HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - April 16, 2024, Special Meeting of the Ames City Council1.Resolution setting April 23, 2024, as date of public hearing to approve the sale of Lot 27, in the
Baker Subdivision (321 State Avenue), to Townhomes at Creekside, LLLP, an Iowa Limited
Liability Partnership, (affiliated with Hatch Development Group) in conjunction with a Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) application for Multi-Family Housing Development
2.Second reading of Ordinance for the City-wide Designation of the Urban Revitalization Area
(URA)
3.Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan Presentation
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
APRIL 16, 2024
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from
the public during discussion. The Standards of Decorum, posted at the door and
available on the City website, define respectful conduct for public participation. If you
wish to speak, please fill out the form on the tablet outside the door to the Council
Chambers or scan the QR Code to the right to fill out the same form on a personal
device. When your name is called, please step to the microphone, state your name for
the record, and keep your comments brief so that others may have the opportunity to speak.
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ORDINANCES:
WORKSHOP ON WALK BIKE ROLL MASTER PLAN:
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Please note that this agenda may be changed up to 24 hours before the meeting time as provided
by Section 21.4(2), Code of Iowa.
1
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Mark O. Lambert, City Attorney
Date:April 16, 2024
Subject:Option Agreement
Item No. 1
MEMO
On March 28, 2023, the Council approved an Option Agreement for the sale of Lot 27 to
Townhomes at Creekside, LLLP (affiliated with the Hatch Development Group) in
conjunction with a development agreement for a low-income housing tax credit (LITC)
application for a multi-family housing development within the Baker Subdivision.
As we prepare to transfer title to the property, the Iowa Finance Authority has requested
proof of publication of the proceedings approving the sale. We have not been able to
locate proof of publication, and it appears that may not have been done.
Therefore, we are requesting the Council to set a public hearing for April 23, 2024, to
approve the Option Agreement so that it may be published to meet the state’s
requirement.
ATTACHMENT(S):
CAF from 2023.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
2
1
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: SETTING MARCH 28, 2023, AS DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO
APPROVE AN OPTION AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LOT 27 TO
TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE, LLLP, (AFFILIATED WITH THE HATCH
DEVELOPMENT GROUP) IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR A LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC)
APPLICATION FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
BAKER SUBDIVISION (321 STATE AVENUE)
BACKGROUND:
On February 28, 2023, City Council voted to select the Hatch Development Group as its
partner to develop multi-family rental housing on Lot 27 in Baker Subdivision. The City
Council directed staff to begin preparing agreements to partner on a Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit (LIHTC) application for this project.
In order to meet the LIHTC submittal deadline of April 19, 2023 and adhere to the
transfer of land requirements, staff is recommending that the City Council set
March 28, 2023 as the date for the public hearing for the approval of an option for
sale of Lot 27 within the Baker Subdivision to Townhomes at Creekside, LLLP (an
Iowa Limited Liability Partnership affiliated with the Hatch Development Group).
At the March 28 meeting, staff will present a completed option to purchase agreement
with Townhomes at Creekside, LLLP and a development agreement with Hatch
Development Group. Hatch Development Group will also have an updated site concept
plan completed to address staff comments about access and parking. However, the
actual Site Development Plan and building permit applications will not be prepared unless
the developer receives an award of tax credits.
Award of tax credits is expected in August 2023 and then developers would complete
design and site acquisition in the winter with a plan for construction to begin spring of
2024 and a plan for occupancy to begin in the summer of 2025.
ITEM #: 33
DATE: 03-14-23
DEPT: P&H
3
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Set March 28, 2023, as the date of the public hearing for the review and approval
of an Option Agreement for the purchase of Lot 27 within the Baker Subdivision.
A development agreement will accompany the Option Agreement and the
City will then partner with Hatch to submit a LIHTC application to IFA for
multi-family housing units on Lot 27 by the April 19, 2023 deadline.
2. Do not set a date of public hearing, and do not proceed with the project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
On March 28, staff will present land option to purchase agreement and development
agreement for Lot 27. City Council approval of the option agreement and development
agreement on March 28 will allow time for Hatch Development Group to finalize its LIHTC
application before the Iowa Finance Authority’s April 19, 2023 deadline.
As noted during the February meeting, HOME funds are separate from CDBG funds and
can be used to directly assist in the construction of affordable housing. To date, the City
has been allocated three years (2018-2021) of HOME funding, which has an approximate
balance of $1.8 million dollars (not including program administration). Developer
assistance with HOME funds would not occur until after the award and closing on the
acquisition of the property in 2023.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1, as described above.
4
3
Location Map- Attachment A
5
4
Rental Development Area
6
ITEM #:2
DATE:04-16-24
DEPT:P&H
SUBJECT:CITYWIDE URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA DESIGNATION AND PLAN
TO INCENTIVIZE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
On February 27, City Council reviewed the request from the AEDC Short Term Housing Taskforce to
consider incentives for new construction of residential housing. Staff provided background information
regarding housing construction and examples of other communities with property tax abatement
incentives. City staff also discussed options for eligibility criteria, including green building
requirements.
At the February 27 meeting, City Council directed staff to prepare an Urban Revitalization Area
(URA) designation for the entire City if feasible, and to include a Plan for incentivizing
construction of new ownership housing, subject to certain eligibility limitations pertaining.
Council also directed staff to provide options at a late date for incentivizing green building
construction with an alternative program. Staff returned to City Council on March 7 to finalize
the city-wide area designation and notification requirements for all property owners in the City
and set April 9 as the public hearing date for the URA Designation and Plan.
The Draft Plan is included as Attachment A. The URA designation will apply city-wide to the current
boundaries of the City. When the City annexes additional lands, an amendment to the Plan would be
required to incorporate the new lands into the boundaries of the URA.
To approve an Urban Revitalization Area, Iowa Code 404 outlines certain conditions that must exist. A
City Council resolution must be adopted that declares that a URA designation is necessary and that it
conforms to the requirements of Chapter 404. Expanding housing options within the community is
both desirable and necessary for the economic health of the city and having a URA is in the
interest of general welfare of the residents of the City. The designation of the entire city as a URA
conforms to the criteria that the area is appropriate for the construction of new housing
described in Iowa Code 404.1.
The URA Plan includes background and objectives of the City of Ames for encouraging the creation of
additional new construction ownership housing in the City. Section 7 of the Plan includes
requirements for new residential construction to comply with certain requirements to be
"Qualified Real Estate" eligible for a partial property tax abatement incentive, including:
i. A residential dwelling with its related improvements, for the actual value of improvements up to a
maximum value of $500,000.
ii. The qualified improvement must have received a building permit from the City of Ames, Iowa
prior to December 31, 2027.
iii. Improvements must be completed in conformance with zoning and building code standards of the
Ames Municipal Code.
7
iv. Only the Residential assessment classification of improvements is eligible, regardless of underlying
zoning. Property classified as agricultural or zoned agricultural is not eligible.
v. The property must be owner-occupied, inclusive of all building types with individual defined
ownership, including single family detached, single family attached, condominiums, accessory,
dwelling units, and two-family homes.
vi. Located on a vacant lot that was not previously developed with a single-family dwelling that was
demolished to allow for new improvements.
Section 8 of the Plan includes a duration designed to allow for new construction of housing
starting as late as December 31, 2027 and requires the construction to be completed no later than
December 31, 2028. This means that any improvements that begin on or after January 1, 2028 will be
ineligible as Qualified Real Estate and any improvements completed on or after January 1, 2029 will be
ineligible, regardless of when construction had begun.
Properties with improvements may be eligible for a partial property tax exemption on New Construction
improvements as described in Section 7 of the Plan and within the duration of the Plan listed in Section
8 of the Plan. A partial property tax exemption on the first $500,000 of eligible improvements is
authorized on five-year sliding scale as follows:
Year 1- 100%
Year 2- 80%
Year 3- 60%
Year 4- 40%
Year 5- 20%
The required improvements and eligibility must be maintained for the life of the tax exemption. If the
home is not owner-occupied the City Council can determine the property is no longer Qualified Real
Estate and notify the City Assessor the property is no longer eligible for abatement. Staff intends to
relay on the "homestead credit" primarily to determine consistency with the owner occupied
requirement.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Notification for the public hearing was mailed to all property owners in the City on March 8. A public
hearing notice was also published in the newspaper. The draft URA Plan was made available on the
City's website on the Planning Division webpage.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the resolution for conformance to Iowa Code 404, approve the ordinance for city-wide
Urban Revitalization Area (URA) designation, and the resolution approving the Plan to incentivize new
construction of ownership residential housing as described in Attachment A.
2. Approve the resolution for conformance to Iowa Code 404, approve the ordinance for city-wide
Urban Revitalization Area (URA) designation, and the resolution approving the Plan to incentivize new
construction of ownership residential housing with modifications.
8
3. Continue the public hearing to another date and direct staff to provide additional information.
4. Deny approval of the ordinance for the URA designation and resolution for the Plan.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff estimates (using 2023 tax rates) that if a property owner claims the full $500,000 allowance, then
during the 5-year abatement schedule the homeowner would pay approximately $7,400 in taxes to the
County and City. Over the same period, the homeowner's property tax liability would be reduced by
$11,100 compared to no abatement. The homeowner will pay 100% of the school district taxes during
the five years.
A critical element of the new housing construction incentive is the timing of completing the
i m p r o v eme n t s . State law only allows for improvements made after approval of a URA to be
eligible to file for the property tax abatement incentive. This means homes completed before
approval of the URA will not receive a tax abatement incentive. If a home is under construction but not
completed, part of the improvement may be eligible for abatement based upon the date of approval of
the URA. The owner will need to provide information at the time they file for the abatement what the
specific qualified improvements are and their estimated value that will be eligible for abatement. All
improvement started after approval of the URA will be eligible for the maximum incentive of $500,000
of abatement of improvement value if they are completed in accordance with the URA Plan.
Approval of the URA designation and Plan require: the following two actions by City Council. First, the
city-wide URA designation will require approval of an ordinance including the typical three readings.
Second, the URA Plan will require approval of a resolution.
If City Council desires to accelerate the final approval of the URA designation, it could consider
waiving the Council's rules and complete all three readings on April 9 and approve the ordinance.
If City Council waives the rules, the ordinance would be published on April 12 and become effective.
If City Council does not waive the rules, the third reading is scheduled for the Council's regular
meeting on May 14 and the ordinance would be published on May 17. Approval of the resolution
for the Plan will be contingent on the date the ordinance is effective.
In accordance with the City Council's goal to increase the diversity of housing in the city, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve either Alternative #1 for the city-
wide URA designation and Plan consistent with Attachment A.
Please note that at the February 27th City Council meeting, there was a motion to direct staff to
provide options for criteria related to green building and sustainability measures as an additional
option to the basic requirements of the proposed URA. Approval of the proposed city-wide URA
allows for City Council to amend the URA Plan at any time to modify criteria or to provide an
alternative abatement schedule with a normal published notice requirement and not full citywide
mailed notification.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Citywide Urban Revitilization Area Plan-Final.pdf
Ordinance Ames City-wide URA.PDF
9
1
Final April 9th, 2024
City of Ames
Citywide Urban Revitalization Area Plan
April 9th
Public Hearing
10
2
Final April 9th, 2024
Citywide Urban Revitalization Area Plan
Background.
Iowa Code 404 allows for a City to address revitalization needs of the community through a process of
designating revitalization areas. The purpose for revitalization within the Citywide Plan is to support
construction of new housing within the City. The primary purpose of the plan is to provide a partial
property abatement incentive for qualified real estate that is consistent with the criteria of the approved
plan.
The portion of the Act codified at Section 404.1 of the Iowa Code provides that the City Council
may, by ordinance, designate an area of the city as a revitalization area, if that area is any of the
following:
1. An area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether
residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, obsolescence,
inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of
population and overcrowding, the existence of conditions which endanger life or property
by fire and other causes or a combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health,
transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency or crime, and which is
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
2. An area which by reason of the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or
deteriorating structures, predominance of defective or inadequate street layout,
incompatible land use relationships, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy,
accessibility or usefulness, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other
improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding
the actual value of land, defective or unusual conditions of title, or the existence of
conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or a combination of
such factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality, retards
the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability
and is a menace to the public health, safety, or welfare in its present condition and use.
3. An area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements which by reason
of age, history, architecture or significance should be preserved or restored to productive
use.
4. An area which is appropriate as an economic development area as defined in Section
403.17.
5. An area designated as appropriate for public improvements related to housing and
residential development, or construction of housing and residential development,
including single or multifamily housing.
11
3
Final April 9th, 2024
Housing Needs
The City of Ames has had a slower pace of residential development since 2020 with the impact of COVID
19 than before 2020. Commercial and industrial development has been relatively stable in this same
timeframe, but the jobs housing imbalance has grown more pronounced putting more pressure on the
housing demand and pricing and making housing less attainable. During 2023, the impact of inflation
and higher interest rates caused a 5 year low in production of new housing with only 62 units of single
and single family attached units built in total.
At the same time the City has seen a decrease in housing production, the City of Ames adopted a new
Comprehensive Plan that identifies housing priorities for the City to expand opportunities for all types of
housing within the community and to encourage construction of additional ownership housing to
balance out the current owner/ renter tenure mix of the City. Plan 2040 accommodates growth of more
than 15,000 people over the next 17 years, which equates to potential housing construction averages of
300 housing units a year for single family and multi-family development. The Plan identifies priorities
for expansion of the City to meet the bulk of the City’s new housing needs in defined growth areas to the
North, East, South, and West, but also emphasizes infill opportunities for redevelopment areas and for
small context sensitive housing options in existing neighborhoods.
Based upon the City recently approved Ames Plan 2040, support for a wide variety of housing types and
the public facilities are suitable for such new development, the City is qualified to designated the entire
city and Urvan Revitalization Areas for housing construction. Note that establishing a citywide URA does
not change existing land use designations or zoning regulations that apply to properties. All housing to
be constructed will be required to be consistent with ordinances, standards, and policies that are in
place for use and development of property.
Objectives of the Plan
Objectives of this Plan are to encourage new housing construction to increase the total amount of single-
family housing built within the City, to encourage a more diverse range of building types, support
expansion of ownership housing choices in the City, to primarily benefit construction of housing
attainable to moderate income and other workforce housing needs, utilize existing and planned
infrastructure in support of expanded housing options.
12
4
Final April 9th, 2024
CITYWIDE URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN FOR NEW
OWNSERSHIP HOUSING CONSTUCTION
1. Legal Description: The Urban Revitalization Area includes all property within the City limit of
Ames. The general legal description of boundary of the city along with the current map of the City
boundaries is included within Exhibit A. The Plan boundaries, may be amended by the City Council
in the future as permitted by law, including for the purpose of adding additional land annexed to
the city.
2. Assessed Valuation: A list setting forth the existing assessed valuation of the real estate in the
Urban Revitalization Area, listing the land and building values separately is attached hereto as
Exhibit B. Exhibit B is a digital file available for review upon request.
3. Owners: Name & Address: A spreadsheet based upon Story County Assessor Records for
owners is included as Exhibit B. Exhibit B is a digital file available for review upon request.
4. Zoning District and Classification: The Plan applies citywide including properties with
commercial, residential, and industrial, and agricultural zoning districts. Exhibit C is an excerpt of
the current Zoning Map of the City of Ames depicting all current zoning districts and boundaries.
5. Land Use: The Plan applies citywide including properties with commercial, residential, and
industrial, exempt, and agricultural uses. Exhibit D is a map using assessor use codes to categorize
use of property. Staff estimates that of developable land, excluding natural areas, right-of-way,
etc., that approximately 40% of the land use is residential, 40% Civic, 13% commercial, and 7%
industrial.
Exhibit E is the Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map that indicates the City’s planned growth areas
and areas of land use change.
6. City Services: The Plan itself does not require or include any specific expanded City services. The
City Comprehensive Plan, Ames Plan 2040, includes information about the general infrastructure
needed for growth of the community. The City’s specific plans for infrastructure improvements are
included with the annually updated 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted by the City
Council with the City’s annual budget. Both Ames Plan 2040 and the currently approved CIP are
available for review on the City’s website and are incorporated by reference herein.
7. Eligibility Requirement: Revitalization shall be applicable only to that subset of eligible properties
within the Plan area for NEW CONSTRUCTION. Qualified real estate includes only the following
types of improvements that satisfy all requirements below:
i. A residential dwelling with its related improvements, for the actual value of improvements up
to a maximum value of $500,000. Improvements that are not included with new construction of
a residential dwelling are not eligible, for example construction of a workshop, garage, shed
subsequent to building a dwelling.
ii. The qualified improvement must have received a building permit from the City of Ames Iowa
prior to December 31, 2027.
13
5
Final April 9th, 2024
iii. Improvements must be completed in conformance with zoning and building code standards of
the Ames Municipal Code.
iv. Only the Residential assessment classification of improvements are eligible, regardless of
underlying zoning. Property classified as agricultural or zoned agricultural are not eligible.
v. The property must be owner occupied, inclusive of all building types with individual defined
ownership, including single family detached, single family attached, condominiums, accessory
dwelling units, and two-family homes.
vi. Located on a vacant lot that was not previously developed with a single-family dwelling that
was demolished to allow for new improvements.
8. Duration: The Plan has a limited duration to allow for improvements initiated prior to December
31, 2027 to be completed and to file a partial property tax exemption application as qualified real
estate subject to the established criteria. No application for tax exemption for improvements
initiated prior to December 31, 2027 will be accepted after February 1, 2029. No application for
tax exemption for improvements initiated on or after January 1, 2028 are eligible for partial
property tax exemption.
Nothing in this Plan is meant to limit the City Council’s ability to modify, change, or terminate the
Plan as allowed by law. In the event the program is modified or terminated, any improvement
already approved and receiving tax exemption would continue to benefit from the exemption in
accordance with the approved schedule of exemption.
9. Relocation: The plan does not require the displacement of any persons, and there will be no
relocation benefits provided.
10. Percent Increase in Value Required: The value-added requirement is a ten (10) percent increase in
actual value.
11. Tax Exemption Schedule: Qualified real estate may be eligible for a partial property tax exemption
on New Construction improvements as described in Section 7 and within the duration of the Plan
listed in Section 8. A partial property tax exemption on the first $500,000 of eligible improvements
is authorized on five year sliding scale as follows:
Year 1-100%
Year 2-80%
Year 3-60%
Year 4-40%
Year 5- 20%
The required improvements and eligibility must be maintained for the life of the tax exemption.
14
6
Final April 9th, 2024
12. Federal, State, or Private Grant/Loan Programs for Residential Improvements:
The City of Ames is a federal entitlement community for CDBG and Home funds. Although these
funds may be used to support residential improvements, primarily for low-income households,
including first time homebuyer assistance, they are not designated for this purpose exclusively.
Programming of these funds occurs on an annual basis and are approved by the City Council.
The State of Iowa offers a Workforce Housing Tax Credit program to developers of moderately
priced housing. The developer applies to the Iowa Economic Development Authority for tax credit
awards related to the construction of housing. Developers make take advantage of this program to
construct new housing.
13. Revenue Bonds:
The City has no plans for the issuance of Revenue Bonds to support revitalization projects.
14. Application Procedures
Iowa Code 404.4 identifies the applicable application procedures for filing an exemption claim and
the process to determine if the claim is in fact for qualified real estate. The general process is
summarized below:
Exemption Application. An application shall be filed for each new exemption claimed. The first
application for an exemption shall be filed by the owner of the property on a City application form
by February 1 of the assessment year for which the exemption is first claimed,
but not later than the year in which all improvements included in the project are first
assessed for taxation, or the following two assessment years, in which case the exemption
is allowed for the total number of years in the exemption schedule. Subsequent
applications may also be considered, to the extent permitted by the Act.
The City of Ames application form is available from the Planning and Housing Department. The
completed City application form must be submitted to the Planning and Housing Department in
accordance with the required timeline of February 1st described above and the limits of duration
of the Plan.
Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Council shall approve the application, subject to
review by the local assessor pursuant to the Act, if the project is in conformance with the Plan, is
located within the Urban Revitalization Area and if the improvements were made during the time
the area was so designated. The City Council shall forward for review all approved
applications to the appropriate local assessor by March 1 of each year with a statement
indicating which exemption applies. Applications for exemption for succeeding years on
approved projects shall not be required.
The local assessor shall review each first-year application by making a physical
review of the property, to determine if the improvements made increased the actual value
of the qualified real estate by at least 10 percent (10%).If the assessor determines that
the actual value of the real estate has increased by at least the requisite percent, the
assessor shall proceed to determine the actual value of the property and certify the
15
7
Final April 9th, 2024
valuation determined pursuant to the Act to the county auditor at the time of transmitting
the assessment rolls. However, if a new structure is erected on land upon which no
structure existed at the start of the new construction, the assessor shall proceed to
determine the actual value of the property and certify the valuations to the county auditor
at the time of transmitting the assessment rolls.
The assessor shall notify the applicant of the determination and the assessor's decision may be
appealed to the local board of review at the times specified in Section 441.37 of the Code. If an
application for exemption is denied as a result of failure to sufficiently increase the value of the real
estate as provided in the Act, the owner may file a first annual application in a subsequent
year when additional improvements are made to satisfy the requirements of the Act.
After the tax exemption is granted, with periodic physical review by the assessor, for the
time period specified in the tax exemption schedule under which the exemption was
granted, the tax exemptions for the succeeding years shall be granted without the requirement of a
new application.
15. Termination: Notwithstanding anything stated in this Article, if the City Council determines
at any time that the desired level of revitalization has been attained or economic conditions
are such that the continuation of the exemption granted would cease to be of benefit to the
City, the City Council may repeal the ordinance establishing the revitalization area and
terminate the availability of temporary exemptions from taxation pursuant to Iowa Code
Chapter 404.
16
8
Final April 9th, 2024
Exhibit A
Legal Description-General Description of the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Ames
The land described as all that area presently within the Corporate Boundary of the City of Ames,
Story County, Iowa, West of the 5th P.M., more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point 1699.38 feet west of the Northeast Corner of Section 22, Township 84,
Range 24 said point being the northeast corner of Lot C of the Quarry Estates Subdivision, First
Addition, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa; thence south 507.22 feet to the northwest corner of
Lot 11 of the H.P. Jensen’s Subdivision, Story County, Iowa; thence southwesterly along the
west line of said Lot 11 a distance of 35.39 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 10 of the said H.P.
