 SUP $55,800
7th Avenue Brodie Road Santa Cruz Avenue 2,802 SUP $420,300
Bay Shore Drive Santa Cruz Avenue Central Avenue 2,204 SUP $330,600
Talley Street / Boney Avenue 7th Avenue Bay Shore Drive 2,825 SUP $423,750
Santa Cruz Avenue Talley Street Bay Shore Drive 1,355 SUP $203,250
Tier Three Projects - Total Cost $5,518,600

* Includes pedestrian bridge structure

** Facility included in programmed project
*** SUP = Shared-Use Path

52 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 6.0 | Implementation and Funding Strategies

Table 6-3. Capital Improvement Program – Intersection and Crossing

Improvements

N/S Cross Street E/W Cross Street Type

Tier One Projects - Higher Priority
Gorenflo Road Big Ridge Road Intersection
Lamey Bridge Road Mallet Road Intersection
Lamey Bridge Road North of Warrior Drive Midblock
Gorenflo Road Rodriguez Street Intersection
Lamey Bridge Road Georgette Lane Intersection
Lamey Bridge Road Warrior Drive Intersection
3rd Avenue D'Iberville Boulevard Midblock
Popp's Ferry Road West of Augustus Street Midblock
Auto Mall Parkway Suzanne Drive Intersection
Gorenflo Road Quave Road Intersection
Auto Mall Parkway Brodie Road Intersection
Auto Mall Parkway Ginger Drive Intersection
Tier Two Projects - Moderate Priority
D'Iberville Boulevard Popp's Ferry Road Intersection
D'Iberville Boulevard MS Power Easement Midblock
Auto Mall Parkway Arbor View Apartments Midblock
Lamey Bridge Road Lemoyne Boulevard Intersection
Lamey Bridge Road D'Iberville Boulevard Intersection
Warrior Drive 3rd Avenue Midblock
Lamey Bridge Road Big Ridge Road Intersection
Gorenflo Road Lemoyne Boulevard Intersection
Gorenflo Road Douglas Drive Intersection
D'Iberville Boulevard Auto Mall Parkway Intersection
I-110 SB Off-Ramp Rodriguez Street Intersection
Central Avenue Bay Shore Drive Intersection
Tier Three Projects - Lower Priority
D'Iberville Boulevard McAlpine Street Intersection
Lamey Bridge Road Popp's Ferry Road Intersection
Boney Avenue Popp's Ferry Road Intersection
I-110 NB Off-Ramp Rodriguez Street Intersection
I-110 NB On-Ramp Rodriguez Street Intersection
I-110 NB Off-Ramp Popp's Ferry Road Intersection
Ladner Road Popp's Ferry Road Intersection
West of Boney Avenue Ginger Drive Midblock
5th Avenue Rodriguez Street Intersection
I-110 SB On-Ramp Rodriguez Street Intersection

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 53

Figure 6-1. Capital Improvement Program

D'Iberville Sidewalk and

Pedestrian Study
Existing Facilities
Sa nga
n i Bl
vd
¯

Da is y Ve s try R d
Sidewalk
Shared-Use Path / Sidepath

Proposed Sidewalks
!
. Mallett Rd
Short-Term
Mid-Term
Long-Term

Proposed Shared-Use Paths/Sidepaths

Short-Term
Mid-Term
Long-Term

Proposed Crossing Improvements

!
. Short-Term b by vd
Bo us Bl
eu t
e r i ¨
¦ ¨
§ ¦
§ 10 10

!
. Mid-Term El

!
. Long-Term
!
.
Parks
School Campus
Parcels
Highland Ave

Big Ridge Rd
!
. !
. !
.
Big

!
.
Ridge Rd
. !
! . !
. !
.

La me y Br id ge Rd
Po pp s
Rd
F e rr y
!
.
Cypress Dr

!
.

h a rd Dr

Octave St
!
. Warrior
Su
za n !
. . Dr
!
Nadine Dr
n e Dr
!
. ¨
¦
§ 110
!
. O rc

!
.
3rd Ave
A ut o M a l l
Pk w y

D
ib L e m o yne
er Bl v d Le m o y n e B l v d

!
.
vi
ll !
.
!
. ¨
¦
§ !
.
e

110
B
lv
d

!
. !
. !
.

!
.
Central Ave

!
.
7th Ave

!
. !
.
Talley St
!
. !
. R od rig ue z S t
!
. !
.
Rd
e
r u z Av

D ia z St
flo
r en

Ra c e
S a n ta C

Go

Tr a ck Rd
Boney Ave

Argo
Ba y S h o r e Dr St
!
.
Feet
0 500 1,000

54 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Section 6.0 | Implementation and Funding Strategies

6.2 Funding Strategies

While pedestrian and shared-use facilities are typically included as part of larger
public infrastructure and private development projects, increasingly communities
are undertaking targeted pedestrian improvements to retrofit commercial districts
and neighborhoods for economic and community development purposes. Following
is a brief overview of several potential sources.