Jensen’s Subdivision; thence southwesterly along the northwest line of said Lot 10 and Lot 9 of
the said H.P. Jensen’s Subdivision a distance of 149.57 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot
9; thence southeasterly along the west line of said Lot 9 a distance of 74.21 feet to a point on
the south line of said Outlot A of the said Quarry Estates Subdivision, First Addition; thence
continuing southeasterly along the west line of said Lot 9 a distance of 89.25 feet to the
southwest corner of said Lot 9; thence southwesterly along the north line of the right-of-way of
Alta Vista Road in the said H.P. Jensen’s Subdivision a distance of 26.75 feet; thence
southeasterly along the western extent of said road right-of-way and the west line of Lot 8 of the
said H.P. Jensen’s Subdivision a distance of 163.04 feet; thence northeasterly along the south
line of said Lot 8, Lot 7, and Lot 6 of the said H.P. Jensen’s Subdivision a distance of 415.88
feet to a point on the west line of Lot 1 of the Oaks Subdivision, Story County, Iowa; thence
south along the west line of said Lot 1 a distance of 702.23 feet to the southwest point of said
Lot 1; thence east along the south line of said Lot 1 a distance of 519.24 feet to the southeast
corner of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly along the southwest line of Lot 5 of the said Oaks
Subdivision a distance of 391.5 feet to a point on the southwest line of said Lot 5; thence
continuing south along the southwest line of said Lot 5 a distance of 135.5 feet to the southwest
corner of said Lot 5; thence east along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 155.8 feet to the
southeast corner of said Lot 5 also being a point on the west right-of-way line of U.S. Highway
69; thence southwesterly along the west line of the U.S. Highway 69 right-of-way and Dawes
Drive right-of-way a distance of approximately 3,944 feet to the northeast corner of Parcel S in
the Northeast Quarter of said Fractional Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 84, Range
24 (Slide 219, Page 1); thence east along a line intersecting the Dawes Drive right-of-way a
distance of 100 feet to the northwest corner of Parcel V part of Lots 3 and 6 in the Northeast
Quarter of said Fractional Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 84, Range 24 (Slide 219
Page 6); thence east along the north line of said Parcel V to a point on the westerly right-of-way
line of U.S. Highway 69 a distance of 331.67 feet; thence continuing east to the northeast corner
of Lot 3 in the Northeast Quarter of said Fractional Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township
84, Range 24 distance of 474.19 feet; thence south along the east line of said Northeast
Quarter of said Fractional Northeast Quarter to the southeastern corner of said Northeast
Quarter of said Fractional Northeast Quarter a distance of 630.8 feet also being a point along
the centerline of the South Skunk River; thence southeasterly along said centerline of the South
Skunk River being also the east line of Lot 1 Lying West of the River in the Southwest Quarter of
the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 220.52
feet; thence northeasterly along the south line of a parcel described as the Southwest Quarter of
the Fractional Northwest Quarter Lying East of said South Skunk River and West of Gary Purvis
Property as Shown on Book 1 Page 249 Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 100
feet; thence northwesterly along the west line of said parcel described as the Southwest Quarter
of the Fractional Northwest Quarter Lying East of said South Skunk River and West of Gary
17
9
Final April 9th, 2024
Purvis Property as Shown on Book 1 Page 249 to the northeast corner thereof a distance of
185.36 feet; thence northwesterly along the west line of a parcel described as the Northwest
Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter West of Gary Purvis Property as Shown on Book 1
Page 249 Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 420.06 feet; thence northeasterly
along the west line of said parcel a distance of 503.02’ feet; thence northeasterly along the west
line of said parcel to the northwest corner of said parcel a distance of 322.52 feet; thence east
along the south line of the Riverside Heights and Purvis Subdivisions, Story County, Iowa, to
the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 26,
Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 1,087.86 feet; thence south along the east line of the West
Half of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 to the southwest
corner of Lot 2 of the Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 26,
Township 84, Range 24 , a distance of 1,866.23 feet; thence west to the northwest corner of Lot
4 Lying Northeast of the said South Skunk River of the Southwest Quarter of the Fractional
Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 , also being a point in the center of
said South Skunk River a distance of 562.55 feet; thence following the centerline of the South
Skunk River more or less and the west line of Lot 4 Lying Northeast of the said South Skunk
River southeasterly 238 feet, southeasterly 334.93 feet, southeasterly 188.11 feet; thence
northeasterly along the south line of said Lot 4 Lying Northeast of the said South Skunk River a
distance of 248.57 feet; thence northeasterly along the north line of a parcel described as Lot 4
Lying Southwest of the said South Skunk River and Part of Lot 8 West of said River in the South
Half of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of
232.46 feet; thence southeasterly along the east line of said parcel and a parcel described as
Lot 1 and Lot 8 West of the South Skunk River in the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Fractional Quarter Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 distance of 353.92 feet; thence
southeasterly along the east line of a parcel of land described as said Lot 1 and Lot 8 West of
the South Skunk River to a point on the south line of said Lot 1 a distance of 156.2 feet; thence
southeasterly more or less along the centerline of said South Skunk River and the east line of
Lot 2 Lying West of the River Northeast Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section
26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 41.06 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of
said Lot 2 a distance of 149.15 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of said Lot 2 a
distance of 200.32 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of said Lots 2 a distance of
216.85 feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly along the east line of a parcel
described as Lots 2, 3, and 4 West of the South Skunk River and E of Outlot A of the Scaldo
Ridge Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa a distance of 334.38 feet to the southeast
corner thereof; thence southeasterly along the west line of a part of a Tract Lying East of the
said South Skunk River described as Beginning at the northeast corner of the South Half of the
Northeast Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24
W1330.5 feet, S328.8 feet, E76.8 feet, SE219.7 feet, SE171.3 feet, SE442.9 feet, SE249.5 feet,
W322.7 feet, S20.8 feet, SE592 feet, E520 feet, N1470.5 feet to the Beginning a distance of
219.7 feet; thence southeasterly continuing along of the west line of said tract to the center of
the South Skunk River a distance of 171.3 feet; thence southeasterly continuing along of the
west line of said tract a distance of 442.9 feet; thence southeasterly continuing along of the west
line of said tract a distance of 125.77 feet; thence continuing southeasterly along the west line of
said tract and along a curve in said river a distance of 678.03 feet to the southwest corner of
said tract; thence east to the southeast corner of said tract to a point on the east line of the
Southeast Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a
distance of 323.38 feet; thence south along said east line to the southwest corner of the
Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a
18
10
Final April 9th, 2024
distance of 650.65 feet; thence east along the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the
Fractional Southeast Quarter and Southeast Quarter of the Fractional Southeast Quarter of
Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 also being the southeast corner of the West half of said
Southeast Quarter of the Fractional Southeast Quarter the a distance of 1,980 feet; thence
south a distance of 1,242.91 feet along the east line of the West half of the Northeast Quarter of
the Northeast Fractional Quarter of Section 35, Township 84, Range 24; thence east to a point
on the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 36,
Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 1,982.8 feet; thence south along the east line of said
Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter to the southeast corner thereof a
distance of 99.01 feet; thence west along the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the
Fractional Northwest Quarter a distance of 1,214.72 feet; thence south to a point 344 feet north
of the south line of the Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section 36,
Township 84, Range 24 and 100 feet east of the west line of the said Northwest Quarter of the
Fractional Southwest Quarter a distance of 2,296 feet; thence east to a point on the east line of
said Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter a distance of 1,220 feet; thence
south along the east line of said Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter
distance of 86.6 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 485.58 feet; thence southeasterly to a
point on the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section
36, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 961.9 feet; thence south along the east line of said
Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter to the southeast corner of said
Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter a distance of 268 feet; thence east
along the south line of the South Fractional Half of Section 36, Township 84, Range 24 to a
point on the west line of the Walter Family Campus Subdivision a distance of 1,879.86 feet;
thence north along the west line of the said Walter Family Campus Subdivision to the northwest
corner of the said Walter Family Campus Subdivision a distance of 594.91 feet; thence east
along the north line of the said Walter Family Campus Subdivision to the northeast corner of the
said Walter Family Campus Subdivision a distance of 722.58 feet; thence north along the east
line of the West Half of the East Fractional Half of Section 36, Township 84, Range 24 to a point
on said east line 16.5 feet south of the northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the
Fractional Northeast Quarter also being the northwest corner of the North Dayton Industrial
Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 4,696.35 feet; thence east along
the north line of the said North Dayton Industrial Subdivision and a line 16.5 feet south of the
north line of the Northeast Quarter of the Fractional Northeast Quarter a distance of 1,321 feet
also being a point on the centerline of Dayton Avenue; thence north also said road centerline a
distance of 1,976.9 feet; thence along the north line of said parcel described as the South 42.23
Acres of the North Half of the Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 30, Township 84, Range 23
to a point on the west right-of-way line of Interstate 35 a distance of 3041.74 feet; thence south
along said right-of-way line to the northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Fractional Quarter Section 31, Township 84, Range 23 a distance of 4,507.93 feet; thence east
along the north line of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 31, Township 84, Range 23
to the northeast corner of said Southeast Fractional Quarter a distance of 2,666.42 feet; thence
south along the east line of said Southeast Fractional Quarter to the southeast corner of said
Southeast Fractional Quarter a distance of 2,640.2 feet; thence along the north line of a parcel
described as Parcel A in the Northwest Fractional Quarter Section 5, Township 83, Range 23
(Instrument 2011-11372) also being the centerline of East 13th Street to the northeast corner of
said parcel a distance of 2,002.69 feet; thence south along the east line of said parcel described
as Parcel A to the southeast corner of said parcel also being a point on the north line of the
Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad a distance of 1,334.27 feet;
19
11
Final April 9th, 2024
thence east along the north line of said railroad to the east line of Section 4, Township 83,
Range 23 also being the center of Potter Avenue a distance of 5,280.24 feet; thence south
along the east line of said Section 4 to the northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northeast Fractional Quarter of Section 9, Township 83, Range 23 also being the centerline of
Lincoln Highway a distance of 2,188.04 feet; thence west along the south line of said Section 4
to the northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of Section
9 a distance of 1,310 feet; thence south along the west line of the East Half of the East
Fractional Half to the southeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional
Quarter of Section 9, Township 83, Range 23 a distance of 3,960 feet; thence west along the
south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the southwest corner
thereof a distance of 1,320 feet; thence north along the west line of said Northwest Quarter of
the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the northwest corner there of a distance of 1,320 feet;
thence west along the north line of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 9 and the
north line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 8, Township
83, Range 23 to the northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional
Quarter a distance of 3,960 feet; thence south along the west line of said Northeast Quarter of
the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the northwest corner of Parcel F of said Northeast Quarter
of the Southeast Fractional Quarter (Slide 596 Page 5 a distance of 544.59 feet; thence east
along the north line of said Parcel F to the northeast corner thereof also being a point on the
centerline of 580th Avenue a distance of 1335.88 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line
of said Parcel F to the southeast corner there of a distance of 1,233 feet; thence south along the
west line of the East 450 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of
Section 8, Township 83, Range 23 a point on the west line of the JDA Subdivision, Story
County, Iowa, a distance of 1,035.41 feet; thence east following the line of the said JDA
Subdivision a distance of 249.62 feet; thence northeasterly along said line following a curve a
distance 214.38 feet; thence south following said line and west right-of-way line of 580th Avenue
a distance of 71.91 feet; thence southwesterly following said line and right-of-way line to a point
on the north right-of-way of U.S. Highway 30 a distance of 154.3 feet; thence west along said
right-of-way line to a point on the west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional
Quarter of said Section 8 a distance of 2,540.36 feet; thence north along the west line of the
Southeast Fractional Quarter of said Section 8 to the northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter
of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of said Section 8 a distance of 2,427.15 feet; thence west
along the south line of the North Fractional Half of said Section 8 and Section 7, Township 83,
Range 23 to the northeast corner of the Ames Community Development Park, Fourth Addition,
Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, being also point on the west right-of-way line of
Interstate 35 a distance of 5,719.55 feet; thence south along said Interstate 35 right-of-way to a
point on the east line of the Ames Community Development Park Subdivision, Fourth Addition,
City of Ames, Iowa, a distance of 1,074.68 feet; thence southwesterly along a curve and said
Interstate 35 right-of-way to the southeast corner of the Minard’s Plat Subdivision, City of Ames,
Iowa, a distance of 2,767.59 feet; thence southwesterly to a point on the east line of Section 13,
Township 83, Range 24, being also the centerline of South Dayton Place a distance of 955.3
feet; thence south following said line a distance of 254.19 feet; thence east along the south line
of the right-of-way of U.S. Highway 30 to the northeast corner of a parcel described as
commencing at the northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional
Quarter S588.05’ feet to the beginning COR S531.33' E398.43' N560.61' SW400' to the
beginning except the right-of-way sold to State of Iowa, (Book 95 Page 591) a distance of 400.1
feet; thence south along the east line of said parcel to the southeast corner thereof a distance of
560.61 feet; thence west along the south line of said parcel to a point on the centerline of South
20
12
Final April 9th, 2024
Dayton Place a distance of 402.43 feet; thence south along the centerline of South Dayton
Place a distance of 458.34 feet; thence west along the south right-of-way line of Southeast 18th
St a distance of 1,486.75 feet; thence northwesterly along the east line a parcel described as
the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter except the South Dayton Avenue
right-of-way and SE 18th Street right-of-way and a parcel described as the Northwest Quarter of
the Northeast Fractional Quarter South of U.S. Highway 30 except the Iowa, DOT Condemned
Parcel to the northeast corner thereof both being in Section 13, Township 83, Range 24 a
distance of 416.6 feet; thence northwesterly along the north line of said parcel in the Northwest
Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the northwest corner of said parcel, a distance of
1,125.4 feet; thence north to the northeast corner of a parcel described as Part of Parcel G in
the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter and Part of the in the Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter Section 13, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of
77.23 feet; thence west along of the north line of said parcel to the northwest corner thereof a
distance of 925.5 feet; thence south along the west line of said parcel and the west line of a
parcel described as Part of Said Parcel G East of the River also being the centerline of the
South Skunk River to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 3,043.66 feet; thence west
along the south line of the previously described parcel being also the south line of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 83, Range 24 to the southwest
corner of said parcel a distance of 1,135.2 feet; thence south along the east line of West Half of
the West Fractional Half of Section 13 and Section 24, Township 83, Range 24 to the southeast
corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter also being a point on the
centerline of Ken Maril Road a distance of 3,960 feet; thence south continuing along the east
line of West Half of the West Fractional Half of Section 24, Township 83, Range 24 a distance
of 200 feet; thence west along the south line of a parcel described as the North 200 feet of the
Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 24 Township 83, Range 24 to a
point on the centerline of 550th Avenue a distance of 1,320 feet; thence continue west to the
southwest corner of a parcel described as the East 286.9 Feet of the North 200 Feet of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of a distance of Section 23, Township 83,
Range 24 a distance of 2,925.25 feet; thence north along the west side of said parcel, a parcel
described as the Northwest 3.77 acres of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Fractional
Quarter Section 23, Township 83, Range 24, and Lot 2 of the Armstrong’s Subdivision Third
Addition to a point on the south line of Lot 1 of the Armstrong’s Subdivision, Third Addition, City
of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 1,010.9 feet; thence west along the south line of said
Lot 1 a distance of 106.1 feet; thence north along the west line of said Lot 1 to the northwest
corner thereof a distance of 194.9 feet; thence west along the south line of a parcel described
as BEG 50' W NE COR W400' S300' E400' N300' TO BEG and a parcel described as the West
537.25 feet of the East 987.25 feet of the North 300 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Fractional Quarter Section 23, Township 83, Range 24 to the southwest corner
thereof a distance of 594.25 feet; thence south along the west line of a parcel described as
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter beginning 1317.25' W OF NE COR
S380' E330' N380’ W to the beginning Section 23, Township 83, Range 24 to the southeast
corner thereof a distance of 80 feet; thence west along the south line of the previously described
parcel a distance of 330 feet; thence continuing west along the south line of a parcel described
as Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter beginning 1317.25' W OF NE COR
SE NWS330' W664.5' N330' to the beginning Section 23, Township 83, Range 24 to the
southwest corner there of a distance of 994.5 feet; thence north along the west line of said
parcel to a point on the south line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter
Section 23, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 380 feet; thence west along the south line of
21
13
Final April 9th, 2024
said the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter to the northeast corner of a
parcel described as in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter beginning at
the Northwest Quarter E267.81' SW940.14' to the section line North to the beginning a distance
of 382.12 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of said parcel to a point on the east line
of Section 22, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 941.14 feet; thence south along said
section line to the southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional
Quarter of Section 22, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 3,066.04 feet; thence west along
the south line of said the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter a distance of
1,040.21 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of Parcel B of the Northeast Fractional
Quarter Section 27, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 1,614.64 feet; thence northwesterly
along the south line of said Parcel B to the southwest corner thereof also being a point on the
centerline of South Riverside Drive a distance of 1,404.51 feet; thence north along the
centerline of South Riverside Drive to the northeast corner of Parcel A of the Southeast Quarter
of the Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 22, Township 83, Range 24 (CFN12-38) a distance
of 1,698.32 feet; thence east along the south line of a parcel described as the Southwest
Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter Except the North 912.85 feet of the West 417.7
feet Section 22, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 456.08 feet to a point at the center of S
Riverside Drive; thence north along the east line of said parcel and the west line of the W417'
of the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 3,057.34feet;
thence west along the north line of said parcel to the northwest corner thereof along being a
point on the centerline of South Riverside Drive a distance of 417.7 feet; thence west along the
south line the north half of Section 22 and Section21, Township 83, Range 24 and Section 21,
Township 83, Range 24 to a point on the east line of the Ansley Subdivision, City of Ames,
Story County, Iowa, a distance of 4,873.63 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of
said Ansley Subdivision to a point on the west line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast
Fractional Quarter Section 21, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 1,391.22 feet; thence north
along the west line of the Ansley Subdivision to the northwest corner of the said Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter being also a point on the centerline of Cedar Lane a
distance of 1,176.31 feet; thence west along the south line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Fractional Quarter to the southwest corner thereof also being the southwest corner of
Outlot E Riggenberg Park Subdivision Second Addition, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a
distance of 1,320.24 feet; thence north along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Fractional and said Outlot E to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 1,315.2
feet; thence continuing north along the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest
Fractional Quarter to the northeast corner thereof also being the east line of the Ringgenberg
Park Subdivision First and Third Additions, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of
1,315.22 feet; thence west along the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest
Fractional Quarter, the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter and the Northwest
Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter Section 20, Township 83, Range 24 to a point on
the centerline of Zumwalt Station Road also being the southwest corner of the Chicago and
Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad in the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section
17, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 2,990.95 feet; thence northeasterly along said railroad
property to the southeast corner of a parcel described as Parcel A Section 17, Township 83,
Range 24 (CFN15-54) a distance of 1,137.4 feet; thence west along the south line of said
Parcel A to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 462.19 feet; thence north along the west
line of said Parcel A to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 407.3 feet; thence west along
the south line of the Ferguson Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, to the southwest
corner thereof a distance of 120.45 feet; thence north along the west line of said Ferguson
22
14
Final April 9th, 2024
Subdivision a distance of 308 feet to a point on the west line of Lot 8 of said subdivision; thence
northwesterly along said west line of said Lot 8 to the northwest corner thereof a distance of
20.26 feet; thence east along the north line of said Lot 8 to the northeast corner thereof a
distance of 128.69 feet; thence north along the west line of said Ferguson subdivision to the
northeast corner thereof along being a point on the centerline of Dartmoor Road distance of
304.3 feet; thence southeasterly along the centerline of Dartmoor Road a distance of 374.99
feet; thence east along the north line of a parcel described as described as Parcel B (Slide 75,
Page 1) and Parcel E (Slide 75 Page 3) Section 17, Township 83, Range a distance of 70.36
feet; thence north to a point on the centerline of Dartmoor Road along being on said Parcel B
and E a distance of 17.93 feet; thence northeasterly along the north line of said parcel and the
centerline of Dartmoor Road a distance of 291.48 feet; thence southeasterly along the north line
of said parcel and the centerline of Dartmoor Road a distance of 339.95 feet; thence south
along the east line of said parcel a distance of 30.55 feet; thence east long the north line of said
parcel a distance of 37.61 fee; thence north along the west line of a parcel described as Part of
Lot 15 and Part of Lot 7 of the Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision, Story County, Iowa, COMM
SW COR LOT 10 SE192.9' SE102' TO BEG NW458' SW128.3' S227.3' W140.3' S244.6'
SE401.4' NE80.7' NE100.5' NW104.3' TO BEG a distance of 277.8 feet; thence east along the
north line of said parcel a distance of 140.3 feet; thence north along the west line of said parcel
to the north corner of said parcel a distance of 355.6 feet; thence southeast along the west line
of said parcel to a point on the east line thereof also being a point on the centerline of State
Avenue a distance of 458 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of said parcel and the
centerline of State Avenue to the north corner of Lot 12 of said Christensen’s (Anton)
Subdivision a distance of 204.8 feet; thence southeast along the east line of said Lot 12 a
distance of 52.87 feet; thence northeast along the north line of a parcel described as Parcel A
(Slide 36, Page 4) of Lot 11 of said Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision a distance of 176.7 feet;
thence continuing northeast along said north line of said Parcel A to the northeast corner there
of a distance of 200 feet; thence southeasterly along the east line of said Parcel A to the east
corner thereof a distance of 130 feet; thence northeasterly along the west line of the Chicago
and Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad property in the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 16, Township 83, Range 24 to a point on the north line of
said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter; thence continuing northeasterly
along the west line of the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad property
in the Northwest Fractional Quarter Section 16, Township 83, Range 24 to the northeast corner
of Lot 11 of the Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision Auditor’s Plat Part of Lots 18 & 19, Story
County, Iowa, being also a point on the south line of the U.S. Highway 30 right-of-way; thence
southeasterly along the south line of said right-of-way a distance of 272.73 feet; thence north
intersecting said U.S. Highway 30 to a point on the west line of Lots W, X, Y, and Z of the
Gateway Hills Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 642.52 feet; thence
west intersecting said U.S. Highway 30 along the north line of said Christensen’s (Anton)
Subdivision to the northeast corner of a parcel described as the West 25 Acres of the said
Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision Except the Highway and Lots 16 & 17 a distance of 1,649.92
feet; thence south along the east line of said parcel to the southeast corner thereof a distance of
1091.8 feet; thence west along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner thereof also
being a point on the centerline of State Avenue and the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Fractional Quarter of Section 17, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 971.16 feet;
thence south along the west line of the Southeast Quarte of the Northeast Quarter of said
Section 17 to the southeast corner thereof a distance of 853.66 feet; thence west along the
south line of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of said Section 17 to a point 20 feet east of the
23
15
Final April 9th, 2024
southwest corner thereof a distance of 2,637.99 feet; thence northwest to a point on the west
line of said Northeast Fractional Quarter 20 feet north of the southwest corner thereof a distance
of 28.47 feet; thence north along the west line of said Northeast Fractional Quarter to a point on
the north line of the Highway 30 right-of-way along being the southeast corner of the
Fountainview Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 2,186.03 feet;
thence continuing along the north line of the U.S. Highway 30 right-of-way also being also the
south line of the Fountainview Subdivision to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 1,368.9
feet; thence south along the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Fractional
Quarter of said Section 17 to the southeast corner of the Cochrane’s Second Addition
Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 25.97 feet; thence northwest along
the south line of said Cochrane’s Second Addition Subdivision to the southwest corner thereof a
distance of 1,245.25 feet; thence continuing northwest intersecting the South Dakota Avenue
and U.S. Highway 30 right-of-way to the southeast corner of the Dauntless Subdivision Fourth
Addition, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 286.87 feet; thence continuing along
the south line of said Dauntless Subdivision Fourth Addition to the southwest corner thereof
being also a point on the north line of the said U.S. Highway 30 right-of-way a distance of
2,717.18 feet; thence continuing northwesterly along the north line of the said U.S. Highway 30
right-of-way to the southwest corner of a parcel described as Parcel A (Slide 98 Page 4) of
Section 7, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 2,910.31; thence north along the west line of
said Parcel A and Lot 2 of the Crane Farm Subdivision Fifth Addition City of Ames, Story County,
Iowa, to the northwest corner of said Lot 2 a distance of 305.45 feet; thence east along the north
line of said Lot 2, the north line of the Crane Farm Subdivision Third and Sixth Additions City of
Ames, Story County, Iowa, to a point being the southeast corner of Southwest Quarter of the
Northwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 7a distance of 1,381.63 feet; thence north along
the east line of the West Fractional Half of the Northwest Fractional Quarter of Section 7,
Township 83, Range 24 to the northeast corner thereof also being a point on the centerline of
Lincoln Highway a distance of 2,642.48 feet; thence along the centerline of said Lincoln
Highway to a point on the Boone Story County line and centerline of S 500th Avenue also being
the southwest corner of the Crestview Acres Subdivision a distance of 1,497.64 feet; thence
north along the centerline of N 500th Avenue to the northwest corner a parcel described as the
North 198 feet of the West 440 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional
Quarter of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 of the a distance of 2,631.2 feet; thence east
along the south line of the Northwest Fractional Quarter of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 to
a point on said south line 50.02 feet from the southeast corner of the said Northwest Fractional
Quarter a distance of 2,782.73 feet; thence south 50.02 feet; thence east 50.02 feet to a point
on the east line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 83,
Range 24 ; thence continuing east along the south line of a parcel described as Parcel P in the
North Half of the Southwest Fractional Quarter and the Norwest Quarter of the Southeast
Fractional Quarter (Slide 191 Page 1) of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of
561.63 feet; thence south along the west line of said Parcel P a distance of 385.09 feet; thence
continuing south along the west line of a parcel described as Parcel M in the Norwest Quarter of
the Southeast Fractional Quarter (Slide 167 Page 5) of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 a
distance of 247.08 feet; thence east along the south line of said Parcel M a distance of 50.57
feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence south along the west line of a parcel described as
BEG 311.8' W OF SE COR W349.6' N669.2' E349.6' S TO BEG of the Norwest Quarter of the
Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 673.11 feet to
the southwest corner thereof; thence west along the north line of a parcel described as Parcel K
(Slide 159 Page 3) of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 6,
24
16
Final April 9th, 2024
Township 83, Range 24 to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 650.85 feet; thence south
along the west line of said Parcel K to the southwest corner thereof also being a point on the
north right-of-way line of Lincoln Way a distance of 1,224.06 feet; thence east along the south
line of said Parcel K a distance of 907.77 feet; thence north along the boundary of said Parcel K
a distance of 60 feet; thence east along the boundary of said Parcel K the southeast corner
thereof a distance of 90 feet; thence north along the east line of said Parcel K to the northeast
corner thereof a distance of 1,167.92 feet; thence continuing north along the west line of said
parcel describe as BEG 311.8' W OF SE COR W349.6' N669.2' E349.6' S TO BEG to the
northeast corner thereof a distance of 669.92 feet; thence west along the north line of said
parcel to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 349.6 feet; thence north along the east line
of said Parcels M and P to the northeast corner of Parcel P a distance of 632.16 feet; thence
west along the north line of said Parcel P to a point 50.02 feet from the northwest corner there
of a distance of 610.37 feet; thence north along the east line of the Northwest Fractional Quarter
of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 to a point on the centerline of Ontario Street a distance of
1,621.91 feet; thence continuing west along the centerline of Ontario Street to a point 33 feet
south of the southwest corner of the Birch Meadows Subdivision First Addition, City of Ames,
Story County, Iowa, a distance of 2,108.85 feet; thence north 33 feet to the west line of the said
Birch Meadows Subdivision First Addition and thence along the said west line to the northwest
corner of Lot 5 in said subdivision a distance of 344.67 feet; thence west along the boundary of
the said Birch Meadows Subdivision First Addition and Second Addition City of Ames, Story
County, Iowa, to the southwest corner of Outlot A of said First Addition a distance of 311.72
feet; thence north along the west line of said Outlot A to the northwest corner thereof a distance
of 1,272.7 feet; thence southeasterly along the north line of said Outlot A a distance 292.72 feet;
thence north along the boundary of said Outlot A a distance of 24.29 feet; thence southeasterly
along the north line of said Outlot A to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 158.91 feet;
thence southeasterly along the north line of Outlot YY in the said Birch Meadows Subdivision
Second Addition to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 591.68 feet; thence north along
the west line of Lot 11 of the Brookview Place West Subdivision Third Addition, City of Ames,
Story County, Iowa, to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 25.7 feet; thence southeasterly
along the north line of said Brookview Place West Subdivision a distance of 1,354.61 feet;
thence southeasterly along the north boundary of said subdivision a distance of 25.37 feet;
thence southeasterly along the north boundary of said subdivision a distance of 714.25 feet to
the northeast corner thereof; thence continuing southeasterly along the north boundary of the
Patio Homes West Subdivision Second Addition, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance
of 281 feet; thence southwesterly along the north boundary of the said Patio Homes West
Subdivision Second Addition a distance of 25 feet; thence southeasterly along the north
boundary of the said Patio Homes West Subdivision Second Addition to the northeast corner
thereof a distance of 323.94 feet; thence north along the west boundary of the Chicago and
Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad in the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Fractional Quarter Section 31, Township 84, Range 24 to the northwest corner of said railroad
property a distance of 146.4 feet; thence southeasterly along the north line of said railroad
property to the southwest corner Lot I of the I B Howes Subdivision First Addition City of Ames,
Story County, Iowa, a distance of 741.23 feet; thence north along the west line of said I B
Howes Subdivision Lot I to the northwest corner there of a distance of 85.5 feet; thence east
along the north line of said Lot I to the northeast corner there of a distance of 529.5 feet; thence
south along the east line of said Lot I to the southeast corner thereof said point being also on
the west line of the North Dakota Avenue right-of-way a distance of 172 feet; thence
southeasterly along the north line of said railroad property in Section 31 and the Chicago and
25
17
Final April 9th, 2024
Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad in the Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 32,
Township 84, Range 24 to the southwest corner of a parcel described as the East 675 feet
North of said Railroad Right-of-Way in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Fractional
Quarter Section 32, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 2,043.84 feet; thence north along the
west line of said parcel to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 585.71 feet; thence east
along the north line of said parcel to the northeast corner there of a distance of 692.10 feet;
thence north along the east line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter
and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 32 to the
northeast corner thereof a distance of 2,633.7 feet; thence east along the north line of the
Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of said Section 32 to the northeast
corner thereof a distance of 1,320 feet; thence north along the west line of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the southwest corner of a parcel described as the
North 15.75 Acres of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of said Section
32 a distance of 811.88 feet; thence east long the south line of said parcel described as the
North 15.75 Acres of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the southeast
corner thereof a distance of 1,320 feet; thence north along the east line of said parcel described
as the North 15.75 Acres of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the
northeast corner thereof a distance of 513.51 feet; thence north along the west line of Section
28 Township 84, Range 24 to the northwest corner of the Norwest Quarter of the Southwest
Fractional Quarter a distance of 2,606.19 feet; thence east along the south line of two parcels of
land described as the West 252 Feet of the Norwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional
Quarter of said Section 28 South and West of the Road and the Norwest Quarter of the
Southwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 28 South of the Road Except the West 252 Feet to
the southwest corner of the Northridge Heights Subdivision First Addition, City of Ames, Story
County, Iowa, a distance of 792 feet; thence northwesterly along the boundary of the said
Northridge Heights Subdivision First Addition to the southwest corner of Lot A a distance of
982.64 feet; thence south along the west line of said parcel described as the West 252 Feet of
the Norwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 28 South and West of
the Road to the southeast corner of Outlot A of the Scenic Point Subdivision First Addition City
of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 302.88 feet; thence west along south line of said
Outlot A to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 281.77 feet; thence northwesterly along
the boundary of said Scenic Point Subdivision First Addition to a point on the boundary of Outlot
C a distance of 447.39 feet; thence west along the boundary of said Outlot C 30.58 feet; thence
south along the boundary of said Outlot C a distance of 80.5 feet; thence west along the
boundary of said Outlot C to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 48.3 feet; thence west
along the south line of Outlot F of the Scenic Valley Subdivision First Addition City of Ames,
Story County, Iowa, a distance of 824.13 feet; thence south along the south boundary of said
Outlot F a distance of 24.41 feet; thence west along the south boundary of said Outlot F to the
southwest corner thereof a distance of 735.39 feet; thence northeasterly along the west
boundary of said Outlot F a distance of 227.22 feet; thence northwesterly along the west
boundary of said Outlot F to the northwest corner there of a distance of 1,336.81 feet; thence
east along the north line of said Outlot F to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 1,216.77
feet; thence north along the east line of the North Half of the Norwest Quarter of the Northeast
Fractional Quarter of Section 28 Township 84, Range 24 to the northeast corner there of a
distance of 662.05 feet; thence west along the north line of said North Half of the Norwest
Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the northwest corner thereof a distance of
1,309.62 feet; thence north along the west line of Outlot YY of the Bluffs at Dankbar Farms
Subdivision First Addition City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, to the northwest corner thereof a
26
18
Final April 9th, 2024
distance of 2,261.66 feet; thence east along the north line of said Outlot YY a distance of 325.37
feet; thence southeasterly along the north line of said Outlot YY to a point also being the
southeast corner of a parcel described as Parcel Q (CFN 14-35) of Section 20 Township 84,
Range 24 West of the 5th P.M a distance of 410.81 feet; thence north along the boundary of
said Outlot YY to a point also being the northeast corner of said Parcel Q a distance of 621.29
feet; thence east along the north line of said Outlot YY a distance of 687.28 feet; thence south
along the boundary of said Outlot YY to a point being also the southeast corner of the Jamison
Subdivision, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 300.94 feet; thence east along the boundary of
Outlot YY to a point being also the southwest corner of said Jamison Subdivision a distance of
521 feet; thence north along the boundary of Outlot YY to a point being also the northeast
corner of said Jamison Subdivision a distance of 251 feet; thence north to a point on the
centerline of Cameron School Road a distance of 50 feet; thence east along said centerline to
the center of the intersection of Camerson School Road and George Washington Carver also
being the southwest corner of The Irons Subdivision, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 790.63
feet; thence south along the centerline of George Washington Carver Avenue to the southeast
corner of Outlot ZZ of the said Bluffs at Dankbar Farms Subdivision a distance of 1,314.34 feet;
thence west along the south line of said Outlot ZZ a distance of 430.86 feet; thence south along
east line of the Scenic Valley Subdivision to the southwest corner of parcel described as BEG
NE COR W430.86' S418.01' E432' N418.03' TO BEG in the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Fractional Quarter Section 20 Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 418.13 feet; thence east
along the south boundary of said parcel to the northeast corner of Lot 5 of the Scenic Valley
Subdivision Sixth Addition City, of Ames, Story County, a distance of 193.61 feet; thence south
along the east line of the said Scenic Valley Subdivision Sixth Addition to the southwest corner
of a parcel described as Parcel T (Slide 50 Page 3) of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Fractional Quarter Section 20 Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 220.32 feet; thence east
along the south line of said Parcel T to the southeast corner thereof also being a point on the
centerline of George Washington Carver Avenue a distance of 238.44 feet; thence south along
said centerline to the southwest corner of the Southwest Quarte of the Southwest Fractional
Quarter Section 21 Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 676.1 feet; thence east along the
south line of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 21 to the southeast corner thereof
a distance of 2,625.22 feet; thence east along the south line of a parcel described as Parcel D
(Slide 10 Page 3) of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the southeast
corner thereof a distance of 527.06 feet; thence southeasterly along the west line of the Chicago
and Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad property in Sections 21 and 28 Township
84, Range 24 to a point on the east line of a parcel described as BEG 723.88' W & 33' N OF
SE COR W259.12' N504.32' SE567' TO BEG in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Fractional Quarter of said Section 28 a distance of 2,525.9 feet; thence east along the south line
of said railroad property a distance of 100 feet; thence northwesterly along the east line of said
railroad property to the southwest corner of Outlot A of the Cochrane Farm Subdivision, Story
County, Iowa, a distance of 3908.05 feet; thence east along the south line of said Outlot A to the
southeastern corner thereof a distance of 1,287.22 feet; thence north along the east line of said
Outlot A to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 50 feet; thence east along the south line of
Outlot X of the Rose Prairie Final Plat, Franklin Township, Subdivision, to the southeast corner
thereof a distance of 1,162.99 feet; thence south along the west line of Outlot B of said
Cochrane Farm Subdivision to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 50 feet; thence east
along the south line of said Outlot B to the southwest corner thereof also being a point on the
centerline of Hyde Avenue a distance of 99.76 feet; thence south along the centerline of Hyde
Avenue to the southwest corner of the parcel described as BEG SW COR N553.22' TO BEG
27
19
Final April 9th, 2024
N129.43' E391.37' SE119.34' SW168.78' N13.73' W269.38' TO BEG in the Southwest Corner of
the Southwest Fractional Corner of Section 22, Township 84, Range 24, 698.8 feet; thence
northeasterly along the south line of said parcel and a parcel described as Parcel F (Slide 21
page 3) Except Tract A (Slide 114 Page 1) in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional
Quarter of Section 22, Township 84, Range 24, a distance of 552.45 feet; thence south along
the west line of said Parcel F to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 493.37 feet; thence
east along the south line of said Parcel F to the southeast corner thereof a distance of 134.55
feet; thence north along the east line of said Parcel F and a parcel described as N462.24'
W974.36' EX PARCEL A (CFN 14-2) & EX TRACT A (SLIDE 114 PAGE 1) in the Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of Section 22, Township 84, Range 24, to the
northeast corner thereof a distance of 1,128.22 feet; thence west along the north line of said
described parcel and said Outlot B a distance of 720 feet; thence north along the east line of
said Outlot X to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 117.86 feet; thence east to the
centerline of Hyde Ave a distance 50 feet; thence north along the centerline of Hyde Avenue to
the northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 22 a
distance of 1,199.43 feet; thence west along the north line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 1,2963.98 feet; thence south
along the west line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and said Outlot X to the
southwest corner thereof a distance of 1,314.24 feet; thence west along the north line of said
Outlot A to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 1,243.65 feet; thence north along the west
line of Lot 2 of the Rose Prairie Subdivision Final Plat, Story County, Iowa, to the northwest
corner of said Lot 2 a distance of 3,309.88 feet; thence east along the north line of said Lot 2 to
the southeast corner of Lot 1 of the Rose Prairie Subdivision Final Plat a distance of 1,258.33
feet; thence north along the west line of said Lot 2 to the northwest corner thereof a distance of
663.14; thence east along the north line of said Rose Prairie Subdivision to the northeast corner
thereof also being a point on the centerline of the Hyde Avenue right-of-way a distance of
1,311.23 feet; thence east along the north line of the Quarry Estates Subdivision First Addition
to the point of beginning a distance of 3,557.5 feet; EXCEPT that part of the Christensen’s
(Anton) Subdivision located in unincorporated Story County, Iowa, more particularly described
as Part of Sublot 2 of Lot 14 beginning 1,460.5 feet south of the northeast corner of the
Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 83, Range 24 W210 feet,
N373.2 feet, N157 feet, W196.1 feet, NW117.7 feet, NE32 feet, NE71.6 feet, NE122.4 feet,
NE42 feet, NE80.9 feet, NE86.7 feet, NE100 feet, NE100 feet, NE65.8 feet, NE116 feet, SE32.8
feet, SE168.2 feet, S487.3 feet, S228.6 feet, S206.6 feet, S372 feet, to Beginning.
28
20
Final April 9th, 2024
29
21
Final April 9th, 2024
Exhibit B-
Assessed value of land and buildings with property owner identification.
This file is electronic spreadsheet available upon request.
30
22
Final April 9th, 2024
Exhibit C
Zoning District Map
(larger scale map available upon request)
31
23
Final April 9th, 2024
Exhibit D
Land Use Classification Map
32
24
Final April 9th, 2024
Exhibit E
Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map
33
ORDINANCE NO. _______
ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE AMES CITY-WIDE URBAN
REVITALATION AREA.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The legal description of the Ames City-wide Urban Revitalization Area is as
follows:
“The land described as all that area presently within the Corporate Boundary of the City of Ames, Story
County, Iowa, West of the 5th P.M., more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point 1699.38 feet west of the Northeast Corner of Section 22, Township 84, Range 24 said
point being the northeast corner of Lot C of the Quarry Estates Subdivision, First Addition, City of Ames,
Story County, Iowa; thence south 507.22 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 11 of the H.P. Jensen’s
Subdivision, Story County, Iowa; thence southwesterly along the west line of said Lot 11 a distance of
35.39 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 10 of the said H.P. Jensen’s Subdivision; thence southwesterly
along the northwest line of said Lot 10 and Lot 9 of the said H.P. Jensen’s Subdivision a distance of 149.57
feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 9; thence southeasterly along the west line of said Lot 9 a distance
of 74.21 feet to a point on the south line of said Outlot A of the said Quarry Estates Subdivision, First
Addition; thence continuing southeasterly along the west line of said Lot 9 a distance of 89.25 feet to the
southwest corner of said Lot 9; thence southwesterly along the north line of the right-of-way of Alta Vista
Road in the said H.P. Jensen’s Subdivision a distance of 26.75 feet; thence southeasterly along the western
extent of said road right-of-way and the west line of Lot 8 of the said H.P. Jensen’s Subdivision a distance
of 163.04 feet; thence northeasterly along the south line of said Lot 8, Lot 7, and Lot 6 of the said H.P.
Jensen’s Subdivision a distance of 415.88 feet to a point on the west line of Lot 1 of the Oaks Subdivision,
Story County, Iowa; thence south along the west line of said Lot 1 a distance of 702.23 feet to the
southwest point of said Lot 1; thence east along the south line of said Lot 1 a distance of 519.24 feet to the
southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly along the southwest line of Lot 5 of the said Oaks
Subdivision a distance of 391.5 feet to a point on the southwest line of said Lot 5; thence continuing south
along the southwest line of said Lot 5 a distance of 135.5 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 5; thence
east along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 155.8 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 5 also
being a point on the west right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 69; thence southwesterly along the west line of
the U.S. Highway 69 right-of-way and Dawes Drive right-of-way a distance of approximately 3,944 feet to
the northeast corner of Parcel S in the Northeast Quarter of said Fractional Northeast Quarter of Section 27,
Township 84, Range 24 (Slide 219, Page 1); thence east along a line intersecting the Dawes Drive right-of-
way a distance of 100 feet to the northwest corner of Parcel V part of Lots 3 and 6 in the Northeast Quarter
of said Fractional Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 84, Range 24 (Slide 219 Page 6); thence east
along the north line of said Parcel V to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 69 a
distance of 331.67 feet; thence continuing east to the northeast corner of Lot 3 in the Northeast Quarter of
said Fractional Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 84, Range 24 distance of 474.19 feet; thence
south along the east line of said Northeast Quarter of said Fractional Northeast Quarter to the southeastern
corner of said Northeast Quarter of said Fractional Northeast Quarter a distance of 630.8 feet also being a
point along the centerline of the South Skunk River; thence southeasterly along said centerline of the South
Skunk River being also the east line of Lot 1 Lying West of the River in the Southwest Quarter of the
Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 220.52 feet; thence
northeasterly along the south line of a parcel described as the Southwest Quarter of the Fractional
Northwest Quarter Lying East of said South Skunk River and West of Gary Purvis Property as Shown on
Book 1 Page 249 Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 100 feet; thence northwesterly along the
west line of said parcel described as the Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter Lying East
of said South Skunk River and West of Gary Purvis Property as Shown on Book 1 Page 249 to the
northeast corner thereof a distance of 185.36 feet; thence northwesterly along the west line of a parcel
described as the Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter West of Gary Purvis Property as
Shown on Book 1 Page 249 Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 420.06 feet; thence
northeasterly along the west line of said parcel a distance of 503.02’ feet; thence northeasterly along the
34
2
west line of said parcel to the northwest corner of said parcel a distance of 322.52 feet; thence east along
the south line of the Riverside Heights and Purvis Subdivisions, Story County, Iowa, to the northeast
corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24
a distance of 1,087.86 feet; thence south along the east line of the West Half of the Fractional Northwest
Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 to the southwest corner of Lot 2 of the Southwest Quarter of
the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 , a distance of 1,866.23 feet;
thence west to the northwest corner of Lot 4 Lying Northeast of the said South Skunk River of the
Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 , also being
a point in the center of said South Skunk River a distance of 562.55 feet; thence following the centerline of
the South Skunk River more or less and the west line of Lot 4 Lying Northeast of the said South Skunk
River southeasterly 238 feet, southeasterly 334.93 feet, southeasterly 188.11 feet; thence northeasterly
along the south line of said Lot 4 Lying Northeast of the said South Skunk River a distance of 248.57 feet;
thence northeasterly along the north line of a parcel described as Lot 4 Lying Southwest of the said South
Skunk River and Part of Lot 8 West of said River in the South Half of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of
Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 232.46 feet; thence southeasterly along the east line of
said parcel and a parcel described as Lot 1 and Lot 8 West of the South Skunk River in the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 distance of 353.92 feet;
thence southeasterly along the east line of a parcel of land described as said Lot 1 and Lot 8 West of the
South Skunk River to a point on the south line of said Lot 1 a distance of 156.2 feet; thence southeasterly
more or less along the centerline of said South Skunk River and the east line of Lot 2 Lying West of the
River Northeast Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a
distance of 41.06 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of said Lot 2 a distance of 149.15 feet;
thence southwesterly along the east line of said Lot 2 a distance of 200.32 feet; thence southwesterly along
the east line of said Lots 2 a distance of 216.85 feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly
along the east line of a parcel described as Lots 2, 3, and 4 West of the South Skunk River and E of Outlot
A of the Scaldo Ridge Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa a distance of 334.38 feet to the
southeast corner thereof; thence southeasterly along the west line of a part of a Tract Lying East of the said
South Skunk River described as Beginning at the northeast corner of the South Half of the Northeast
Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 W1330.5 feet, S328.8
feet, E76.8 feet, SE219.7 feet, SE171.3 feet, SE442.9 feet, SE249.5 feet, W322.7 feet, S20.8 feet, SE592
feet, E520 feet, N1470.5 feet to the Beginning a distance of 219.7 feet; thence southeasterly continuing
along of the west line of said tract to the center of the South Skunk River a distance of 171.3 feet; thence
southeasterly continuing along of the west line of said tract a distance of 442.9 feet; thence southeasterly
continuing along of the west line of said tract a distance of 125.77 feet; thence continuing southeasterly
along the west line of said tract and along a curve in said river a distance of 678.03 feet to the southwest
corner of said tract; thence east to the southeast corner of said tract to a point on the east line of the
Southeast Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of
323.38 feet; thence south along said east line to the southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the
Fractional Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 650.65 feet; thence east
along the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Southeast Quarter and Southeast Quarter of
the Fractional Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 84, Range 24 also being the southeast corner of
the West half of said Southeast Quarter of the Fractional Southeast Quarter the a distance of 1,980 feet;
thence south a distance of 1,242.91 feet along the east line of the West half of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northeast Fractional Quarter of Section 35, Township 84, Range 24; thence east to a point on the east line
of the Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 84, Range 24 a
distance of 1,982.8 feet; thence south along the east line of said Northwest Quarter of the Fractional
Northwest Quarter to the southeast corner thereof a distance of 99.01 feet; thence west along the south line
of said Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter a distance of 1,214.72 feet; thence south to a
point 344 feet north of the south line of the Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of
Section 36, Township 84, Range 24 and 100 feet east of the west line of the said Northwest Quarter of the
Fractional Southwest Quarter a distance of 2,296 feet; thence east to a point on the east line of said
Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter a distance of 1,220 feet; thence south along the east
line of said Northwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter distance of 86.6 feet; thence
southwesterly a distance of 485.58 feet; thence southeasterly to a point on the east line of the Southwest
Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 961.9
feet; thence south along the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter to the
35
3
southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Fractional Southwest Quarter a distance of 268 feet;
thence east along the south line of the South Fractional Half of Section 36, Township 84, Range 24 to a
point on the west line of the Walter Family Campus Subdivision a distance of 1,879.86 feet; thence north
along the west line of the said Walter Family Campus Subdivision to the northwest corner of the said
Walter Family Campus Subdivision a distance of 594.91 feet; thence east along the north line of the said
Walter Family Campus Subdivision to the northeast corner of the said Walter Family Campus Subdivision
a distance of 722.58 feet; thence north along the east line of the West Half of the East Fractional Half of
Section 36, Township 84, Range 24 to a point on said east line 16.5 feet south of the northwest corner of
the Northeast Quarter of the Fractional Northeast Quarter also being the northwest corner of the North
Dayton Industrial Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 4,696.35 feet; thence east
along the north line of the said North Dayton Industrial Subdivision and a line 16.5 feet south of the north
line of the Northeast Quarter of the Fractional Northeast Quarter a distance of 1,321 feet also being a point
on the centerline of Dayton Avenue; thence north also said road centerline a distance of 1,976.9 feet; thence
along the north line of said parcel described as the South 42.23 Acres of the North Half of the Southwest
Fractional Quarter Section 30, Township 84, Range 23 to a point on the west right-of-way line of Interstate
35 a distance of 3041.74 feet; thence south along said right-of-way line to the northeast corner of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 31, Township 84, Range 23 a distance of
4,507.93 feet; thence east along the north line of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 31, Township
84, Range 23 to the northeast corner of said Southeast Fractional Quarter a distance of 2,666.42 feet;
thence south along the east line of said Southeast Fractional Quarter to the southeast corner of said
Southeast Fractional Quarter a distance of 2,640.2 feet; thence along the north line of a parcel described as
Parcel A in the Northwest Fractional Quarter Section 5, Township 83, Range 23 (Instrument 2011-11372)
also being the centerline of East 13th Street to the northeast corner of said parcel a distance of 2,002.69 feet;
thence south along the east line of said parcel described as Parcel A to the southeast corner of said parcel
also being a point on the north line of the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad a
distance of 1,334.27 feet; thence east along the north line of said railroad to the east line of Section 4,
Township 83, Range 23 also being the center of Potter Avenue a distance of 5,280.24 feet; thence south
along the east line of said Section 4 to the northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Fractional Quarter of Section 9, Township 83, Range 23 also being the centerline of Lincoln Highway a
distance of 2,188.04 feet; thence west along the south line of said Section 4 to the northwest corner of the
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of Section 9 a distance of 1,310 feet; thence south
along the west line of the East Half of the East Fractional Half to the southeast corner of the Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 9, Township 83, Range 23 a distance of 3,960 feet;
thence west along the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the
southwest corner thereof a distance of 1,320 feet; thence north along the west line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the northwest corner there of a distance of 1,320 feet; thence
west along the north line of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 9 and the north line of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 8, Township 83, Range 23 to the
northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter a distance of 3,960 feet;
thence south along the west line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the
northwest corner of Parcel F of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter (Slide 596 Page
5 a distance of 544.59 feet; thence east along the north line of said Parcel F to the northeast corner thereof
also being a point on the centerline of 580th Avenue a distance of 1335.88 feet; thence southwesterly along
the east line of said Parcel F to the southeast corner there of a distance of 1,233 feet; thence south along the
west line of the East 450 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 8,
Township 83, Range 23 a point on the west line of the JDA Subdivision, Story County, Iowa, a distance of
1,035.41 feet; thence east following the line of the said JDA Subdivision a distance of 249.62 feet; thence
northeasterly along said line following a curve a distance 214.38 feet; thence south following said line and
west right-of-way line of 580th Avenue a distance of 71.91 feet; thence southwesterly following said line
and right-of-way line to a point on the north right-of-way of U.S. Highway 30 a distance of 154.3 feet;
thence west along said right-of-way line to a point on the west line of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Fractional Quarter of said Section 8 a distance of 2,540.36 feet; thence north along the west line
of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of said Section 8 to the northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of
the Southeast Fractional Quarter of said Section 8 a distance of 2,427.15 feet; thence west along the south
line of the North Fractional Half of said Section 8 and Section 7, Township 83, Range 23 to the northeast
corner of the Ames Community Development Park, Fourth Addition, Subdivision, City of Ames, Story
36
4
County, Iowa, being also point on the west right-of-way line of Interstate 35 a distance of 5,719.55 feet;
thence south along said Interstate 35 right-of-way to a point on the east line of the Ames Community
Development Park Subdivision, Fourth Addition, City of Ames, Iowa, a distance of 1,074.68 feet; thence
southwesterly along a curve and said Interstate 35 right-of-way to the southeast corner of the Minard’s Plat
Subdivision, City of Ames, Iowa, a distance of 2,767.59 feet; thence southwesterly to a point on the east
line of Section 13, Township 83, Range 24, being also the centerline of South Dayton Place a distance of
955.3 feet; thence south following said line a distance of 254.19 feet; thence east along the south line of the
right-of-way of U.S. Highway 30 to the northeast corner of a parcel described as commencing at the
northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter S588.05’ feet to the
beginning COR S531.33' E398.43' N560.61' SW400' to the beginning except the right-of-way sold to State
of Iowa, (Book 95 Page 591) a distance of 400.1 feet; thence south along the east line of said parcel to the
southeast corner thereof a distance of 560.61 feet; thence west along the south line of said parcel to a point
on the centerline of South Dayton Place a distance of 402.43 feet; thence south along the centerline of
South Dayton Place a distance of 458.34 feet; thence west along the south right-of-way line of Southeast
18th St a distance of 1,486.75 feet; thence northwesterly along the east line a parcel described as the
Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter except the South Dayton Avenue right-of-way and
SE 18th Street right-of-way and a parcel described as the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional
Quarter South of U.S. Highway 30 except the Iowa, DOT Condemned Parcel to the northeast corner
thereof both being in Section 13, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 416.6 feet; thence northwesterly
along the north line of said parcel in the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the
northwest corner of said parcel, a distance of 1,125.4 feet; thence north to the northeast corner of a parcel
described as Part of Parcel G in the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter and Part of the
in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter Section 13, Township 83, Range 24 a
distance of 77.23 feet; thence west along of the north line of said parcel to the northwest corner thereof a
distance of 925.5 feet; thence south along the west line of said parcel and the west line of a parcel described
as Part of Said Parcel G East of the River also being the centerline of the South Skunk River to the
southwest corner thereof a distance of 3,043.66 feet; thence west along the south line of the previously
described parcel being also the south line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13,
Township 83, Range 24 to the southwest corner of said parcel a distance of 1,135.2 feet; thence south
along the east line of West Half of the West Fractional Half of Section 13 and Section 24, Township 83,
Range 24 to the southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter also being
a point on the centerline of Ken Maril Road a distance of 3,960 feet; thence south continuing along the east
line of West Half of the West Fractional Half of Section 24, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 200 feet;
thence west along the south line of a parcel described as the North 200 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 24 Township 83, Range 24 to a point on the centerline of 550th
Avenue a distance of 1,320 feet; thence continue west to the southwest corner of a parcel described as the
East 286.9 Feet of the North 200 Feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of a
distance of Section 23, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 2,925.25 feet; thence north along the west
side of said parcel, a parcel described as the Northwest 3.77 acres of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Fractional Quarter Section 23, Township 83, Range 24, and Lot 2 of the Armstrong’s
Subdivision Third Addition to a point on the south line of Lot 1 of the Armstrong’s Subdivision, Third
Addition, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 1,010.9 feet; thence west along the south line of
said Lot 1 a distance of 106.1 feet; thence north along the west line of said Lot 1 to the northwest corner
thereof a distance of 194.9 feet; thence west along the south line of a parcel described as BEG 50' W NE
COR W400' S300' E400' N300' TO BEG and a parcel described as the West 537.25 feet of the East 987.25
feet of the North 300 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter Section 23,
Township 83, Range 24 to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 594.25 feet; thence south along the
west line of a parcel described as Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter beginning 1317.25'
W OF NE COR S380' E330' N380’ W to the beginning Section 23, Township 83, Range 24 to the
southeast corner thereof a distance of 80 feet; thence west along the south line of the previously described
parcel a distance of 330 feet; thence continuing west along the south line of a parcel described as Southwest
Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter beginning 1317.25' W OF NE COR SE NWS330' W664.5'
N330' to the beginning Section 23, Township 83, Range 24 to the southwest corner there of a distance of
994.5 feet; thence north along the west line of said parcel to a point on the south line of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter Section 23, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 380 feet;
thence west along the south line of said the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter to the
37
5
northeast corner of a parcel described as in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter
beginning at the Northwest Quarter E267.81' SW940.14' to the section line North to the beginning a
distance of 382.12 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of said parcel to a point on the east line of
Section 22, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 941.14 feet; thence south along said section line to the
southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 22, Township 83,
Range 24 a distance of 3,066.04 feet; thence west along the south line of said the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Fractional Quarter a distance of 1,040.21 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of Parcel
B of the Northeast Fractional Quarter Section 27, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 1,614.64 feet;
thence northwesterly along the south line of said Parcel B to the southwest corner thereof also being a point
on the centerline of South Riverside Drive a distance of 1,404.51 feet; thence north along the centerline of
South Riverside Drive to the northeast corner of Parcel A of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Fractional Quarter Section 22, Township 83, Range 24 (CFN12-38) a distance of 1,698.32 feet; thence east
along the south line of a parcel described as the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter
Except the North 912.85 feet of the West 417.7 feet Section 22, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of
456.08 feet to a point at the center of S Riverside Drive; thence north along the east line of said parcel and
the west line of the W417' of the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the northeast corner thereof a distance of
3,057.34feet; thence west along the north line of said parcel to the northwest corner thereof along being a
point on the centerline of South Riverside Drive a distance of 417.7 feet; thence west along the south line
the north half of Section 22 and Section21, Township 83, Range 24 and Section 21, Township 83, Range
24 to a point on the east line of the Ansley Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of
4,873.63 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of said Ansley Subdivision to a point on the west
line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter Section 21, Township 83, Range 24 a
distance of 1,391.22 feet; thence north along the west line of the Ansley Subdivision to the northwest
corner of the said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter being also a point on the
centerline of Cedar Lane a distance of 1,176.31 feet; thence west along the south line of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter to the southwest corner thereof also being the southwest corner
of Outlot E Riggenberg Park Subdivision Second Addition, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance
of 1,320.24 feet; thence north along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Fractional and
said Outlot E to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 1,315.2 feet; thence continuing north along the
east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter to the northeast corner thereof also
being the east line of the Ringgenberg Park Subdivision First and Third Additions, City of Ames, Story
County, Iowa, a distance of 1,315.22 feet; thence west along the north line of said Northwest Quarter of
the Northwest Fractional Quarter, the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter and the
Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter Section 20, Township 83, Range 24 to a point on
the centerline of Zumwalt Station Road also being the southwest corner of the Chicago and Northwestern
Transportation Company Railroad in the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 17, Township 83, Range
24 a distance of 2,990.95 feet; thence northeasterly along said railroad property to the southeast corner of a
parcel described as Parcel A Section 17, Township 83, Range 24 (CFN15-54) a distance of 1,137.4 feet;
thence west along the south line of said Parcel A to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 462.19 feet;
thence north along the west line of said Parcel A to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 407.3 feet;
thence west along the south line of the Ferguson Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, to the
southwest corner thereof a distance of 120.45 feet; thence north along the west line of said Ferguson
Subdivision a distance of 308 feet to a point on the west line of Lot 8 of said subdivision; thence
northwesterly along said west line of said Lot 8 to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 20.26 feet;
thence east along the north line of said Lot 8 to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 128.69 feet;
thence north along the west line of said Ferguson subdivision to the northeast corner thereof along being a
point on the centerline of Dartmoor Road distance of 304.3 feet; thence southeasterly along the centerline
of Dartmoor Road a distance of 374.99 feet; thence east along the north line of a parcel described as
described as Parcel B (Slide 75, Page 1) and Parcel E (Slide 75 Page 3) Section 17, Township 83, Range a
distance of 70.36 feet; thence north to a point on the centerline of Dartmoor Road along being on said
Parcel B and E a distance of 17.93 feet; thence northeasterly along the north line of said parcel and the
centerline of Dartmoor Road a distance of 291.48 feet; thence southeasterly along the north line of said
parcel and the centerline of Dartmoor Road a distance of 339.95 feet; thence south along the east line of
said parcel a distance of 30.55 feet; thence east long the north line of said parcel a distance of 37.61 fee;
thence north along the west line of a parcel described as Part of Lot 15 and Part of Lot 7 of the
Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision, Story County, Iowa, COMM SW COR LOT 10 SE192.9' SE102' TO
38
6
BEG NW458' SW128.3' S227.3' W140.3' S244.6' SE401.4' NE80.7' NE100.5' NW104.3' TO BEG a
distance of 277.8 feet; thence east along the north line of said parcel a distance of 140.3 feet; thence north
along the west line of said parcel to the north corner of said parcel a distance of 355.6 feet; thence southeast
along the west line of said parcel to a point on the east line thereof also being a point on the centerline of
State Avenue a distance of 458 feet; thence southwesterly along the east line of said parcel and the
centerline of State Avenue to the north corner of Lot 12 of said Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision a
distance of 204.8 feet; thence southeast along the east line of said Lot 12 a distance of 52.87 feet; thence
northeast along the north line of a parcel described as Parcel A (Slide 36, Page 4) of Lot 11 of said
Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision a distance of 176.7 feet; thence continuing northeast along said north
line of said Parcel A to the northeast corner there of a distance of 200 feet; thence southeasterly along the
east line of said Parcel A to the east corner thereof a distance of 130 feet; thence northeasterly along the
west line of the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad property in the Northwest
Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 16, Township 83, Range 24 to a point on the north
line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter; thence continuing northeasterly along
the west line of the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad property in the Northwest
Fractional Quarter Section 16, Township 83, Range 24 to the northeast corner of Lot 11 of the
Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision Auditor’s Plat Part of Lots 18 & 19, Story County, Iowa, being also a
point on the south line of the U.S. Highway 30 right-of-way; thence southeasterly along the south line of
said right-of-way a distance of 272.73 feet; thence north intersecting said U.S. Highway 30 to a point on the
west line of Lots W, X, Y, and Z of the Gateway Hills Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a
distance of 642.52 feet; thence west intersecting said U.S. Highway 30 along the north line of said
Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision to the northeast corner of a parcel described as the West 25 Acres of the
said Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision Except the Highway and Lots 16 & 17 a distance of 1,649.92 feet;
thence south along the east line of said parcel to the southeast corner thereof a distance of 1091.8 feet;
thence west along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner thereof also being a point on the
centerline of State Avenue and the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of
Section 17, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 971.16 feet; thence south along the west line of the
Southeast Quarte of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17 to the southeast corner thereof a distance of
853.66 feet; thence west along the south line of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of said Section 17 to a
point 20 feet east of the southwest corner thereof a distance of 2,637.99 feet; thence northwest to a point on
the west line of said Northeast Fractional Quarter 20 feet north of the southwest corner thereof a distance of
28.47 feet; thence north along the west line of said Northeast Fractional Quarter to a point on the north line
of the Highway 30 right-of-way along being the southeast corner of the Fountainview Subdivision, City of
Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 2,186.03 feet; thence continuing along the north line of the U.S.
Highway 30 right-of-way also being also the south line of the Fountainview Subdivision to the southwest
corner thereof a distance of 1,368.9 feet; thence south along the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 17 to the southeast corner of the Cochrane’s Second Addition
Subdivision, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 25.97 feet; thence northwest along the south
line of said Cochrane’s Second Addition Subdivision to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 1,245.25
feet; thence continuing northwest intersecting the South Dakota Avenue and U.S. Highway 30 right-of-way
to the southeast corner of the Dauntless Subdivision Fourth Addition, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a
distance of 286.87 feet; thence continuing along the south line of said Dauntless Subdivision Fourth
Addition to the southwest corner thereof being also a point on the north line of the said U.S. Highway 30
right-of-way a distance of 2,717.18 feet; thence continuing northwesterly along the north line of the said
U.S. Highway 30 right-of-way to the southwest corner of a parcel described as Parcel A (Slide 98 Page 4)
of Section 7, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 2,910.31; thence north along the west line of said Parcel
A and Lot 2 of the Crane Farm Subdivision Fifth Addition City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, to the
northwest corner of said Lot 2 a distance of 305.45 feet; thence east along the north line of said Lot 2, the
north line of the Crane Farm Subdivision Third and Sixth Additions City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, to
a point being the southeast corner of Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter of said Section
7a distance of 1,381.63 feet; thence north along the east line of the West Fractional Half of the Northwest
Fractional Quarter of Section 7, Township 83, Range 24 to the northeast corner thereof also being a point
on the centerline of Lincoln Highway a distance of 2,642.48 feet; thence along the centerline of said
Lincoln Highway to a point on the Boone Story County line and centerline of S 500th Avenue also being the
southwest corner of the Crestview Acres Subdivision a distance of 1,497.64 feet; thence north along the
centerline of N 500th Avenue to the northwest corner a parcel described as the North 198 feet of the West
39
7
440 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of Section 6, Township 83, Range
24 of the a distance of 2,631.2 feet; thence east along the south line of the Northwest Fractional Quarter of
Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 to a point on said south line 50.02 feet from the southeast corner of the
said Northwest Fractional Quarter a distance of 2,782.73 feet; thence south 50.02 feet; thence east 50.02
feet to a point on the east line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 83,
Range 24 ; thence continuing east along the south line of a parcel described as Parcel P in the North Half of
the Southwest Fractional Quarter and the Norwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter (Slide 191
Page 1) of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 561.63 feet; thence south along the west line of
said Parcel P a distance of 385.09 feet; thence continuing south along the west line of a parcel described as
Parcel M in the Norwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter (Slide 167 Page 5) of Section 6,
Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 247.08 feet; thence east along the south line of said Parcel M a
distance of 50.57 feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence south along the west line of a parcel described
as BEG 311.8' W OF SE COR W349.6' N669.2' E349.6' S TO BEG of the Norwest Quarter of the
Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 a distance of 673.11 feet to the
southwest corner thereof; thence west along the north line of a parcel described as Parcel K (Slide 159 Page
3) of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 to
the northwest corner thereof a distance of 650.85 feet; thence south along the west line of said Parcel K to
the southwest corner thereof also being a point on the north right-of-way line of Lincoln Way a distance of
1,224.06 feet; thence east along the south line of said Parcel K a distance of 907.77 feet; thence north along
the boundary of said Parcel K a distance of 60 feet; thence east along the boundary of said Parcel K the
southeast corner thereof a distance of 90 feet; thence north along the east line of said Parcel K to the
northeast corner thereof a distance of 1,167.92 feet; thence continuing north along the west line of said
parcel describe as BEG 311.8' W OF SE COR W349.6' N669.2' E349.6' S TO BEG to the northeast corner
thereof a distance of 669.92 feet; thence west along the north line of said parcel to the northwest corner
thereof a distance of 349.6 feet; thence north along the east line of said Parcels M and P to the northeast
corner of Parcel P a distance of 632.16 feet; thence west along the north line of said Parcel P to a point
50.02 feet from the northwest corner there of a distance of 610.37 feet; thence north along the east line of
the Northwest Fractional Quarter of Section 6, Township 83, Range 24 to a point on the centerline of
Ontario Street a distance of 1,621.91 feet; thence continuing west along the centerline of Ontario Street to a
point 33 feet south of the southwest corner of the Birch Meadows Subdivision First Addition, City of
Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 2,108.85 feet; thence north 33 feet to the west line of the said
Birch Meadows Subdivision First Addition and thence along the said west line to the northwest corner of
Lot 5 in said subdivision a distance of 344.67 feet; thence west along the boundary of the said Birch
Meadows Subdivision First Addition and Second Addition City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, to the
southwest corner of Outlot A of said First Addition a distance of 311.72 feet; thence north along the west
line of said Outlot A to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 1,272.7 feet; thence southeasterly along
the north line of said Outlot A a distance 292.72 feet; thence north along the boundary of said Outlot A a
distance of 24.29 feet; thence southeasterly along the north line of said Outlot A to the northeast corner
thereof a distance of 158.91 feet; thence southeasterly along the north line of Outlot YY in the said Birch
Meadows Subdivision Second Addition to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 591.68 feet; thence
north along the west line of Lot 11 of the Brookview Place West Subdivision Third Addition, City of
Ames, Story County, Iowa, to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 25.7 feet; thence southeasterly
along the north line of said Brookview Place West Subdivision a distance of 1,354.61 feet; thence
southeasterly along the north boundary of said subdivision a distance of 25.37 feet; thence southeasterly
along the north boundary of said subdivision a distance of 714.25 feet to the northeast corner thereof;
thence continuing southeasterly along the north boundary of the Patio Homes West Subdivision Second
Addition, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 281 feet; thence southwesterly along the north
boundary of the said Patio Homes West Subdivision Second Addition a distance of 25 feet; thence
southeasterly along the north boundary of the said Patio Homes West Subdivision Second Addition to the
northeast corner thereof a distance of 323.94 feet; thence north along the west boundary of the Chicago and
Northwestern Transportation Company Railroad in the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional
Quarter Section 31, Township 84, Range 24 to the northwest corner of said railroad property a distance of
146.4 feet; thence southeasterly along the north line of said railroad property to the southwest corner Lot I
of the I B Howes Subdivision First Addition City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 741.23 feet;
thence north along the west line of said I B Howes Subdivision Lot I to the northwest corner there of a
distance of 85.5 feet; thence east along the north line of said Lot I to the northeast corner there of a distance
40
8
of 529.5 feet; thence south along the east line of said Lot I to the southeast corner thereof said point being
also on the west line of the North Dakota Avenue right-of-way a distance of 172 feet; thence southeasterly
along the north line of said railroad property in Section 31 and the Chicago and Northwestern
Transportation Company Railroad in the Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 32, Township 84, Range 24
to the southwest corner of a parcel described as the East 675 feet North of said Railroad Right-of-Way in
the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter Section 32, Township 84, Range 24 a distance
of 2,043.84 feet; thence north along the west line of said parcel to the northwest corner thereof a distance of
585.71 feet; thence east along the north line of said parcel to the northeast corner there of a distance of
692.10 feet; thence north along the east line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter
and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 32 to the northeast corner
thereof a distance of 2,633.7 feet; thence east along the north line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast
Fractional Quarter of said Section 32 to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 1,320 feet; thence north
along the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the southwest corner of a
parcel described as the North 15.75 Acres of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of
said Section 32 a distance of 811.88 feet; thence east long the south line of said parcel described as the
North 15.75 Acres of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the southeast corner
thereof a distance of 1,320 feet; thence north along the east line of said parcel described as the North 15.75
Acres of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the northeast corner thereof a distance
of 513.51 feet; thence north along the west line of Section 28 Township 84, Range 24 to the northwest
corner of the Norwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter a distance of 2,606.19 feet; thence east
along the south line of two parcels of land described as the West 252 Feet of the Norwest Quarter of the
Southwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 28 South and West of the Road and the Norwest Quarter of
the Southwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 28 South of the Road Except the West 252 Feet to the
southwest corner of the Northridge Heights Subdivision First Addition, City of Ames, Story County, Iowa,
a distance of 792 feet; thence northwesterly along the boundary of the said Northridge Heights Subdivision
First Addition to the southwest corner of Lot A a distance of 982.64 feet; thence south along the west line
of said parcel described as the West 252 Feet of the Norwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter
of said Section 28 South and West of the Road to the southeast corner of Outlot A of the Scenic Point
Subdivision First Addition City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 302.88 feet; thence west along
south line of said Outlot A to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 281.77 feet; thence northwesterly
along the boundary of said Scenic Point Subdivision First Addition to a point on the boundary of Outlot C a
distance of 447.39 feet; thence west along the boundary of said Outlot C 30.58 feet; thence south along the
boundary of said Outlot C a distance of 80.5 feet; thence west along the boundary of said Outlot C to the
southwest corner thereof a distance of 48.3 feet; thence west along the south line of Outlot F of the Scenic
Valley Subdivision First Addition City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 824.13 feet; thence
south along the south boundary of said Outlot F a distance of 24.41 feet; thence west along the south
boundary of said Outlot F to the southwest corner thereof a distance of 735.39 feet; thence northeasterly
along the west boundary of said Outlot F a distance of 227.22 feet; thence northwesterly along the west
boundary of said Outlot F to the northwest corner there of a distance of 1,336.81 feet; thence east along the
north line of said Outlot F to the northeast corner thereof a distance of 1,216.77 feet; thence north along the
east line of the North Half of the Norwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of Section 28
Township 84, Range 24 to the northeast corner there of a distance of 662.05 feet; thence west along the
north line of said North Half of the Norwest Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter to the northwest
corner thereof a distance of 1,309.62 feet; thence north along the west line of Outlot YY of the Bluffs at
Dankbar Farms Subdivision First Addition City of Ames, Story County, Iowa, to the northwest corner
thereof a distance of 2,261.66 feet; thence east along the north line of said Outlot YY a distance of 325.37
feet; thence southeasterly along the north line of said Outlot YY to a point also being the southeast corner
of a parcel described as Parcel Q (CFN 14-35) of Section 20 Township 84, Range 24 West of the 5th P.M a
distance of 410.81 feet; thence north along the boundary of said Outlot YY to a point also being the
northeast corner of said Parcel Q a distance of 621.29 feet; thence east along the north line of said Outlot
YY a distance of 687.28 feet; thence south along the boundary of said Outlot YY to a point being also the
southeast corner of the Jamison Subdivision, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 300.94 feet; thence east
along the boundary of Outlot YY to a point being also the southwest corner of said Jamison Subdivision a
distance of 521 feet; thence north along the boundary of Outlot YY to a point being also the northeast
corner of said Jamison Subdivision a distance of 251 feet; thence north to a point on the centerline of
Cameron School Road a distance of 50 feet; thence east along said centerline to the center of the
41
9
intersection of Camerson School Road and George Washington Carver also being the southwest corner of
The Irons Subdivision, Story County, Iowa, a distance of 790.63 feet; thence south along the centerline of
George Washington Carver Avenue to the southeast corner of Outlot ZZ of the said Bluffs at Dankbar
Farms Subdivision a distance of 1,314.34 feet; thence west along the south line of said Outlot ZZ a distance
of 430.86 feet; thence south along east line of the Scenic Valley Subdivision to the southwest corner of
parcel described as BEG NE COR W430.86' S418.01' E432' N418.03' TO BEG in the Southeast Quarter of
the Southeast Fractional Quarter Section 20 Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 418.13 feet; thence east
along the south boundary of said parcel to the northeast corner of Lot 5 of the Scenic Valley Subdivision
Sixth Addition City, of Ames, Story County, a distance of 193.61 feet; thence south along the east line of
the said Scenic Valley Subdivision Sixth Addition to the southwest corner of a parcel described as Parcel T
(Slide 50 Page 3) of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter Section 20 Township 84,
Range 24 a distance of 220.32 feet; thence east along the south line of said Parcel T to the southeast corner
thereof also being a point on the centerline of George Washington Carver Avenue a distance of 238.44 feet;
thence south along said centerline to the southwest corner of the Southwest Quarte of the Southwest
Fractional Quarter Section 21 Township 84, Range 24 a distance of 676.1 feet; thence east along the south
line of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of said Section 21 to the southeast corner thereof a distance of
2,625.22 feet; thence east along the south line of a parcel described as Parcel D (Slide 10 Page 3) of the
Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Fractional Quarter to the southeast corner thereof a distance of 527.06
feet; thence southeasterly along the west line of the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company
Railroad property in Sections 21 and 28 Township 84, Range 24 to a point on the east line of a parcel
described as BEG 723.88' W & 33' N OF SE COR W259.12' N504.32' SE567' TO BEG in the Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Fractional Quarter of said Section 28 a distance of 2,525.9 feet; thence east along
the south line of said railroad property a distance of 100 feet; thence northwesterly along the east line of
said railroad property to the southwest corner of Outlot A of the Cochrane Farm Subdivision, Story County,
Iowa, a distance of 3908.05 feet; thence east along the south line of said Outlot A to the southeastern corner
thereof a distance of 1,287.22 feet; thence north along the east line of said Outlot A to the northeast corner
thereof a distance of 50 feet; thence east along the south line of Outlot X of the Rose Prairie Final Plat,
Franklin Township, Subdivision, to the southeast corner thereof a distance of 1,162.99 feet; thence south
along the west line of Outlot B of said Cochrane Farm Subdivision to the southwest corner thereof a
distance of 50 feet; thence east along the south line of said Outlot B to the southwest corner thereof also
being a point on the centerline of Hyde Avenue a distance of 99.76 feet; thence south along the centerline
of Hyde Avenue to the southwest corner of the parcel described as BEG SW COR N553.22' TO BEG
N129.43' E391.37' SE119.34' SW168.78' N13.73' W269.38' TO BEG in the Southwest Corner of the
Southwest Fractional Corner of Section 22, Township 84, Range 24, 698.8 feet; thence northeasterly along
the south line of said parcel and a parcel described as Parcel F (Slide 21 page 3) Except Tract A (Slide 114
Page 1) in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of Section 22, Township 84, Range
24, a distance of 552.45 feet; thence south along the west line of said Parcel F to the southwest corner
thereof a distance of 493.37 feet; thence east along the south line of said Parcel F to the southeast corner
thereof a distance of 134.55 feet; thence north along the east line of said Parcel F and a parcel described as
N462.24' W974.36' EX PARCEL A (CFN 14-2) & EX TRACT A (SLIDE 114 PAGE 1) in the Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Fractional Quarter of Section 22, Township 84, Range 24, to the northeast corner
thereof a distance of 1,128.22 feet; thence west along the north line of said described parcel and said Outlot
B a distance of 720 feet; thence north along the east line of said Outlot X to the northeast corner thereof a
distance of 117.86 feet; thence east to the centerline of Hyde Ave a distance 50 feet; thence north along the
centerline of Hyde Avenue to the northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
said Section 22 a distance of 1,199.43 feet; thence west along the north line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter to the northwest corner thereof a distance of 1,2963.98 feet; thence south along the west
line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and said Outlot X to the southwest corner thereof a
distance of 1,314.24 feet; thence west along the north line of said Outlot A to the northwest corner thereof a
distance of 1,243.65 feet; thence north along the west line of Lot 2 of the Rose Prairie Subdivision Final
Plat, Story County, Iowa, to the northwest corner of said Lot 2 a distance of 3,309.88 feet; thence east
along the north line of said Lot 2 to the southeast corner of Lot 1 of the Rose Prairie Subdivision Final Plat
a distance of 1,258.33 feet; thence north along the west line of said Lot 2 to the northwest corner thereof a
distance of 663.14; thence east along the north line of said Rose Prairie Subdivision to the northeast corner
thereof also being a point on the centerline of the Hyde Avenue right-of-way a distance of 1,311.23 feet;
thence east along the north line of the Quarry Estates Subdivision First Addition to the point of beginning a
42
10
distance of 3,557.5 feet; EXCEPT that part of the Christensen’s (Anton) Subdivision located in
unincorporated Story County, Iowa, more particularly described as Part of Sublot 2 of Lot 14 beginning
1,460.5 feet south of the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 16,
Township 83, Range 24 W210 feet, N373.2 feet, N157 feet, W196.1 feet, NW117.7 feet, NE32 feet,
NE71.6 feet, NE122.4 feet, NE42 feet, NE80.9 feet, NE86.7 feet, NE100 feet, NE100 feet, NE65.8 feet,
NE116 feet, SE32.8 feet, SE168.2 feet, S487.3 feet, S228.6 feet, S206.6 feet, S372 feet, to Beginning.”
Is hereby designated, pursuant to Chapter 404,Code of Iowa, as the Ames City-wide Urban
Revitalization Area.
Section Two. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to
the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Three. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
43
To:Mayor and City Council
From:Damion Pregitzer, P.E. PTOE, Traffic Engineer
Date:April 12, 2024
Subject:Upcoming Workshop on Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan
Item No. 3
MEMO
This memo is to inform the Council of an upcoming workshop scheduled for April 16,
2024, focused on our city's Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan. This session represents an
important step towards enhancing our city's infrastructure and promoting active
transportation.
During the workshop, our consultant, Toole Design, will present the final drafts of the
Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan (Walk-Bike-Roll Ames) along with a Wayfinding sign
guidance document. These documents have been developed to address our community's
needs and aspirations for a more accessible and pedestrian/cyclist-friendly environment.
The primary objectives of this workshop are to:
1. Provide an overview of the final drafts of the Master Plan and Wayfinding
guidance document. Including all the public input into the development of the plan.
2. Solicit feedback and input from the City Council to ensure the plans align with
their collective vision for the city.
3. Discuss the process's next steps, including identifying Municipal code sections that
will reference the plan.
Please note that the purpose of this workshop is informational and consultative. It should
be noted that no formal action or decision-making is expected from the Council
during this session. The input and perspectives from the Council will be used to refine
the plans, and the finalized documents will be presented for formal adoption at a
subsequent meeting, ensuring all necessary references to the plan are integrated into the
Municipal Code.
The Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan will serve as a cornerstone in our efforts to create a
safer and more sustainable transportation network, furthering the City of Ames's
multimodal goals. Your engagement and feedback during this workshop will be crucial in
shaping the final plan and ensuring it meets our community's expectations.
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
44
ATTACHMENT(S):
WBRA_Council_Presentation_Updated.pdf
Ames Wayfinding Guidelines - Final Draft.pdf
Bike and Ped Master Plan - Final Draft Updated.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
45
City Council
Workshop
APRIL 16, 2024
46
Agenda
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
1.Plan Overview & How Public Input Shaped the Plan
2.Facility Toolkit
3.Network Recommendations
4.Infrastructure Priorities
5.Strategies & Actions
6.Public Comments To Date
7.Costs and Implementation
Wayfinding Guidelines
47
48
Overview
49
Plans & Policies
Key Themes
•Multimodal vision
•Safety and comfort of all users
•Expanding transportation choice
•Identifying priorities for investment
•Design with best practices
◦(sidewalk and bikeway design guidance already adopted)
•Crossing/intersection safety
•Connectivity (across community and with ISU)
50
Vision & Goals
Vision
•Ames is a place where walking, biking, and rolling are safe, enjoyable, convenient, and available to everyone.
Goals
•Safe and Comfortable
•Connected and Easy
•Healthy and Sustainable
•Equitable and Accessible
Walking, biking and rolling in Ames should be…
51
52
draft plan review
sign placement
Public Input Phases
proposed network
and projects
sign concepts
and design
raising awareness
community values
identify needs
visioning
wayfinding
introduction
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Plan
Wayfinding
53
8 attendees
(41 invited)
Website
Project email & social media
Online poll (181 participants)
Online survey (393 participants)
ISU pop-up event
(40 participants)
6 attendees
(36 invited)
Online map (105 participants)
Website update
Project email
Social media
N/A
8 attendees
(37 invited)
ABC meeting
Draft plan review online
Virtual comment box (27 comments)
Draft plan open house
(38 participants)
Phase Community
Advisory
Committee
Virtual and Online
Engagement
In-Person
Engagement
Public Input Activities
Estimated
500+
people
engaged
54
55
Who Are We Serving?
All ages, abilities, and identities, including:
•ISU Students
•People with Lower Incomes
•Central Neighborhood Residents
•Children and Families
•Older Adults and People with Disabilities
•Active Adults (often with higher incomes)
56
Travel Patterns
•Despite more work from home,
people are taking more trips than
before COVID
•25% of all trips are less than a
mile
•People are more likely to drive
than walk for trips between 0.25
and 1 mile
57
Safety Analysis
58
59
What’s needed for more people to
walk, bike, and roll in Ames?
WALKING & ROLLING
Primary Needs
•Intersection / Crossing Treatments
Secondary Needs
•Fill Sidewalk and Path Gaps
BIKING & MICROMOBILITY
Primary Needs
•Improved Sidepaths (Shared Use Paths along streets)
•Fully Separated Bikeways
•Traffic-Calmed Bike Boulevards
•Intersection / Crossing Treatments
Secondary Needs
•Bike Lanes, Bike Routes, Etc.
60
Facility Toolkit
61
62
Path & Bikeway
Toolkit
63
Crossing Toolkit
64
Typical Crossing
Treatment Combinations
65
Network
Recommendations
66
Paths & Bikeways
67
Crossings
68
Sidewalks
69
Priorities
70
Prioritization Approach
Variable Associated Plan Goal(s)Path & Bikeway
Weighting
Crossing
Weighting
Sidewalk
Weighting
Safety Safe and Comfortable 20%20%20%
Use / Demand Healthy and Sustainable 20%20%20%
Equity Equitable and Accessible 20%20%20%
Comfort /
Lowering Stress
Safe and Comfortable;
Connected and Easy 20%15%15%
Connecting
Destinations
Connected and Easy 20%15%15%
Network
Completion /
Filling Gaps
Equitable and Accessible
20%10%10%
71
Path & Bikeway Prioritization
72
73
74
Paths &
Bikeway
Priorities
75
Crossing
Priorities
76
Sidewalk
Priorities
77
Strategies & Actions
78
Strategies with Action Items
•Strategy 1: Increase maintenance and repair of sidewalks, bike lanes, and paths
•Strategy 2: Lower motor vehicle speeds
•Strategy 3: Standardize decisions about street, bikeway, and walkway design
•Strategy 4: Improve pedestrian crossings, especially near bus stops
•Strategy 5: Encourage mode shift from driving to walking, biking, and rolling
•Strategy 6: Develop a Safe Routes to School plan and program for elementary, middle, and high schools
•Strategy 7: Improve bike parking throughout Ames
•Strategy 8: Update and accelerate implementation of the Ames ADA Transition Plan
79
1. Increase maintenance and repair
of sidewalks, bike lanes, and paths
•Continue using Ames On the Go to collect debris concerns
•Adopt a maintenance plan for walk, bike, roll infrastructure
•Build GIS database of infrastructure condition and maintenance
history
•Continue to allocate dedicated funding to path pavement
resurfacing and repair
•Educate and enforce snow clearing, etc.
80
81
2. Lower motor vehicle speeds
•Identify habitual speeding locations and identify mitigation (engineering, education, and enforcement)
•Reduced speed limit pilot program for residential streets, downtown, etc. E.g., “20 is Plenty”
•Evaluate changes in speeds, crash rates, and crash severity
82
3. Standardize decisions about street,
bikeway, and walkway design
•Incorporate Complete Streets Plan street
types and design standards into city
development ordinances
•Utilize street reconstruction or
redevelopment opportunities to widen
sidepaths, sidewalks, and bike lanes
•Coordinate with ISU to create a more
cohesive walking and biking network
83
4. Improve pedestrian crossings,
especially near bus stops
•Apply best practice pedestrian crossing standards and incorporate into the City’s development ordinances and street design standards
•Collaborate with CyRide on better co-locating bus stops with crossings
•Pursue grant funding to build pedestrian crossings
•Continue to allocate funding for priority crossings
•Evaluate and selectively prohibit right turns on red to reduce conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle traffic
84
5. Encourage mode shift from driving
to walking, biking, and rolling
•Further reduce or eliminate the amount of car parking required in development standards
•Create minimum bike parking requirements for new development
•Regularly update this Plan to include planned bike and pedestrian facilities in growth areas to coordinate recommendations for the growth areas in the Comprehensive Plan
•Evaluate the potential for a bikeshare program.
•Encourage employer Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs
•Consider an e-bike rebate program to subsidize e-bikes, prioritizing low-income residents.
•Regularly collect, evaluate, and report data on walking, biking, and rolling volumes / rates in Ames, mode shift, and crashes
85
6. Develop a Safe Routes to Schoolplan and program for elementary,
middle, and high schools
•Identify infrastructure projects near all elementary, middle, and high schools in Ames, as well as programs such as encouragement and education
•Support bicycle safety education programming with partners
•Support programs to encourage and promote children walking and biking to school and other activities.
86
7. Improve bike parking throughout Ames
•Require new commercial, office, and multifamily to provide publicly-accessible bike racks
•Install high-quality bike parking in public spaces
•Evaluate a program that subsidizes bike parking near existing businesses
87
8. Regularly Update the Ames ADA
Transition Plan
•Update inventory of all sidewalk obstructions, maintenance issues, pedestrian push-button access at traffic signals, and missing sidewalk ramps
•Review process for allowing permitted uses of public sidewalks and paths to ensure that compliant accessible routes are maintained
•Continue to allocate funding for addressing the obstructions and concerns
88
Draft Plan
Public Comments
89
Top Comment Themes
41 comments received
•16 –Thank you, great job, etc.
•8 –Increase funding in order to implement more of the plan
•7 –Opposition to painted bike lanes, preferring separate paths or Bike
Boulevards instead
•7 –Specific location requests for path, sidewalk, or crossing enhancements
•4 –Approach to prioritization (certain paths or crossings should be higher
priority)
•4 –Generally anti-bike (e.g., this is a waste of money)
90
•4 –Plan needs bigger toolkit and more strategies*
•3 –Plan needs specific measurable targets*
•3 –Plan should reference NACTO*
•3 –Plan needs to spark a bigger paradigm shift*
•2 –Plan should identify a major east-west corridor that isn’t Lincoln Way
•2 –There should be more / different engagement opportunities
•2 –Typos
•1 –Concerns about removing on-street parking on neighborhood streets for
bike lanes
Additional Comment Themes
*Ames Bicycle Coalition
Comments
91
Costs & Implementation
92
Cost per
Mile /
Location
93
Implementation Horizon
Current dedicated funding covers only the high priority projects…
…at a 15-to-20-year horizon
94
Other Funding Sources
ROADWAY AND OTHER
CAPITAL PROJECTS
NEW DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
95
Wayfinding Guidelines
96
Wayfinding Usually Involves 5 Steps:
Planning
How do I get
there?
Orientation
This looks like
the way
Decision
Making
Do I turn here?
Confirmation
Am I still on the right route?
Destination
Recognition
I'm here!
97
Focus for City Wayfinding
Orientation
This looks like
the way
Decision
Making
Do I turn here?
Confirmation
Am I still on the right route?
98
Wayfinding Best Practices
•Keep it Simple
•Be Consistent
•Design for the
Inexperienced
User
•Be Inclusive
•Make Connections
99
Discovery: Existing Branding, Signs, & Needs
Ames Brand: Smart, Innovative, Colorful Prairie, Limestone, Timeless ISU brand
100
Stakeholder Engagement
•Technical Advisory Committee & Community Advisory Committee
•Input on themes, destinations and routes, review of concepts, design selection
101
Wayfinding Needs for Ames
•Trail Names
•Trail Wayfinding Signs
•Bicycle Route Wayfinding Signs
•Maps and Trailheads and Confusing
Junctions
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
City of Ames
WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
FINAL 2024
110
II
Project Oversight Team
• Damion Pregitzer, Traffic Engineer
• Mark Gansen, Civil Engineer
• Kelly Diekmann, Planning & Housing Director
• Kyle Thompson, Transportation Planner (Ames
Area MPO)
Technical Advisory Committee
City of Ames
• Vanessa Baker Latimer, Housing Coordinator
• Justin Clausen, Public Works
• Tracy Peterson, Municipal Engineer
• Joshua Thompson, Superintendent of Parks and
Facilities
Cyride
• Shari Atwood, Transit Planner
Story County
• Michael Cox, Director, Story County Coservation
• Patrick Shehan, Special Projects Ranger
Iowa State University
• Sarah Lawrence, Campus Planner
• Chris Strawhacker, Campus Planner
• Merry Rankin, Director of Sustainability
Community Advisory Committee
• Zach Coffin
• Andy Fish
• Nancy Franz
• Griffen Gade
• Joni Kellen
• Tory Looft
• Sean McDermott
• Grant Olsen
• Kevin Paszko
• Ruth Waite
• Jacob Wheaton
• Ben Woeber
Acknowledgments
Team members contributing to the creation of this document are listed below.
Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design
of any project. All recommendations, concept drawings, cost opinions, and commentary contained herein
are based on limited data and information and on existing conditions that are subject to change. Further
design is necessary prior to implementing any of the recommendations contained herein.
Toole Design Group
• Sonia Haeckel
• Megan Seib
• Jaz Warren
• Erin Williams
• Adam Wood
111
iii
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................1
Purpose of Guide 2
Benefits of Bicycle and Pedestrian Wayfinding 2
Technical Guidance on Bicycle Wayfinding and Trail Signage 3
Core Wayfinding Principles 6
Chapter 2: Process .........................................................................7
Existing Signs for Wayfinding and Trail Navigation in Ames 8
Relevant Documents
and Reports 8
Community and Stakeholder Engagement 9
Types of Navigation 10
Wayfinding Needs for Ames 11
Chapter 3: Sign Family & Design Standards ...........................12
Chapter Summary 13
Sign Family 13
Chapter 4: Sign Drawings ...........................................................18
Map (Trailhead) 19
Map (Close-up) 20
Map (Close-up)
Examples 21
Path Directional 22
Path Directional Examples 23
Street Name / Path Name 24
Street Directional 25
Street Directional (Examples) 26
Simple Blaze 27
Chapter 5: Mounting & Placement ..........................................28
Chapter Summary 29
Chapter 6: System Planning & Programming ........................39
112
Chapter 1:
Introduction
113
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
2
Purpose of Guide
These guidelines present a compilation of best
practices, existing conditions, design details, and
guidance for planning and installing wayfinding
signs for walking, biking, and rolling transportation
in the City of Ames. The implementation of a
community-wide wayfinding system will help
people walking, biking, and rolling navigate to
their destinations more easily and intuitively. The
wayfinding system reflected in this document was
created in parallel with the proposed bike and
pedestrian network in the Walk Bike Roll Ames plan.
Concept development for the sign designs and
layouts was based on input from Ames staff,
stakeholders, and the public. The guidance includes
sign styles, installation materials, and placement
information. The phasing of design installation
is based on the most prominent destinations,
available funding sources, and best value of capital
improvements for priority routes. The planning
process included:
• Assessing existing conditions
• Creating a sign family
• Creating a sign placement strategy
• Establishing destination selection processes
• Designating trail names
• Identifying priority wayfinding routes
• Creating pilot sign deployment plans
Benefits of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Wayfinding
Wayfinding works with and expands the usefulness
of existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure. Wayfinding can encourage more
biking and walking (thereby reducing driving),
emphasize a local brand, create a sense of place, and
promote economic development in a community.
Installing wayfinding for people walking and biking
also has the following benefits:
• Promotes safety and comfort by highlighting
low-stress routes
• Facilitates discovery of new destinations
• Gives users comfort and confidence to extend
their trip distance
• Reduces confusion at junctions
• Brings awareness to important areas, landmarks,
recreation spaces, and
natural corridors
With the rise in GPS wayfinding app use (e.g. Google
Maps), the role of wayfinding continues to evolve.
Wayfinding can facilitate a positive and special
experience that improves the sense of place and
users connection to the area. Ames can help to
create memorable, enjoyable journeys for both
residents and visitors by building a consistent
wayfinding system.
The Ames Wayfinding
Guidelines provide the
City of Ames and partners
with a standardized set of
signs, symbols, colors, and
processes to install a high-
quality wayfinding system
for people walking, biking,
and rolling.
114
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
3
Technical Guidance on Bicycle
Wayfinding and Trail Signage
The design of wayfinding signs is guided by a
combination of local and national regulations,
standards, and industry best practices. Attention
to intended audience and regulation frameworks is
integral early in the planning process to inform the
design of wayfinding signs and systems.
National Guidance
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD, 2009 edition), published by the Federal
Highway Administration, defines the signs and
standards for traffic control devices on all “public
streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads
open to public travel”. It is published by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). Having consistent
sign and traffic control devices across the United
States results in safer, more efficient travel. Part 9 of
the MUTCD establishes standards and guidance for
traffic control of bicycle facilities, including guide
signs. The MUTCD also has a section on Community
Wayfinding (Part 2D) which provides standards and
guidance for customized, branded wayfinding signs,
which may be used on roads that are not freeways.
Though the Community Wayfinding section only
currently applies to roadways, some communities
interpret this section as providing guidance for
customizing their bicycle wayfinding signs to
include specific branding and flexibility in color
and design, either as an element of one or more
unique routes, or throughout their entire bicycle
wayfinding system. The figure below illustrates
the features of a community wayfinding sign. The
background color of the sign may be customized,
but cannot use standard MUTCD colors that covey
specific meanings to roadway users (see Color
section on the following page). Enhancement
markers may be any color, but the MUTCD
recommends that enhancement markers occupy no
more than 20 percent of the sign face on the top or
side of the sign. Other features of the sign legend,
such as the directional arrows, fonts, and layout are
as dictated by the MUTCD.
Design Flexibility for Shared Use Paths
and Trails.
Though the MUTCD states that its standards apply
to all traffic control devices on bikeways, in practice,
wayfinding signage systems on paths usually do not
follow strict MUTCD design standards. There are two
main reasons for this:
BROOM FIELD
L A K E L I NK T R AI L
US 36 Bikeway
0.3 miles
Broomfield
Town Square
2.0 miles
US 287 Underpass
1.2 miles
Claire Saltonstall
Bikeway
Bayberry Golf Course
0.5
0.1
Sea Gull Beach
1.8Ed Gorey High School
BROOMFIELD, CO BREMERTON, WA WESTERN MICAPE COD, MAKENOSHA COUNTY, WI
Destination
Destination
Destination
Evergreen
Rotary Park
0.4mi 12min
Warren
Ave Bridge
1.2mi 30min
BRIDGE to BRIDGE
BRE M E R TON
DOW N T OWN
0.75mi 20 min
Ferry Terminal
0.1mi 5 min
Quincy Square
0.3mi 10 min
Marina
0 0.1 0.2MILESTrail Rules
WHITE PINE TRAIL
White Pine Trail, Belmont, MI 49306
For Emergency Assistance, Call 911
For Maintenance Requests, Call XXX-XXX-XXXX
Carry Out All Waste
1
2 3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
WAYFINDING & THE MUTCD
BICYCLE GUIDE SIGNS (MUTCD PART 9)COMMUNITY WAYFINDING (MUTCD PART 2D)OR PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED WAYFINDING
Figure 1: Spectrum of MUTCD compliance for wayfinding signs
115
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
4
1. The funding agencies for wayfinding systems
on paths often do not have to legally adhere
to MUTCD standards, and therefore may not be
aware of these standards. Frequently, funds for
path wayfinding come from State Departments
of Natural Resources, local or regional parks
agencies, or privately-raised funds.
2. On paths and trails, many users are pedestrians,
and some wayfinding systems are therefore
designed exclusively for pedestrians. The
MUTCD does not cover pedestrian traffic
control for paths and notes that pedestrian
wayfinding signs may differ from bicycle
wayfinding, such as by using smaller fonts
and not including retroreflectivity.
Americans with Disabilities (ADA) and Public
Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
provide standards for signs that are adopted by the
US Access Board. These standards cover legibility,
character, and typeface requirements. They also
address accessibility and clearances for streets
and sidewalks, shared
use paths, and sign posts
and placement. The sign system used by Ames
should comply with these requirements.
Statewide Guidance
Iowa Statewide Guidance may be applicable where
Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT)
funds the final design. If Ames desires to use state
or federal funds for bike route wayfinding signs
in the future, Iowa DOT District 1 staff should be
consulted prior to selecting the final bicycle guide
signs, especially for on-street signs.
Guidance unique to Iowa includes the Iowa
Statewide Urban Design and Specifications Design
Manual (SUDAS), which guides design for streets
in urban areas like Ames. For bicycle guide signs,
the SUDAS Design Manual instructs designers to
refer to the MUTCD and the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Bike Guide.
The Iowa DOT Traffic and Safety Manual (TAS)
Community Wayfinding guidance states that,
“on local streets and connecting highways, local
agencies have the authority to install destination
signs for local attractions and generators. If there is
deviation from state and national standards to the
extent that highway signing would adversely affect
driving behavior, local agencies may face liability
problems.” This seems to indicate that Iowa DOT
approval is not needed for Community Wayfinding
signs on local streets and connecting highways.
The TAS Community Wayfinding policy section on
sign design provides detailed guidance on the
design of community wayfinding signs, including
sign shape, use of pictographs, sign panel facing,
color, border, lettering, sign size, arrows, and
destination order. For roadways under Iowa DOT
jurisdiction, the Community Wayfinding Signs policy
requires an application and permit process.
Figure 2: ADA Clearance guidelines
Freestanding objects in circulation paths
80”
27”
80
”
M
I
N
ABOVE 12”
27
”
M
A
X
12"
MAX
12"
MAX
12"
MAX
116
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
5
Summary of Wayfinding Sign Design Requirements
Color
MUTCD uses “assigned” colors that covey specific meanings to roadway users,
such as red (stop). Standard colors prohibited for use on wayfinding signs
include red, orange, yellow, purple, fluorescent yellow-green.
Visibility and Visual Accessibility
Standards for lettering on signs ensures that the intended users are able to see
and process the information on signs easily, typically at a distance and while
in movement. To ensure this visibility, the Standard Highway Signs book, a
supplement to the MUTCD, sets the sign design standards for lettering size and
spacing, in addition to the contrast from the background of the panel on which
the lettering is placed.
Signs must meet character and font size requirements consistent with their
intended user (bicycles, pedestrians, or drivers), and travel speeds. The
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also dictates that there must be a high
level of contrast between letters and background. “High contrast” is not
mathematically defined, but ~70% contrast is generally accepted as the standard
of care within the sign industry.
Placement
Both the MUTCD and the Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (US Access
Board, under the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA) have guidance on sign
placement, The MUTCD is generally concerned with the safety of roadways and
the visibility of signs in traffic conditions, while PROWAG is generally concerned
with the pedestrian access route, and the ability of people with disabilities to
navigate spaces with mobility devices, including long white canes for people
with vision disabilities. The MUTCD instructs that signs should be placed 2 feet
laterally from the edge of the roadway, but allows for the engineer’s judgment of
safety (see Figure 2).
117
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
6
Principle 4: Be Inclusive
Signs that consider the needs of people with
vision disabilities, or people with limited English
proficiency, benefit everyone by ensuring large
fonts that can be read from far away, strong
contrasts between colors that make them easy to
read, and the use of icons and graphics that aid in
instant recognition.
Principle 5: Make Connections
Wayfinding systems should be designed to make
local connections and fully guide users to their
destination. Consistent signs and placement should
be carried throughout the entire route to minimize
confusion and trip delays. Nearby destinations
should be included on signage whenever possible
and applicable to improve network connections and
encourage exploration.
Principle 1: Keep it Simple
Easy to use and intuitive wayfinding helps travelers
navigate and understand where they are in relation
to nearby landmarks and destinations. Information
should be clear, legible, and simple enough to be
understood by a wide audience. Information on
each sign should be concise and kept to a minimum
to avoid confusion and facilitate understanding.
Wayfinding should also be placed efficiently to
minimize sign clutter.
Principle 2: Be Consistent
Wayfinding sign styles and placement should be
predictable and consistent. Signs should have
common styles, fonts, colors, materials, and
placement throughout a community to promote
continuity. This can help users recognize signs and
interpret messages quickly.
Principle 3: Design for the Inexperienced User
While almost any system can be learned through
repeated use, wayfinding systems should be
designed for new or infrequent users. Systems
should leverage information that the user can easily
recognize and understand, including language,
landmarks, common symbols, or sequences, to
create an intuitive experience.
Integrate wayfinding
with existing
streetscape elements
(e.g., light poles) to
minimize clutter and
be consistent with
the City’s existing
design vocabulary.
Minimize the number
of different sign types
or pavement markings.
Focus on trips or
routes that might be
made by students or
visitors to ISU who are
unfamiliar with Ames.
Prioritize wayfinding
in areas that are
walkable to facilitate
pedestrian movement
and discovery.
Create a coordinated
“kit of parts” that can be
combined and scaled
to fit each context.
Use destination
hierarchy to select
legends on signs that
guide users through
the entire route.
Design signs to be
responsive to the
experience of different
travel modes.
Use high contrast
typography at a
generous size, with
highly legible symbols.
Implement thorough
wayfinding systems
along connected
routes, starting with a
small set of routes and
gradually building out.
Core Wayfinding Principles
Wayfinding systems are based on an understanding of how people move through space and take in and
process information. Whether walking, rolling, or bicycling, the following core wayfinding principles are
applicable to all roadway users and were used in the development of this wayfinding system.
118
Chapter 2:
Process
119
CHAPTER 2: PROCESS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
8
The process for developing a wayfinding system
and these Guidelines involved reviewing existing
signs in Ames, various local plans and studies,
and listening to stakeholder input. The following
section provides a summary of the analyses
and engagement events that helped inform the
branding and sign designs.
Existing Signs for Wayfinding
and Trail Navigation in Ames
The project team performed an assessment of
existing signs around Ames to identify colors,
imagery, and themes that will inform different types
of wayfinding signage.
Below is a list of the different types of existing
wayfinding and trail navigation (see Figures 3
through 7 for example images):
• On -street bike route signs
• Park entrance signs
• Downtown banners and colorful streetscapes
• ISU Wayfinding
• Story County Tedesco Environmental Learning
Corridor (TELC) Signs and Heart of Iowa Trail
Relevant Documents
and Reports
A review of existing branding guidance was
also conducted to understand themes, trail and
sign issues, visual elements for the trail system
around Ames. This section provides a summary
of this guidance.
The 2016 Leadership Ames Trailblazer Report
identifies the following goals for the future of the
Ames’ trail system:
• Improve discoverability of maps and trails
through official websites
• Increase branding and naming of Ames trails
• Allow community members to provide
suggestions through Google maps
• Ensure trails are named and searchable through
the Iowa By trail mobile app
• Combine the preferred signs identified through a
public survey
The 2022 Ames Visual Standard Guide,
a comprehensive branding overview, states the
Ames brand as “thriving, smart, open-minded,
innovative, and inspired”. The Guide identifies
multiple acceptable logo
sizes, two primary colors
and six accent colors, and
two typographic families.