Capital Budgets – The City of D’Iberville can use the concepts and policies
presented in this study to implement the recommended projects through regularly
scheduled capital projects, such as streetscape projects, street resurfacing, or new
public or private development.

Department Budgets – Departments like Public Works or Parks and Recreation

can use their maintenance resources and staff to support programs and
infrastructure maintenance.

Fees – User fees provide an opportunity to generate revenue to fund infrastructure

projects, such as sidewalk construction, and non-infrastructure programs, such as
pedestrian safety campaigns.

Grants – Competitive grants through public agencies or through private or nonprofit

foundations can generate additional resources for projects and programs.

Fundraising Campaigns – Fundraising through neighborhood groups, advocacy

groups, or even crowd funding can help generate additional resources for projects
and programs.

As shown in Table 6-4, there are a wide range of federal, state, local and private
funding sources used by jurisdictions throughout the country to implement
pedestrian projects and programs.

Although securing funds for implementation can be challenging, the D’Iberville

Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study represents a critical first step in achieving the
citywide vision for pedestrian mobility – and making the case for funding. There are,
of course, multiple needs and demands for resources in every community. Because
they fundamentally tie communities together, pedestrian improvements offer a
unique opportunity to achieve many community goals and objectives simultaneously,
and in the process, deliver a great return on investment. With the project and
program recommendations in this study, the City of D’Iberville is poised to become a
more pedestrian-friendly community and increase its attractiveness as a great place
to live, work, visit, and raise a family.

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | 55

Table 6-4. Potential Funding Sources

Funding Type Funding Source

Federal Funding Centers for Disease Control Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH)
Sources
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
FHWA Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) grants
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
National Park Service's Mississippi Gulf Coast National Heritage Area matching grants
National Recreational Trails Fund Act (Symms Act)
Safe Routes to School (administered by the Mississippi Department of Transportation)
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Section 402: State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USDOT Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grants
State of Mississippi Capital Improvements Revolving Loan Program (CAP)
Funding Sources
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
Custom License Plate Sales
Development Infrastructure Grant Program (DIP)
Gulf Coast Regional Infrastructure Program
Local Planning Assistance Grants - Mississippi Office of Highway Safety
Mississippi State Department of Health - STARS (Students Taking Active Routes Safely) program
Local Funding Sources Annual capital budgets
Bonds/Loans
Business Improvement Districts
Special local tax
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district
Private and Nonprofit Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc.
Funding Sources
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi Foundation Healthy Hometown Grant Awards
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi Foundation Healthy School Grant Awards
Health Foundations/Local Hospitals
Local Businesses
PeopleForBikes
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Surdna Foundation
The Conservation Alliance
Trust for Public Land

56 | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Appendix A
Model Complete Streets
Ordinance
 ORDINANCE NUMBER __________
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A “COMPLETE STREETS”
POLICY IN CITY OF D’IBERVILLE

WHEREAS, the City of D’Iberville policy as stated in the Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study is to make city
streets safe, comfortable and convenient for travel via walking, bicycling, motor vehicle and transit by
adopting a Complete Streets policy; and

WHEREAS, increasing walking and bicycling offers the potential for greater accessibility and mobility,
improved health, a more livable community, and a more efficient use of road space and resources; and

WHEREAS, the Complete Streets guiding principle is to design, operate and maintain streets to promote
safe and convenient access and travel for all users, including residents who do not or cannot drive, such
access to include sidewalks, bicycle lanes, shared-use paths and vehicle lanes; and

WHEREAS, other jurisdictions and agencies nationwide have adopted Complete Streets legislation
including the U.S. Department of Transportation and communities in Mississippi; and

WHEREAS, the City of D’Iberville will implement a Complete Streets policy by designing, operating and
maintaining the transportation network to improve travel conditions for people walking, bicycling, using
transit, and driving in a manner consistent with, and supportive of, the surrounding community; and

WHEREAS, the City of D’Iberville recognizes the number of cost-effective improvements to existing
roads that can increase access and safety, including crosswalks, bicycle lanes, signage, bulb-outs, on-street
parking, street trees and changing the signalization of traffic lights; and

WHEREAS, the City of D’Iberville will implement policies and procedures with the construction or
reconstruction of transportation facilities to support the creation of Complete Streets including capital
improvements and re-channelization projects, recognizing that all streets are different and in each case
user needs must be balanced;

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF D’IBERVILLE, MISSISSIPPI,

AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. the City of D’Iberville will plan for, design and construct all new transportation improvement
projects to provide appropriate accommodation for people of all abilities who walk, bicycle, use transit
and/or drive, while promoting safe operation for all users, as provided for below.

Section 2. Definitions

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this ordinance, shall have the meanings defined in
this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

1) “Bicycle Way or Bikeway” means any course or way intended specifically for the preferential use of
bicyclists. Examples include bicycle lanes and shared-use paths.