The Iowa State University Branding Standards
include a color palette led by the university’s two
signature colors (cardinal red and gold) and accent
colors; wordmark guidelines including the ITC
Berkley typeface for the wordmark (see below); and
other brand elements.
Figure 3: Example On-Street
Bike Route Sign
Figure 4: Example Park
Entrance Sign
Figure 5: Example Downtown
Banner
Figure 7: Example TELC SignFigure 6: Example ISU
Wayfinding Sign
120
CHAPTER 2: PROCESS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
9
Community and Stakeholder
Engagement
Feedback from residents, and community
stakeholders was crucial to developing a wayfinding
program that will serve the needs of people
walking, biking, and rolling in Ames, and to ensure
community support for implementation. To achieve
these goals, the project team worked with City staff,
a project Community Advisory Committee (CAC),
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and members
of the public to solicit ideas, input, and develop
support for the project.
The project team led three interactive meetings
with the CAC and four with the TAC throughout
the development of these Guidelines. Members
included city officials, city staff, students, and local
community and business groups. The Committees
provided feedback through discussions, mental
maps, and mentimeter surveys (see Figure 18 for
examples of mental maps). The meeting series are
summarized in this section.
Community Advisory Committee
Meeting #1
The first CAC meeting was held virtually on April
6, 2023. This meeting gave community members a
chance to provide input on the three sign design
concepts, colors, and materials, which ultimately led
to the selection of a preferred sign concept.
Meeting #2
This CAC meeting was held virtually on April 26,
2023. This meeting was used to give feedback on
the proposed wayfinding destination hierarchy and
potential path names.
Meeting #3
The final CAC meeting was held virtually on May
10, 2023. This meeting was used to present the
refined sign concept and sign family. During the
meeting, participants discussed the pros and cons
of implementing a color-coding scheme for different
“districts” in Ames.
Technical Advisory Committee
Meeting #1
The first TAC meeting was held on August 17,
2022. This meeting was used to discuss potential
engagement activities, graphic and branding ideas,
connectivity priorities, and project goals.
Meeting #2
This TAC meeting was held on December 9,
2022. This meeting was used to introduce staff
to wayfinding concepts, and discuss preferred
wayfinding design themes and identities.
Meeting #3
This TAC meeting was held on June 15, 2023. This
meeting was used to present refined sign concept
designs and discuss policy, program, and network
recommendations.
Meeting #4
The final TAC meeting was held on June 29, 2023.
This meeting was used to refine the sign family
design, discuss fabrication and installation, identify
color schemes, and establish trail names.
Figure 8: Example “mental maps” of the city, created by CAC members and other community members
121
CHAPTER 2: PROCESS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
10
Types of Navigation
People generally use multiple tools and systems to navigate. The four types of
navigation can be summarized into four general types, as shown in the graphic
to the right.
• Route following is the type of navigation most appropriate for Ames bicycle
and pedestrian wayfinding because there are specific turns and connections
people must make in order to stay on the low-stress bikeway network. When
people route following for navigation, they have a predetermined series
of steps or turns they need to follow to stay on the correct route: Route
following navigation typically requires five steps:
• Planning using maps or verbal directions in advance, including signage, printed,
and/or digital maps
• Orientation, which allows the user to establish the visual and directional
connection between the plans they’ve made and the environment around them
• Decision making when multiple options are present
• Confirmation that the user made the correct choice and is still on track
• Arrival at the end of the journey when the destination is recognized
In addition to Route following, to support that kind of navigation, there are also
several other systems people use to move around:
• Track following, where there is a clearly delineated single route to follow (the
“yellow brick road”)
• Aiming, which relies on visual landmarks, clearly identifiable from a distance
• Inference, where a clear system is sequence is established that enables people
to understand their current location through deductive logic (such as numbered
streets and a grid of streets going either north/south or east/west)
Wayfinding systems should support multiple types of navigation for maximum impact.
Most users employ a variety of methods on a regular basis, switching between
them without conscious thought. The more a wayfinding system can capitalize
on each of these methods, the better it will work for a wider variety of users.
Route Following
Track Following
Aiming
Inference
122
CHAPTER 2: PROCESS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
11
Figure 9: Trail Name Sign
Figure 10: Bicycle Route Wayfinding Signs
Figure 11: Maps
Figure 12: Trail Wayfinding Sign
Wayfinding Needs for Ames
Through this assessment, the project team identified four main wayfinding
sign needs for Ames, summarized here:
Trail Names
Trail and street name signs should be located at all intersection of trails and
streets. This helps to orient trail users to the street and familiarize people with
trail names. City staff and parks staff could also benefit from a trail naming
scheme for maintenance and operations.
Trail Wayfinding Signs
Wayfinding signage along trails is needed to provide directional guidance for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Because these signs will not be visible to motorists,
they should be pedestrian-scale.
Bicycle Route Wayfinding Signs
Wayfinding signs along sidepaths and on-street bike lanes can help bicyclists
navigate city streets. Because these are also visible to motorists, they need to be
clearly identified as bicycle wayfinding signage.
Maps at Trailheads and Confusing Junctions
Installing maps at the start of trails or confusing intersections, where users can
stop and pull over to read the map, allows people to assess their route and plan
their navigation at the beginning of their trip.
123
Chapter 3:
Sign Family
& Design
Standards
124
CHAPTER 3: SIGN FAMILY & DESIGN STANDARDS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
13
10’
9’
8’
7’
6’
5’
4’
3’
1’
2’
11’
1
feet
0 1
feet
0
Map (Trailhead) Directional
Path Signs On-Street Bike Way nding Signs
Directional Street Name/ Path Name
Simple Blaze
(Turn or Con rmation)Map (Close-up)
Ada Hayden
Heritage Park
0 0.1 0.2MILES
Trail Rules
For Emergency Assistance, Call 911
Carry Out All Waste
2800 W Midway Blvd
Stable Run
Disc Golf
Frederiksen
Court
Aquatic
Center
Frederiksen Ct
Underpass
0.5MI
0.2MI
1.0MI
S 4th Street West Lincoln
Businesses
1.0 miles
Campustown
Memorial
Union
0.3 miles
200 feet
Stuart Smith
Path
Bike Route
IOWA STATE
UNIVERSITY
0 0.1 0.2MILES
To Aquatic
Center
Bike Route
Bike Route
Brookside Park
0.3 miles
Downtown
1.2 miles
Stuart Smith Park
2.0 miles
Jack Trice
Stadium
Hilton
Coliseum
0.5MI
0.3MI
Brookside
Park 0.6MI
Stuart
Smith Park
0 0.1 0.2MILES
To Aquatic
Center
Bike Route
Bike Route
Chapter Summary
This chapter defines the types of signs used,
placement, and key design elements of the
proposed wayfinding sign family. This includes
descriptions, graphics, and example images to
illustrate the overall sign family design, identify
typeface, symbols, and colors for each sign type,
and provide direction on material and placement
sign installation.
Sign Family
The sign family shown below was developed to
meet the wayfinding needs identified for navigating
the low-stress bicycle and pathway network in
Ames. This includes maps, directional signage, path
name signs, and on-street wayfinding signs. This
sign family should be the standard for all wayfinding
on all City paths and bikeways. The concept can
easily be adapted for ISU trails and bikeways as well.
125
CHAPTER 3: SIGN FAMILY & DESIGN STANDARDS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
14
Example Sign Placement
Note: Sign locations shown above are not final.
Jack Trice
Stadium
Hilton
Coliseum
0.5MI
0.3MI
Brookside
Park 0.6MI
Stuart
Smith Path
0 0.1 0.2MILES
To Aquatic
Center
S 4th Street
Figure 13: Example of a directional sign and street name sign at the Entrance of Stuart Smith Park
126
CHAPTER 3: SIGN FAMILY & DESIGN STANDARDS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
15
Example Sign Placement
Note: Sign locations shown above are not final.
Stuart Smith
Path
Bike Route
Brookside Park
0.3 miles
Downtown
1.2 miles
Stuart Smith Park
2.0 miles
Aquatic
Center
Brookside
Park
0.5MI
0.3MI
S Grand
Retail 0.6MI
Stuart
Smith Path
Figure 14: Example of an on-street directional sign and path name
sign at the entrance of Stuart Smith Park
Figure 15: Example of a path directional sign at a junction of two
paths in Stuart Smith Park
127
CHAPTER 3: SIGN FAMILY & DESIGN STANDARDS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
16
Typefaces
Color
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
1234567890,./!@#&*
California FB, Bold [Sign Toppers] Optical spacing,
-20 to +20 Tracking (shown at +20) Title Case
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
1234567890,./!@#&*
Highway Gothic, Narrow [Destinations and
Distance] Optical spacing, -20 to +20 Tracking
(shown at +20) Title Case
IOWA STATE
UNIVERSITY
ITC Berkeley Oldstyle Standard, Medium [Iowa
State University Topper] Optical spacing, -10 to +10
Tracking (shown at +10) ALL CAPS
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
1234567890,./!@#&*
Helvetica Neue LT Std 75 Bold [Supplemental Text on
maps] Optical spacing, -20+to +20 Tracking (shown at
+20)
Speed
(MPH)
Sign
Height Information Letter
Height
0 mph Eye
Level Map details 1/4” min.
0 mph Eye
Level
Map important
information 1/2” min.
2–15
mph
Eye
Level
Destinations, Path
Names 1 1/2” min.
8–15
mph 7+ ft Destinations,
Directions 2” min.
Figure 16: Typography Size by Type of Information &
Speed of Viewer
Symbols
Primary Icons
Other Trail Uses
Directional Arrows
Signs
Post Sleeves
Design Standards
Color label:C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Use:Panel
background
Arrow
background
Trail name
text; panel
background
Close up map
text; panel
background
ISU topper
background
CMYK Formula:55/33/95/13 64/42/100/31 31/38/75/76 6/12/28/0 0/92/77/22
Color label:C1 C3
CMYK Formula:55/33/95/13 31/38/75/76
128
CHAPTER 3: SIGN FAMILY & DESIGN STANDARDS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
17
Materials and Finishes
Sign PanelsPosts
Aluminum panels are the most common material
for this application. They are durable, lightweight,
inexpensive, and take both paint and vinyl
applications well, and is easy to cut into custom
shapes and patterns. Panel thickness should
correspond to the overall size of the sign in order to
ensure the panel remains rigid.
Edges should be eased in case of incidental contact.
It is preferable to use existing posts wherever
possible. Where new posts are required, a metal post
is preferred for most sign types on paths and streets.
A surface mount base on a 12” minimum concrete
footing is preferred.
3 inch round posts offer good stability and the
ability to mount panels at different angles. A 2 inch
perforated metal post may also be used.
Square wooden posts should be used in limited
instances: for Path Maps and other special signs.
Vinyl
Retroreflective vinyl is preferred for wayfinding
signs on streets. This ensures that light from
headlights is reflected back at the driver or
bicyclists and increases visibility in low lighting
conditions.
Reflective or non-reflective vinyl may be used for
non-critical information, for example mileage or
time to destination.
Metal Post Sleeves
Metal post sleeves should be used on all wood
posts. Sleeves should be 18 inches tall.
Powder-coat post sleeves to match the color of the
main sign (C1 or C3).
A surface mount base on a 12” minimum concrete
footing is preferred.
Attachment Hardware
Sign brackets may vary depending on the size of
sign and thickness of post. Paint all hardware visible
on face of sign to match background color. Paint
mounting brackets to match post.
Screen Printed Graphics
Screen printing is the preferred mode of application
for simple non-vinyl graphics, as it maintains the
crispest linework and truest coloration.
129
Chapter 4:
Sign Drawings
130
CHAPTER 4: SIGN DRAWINGS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
19
30 to 44” typ.
5205 Grand Ave
Ada Hayden
Heritage Park
0 0.1 0.2MILES
Information
For Emergency Assistance, Call 911
Carry Out All Waste
Map shown for
placement only
1” MIN
ADDRESS OR LOCATION
CODE FOR EMERGENCY
ASSISTANCE
1” min
MAP TO BE PRODUCED AS
SEPARATE PANEL,
MECHANICALLY FASTENED TO
MAIN SIGN PANEL.
MAP MAY BE EITHER:
A) 4-COLOR VINYL PRINT
WITH MATTE OVERLAMINATE
WRAPPED OVER 1/8"
ALUMINUM PANEL
OR
B) HIGH-PRESSURE LAMINATE
PANEL
Ada Hayden
Heritage Park
0 0.1 0.2
MILES
Information
Park Hours: 6:30 am to 10:30 pm
Beer and liquor not allowed
No swimming
No camping
For Emergency Assistance, Call 911
5205 Grand Ave
Fishing:
No fishing from bridge
no dumping of live bait
no fish cleaning
1” min
1” MIN
1” MIN
1” MIN
1”
PERMITTED
TRAIL USERS
PAINTED
METAL SIGN
PANEL WITH
SCREEN
PRINTED TEXT
AND GRAFFITI
COATING
WOOD POSTS
SECURED BY
METAL
SLEEVE
Map shown for
placement only
1
1
/
4
"
mi
n
1"
mi
n
1/
2
"
mi
n
1
3
/
4
"
mi
n
R 3 9/16"
R 4"
1
2
9
1/4"
48
"
27
”
M
A
X
6"
20
”
–
2
4
”
28”–42”
1 CONTEXT ELEVATION MT
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”2 SIDE ELEVATION MT
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”3 SIGN LAYOUT
SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”
MA
P
(
T
R
A
I
L
H
E
A
D
)
MT
Used For
Providing orientation at the entrance or
trailheads to large parks.
Placement
Place near parking lots at the trailhead
entrance.
Application Method(s)
For lowest cost and flexibility, apply
printed vinyl to aluminum panel.
For greater durability, use high pressure
laminate (HPL).
Map Design
Map design TBD. It is recommended to
incorporate sign system colors for visual
continuity. Map should be oriented “heads
up,” meaning the direction the user is
facing when viewing the map is at the top
of the map. Include a north arrow.
Colors
THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN EXPRESSION OF DESIGN
INTENT ONLY. FABRICATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL PERMITTING, FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING, AND PREPARATION OF
SHOP DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Map (Trailhead)
C1
C4
C3
131
CHAPTER 4: SIGN DRAWINGS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
20
Wading
Pool
Downtown
0.5MI
1.4MI
0.4MI
Frederickson
Court
Brookside
Park Path
See Drawing
for PD
Tennis
Courts
Maple
Shelter
Maple
Shelter
Maple
Shelter
Maple
Shelter
Linden
Shelter
Linden
Shelter
Linden
Shelter
Linden
Shelter
Wading
Pool
Wading
Pool
Wading
Pool
Wading
Pool
Baseball
Diamonds
ISUCampus
N UNIVERSITY BLVD
BROOKRIDGE AVE
IOWAY CREEK
13TH STREET YOUAREHERE
BIKE ROUTEBIKE ROUTE
Brookside
Park
0 0.1 0.2 MILES
N
6TH STREET
0
1/2”
MIN
1/2” MIN
1/2” MIN
1/2”
MIN
1 1/4” TYP
1/4” MIN TEXT
SIZE
(PREFERRED)
R 4"
R 4"
18
"
4’
m
i
n
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
12
"
t
o
2
4
”
t
y
p
12” to 24” typ
1 CONTEXT ELEVATIONS MC
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”2 SIGN ELEVATION
SCALE: 3” = 1’-0”
M
A
P
(
C
L
O
S
E
U
P
)
MC
Used For
Providing orientation at the entrance
to parks, where the route requires an
unintuitive movement, or where there are
destinations off the route.
Placement
Place along paths at the entrace to a park
or at the location of a confusing junction
of paths.
Application Method(s)
Apply printed vinyl to aluminum panel.
Map Design
Refer to the examples on the following
page for map design intent.
Colors
Accent colors, as needed.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN EXPRESSION OF DESIGN INTENT ONLY.
FABRICATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITTING, FIELD
VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING, AND
PREPARATION OF SHOP DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY
OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Map (Close-up)
C2
C4
C3
C5
Layout Tip: Bridges and Underpasses
Show bridges or underpasses by adding a thicker line or polygon and layering
above the base color but below the road or railroad main line color. Refer to
the thick brown and green lines (shown in 50% opacity) under the lines over
the creek and the railroad.
132
CHAPTER 4: SIGN DRAWINGS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
21
1”
Tennis
Courts
Maple
Shelter
Maple
Shelter
Maple
Shelter
Maple
Shelter
Linden ShelterLinden ShelterLinden ShelterLinden Shelter
Wading
Pool
Wading
Pool
Wading
Pool
Wading
Pool
Baseball
Diamonds
ISUCampus
N UNIVERSITY BLVD
BROOKRIDGE AVE
IOWAY CREEK
13TH STREET YOUAREHERE
BIKE ROUTEBIKE ROUTE
Brookside
Park
0 0.1 0.2 MILES
N
6TH STREET
ToHigh School and Aquatic Center
Tennis
Courts
Maple
Shelter
Maple
Shelter
Maple
Shelter
Maple
Shelter
Linden
Shelter
Linden
Shelter
Linden
Shelter
Linden
Shelter
Wading
Pool
Wading
Pool
Wading
Pool
Wading
Pool
Baseball
Diamonds
ISUCampus
N UNIVERSITY BLVD
BROOKRIDGE AVE
6TH STREET
IOWAY CREEK
YOUAREHERE
BIKE ROUTE
BIKE ROUTE
Brookside
Park
N
500 FEET0
SCALE: 3” = 1’-0”EXAMPLE LAYOUTS PROVIDED TO CITY OF AMES IN
ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR FORMAT
M
A
P
(
C
L
O
S
E
U
P
)
MC
Reference
This page shows two MC layouts developed for
Ames as part of prototype sign plans. Refer to the
“Aquatic to Downtown” Sign Plan for placement
and context.
Design Intent
Use a bright color such as orange to identify the
main route and the “you are here” identifier.
Outline text in the base color to ensure proper
contrast against mixed backgrounds. In this
example, the shelter names and icons are outlined
in dark green so that they can be clearly read over
the underlying paths (in light orange).
When outlining text, tracking (the space between
letters throughout the message) may need to be
increased by 50-75% to make room for the outline.
Maps should be oriented “heads up,” meaning the
direction the user is facing when viewing the map
is at the top of the map. Include a north arrow.
Accent Colors
THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN EXPRESSION OF DESIGN INTENT ONLY.
FABRICATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITTING, FIELD
VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING, AND
PREPARATION OF SHOP DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Map (Close-up)
Examples
C:59 M:0 Y:6 K:0
C:2 M:57 Y:100 K:0
C:19 M:4 Y:78 K:0
133
CHAPTER 4: SIGN DRAWINGS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
22
Wading
Pool
Downtown
0.5MI
1.4MI
0.4MI
Frederickson
Court
Brookside
Park Path
0 0.1 0.2MILES
Brookside
Park
See Drawing
for MC
High
School
Aquatic
Center
0.5MI
500FT
Frederickson
Court 0.4MI
Brookside
Park Path
Stable Run
Disc Golf
Frederiksen
Ct
0.5MI
500FT
ISU Brand
Path
Aquatic
Center 0.8MI
Wading
Pool
Downtown
0.5MI
1.4MI
0.4MI
Frederickson
Court
Brookside
Park Path
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1”
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1”
ATTACHMENT HARDWARE
SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO
AVOID INTERRUPTION OF
TEXT.
TOOLE DESIGN TO PROVIDE
LAYOUTS/TEMPLATE
1” MIN
1” MINTO ACCOMMODATE
LONG DESTINATION
NAMES, DISTANCE
TEXT MAY BE OFFSET
FROM CENTER
4'
M
I
N
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
O
N
P
A
T
H
S
2'
-
6
"
4’
M
I
N
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
O
N
P
A
T
H
S
3
1/2"
R 4"
3/
4
"
1
1
/
4
"
1/4"
3"
TO
P
P
E
R
6
3
/
4
"
BO
D
Y
P
A
N
E
L
1'
-
1
1
1
/
4
"
1
1
/
2
"
TY
P
.
18
”
1'-8"
1
CONTEXT ELEVATION PD,
PERFORATED POST
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”4 SIGN ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”2
CONTEXT ELEVATION PD,
WOOD POST
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”3
CONTEXT ELEVATION PD,
ISU-BRANDED TRAIL
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”
PA
T
H
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
PD
Used For
Providing guidance on paths to list the
destinations that can be reached from the
path. ISU-branded toppers may be used
on paths that belong to ISU.
Placement
Place at the entrance to a park to indicate
distance to destinations that can be
reached from that point.
Place at confusing path junctures in a park
to indicate where path users should turn
to reach certain destinations.
Place on the right or left hand side of
the path, with room to have a bicyclist
approach the sign and not block the path.
Application Method(s)
Custom print on reflective or
retroreflective vinyl, applied to painted
sign panel.
Colors
THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN EXPRESSION OF DESIGN
INTENT ONLY. FABRICATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL PERMITTING, FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING, AND PREPARATION OF
SHOP DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Path Directional
C1
C4
C5 (for ISU-branded paths)
C2
C3
134
CHAPTER 4: SIGN DRAWINGS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
23
High
School
Aquatic
Center
0.5MI
500FT
Frederickson
Court 0.4MI
Brookside
Park Path
Aquatic
Center
High
School 1.2MI
0.9MI
Brookside
Park Path
ISU 0.5MI
Brookside
Park Path
City Hall 0.8MI
Downtown 0.8MI
ISU 0.5MI
13th Street
Downtown 0.8MI
Bike
Route
Brookside
Park 0.2MI
High
School 1.3MI
ISU 0.5MI
Bike
Route
Brookside
Park 0.2MI
High
School 1.3MI
Wading
Pool
Downtown
0.5MI
1.4MI
0.4MI
Frederickson
Court
Brookside
Park Path
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”
PA
T
H
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
PDReference
This page shows some example layouts developed
for Ames as part of prototype sign plans. Refer to the
“Aquatic to Downtown” Sign Plan for placement and
context.
Order of Destinations
Signs should not include more than three
destinations. Destinations are ordered from top to
bottom as follows:
• Straight destinations
• Left-turn destinations
• Right-turn destinations
Multiple destinations in the same direction should
be listed in order from nearest to farthest, so that
all through-destinations are listed first, nearest to
farthest, and so on.
The right arrow should always be on the right-hand
side of the sign for faster recognition.
Distances
• When distances are less than one mile, a zero is
placed before the decimal, e.g. 0.5 mi
• Distances under 5 miles should be rounded to the
nearest tenth of a mile, e.g. 4.3 mi
• Between 5-10 miles, round to the nearest half-
mile, e.g. 5.5 mi
• Over 10 miles, to the nearest mile, e.g. 11 mi
• For distances under 0.2 miles, use feet, or do not
include the destination at all if the destination is
visible from the location.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN EXPRESSION OF DESIGN
INTENT ONLY. FABRICATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL PERMITTING, FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING, AND PREPARATION OF
SHOP DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Path Directional
Examples
135
CHAPTER 4: SIGN DRAWINGS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
24
Stuart Smith
Path
Brookside
Park PathVARIES
2’ MIN. FROM
EDGE OF CURB
13th Street
1 ¹⁄2”
1”
ATTACHMENT HARDWARE
SHALL BE PLACED TO AVOID
BLOCKING TEXT.
LAYOUTS TYPICAL FOR BOTH
SIDES OF SIGN PANEL
STREET NAME SIGNS AS
SPECIFIED BY FHWA
STANDARD HIGHWAY
SIGNS MANUAL
WHERE BRACKET AND
STRAP MOUNT ARE USED,
POWDERCOAT HARDWARE
TO MATCH C3
1”
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄4”
ALWAYS PLACE BICYCLIST
SYMBOL TO LEFT OF WALKER
SYMBOL, FACING LEFT, ON THE
ROUNDED (OUTER) EDGE.
R 4"
4"
2
1
/
4
"
TY
P
8"
7'
M
I
N
.
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
1
2
1
CONTEXT ELEVATION PN
(DRIVER VIEW),
PERFORATED POST
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”4 SN SIGN LAYOUT
SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”
4 PN SIGN LAYOUT
SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”
2
CONTEXT ELEVATION SN
(PATH VIEW),
PERFORATED POST
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”3
CONTEXT ELEVATION PN
(DRIVER VIEW),
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAST
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”
ST
R
E
E
T
N
A
M
E
/
P
A
T
H
N
A
M
E
SN-PNUsed For
Identifying path names and/or
street names at intersections.
Placement
Place at each intersection where
a path intersects with a street.
Mount the path name sign so
that it is visible to people on the
street. Mount the street name
sign so that it is visible to people
approaching on the path.
Application Method(s)
Custom print on retroreflective
vinyl, applied to aluminum sign
panel.
Colors
THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN EXPRESSION OF
DESIGN INTENT ONLY. FABRICATOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITTING, FIELD
VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENTS,
ENGINEERING, AND PREPARATION OF SHOP
DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
MUTCD green
Street Name / Path Name
C4
C5 (for ISU-
branded paths)
C3
136
CHAPTER 4: SIGN DRAWINGS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
25
2’ MIN. FROM
EDGE OF CURB
Bike Route
Brookside Park
0.3 miles
Downtown
1.2 miles
Stuart Smith Park
2.0 miles
36
”
West Lincoln
Businesses
1.0 miles
Campustown
Memorial
Union
0.3 miles
200 feet
IOWA STATE
UNIVERSITY
2”
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
1 ¹⁄2” MIN
2” MIN
1 ¹⁄4” 1 ¹⁄4”
2” 2”
ATTACHMENT HARDWARE
SHALL BE PLACED TO AVOID
BLOCKING TEXT.
³⁄4”
³⁄4”
SEPARATION LINES TO BE 20”
WIDE, CENTERED ON SIGN
PANEL, AND 1/4” THICK.
4
1/2"
R 4"
2"
TY
P
.
2
"
1
1/8"
1
21
/32
"
BO
D
Y
P
A
N
E
L
28
1
/
2
"
TO
P
P
E
R
7
1
/
2
"
4
1/2"
IS
U
T
O
P
P
E
R
7
1
/
2
"
1/4"
3
3
/
4
"
TY
P
.
7'
M
I
N
.
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
24”
1
CONTEXT ELEVATION SD
PERFORATED POST
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”2 SIGN ELEVATIONS (SD)
SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”
ST
R
E
E
T
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
SD
Used For
Providing guidance along on-street bike
routes to the destinations that can be
reached along, or just off, the route.
ISU-branded toppers may be used on
streets under ISU jurisdiction.
Placement
Place in advance of intersections or turns
to indicate a turn in the route or where a
destination can be reached.
Where left turns are required, place at
a distance far back enough from the
intersection to allow for the bicyclist to
safely make a left turn with traffic.
Where only right turns are necessary,
the sign can be placed close to the
intersection.
Signs may be co-located with parking
regulatory signs or on utility poles.
Application Method(s)
Custom print on retroreflective vinyl,
applied to painted sign panel.
Colors
THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN EXPRESSION OF DESIGN
INTENT ONLY. FABRICATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL PERMITTING, FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING, AND PREPARATION OF
SHOP DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Street Directional
C1
C5 (for ISU-branded
routes)
C2
C3
137
CHAPTER 4: SIGN DRAWINGS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
26
Bike Route
City Hall
1.2 miles
Downtown
0.4 miles
South Duff
Businesses
0.4 miles
Bike Route
ISU
0.6 miles
High School
1.1 miles
Brookside
Park
0.9 miles
Bike Route
ISU
Downtown
Main Street
1.4 miles
Bike Route
Bandshell
Park
1 block
City Hall
0.4 miles
Bike Route
1 block
ISU
1.3 miles
City Hall
Jack Trice
Stadium
1.6 miles 1.7 miles
Mall
1.7 miles
Mall
Bike Route
0.7 miles
High School
Bike Route
High School
0.4 miles
Mall
0.7 miles
Skunk River
Trail
1.1 miles
Cross Grand, use path
Bike Route
Mall
500 feet
Meeker Elem
0.7 miles
Bike Route
1.1 miles
Downtown
0.3 miles
South Duff
Businesses
0.9 miles
Vet Med Trail
Bike Route
1.2 miles
Brookside
Park
0.6 miles
High School
Bike Route
Downtown
0.2 miles
Bike Route
Brookside
Park
1.0 miles
ISU
0.6 miles
Bike Route
South Duff
Businesses
0.9 miles
Vet Med Trail
1.1 miles
Bike Route
Downtown
0.6 miles
Brookside
Park
0.2 miles
1.0 miles
ISU
Bike Route
ISU
1.5 miles
Jack Trice
Stadium
1.1 miles
1.1 miles
South Duff
Businesses
0.6 miles
Bandshell
Park
0.4 miles
Fellows Elem
ISU
1.0 miles
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”
ST
R
E
E
T
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
SDReference
This page shows some example layouts developed
for Ames as part of prototype sign plans. Refer to the
“Aquatic to Downtown” and “Mall to Downtown” Sign
Plans for placement and context.
Order of Destinations
Signs should not include more than three
destinations. Destinations are ordered from top to
bottom as follows:
• Straight destinations
• Left-turn destinations
• Right-turn destinations
Multiple destinations in the same direction should
be listed in order from nearest to farthest, so that
all through-destinations are listed first, nearest to
farthest, and so on.
The right arrow should always be on the right-hand
side of the sign for faster recognition.
Distances
• When distances are less than one mile, a zero is
placed before the decimal, e.g. 0.5 mi
• Distances under 5 miles should be rounded to the
nearest tenth of a mile, e.g. 4.3 mi
• Between 5-10 miles, round to the nearest half-
mile, e.g. 5.5 mi
• Over 10 miles, to the nearest mile, e.g. 11 mi
• For distances under 0.2 miles, use feet, or do not
include the destination at all if the destination is
visible from the location.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN EXPRESSION OF DESIGN
INTENT ONLY. FABRICATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL PERMITTING, FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING, AND PREPARATION OF
SHOP DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Street Directional
(Examples)
138
CHAPTER 4: SIGN DRAWINGS AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
27
24”
2’ MIN. FROM
EDGE OF CURB
Bike Route
1 ¹⁄2”
1 ¹⁄2”
BIKE ROUTE TEXT AND BICYCLIST SYMBOL
MAY NEED TO BE LAID OUT SLIGHTLY
OFF-OF CENTER TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH
ATTACHMENT HARDWARE
APPROXIMATE
1
CONTEXT ELEVATION SB
PERFORATED POST
SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”2 SIGN ELEVATIONS (SB)
SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”
1 ¹⁄2”
3”
R 4 11/32"
3
1/32
"
4
15
/32
"
4
1/2"
1'
-
0
"
7'
M
I
N
.
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
SI
M
P
L
E
B
L
A
Z
E
SB
Used For
Providing reassurance along both path and on-street
bike routes that the user is following the signed bike
route.
Placement
Signs may be co-located with parking regulatory signs
or on utility poles.
When used for reassurance or confirmation (without
arrows):
• Place after intersections or turns in the bike route
to communicate to drivers and bicyclists they are
on a bike route.
• At complicated or busy street intersections, place
so that the sign is within view of a bicyclist who
may be stopped at a traffic signal.
When used for turns (with arrows):
• Place before intersections or turns in the bike
route, when there are no other destinations in a
conflicting direction. If there are destinations in a
different directions, use a SD or PD sign instead.
• Where left turns are required, place at a distance
far back enough from the intersection to allow for
the bicyclist to safely make a left turn with traffic.
Application Method(s)
Custom print on retroreflective vinyl, applied to
painted sign panel.
Colors
THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN EXPRESSION OF DESIGN INTENT ONLY. FABRICATOR
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITTING, FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING, AND PREPARATION OF SHOP
DRAWINGS, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONTAINED HEREIN.
Simple Blaze
C1 C2 C3
139
Chapter 5:
Mounting &
Placement
140
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
29
Map (Trailhead)Map (Close-Up)Path Directional
(Standard Size)
Directional
(Shorter Topper)
Chapter Summary
This chapter provides guidance on mounting
heights and sign dimensions for each sign type, a
Sign Placement Strategy, and Sign Placement Maps.
The guidance outlined in this chapter should be
used as tools and guidelines for putting together
wayfinding deployment plans in the future.
General Dimensions and Mounting Clearance
The illustrations on pages 33-34 provide overall
dimensions and mounting clearance guidelines
for the various sign types within the sign family.
Mounting clearances for Path Signs should be used
at trails throughout the City, while clearances for
On-Street Bike Wayfinding Signs should be used for
on-street bike wayfinding signs.
Sign Type Labels
The illustrations on these pages also establish labels
for each sign type. These labels will be used to
display sign placement guidance later in this chapter.
Ada Hayden
Heritage Park
0 0.1 0.2MILES
Trail Rules
For Emergency Assistance, Call 911
Carry Out All Waste
2800 W Midway Blvd
Ada Hayden
Heritage Park
0 0.1 0.2MILES
Trail Rules
For Emergency Assistance, Call 911
Carry Out All Waste
2800 W Midway Blvd
0 0.1 0.2MILES
To Aquatic
Center
Jack Trice
Stadium
Hilton
Coliseum
0.5MI
0.3MI
Brookside
Park 0.6MI
Stuart
Smith Park
0 0.1 0.2MILES
To Aquatic
Center
MT MC PD
MC
PD
Ma
x
7
’
18
”
Ma
x
.
3
6
”
30” to 44” typ.
18
”
4’
m
i
n
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
12
”
t
o
2
4
”
t
y
p
.
12” to 24” typ.
Coliseum
Lied Rec
Ctr
Memorial
Union
Short Name
0.5MI
4’
m
i
n
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
30
”
20”20”
4’
m
i
n
.
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
28
”
Artboard #1
Path dimensions and clearance
Edge of path or trail
Lateral clearance:
24” min.,
36” preferred
Dimensions and Mounting Clearance for Sign on Paths
141
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
30
Street Name / Path Name Street Directional Street Turn
Dimensions and Mounting Clearance for Signs Next to Streets
Stuart
Smith Path
Bike Route
Brookside Park
0.3 miles
Downtown
1.2 miles
Stuart Smith Park
2.0 miles
Bike Route
SN-PN SD SB
7’
m
i
n
Varies
7’
m
i
n
.
24”
36
”
7’
m
i
n
.
12
”
2’ min.
clearance
from edge
of curb
Curb Curb
24”
Edge of
sidewalk
2’ min. from
edge of curb
2’ min.
lateral clearance
142
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
31
Co-Locating Path Directional Signs
To conserve sign posts and reduce sign clutter, Path
Directional signs will often be co-located on the
same sign post.
Mounting the signs back-to-back is preferred
becuase both signs can be placed at a height that is
preferred for reading.
If signs are placed perpendicular to each other, the
upper sign will be too high to read comfortably by
many people.
In some cases, it may be possible to mount a Street
Name/Path Name sign on the same post as a Path
Directional Sign. However, the Street Name Path
Name Sign needs to be visible from the street, so it
shouldn’t be set too far back from the street; while
the Path Directional sign needs to be placed in a
location where a path user can slow down or pull
aside to look at it more closely. Because of that, Path
Directionals should usually be set back 10 to 20 feet
from the intersection.
Encouraged: co-locating
path directional signs
back-to-back
Discouraged: co-locating
path directional signs
in perpendicular mount
path directional signs
with street name/path name signs
High
School
Aquatic
Center
0.5MI
500FT
Frederickson
Court 0.4MI
Brookside
Park Path
13th Street
Jack Tr
i
c
e
Stadium
Hilton Coliseum
Brooksi
d
e
Park
0.6MI
Stuart
Smith
P
a
r
k
ISU
0.5MIBike
Route
Brooks
i
d
e
Park
0.2MI
High
School
1.3MI
ISU
0.5MI
Brooks
i
d
e
Park Pa
t
h
City Hall
0.8MI
Downtow
n
0.8MI
Path DirectionalPD Path DirectionalPD Path DirectionalPD SN Street Name
143
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
32
Sign Placement Strategy
Logical and consistent placement of wayfinding
helps users easily identify wayfinding elements,
provides a legible system, and ensures the signage
elements do not create undue safety hazards.
A Sign Placement Strategy is a clear decision-
making tool for future wayfinding implementation.
Figure 17 sets forth a decision tree illustrating
the strategy, which emphasizes three main
considerations. The next pages will lay out
examples for how to apply the strategy. The three
considerations are:
1. Focus on Priority Wayfinding Routes
By focusing sign placement on a few priority
routes, the City can limit new wayfinding signs to
manageable quantity. It also makes decisions about
sign placement easy and increases the “strength”
and effectiveness of the wayfinding route.
2. Center the User
Centering the user experience is essential when
determining sign type and placement. Identifying
the user need in each situation helps determine sign
type and placement. For example, bicyclists on an
on-street bike route who need to turn left to get to
their destination will need street directional signs
placed in advance of the intersection. Bicyclists who
need to turn right do not need advance notice.
3. Limit Sign Clutter
Where possible, co-locate signs on the same post
and use existing posts such as telephone poles or
Speed Limit signs, unless locating signs on existing
posts will degrade the user experience significantly.
Figure 17: Sign Placement Strategy Flow Chart
Keep it Simple
Minimize sign
clutter and
the number
of different
signs used.
Design for the
Inexperienced User
Use low-stress
bicycle routes
like paths and
quiet streets.
Be Inclusive
Consider the
needs of people
who are using
mobility devices.
Be Consistent
Place signs in a
consistent way
throughout
the route in a
predictable way.
Make Connections
Pick priority
wayfinding routes
guide users to
within sight of
their destination.
What information do
people biking need?
Place a Street
Directional
Sign before the
intersection
Place a
Simple
Blaze before
the turn
Place a Simple
Blaze after an
intersection or
turn
What information
do people biking
or walking need?
Is the location
on a priority
wayfinding route?
Yes
No
Do not place a sign
Park path
Street
Confirmation
they are on the
correct route
Where
the path
goes
Where to
turn to get
to their
destination
Intersection
of park path
and street
Where to
turn to get
to their
destination
Is the location on a path
in a park, or is it on a
street where it can be
seen by people driving?
The route
turns onto
another
street or
path
Place a Map
(Trailhead or
Close-up) where
there is room to
pull aside
Place a Path
Directional
at the
junction
Core Wayfinding Principles for Sign Placement
The core wayfinding principles from page 5 earlier in these Guidelines can be applied specifically to the
placement of wayfinding signs.
Place a Simple
Blaze after a
juncture or
turn
Place a Street
Name/Path Name
Sign Assembly
Confirmation
they are on the
correct route
144
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
33
Apply the Strategy: Aquatic Center to Downtown
This first example shows how the Sign Placement Strategy
would look from the perspective of a trail user who is on 13th
Street just south of the Furman Aquatic Center. This person is
going toward downtown Ames; from this location, their route
will go on paths through Brookside Park. This user would
encounter five sets of wayfinding signs on this journey.
At the start of the trip, the trail user is facing south looking at
the entrance to the Brookside Park Path. They should see three
sets of signs at this intersection: a Street Name/Path Name
sign that identifies the name of the trail and the street name
(13th Street), which can be mounted to the lampposts and
signal.
In addition to that, a Path Directional Sign facing north should
list the specific destinations that can be reached from this
point. A Map (Close-up) would very helpful in this location,
since it is the entry-point for Brookside Park which is quite
large and has as a number of paths and amenities within the
park. The Map can be co-located on the same post as the Path
Directional, as long as there is sufficient clearance to mount
the map below the Path Directional.
Brookside
Park
Downtown
Furman
Aquatic
Center
1/4 mile0 1/2 mile
13th St
N Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Main St
6th St
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
W
a
y
n
d
i
n
g
R
o
u
t
e
No
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
6th St
Io
w
a
y
C
r
e
e
k
Priority Way nding
Route
Priority
W
a
y
n
d
i
n
g
Route
Start of
Trip
End of
Trip
C
l
a
r
k
A
v
e
Artboard #1
13th Street to downtownMap of User’s Full Route
Scenario Artboard #1
Intersection of Trail and Street
13th St
Priority Way nding
RouteStart
Trip
SN-PN
SN-PN
PD
MC
Path DirectionalPD
Map (Close-up)MC
Street Name/
Path NameSN-PN
Label
Sign face
and post
Intersection of Trail and Street
145
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
34
Apply the Strategy: Aquatic Center to Downtown
As the user continues on the Brookside Park Path, they will encounter path
junctions within the park where it is not obvious they should continue. A Simple
Blaze sign placed after the path junction can provide the “breadcrumb” to the
user to let them know which way to go.
The user will go under 6th Street and approach 6th Street from the south, which
can be disorienting. For the user approaching 6th street, a Path Directional Sign
and a Street Name/Path Name sign will provide sufficient information for them
to understand they need to turn right to go to downtown.
However, for users on the 6th Street sidepath, it will be confusing to see
directions pointing south to go to the Brookside Park, the Aquatic Center, or
Ames High School. For that reason, special care should be taken to ensure there
is a Path Directional and a Map (Close-up) right at the junction of the paths
so that trail users understand both the destinations and the path direction. To
reduce sign clutter and the need for signposts, some of these signs can be co-
located on the same post.
Scenario Artboard #2
Internal Park Path Routing
Io
w
a
y
C
r
e
e
k
6th S
t
SB
Simple BlazeSB
Label and post
SB
Internal Park Path Routing
6th S
t
Iow
a
y
C
r
e
e
k
Priorit
y
Route
Path DirectionalPD
Map (Close-up)MC
Street Name/Path NameSN-PN
Label
Sign face
and postSN-PN
SD
PD
Street DirectionalSD
SD
PD
MC
Scenario Artboard #3
Intersection of Two TrailsIntersection of Two Trails
146
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
35
Apply the Strategy: Aquatic Center to Downtown
The user will continue east on 6th Street. At Northwestern Avenue, the route
turns. There are some destinations straight ahead, but the bike lanes end at
Grand Avenue. Therefore, the wayfinding should direct the user to go right on
Northwestern Avenue to continue on the low-stress Priority Wayfinding Route
towards downtown and other destinations in the area. A simple Street Turn sign
with the arrow pointing right is all that is needed, but a Street Directional could
also be used at this location to provide clarity on which specific destinations can
be reached by turning right.
For bikeway users headed north out of downtown on Northwestern Avenue,
a Street Turn with the arrow pointing left may be used, but if there are
destinations straight ahead that are not far away or require turns, a Street
Directional could also be used to point users to destinations that are straight
ahead, since Northwestern Avenue is a low-stress bikeway.
The user will continue towards downtown on Northwestern Avenue. They will
cross Grand Avenue, which is a priority wayfinding route from the south, and
Clark Avenue, which is a Priority Wayfinding Route from the north. The map at
left shows the recommended signage for Clarke Avenue.
A Street Directional Sign in advance of the intersection with Clark Avenue can
point the user to destinations straight ahead, to the left, and to the right. For
bikeway users approaching the same intersection from other directions, Street
Directional Signs should be provided on all legs of the intersection to alert users
of the primary destinations that can be reached straight ahead, to the left, and
to the right.
Because this is an intersection of two Priority Wayfinding Routes, and many
people will be turning onto the route, this location deserves extra signage.
Simple Blaze signs should also be placed immediately after the intersections to
provide confirmation that the user is on a bike route.
No
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
6th St
Scenario Artboard #4
Turn From Trail to On-Street Route
Label
Street TurnST
Sign face
and post
ST
ST
Street DirectionalSD
SD
SD
oror
Turn From Trail to On-Street Route
Downtown
Main St
End of Trip/intersection of two bike routes
Scenario Artboard #5
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
W
a
y
n
d
i
n
g
Ro
u
t
e
Priority Way nding
Route
Label
Sign face
and post
SD Street Directional
SD
SD
SD
C
l
a
r
k
A
v
e
SB Simple Blaze
SB
End of
Trip
Intersection of Two Priority Bike Routes
147
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
36
Apply the Strategy: On-Street Bike Route to Downtown
Map of User’s Full Route
This second example shows how the Sign Placement Strategy would be look
from the perspective of a bikeway user who is on 24th Street just south of the
North Grand Mall. This person is also wanting to go to downtown Ames, but their
route will be entirely on streets or paths next to streets. This route illustrates four
additional scenarios on applying the wayfinding sign placement strategy in Ames.
Scenario Artboard #6
Start of Journey
24th St
Priority
Way nding Route20th St
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Wa
y
n
d
i
n
g
R
o
u
t
e
SB
SB
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
SD
Label
Street DirectionalSD
Sign face
and post
SD
SD
Start
Trip
Simple BlazeSB
Start of Journey (Not on a Priority Route)
At the start of the trip, the bikeway user is facing south on the sidepath next
to Grand Avenue, just south of 24th Street. The sidepath is not on a Priority
Wayfinding Route, so the bikeway user will not see any wayfinding signs at the
start of the journey. Even once they get to the intersection of 20th Street (a
Priority Wayfinding Route), the user will not see wayfinding signs unless they
look left or right.
Upon turning east on 20th Street, the user should see a Street Directional Sign
on the far side of Grand Avenue. Directional signs placed immediately after the
intersections provide confirmation that the user is on a bike route. They also will
be able to include more destinations that can be reached on the bike route by
continuing straight.
Downtown Ames
Ioway Creek
North
Grand
Mall
Mary Greely
Medical Center
Inis Grove
Park
Homewood
Municipal
Golf Course
East River
Valley park
Ames
Municipal
Cemetery
North River
Valley Park
Downtown
Meeker
Elem
Furman
Aquatic
Center
Artboard #2
Mall area to downtown
Brookside
Park
24th St
13th St
6th St
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
South Skunk River
20th St
C
l
a
r
k
A
v
e
1/4 mile 1/2 mile0
Start of
Trip
End of
Trip
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
W
a
y
n
d
i
n
g
R
o
u
t
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
W
a
y
n
d
i
n
g
Ro
u
t
e
Priority Way nding
Route
Priority Way nding Route
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
W
a
y
n
d
i
n
g
R
o
u
t
e
148
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
37
Apply the Strategy: On-Street Bike Route to Downtown
Intersecting Priority Routes
On-Street Bike Route Crossing Large Intersection
The user will continue east on 20th Street. No additional signs are needed on
20th Street until the intersection with Clark Avenue, another Priority Wayfinding
Route. A Street Directional Sign in advance of the intersection with Clark
Avenue can point the user to destinations straight ahead (continuing on the
Priority Wayfinding Route on 20th Street) and to the right on Clark Avenue.
Because this is an intersection of two Priority Wayfinding Routes, this location
deserves confirmation signs for after the turns. Simple Blaze signs should be
placed immediately after the intersection to provide confirmation that the user
is on a bike route.
The user will continue south on Clark Avenue. At the intersection of 13th Street,
which is a busy, high-traffic street, it will be helpful for the user to see Simple
Blaze signs immediately after the intersection while they are waiting to cross
13th Street. This placement provides confirmation that the bike route continues,
and also alerts turning motorists that they need to be looking for bicyclists.
20th St
C
l
a
r
k
A
v
e
Intersecting priority routes
Scenario Artboard #7
Label
SD
Sign face
and post
SD
Priority Way nding
Route SD
SD
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Simple BlazeSB
SB
13th St
C
l
a
r
k
A
v
e
On-Street Bike Route Crossing Large Intersection
Scenario Artboard #8
Label
SB
Sign face
and post
SBSB
149
CHAPTER 5: MOUNTING & PLACEMENT AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
38
Apply the Strategy: On-Street Bike Route to Downtown
Destination off of Route
After crossing 13th Street, the user will continue south on Clark Avenue and
intersection of 13th Street, which is a busy, high-traffic street, it will be helpful
for the user to see Street Directional signs before the intersection where they
would need to turn if they were going to a destination (such as the hospital). No
confirmation signs are needed after the intersection or the turn.
Destination o of route
Scenario Artboard #9
Label
Street DirectionalSD
Sign face
and post
13th St
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
SD
SD
DestinationC
l
a
r
k
A
v
e
150
Chapter 6: System
Planning &
Programming
151
CHAPTER 6: SYSTEM PLANNING & PROGRAMMING AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
40
Priority Wayfinding Routes
Several priority routes were identified for early
implementation through input from City staff,
the project Technical Advisory Committee, and
community engagement. These were selected based
on need for wayfinding and the need to help people
navigate routes using paths that go through city
parks or away from the on-street network.
Phase 1 Priority Routes will help people make
connections between downtown Ames and major
destinations on bikeways and paths that are already
low-stress bicycle facilities and don’t require any
significant investment to make them comfortable
for inexperienced bicyclists. They will connect
between downtown Ames and the following
destinations:
• The mall area
• The hospital
• Ames High School and University Village
• ISU campus (eastern edge)
• Retail along South Duff Avenue
• Research Park
Phase 2 Priority Routes will build on the first set of
wayfinding routes, with the intention to develop a
“grid” of signed routes between most of the major
destinations in Ames. The focus of wayfinding for
both Phase 1 and Phase 2 routes is to guide users
along streets or paths that are not “obvious”: they
are along paths or quiet local streets that people
wouldn’t be familiar with if they only get around
Ames in a car.
Phase 3 Priority Routes are less important or may
require infrastructure investments (such as paths
or bike lanes) before they are appropriate for
inexperienced bicyclists. Wayfinding routes on east-
west or north-south arterial streets (even when they
have paths next to them or connect to important
destinations) are lower priority because people
biking along those streets can rely on “inference”
(see page 9) to know that they are going in the right
direction. Moreover, many of the retail destinations
in those outlying areas (such as Walmart or large
employers) are readily visible from a distance.
152
CHAPTER 6: SYSTEM PLANNING & PROGRAMMING AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
41
Sign Programming Destination Selection
A destination hierarchy ensures that as users travel
along the bicycle and trail network, they encounter
simple, legible, and consistent destinations—
important features of a wayfinding system. “Level
1 Destinations” (such as “Downtown”) appear
on almost all wayfinding signs as path users are
guided toward the destination. Level 2 or Level 3
destinations will appear on wayfinding signs only
when the path user is close to the destination).
The map on the following page displays both the
hierarchy and the preferred abbreviations for the
major destinations in Ames. The distance standards
shown on this page and the destination hierarchy
shown on the following page can be used by
planners to decide which destinations to display on
each sign.
Figure 18: Destination Hierarchy Diagram
Downtown
Cultural Districts
Arenas + stadiums
Universities
Transit stations
Community parks
Secondary schools
Shopping districts
LEVEL 2 DESTINATIONS
LEVEL 3 DESTINATIONS
LEVEL 1 DESTINATIONS
5 miles
2 miles
1/2 mile
Neighborhood parks
Primary schools
Community centers
153
CHAPTER 6: SYSTEM PLANNING & PROGRAMMING AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
42 154
CHAPTER 6: SYSTEM PLANNING & PROGRAMMING AMES WAYFINDING GUIDELINES
43
Path Naming Conventions
Path names are essential for the wayfinding system
so that routes can be identified and referenced
to users on wayfinding signs. While some of the
primary paths around Ames have names, the
naming conventions are inconsistent and many
paths are unnamed. Part of this planning process
was establishing relevant and consistent names for
many of the Ames paths, especially the ones that
are not next to a street.
The proposed path names are listed in Figure 19
along with their approximate location. These path
names should be used on street name/path name
signs and path directional signs.
Sidepaths that are parallel to streets do not need to
be named explicitly and do not require Street Name/
Path Name sign assemblies or path directional signs.
Path Name
(Alphabetical)Location
24th Street Path West of Stange Road
Ada Hayden Path or
Ada Hayden Loop
Paths in Ada Hayden Heritage Park
should probably be distinguished from
each other in some way to aid in wayfin-
ding and navigation.
Aquatic Center Path Path between the High School path
south to 13th Street
Arboretum Path Path through arboretum between S
Sheldon Avenue and State Ave
Brookside Park Path Path through Brookside Park parallel to
Ioway Creek
Freddy Court Under-
pass
Underpass between ISU main campus
and Frederiksen Court
GW Carver Road Path South of Aspen Road and north of
Moore Memorial Park
High School Bike Path
East-west path between University
Village and Ridgewood Avenue behind
the high school
Lee Park Path Path through Lee Park connecting Toss
Road and Oakland Street
Path Name
(Alphabetical)Location
Middle School Path Path behind Ames Middle School
Moore Memorial
Park Path Paths in Moore Memorial Park
Skunk River Trail
Path along Skunk River from Homewood Munic-
ipal Golf Course on the north, to path south of
US Highway 30 on the south.
Stuart Smith Bridge
Path
Path in Stuart Smith Park crossing the bridge
over Ioway Creek
Stuart Smith Park Path Path through Stuart Smith Park
Tedesco Connector Trail Path connecting Cottonwood Road southwest
to 260th Street
Tedesco Environmental
Learning Corridor Paths in and south of Research Park
Vet Med Trail Diagonal path from S Grand Avenue at Ioway
Creek Park to Airport Road at Research Park
West Ames Greenbelt
Path
Path parallel to College Creek from State Ave-
nue on the east to Daley Park/Wilder Boulevard
on the west.
Figure 19: Path Naming Conventions in Ames
155
CITY OF AMESBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN
DRAFT | MARCH 2024
156
WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City Project Management Team
Damion Pregitzer, Traffic Engineer
Mark Gansen, Civil Engineer
Kelly Diekmann, Planning & Housing Director
Kyle Thompson, Transportation Planner
(Ames Area MPO)
Technical Advisory Committee
City of Ames
Vanessa Baker Latimer, Housing Coordinator
Justin Clausen, Public Works
Tracy Peterson, Municipal Engineer
Joshua Thompson, Superintendent of Parks and
Facilities
CyRide
Shari Atwood, Transit Planner
Story County
Michael Cox, Director, Story County Conservation
Patrick Shehan, Special Projects Ranger
Iowa State University
Sarah Lawrence, Campus Planner
Chris Strawhacker, Campus Planner
Merry Rankin, Director of Sustainability
Community Advisory Committee
Zach Coffin
Andy Fish
Nancy Franz
Griffen Gade
Joni Kellen
Tory Looft
Sean McDermott
Grant Olsen
Kevin Paszko
Ruth Waite
Jacob Wheaton
Ben Woeber
Consultant Team
Toole Design
Adam Wood, AICP
Sonia Haeckel
Sarah Davis
Nan Jiang
Kevin Luecke
Strand Associates
Mitch Holtz, P.E.
Nathan Johnson
Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design of any
project. All results, recommendations, concept drawings, cost opinions, and commentary contained herein are
based on limited data and information and on existing conditions as of March 2024 that are subject to change.
Existing conditions have not been field-verified. Further analysis and engineering design are necessary prior to
implementing any of the recommendations contained herein. Maps and geographic analysis presented herein are
based on information collected at the time of preparation.
157
3
Contents
Introduction & Overview ......................................4
Plan Purpose & Background ......................................................................................5
Planning Approach ....................................................................................................10
Planning Process & Overview ..................................................................................14
Opportunities & Needs .......................................16
Highlighting the Opportunity.................................................................................17
Travel in Ames: Statistics and Trends ....................................................................17
Analyzing the Network .............................................................................................21
Level of Traffic Stress Analyses ...............................................................................27
Hearing from the Community .................................................................................33
Summary of Key Issues .............................................................................................36
Facility Selection & Guidelines ............................38
Best Practice Design ..................................................................................................39
Paths & Bikeways ........................................................................................................40
Crossing Treatments ..................................................................................................48
Sidewalks .....................................................................................................................57
Network Plan & Priorities ..................................60
Building the Future ....................................................................................................61
Paths & Bikeways ........................................................................................................62
Crossings ......................................................................................................................67
Sidewalks .....................................................................................................................72
Implementation Strategies & Action ...................78
Strategies & Actions ..................................................................................................79
Implementation Horizon ..........................................................................................90
158
4
CHAPTER 1
Introduction &
Overview
159
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
5
Plan Purpose & Background
Ames has a long-standing commitment to the commu-
nity to provide active transportation opportunities and
corridors throughout the city and has established itself
as a great place to walk, bike, and roll. The backbone of
the active transportation system in Ames is a network
of shared-use paths along streets and greenbelts that
connect most of the city. Every day, Ames residents and
visitors walk bike, and roll throughout the city to get to
work and school, to run errands, for exercise, and just
for fun.
Despite this, challenges for walking, biking, and rolling
persist, particularly when crossing or traveling along
busy streets. People experience high motor vehicle
speeds, uncomfortable crossings, and drivers that fail
to yield to people on foot or on bikes. Major roadways
like US-30, Duff Avenue, and Grand Avenue act as
barriers that separate residents from destinations
throughout the city. This results in trips taking longer
on foot since people have to go out of their way to
cross safely. These delays or detours may be enough
of a barrier in terms of time, distance, and energy to
discourage someone from deciding to make a trip
on-foot or by bike.
Walk Bike Roll Ames (WBRA) is an Active Transportation
Plan (ATP) that builds on the community’s existing
path, sidewalk, and bikeway assets and offers recom -
mendations to improve conditions for people walking,
biking, and rolling. Through programs, policies, and
infrastructure, Ames can encourage more residents
to use active transportation. WBRA provides a vision
and framework to make Ames more livable for all its
residents and visitors. Strategic investments in active
transportation will be critical to Ames becoming a safer,
healthier, connected, and sustainable community.
Terms Used in this Plan
When WBRA says Active Transportation or Active
Modes, it means walking, biking, and rolling.
When WBRA says Rolling, it means using a wheel-
chair or other mobility device.
When WBRA says Biking, it means using a bicycle,
electric bicycle (e-bike), and all forms of Micromobility.
When WBRA says Micromobility, it means scooters
and skateboards, electric and non-electric, that
operate similarly to bicycles.
When WBRA says Facility, it means paths, bike
lanes, sidewalks, crossings, and other spaces
designated specifically for the movement of active
transportation users.
When WBRA says Active Transportation Network,
it means all on- and off-street pedestrian facilities,
bicycle facilities, and facilities designated for
Micromobility use, combined as a single network.
160
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
6
Plan Overview
Walk Bike Roll Ames contains five chapters, outlined
below.
Chapter 1: Introduction & Overview
Chapter 1 defines and explains why active transporta -
tion—walking, biking, and rolling—is important and
beneficial and outlines a vision statement and founda-
tional goals. The chapter also describes the variety of
people that walk, bike, and roll in Ames and establishes
a commitment for the City of Ames to plan, design,
build, and maintain infrastructure that serves people of
all ages, abilities, and identities.
Chapter 2: Opportunities & Needs
Chapter 2 highlights the opportunities and needs
for more walking, biking, and rolling in Ames. This
includes evaluating travel trends (including impacts
of the COVID-19 pandemic) and analyzing the existing
sidewalk, path, and bikeway network. An overview of
input received from the community is included and
how that public input shaped the plan is described. The
chapter concludes with a list of key issues identifying
what needs to happen to get more people walking,
biking, and rolling in Ames.
Chapter 3: Facility Selection
& Guidelines
Chapter 3 provides high-level descriptions, consider-
ations, and guidance for the physical infrastructure to
create a safe and comfortable active transportation
network, with a focus on designing for people of all
ages, abilities, and identities. Design toolkits are includ-
ed for paths and bikeways, crossings, and sidewalks.
Chapter 4: Network Plan & Priorities
Chapter 4 looks at each of the three network ele -
ments—bikeways and shared use paths, crossings, and
sidewalks—and describes how projects were identified,
where those projects are located, and how they are
prioritized. The chapter also includes summaries of the
scale of projects and potential costs.
Chapter 5: Implementation
Strategies & Actions
Chapter 5 identifies key strategies to help move Ames
toward the vision described in Chapter 1 and achieving
the associated goals. For each of the eight core strate -
gies, specific actions items are identified. In addition,
this chapter identifies potential implementation
horizons for the infrastructure projects identified in
Chapter 4, associated with anticipated funding levels.
161
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
7
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008, Retrieved from https://health.gov/paguidelines/2008/summary.aspx
2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2018)
3 Governors Highway Safety Association. Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2022 Preliminary Data. 2023. https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/GHSA%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Fatalities%20by%20State%2C%20January-June%202022%20Preliminary%20Data.pdf
4 Jacobsen, P.L. 2003, Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling, Retrieved from https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205
What is Active Transportation?
Active transportation includes any human-powered
form of transportation, including walking, running,
bicycling, skating, and using a wheelchair or other
mobility device. Rather than list every possible form
of active transportation, this plan refers to people
walking, biking, and rolling, which is meant to be in-
clusive of other active travel. Everyone in Ames partici -
pates in active transportation at some point every day,
whether biking to work or simply walking from where
they parked their car to their final destination.
Why Invest in Active Transportation?
Ames has much to gain by investing in its active
transportation network, policies, and programs, and
increasing the number of people walking and biking in
the city. An improved walking and biking environment
has many benefits such as boosting the health, safety,
quality of life, environment, economic vitality, and
accessibility for residents, students, and visitors.
Health
Making it easy for people to walk and bike as part of
their daily routine can help Ames residents be more
active and achieve the recommended daily amounts of
exercise.1 Even moderate exercise can help reduce the
risk of inactivity-related ailments such as hypertension,
obesity, Type II diabetes, heart attack and stroke, and
certain types of cancer.
Physical activity, including walking and biking, can
help prevent or treat some mental health conditions.
Physical activity reduces depression, can improve
the quality of sleep, and has been shown to improve
cognitive function for older adults.2 Active transporta-
tion can also improve social conditions in communities,
which contributes to positive mental well-being among
residents. While there may be many reasons people feel
socially isolated, land-use and transportation systems
designed around the automobile can exacerbate these
feelings.
Safety
Nationwide, pedestrian fatalities have continued to
climb since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic: a
28 percent increase in pedestrian fatalities is reported
from 2021 to 2022.3 By increasing separation from
motor vehicle traffic, active transportation infrastruc-
ture can decrease the number and severity of crashes,
while boosting the number of people walking and
biking. Greater numbers of walkers and bikers in turn
improves safety even further in a “safety in numbers”
situation as drivers learn to watch for and anticipate the
needs of other street users.4
Quality of Life
Quality of life is influenced by physical and mental
health, family and other relationships, education and
employment, and built and natural environments.
Decreasing dependency on automobiles can lead to
improved air quality, less traffic noise, and shorter
and more pleasant commutes. Bicycling and walking
can also strengthen the sense of community by
increasing opportunities for spontaneous interactions
between residents.
Environment
162
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
8
Increased walking and biking rates improve air quality
by reducing emissions. These modes have the greatest
capacity to replace shorter trips (over 40% of all trips
nationwide are three miles or less in distance).1
Substituting even a fraction of these short driving trips
with walking and biking trips can reduce air pollution
as well as carbon dioxide emissions. Preserving natural
corridors for shared use paths can benefit air and water
quality, mitigate floods, conserve wildlife habitat, and
provide carbon sequestration and storage.
Economic Vitality
Making bicycling and walking appealing options for
people of all ages can help to attract and retain a
robust workforce. Encouraging residents and visitors
to travel by foot or by bike can also support economic
activity downtown and in neighborhood business
districts. More private developers are recognizing the
economic benefits of active transportation and are
designing their projects to encourage bicycling and
walking. A Seattle study found that replacing motor
vehicle travel or parking lanes with bike lanes had
either neutral or positive economic benefit.2
Research also has found that people biking to busi-
nesses tend to spend more per capita than people
arriving by car.3
1 Federal Highway Administration, 2009, National Household Travel Survey, Retrieved from https://nhts.ornl.gov/tables09/fatcat/2009/vt_TRPMILES.html
2 Rowe, K. Bikenomics: Measuring the Impact of Bicycle Facilities on Neighborhood Business Districts. 2013. University of Washington College of Built Environments. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0xHj6OM3QVWMUxScjZuMndxVkk/edit?resourcekey=0-cOzVrKvk5iqwUGfo4n3wzg
3 BBC Research and Consulting. Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling in Northwest Arkansas. March 2018. Prepared for the Walton Foundation and PeopleForBikes. https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/Trail_Study_136-AR-Bicycle-Benefits.pdf.
4 https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/vehicles/
5 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Investing in Trails Cost-Effective Improvements—for Everyone, date unknown.
https://www.railstotrails.org/resourcehandler.ashx?name=investing-in-trails-cost-effective-improvements-for-everyone&id=3629&fileName=Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Trails.pdf
Accessibility and Transportation Choice
Providing a high-quality active transportation
network is important for Ames residents who do
not have full access to a motor vehicle. This includes
people who are under 16 years old, unlicensed
adults, suspended drivers, and people who live in
households with more drivers than motor vehicles.
Whether due to mobility impairments, lack of car
ownership, choice, or other reasons, not all Ames res-
idents drive as their primary mode of transportation.
For example, 7.9 percent of Ames households lack
automobiles, compared to 5.6 percent of households
in the state.4 Furthermore, Ames residents who use
mobility devices, such as wheelchairs, benefit greatly
from well-designed sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb
ramps that are safe, comfortable, and intuitive to use.
Attracting Visitors and
Retaining Residents
There is broad consensus across the country that
investing in infrastructure for walking, biking, and
rolling produces a positive return on investment. This
is especially true when it comes to shared use paths,
which can serve as attractions for visitors. Path-based
tourism can be an economic boost for many small
communities, supporting local businesses, creating
jobs, and increasing property values.5
163
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
9
WBRA Vision and Goals
The vision and goals define what the community wants
Ames to be like in the future and directly inform the
recommendations in this plan.
Vision
Ames is a place where walking, biking, and rolling are
safe, enjoyable, convenient, and available to everyone.
Goals
Plan recommendations—from identification of new
infrastructure to prioritization and implementation
strategies—are oriented around these goals:
»Safe and Comfortable. Plan, design, and operate
streets, sidewalks, bikeways, crossings, and paths to
prioritize safety with the ultimate goal of eliminat-
ing fatalities.
»Connected and Easy. Create connections through -
out Ames and to surrounding areas that are easy
and intuitive to use, encouraging and enabling
more people to walk, bike, and roll.
»Healthy and Sustainable. Get more people
walking, biking, rolling, and using future zero-car-
bon forms of personal mobility to improve health
and to provide easy alternatives to driving.
»Equitable and Accessible. Create places where
everybody can walk, bike, or roll regardless of
age, ability, identity, race, or economic status.
Ensure that investments are made equitably and
are complemented by programs that encour-
age and empower everyone to choose active
transportation.
Public input that shaped the vision and goals
The WBRA vision and goals were developed based on feedback from residents, stakeholders, and user groups
during public outreach events, the Community Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and
City Council.
“Walking, biking, and rolling in Ames should be…”
An online poll asked residents to complete the sentence above; 181 people responded. The two most prominent
themes were safe and easy/convenient .
164
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
10
Planning Approach
WBRA provides a framework to make Ames more
walkable, bikeable, and livable for residents and visitors
of all ages, abilities, and identities. Walking, biking,
and rolling are available to a wide array of people
with significant differences in age, vision, hearing,
physical strength, balance, reaction time, perception
of risk, degree of independence, and personal safety.
Enabling everyone to walk, bike, and roll—now and as
people age—requires planning, designing, building,
and maintaining an active transportation network that
meets the needs of people across the spectrum of ages,
abilities, and identities.
Taking this approach starts with understanding who
walks, bikes, and rolls in Ames and setting forth a vision
and goals to create an active transportation system that
works for everyone in Ames.
Diversity of Ages, Abilities, and Identities – Walking, Biking, and Rolling
165
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
11
Who Walks, Bikes, and Rolls in Ames?
People of all ages, abilities, and identities walk, bike and roll in Ames. Many people
choose active transportation because of the physical and mental health, sustainabil-
ity, and cost-saving benefits. Ames residents walk regularly; however, it’s slightly less
common for them to bike, and even less common to use a mobility device, skate -
board, or scooter. This is likely because many residents are uncomfortable bicycling
or walking around traffic.1 Reasons for this may include cultural norms in Iowa and
concerns about safety. People are more likely to walk or bike if there are high quality
and comfortable facilities that take them directly where they need to go.
For those that do use active modes, the top three walking, bicycling, and rolling
destinations were parks and greenspace, school/university, and restaurants
or entertainment.2
That said, walking, rolling, and biking experiences can vary greatly depending on
factors such as age, gender identity, race, ethnicity, skin tone, physical ability, trip
purpose, and more. There are typically more options for recreational walking, biking,
and rolling. Getting to work, school, or important destinations often require routes that
are less comfortable, safe, or accessible. People walking, biking, or rolling for transpor-
tation purposes have to consider issues like being on time, where to safely lock their
bike, and ability to carry things. An adult traveling alone has a different experience than
one traveling with children. Children have shorter attention spans and less awareness
of their surroundings, meaning the adults accompanying them may choose not to
take certain routes, or not to walk or bike at all if there are not safe options to do so.
And finally, many people are dependent on active transportation due to age, income,
disability, and other factors.
1 These assertions are drawn from the findings of two online surveys conducted for WBRA (described in the Planning Process & Overview section).
2 According to a survey performed during the development of this plan.
166
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
12
Active Transportation User Profiles
The descriptions of different user profiles below explore how experiences differ for
people who walk, bike, and roll in Ames. These categories are not mutually-exclu-
sive—many people in Ames can identify with multiple profiles. WBRA was designed
to meet the diverse needs of these users, thereby serving a broad cross section of
the population.
»ISU Students – This is the largest single user group in Ames, in terms of current
walking and biking activity. ISU students have a wide variety of levels of comfort
around traffic. Because of parking limitations, they are less likely to have a car.
»People with Lower Incomes – This group is more likely to walk, bike, and roll due
to lack of access to a car. People in this group may feel less comfortable walking,
biking, and rolling around traffic. This group should be able to walk, bike, or roll
throughout their community with dignity and comfort.
»Central Neighborhood Residents – These residents are more likely to walk, bike,
and roll because of their proximity to destinations. They are also more likely to
take short trips (less than one mile). Providing safe places to walk, bike, and roll
within and between these neighborhoods is a way to convert some driving trips to
active modes.
»Children and Families – This group ranges widely in how often they walk and
bike in Ames today. There are many factors that will influence levels of walking
and biking in this group such as distance from home to school, or access from
home to shared use paths and other separated facilities for walking and bicycling.
Reducing interactions with motor vehicles is the only way this group will feel
comfortable walking or bicycling.
»Older Adults and People with Disabilities – While some in this group walk, bike
or roll daily, this user group is overall less likely to use active modes and likely to
feel uncomfortable on existing facilities in Ames. This may be due to distances,
lack of accessibility, and concerns about traffic. This population is less likely to
drive, so increasing walking, biking, and rolling within this group allows for more
mobility and independence later in life.
»Active Adults (often with higher incomes) – This population is likely to be more
confident in bicycling and walking in their communities. This could be because
they have access to higher quality facilities, or simply more free time to walk more
or learn how to ride a bicycle in the city.
Confidence While Biking
Researchers and practitioners have categorized people based on their confidence
interacting with motor vehicle traffic while biking. While the percentage varies by
community, a national survey found that about 5 out of every 10 adults in major urban
areas, labeled as Interested but Concerned riders, would like to ride a bicycle but do
not currently do so, usually due to concerns about traffic safety.1 This segment of the
population—people that want to bike but aren’t currently doing so very often—rep -
resents a major opportunity to increase the number of trips taken by bicycle. Planning,
designing, and constructing bikeways that are safe and comfortable for the Interested
but Concerned bicyclist can encourage more people in Ames to bike.
š
1 Dill, J, and Nathan McNeil, 2016, Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey, Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2587, Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2587-11
167
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
13
Planning and Policy Context
Existing plans and policies provide a foundation
for WBRA and guided the development of this Plan.
Key documents include Ames Plan 2040 (the City’s
comprehensive plan adopted in 2021), Forward 2045
(the regional transportation plan adopted in 2020),
Complete Streets Plan (2018), Lincoln Corridor Plan
(2018), and the Lincoln Way Pedestrian Safety Study
(2018), as well as ongoing bicycle and pedestrian plan -
ning efforts by Iowa State University. These documents
were reviewed to identify key themes related to active
transportation.
Key Themes of Existing Plans and Policies
The following key themes were identified from the
plan and policy review. These themes directly shaped
the WBRA vision and goals, and the recommendations
contained in this Plan.
»Multimodal Vision – Mentions of providing a mul-
timodal transportation network is often present in
the vision, or in the goals of the previous plans. The
aim to make Ames’ transportation network accessi-
ble and well connected for those walking, biking, or
rolling has been reaffirmed in plan after plan.
»Safety and Comfort of All Users – From corridor
plans to citywide and regional plans improving
transportation safety is always at the top of any
goals or actions. Many of the plans reference crash
history for bicyclists and pedestrian involved
crashes. The Forward 2045 plan also includes a
facility toolkit that moves Ames to implement
more comfortable facilities for users of all ages and
abilities.
»Expanding Transportation Choice – Expanding
choices and encouraging mode shift to get more
people walking and biking and less people driving
in Ames is a stated initiative in many plans. All rele -
vant plans reviewed aim to increase the feasibility,
safety, and comfort for people to walk, bike, or roll.
»Identifying Priorities for Investment – Plans typ -
ically include some sort of prioritization if specific
facilities are being recommended. Along with the
prioritization, possible partnerships and funding
sources are also identified.
»Design with Best Practices – Multiple plans
include facility toolkits or recommend specific
facility types and how to design them in a way
that is accessible for the interested but concerned
bicyclist population.
»Crossing/Intersection Safety – For many active
transportation users, a linear facility such as a
sidewalk or bike lane is only as safe and comfortable
as the intersections along the route. All of the most
recent plans include best practice for implementing
high visibility and/or protected intersections for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
»Connectivity – Connecting the city of Ames across
its districts such as the Iowa State University campus
is a high priority in many transportation planning
efforts the City has conducted. Ensuring that the
facilities implemented are connected to each other
and important destinations is essential for a success-
ful active transportation network.
168
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
14
Planning Process & Overview
Timeline & Public
Engagement Elements
This planning effort spanned from Summer 2022 to
Spring 2024. Figure 1 illustrates the project timeline and
major milestones. As a part of this plan, multiple engage -
ment opportunities were held between stakeholders,
city staff, and the public. The engagement strategies for
WBRA emphasized the following:
»Sensitivity to concerns about coronavirus (COVID-19)
transmission.
»Interagency coordination and cooperation.
»Guidance and direction from two stakeholder
committees.
»Attracting a broad and diverse audience, reaching
beyond active bicyclists, to engage people of
all ages, abilities, genders, races/ethnicities,
and incomes.
»Using City communication methods to promote
the project, direct people to online resources,
and announce project meetings and commenting
opportunities.
There were three unique audiences that were engaged
as part of the outreach efforts. 1) The general public,
including residents of Ames, any bicycle or pedestrian
interest groups, the Iowa State community (students
and staff), schools and students, and others. 2) The
Technical Advisory Committee, a group of city staff
that advised the project tram as the project progressed.
And 3) The Community Advisory Committee, a group
of Ames residents that provided structured feedback
to the project team, outside of outreach activities and
efforts designed for the general public.
Virtual and online engagement was conducted with the
general public. This included a project website, kick-off
email, poll and survey, and social media posts. There
were 181 respondents to one of the Walk Bike Roll
Ames online polls. This poll was open from October
2022 to April 2023.
There was also an online survey open from November
to December of 2022 which received 393 responses.
In-person engagement events were also held for the
general public. The project team held a booth at the
Iowa State’s Sustainability Fair, where around 40 people
stopped at the booth to talk to the project team about
what walking and biking in Ames should be like, and
what they don’t like about walking and biking in Ames
today. An opportunity to hear from students was held
at the ISU campus. From that event the project team
heard why students like to walk or bike around Ames,
what they don’t like about biking and walking in Ames,
and what biking and walking in Ames should be like.
169
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
15
Draft Plan
Summer 2022
Vision and Goal
Setting
Fall 2022
Existing Conditions
Winter/
Spring 2023
Proposed Bike and
Pedestrian Infrastructure
(First Draft)
Summer 2023
Implementation
Strategy
Policies and
Programs
Fall-Winter
2023
Summer 2022
Project Kick-Off
Spring
2024
Plan Adoption
Figure 1 | Overview of the Walk Bike Roll Ames Project Timeline
170
16
CHAPTER 2
Opportunities & Needs
171
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
17
Highlighting the Opportunity
Ames is a relatively compact community with many destinations within two or three
miles—a 10-to-15-minute bike ride—of most parts of the city. Iowa State University,
with its nearly 30,000 students (plus faculty and staff), generates a significant number
of trips. While many of these trips are by car and transit, the ISU campus generates a
substantial amount of walking, biking, and rolling trips.
Demographic data and various Big Data sources—including StreetLight, Replica, and
Strava—were analyzed to identify and illustrate the potential for more active trans-
portation. There is significant opportunity to increase the amount of walking, biking,
and rolling in Ames by providing enhanced facilities that accommodate and enhance
existing active transportation trips, while also encouraging more people to walk, bike,
or roll instead of drive.
Figure 2 | Journey to Work by Mode over Time. Source: American Community Survey
Travel in Ames: Statistics and Trends
According to the American Community Survey (ACS; 2021 5-Year Estimate) journey
to work data, about 71% people in