2) “Complete Streets Infrastructure” means design features that contribute to a safe, convenient, or
comfortable travel experience for users, including but not limited to features such as: sidewalks;
shared-use paths; bicycle lanes; automobile lanes; paved shoulders; accessible curb ramps; bulb-outs;
crosswalks; refuge islands; pedestrian and traffic signals; and public transportation stops and facilities.

ii | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Appendix A

3) “Pedestrian Way or Walkway” means any course or way intended specifically for the preferential use
of pedestrians. Examples include sidewalks and shared-use paths.

4) “Shared-Use Path” means a multi-use pathway for all non-motorized users including pedestrians and
bicyclists.

5) “Street” means any right of way, public or private, including arterials, collectors, local roads, and
roadways by any other designation, as well as bridges, tunnels and any other portions of the transportation
network.

6) “Transportation Improvement Project” means the construction, reconstruction, retrofit, or alteration of

any street, and includes the planning, design, approval, and implementation processes, except that
“Transportation Improvement Project” does not include routine maintenance such as cleaning, sweeping,
mowing, spot repair or pavement resurfacing.

7) “Users” mean individuals that use streets, including people walking, bicycling, using transit, and/or
driving, and people of all ages and abilities, including children, teenagers, families, older adults and
individuals with disabilities.

Section 3. Requirements

The City of D’Iberville will implement the Complete Streets principles as follows:

1) Every transportation improvement project shall incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure including
both bicycle and pedestrian ways sufficient to enable reasonably safe travel along and across the right-of-
way for each category of users; unless one or more of these conditions exists and is documented:

a) People walking or bicycling are prohibited by law from using the roadway. In this instance, a greater
effort may be necessary to accommodate people walking or bicycling elsewhere within the right-of-way
or within the same transportation corridor.
b) The cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the total cost
of the transportation project. “Excessively disproportionate” is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the
total cost.
c) Severe existing topographic, natural resource or right-of-way constraints exist that preclude
construction of bicycle or pedestrian ways without incurring excessive costs.
d) Bicycle ways will not be required on local streets where the speed limit is 25 mph or less.
f) Pedestrian ways will not be required along local streets with fewer than three (3) dwelling units per acre
or along rural roadways outside of urbanized areas, unless the respective roadway has been identified for
pedestrian ways in the Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study or another adopted plan.
g) The City Council issues a documented exception concluding that application of Complete Streets
principles to a location is inappropriate because it would be contrary to public benefit and safety.

2) Pedestrian improvements and shared-use facilities that have been identified as priorities in the
Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study and any previous and subsequent planning documents shall be given
particular consideration for implementation.

3) Bicycle ways shall be designed and constructed according to accepted design guidance, such as that
included in the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide, the
Federal Highway Administration’s Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks guide, the American

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | iii

 Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials‘ Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, and the design guidelines included in the adopted Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study.

2) Sidewalks, shared-use paths, street crossings (including over and under passes), pedestrian signals,
signs, street furniture, transit stops and other facilities, shall be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained so that all pedestrians, including people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently.

3) As feasible, the City shall incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve
the safety and convenience of users, and construct and enhance the transportation network for each
category of users.

4) If the safety and convenience of users can be improved within the scope of pavement resurfacing,
restriping or signalization operations on streets, such projects shall implement Complete Streets
infrastructure where feasible.

5) The appropriate City departments shall review and develop proposed revisions to all appropriate
zoning and subdivision codes, procedures, regulations, guidelines and design standards to integrate,
accommodate and balance the needs of all users in all transportation improvement projects.

Section 4. Statutory Construction and Severability

1) This Ordinance shall be construed so as not to conflict with applicable federal or state laws, rules or
regulations. Nothing in this Ordinance authorizes any City agency to impose any duties or obligations in
conflict with limitations on municipal authority established by federal or state law at the time such agency
action is taken.

2) In the event that a court or agency of competent jurisdiction holds that a federal or state law, rule, or
regulation invalidates any clause, sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstances, it is the intent of the Ordinance that the court or agency sever such
clause, sentence, paragraph, or section so that the remainder of this Ordinance remains in effect.

3) In undertaking the enforcement of this Ordinance, the City of D’Iberville is assuming only an
undertaking to promote the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and
employees, an obligation through which it might incur liability in monetary damages to any person who
claims that a breach proximately caused injury.

Section 5. That this Ordinance take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after passage as
provided by law.

iv | D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT

 Appendix A

The foregoing Ordinance having been reduced to writing, the same was introduced by Council person
____________, seconded by Council person _______________, and was adopted by the following vote
to-wit:

YEAS: NAYS:

The President thereby declared the motion carried and the foregoing Ordinance adopted and approved,
this the XXth day of MONTH, A.D., 20XX.

ATTEST:

CLERK OF COUNCIL

ADOPTED:

PRESIDENT

The above foregoing Ordinance having been submitted to and approved by the Mayor, this the XXth day
of MONTH, A.D., 20XX.

ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

APPROVED:

[BOARD PRESIDENT/MAYOR]

D’Iberville Sidewalk and Pedestrian Study DRAFT | v

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK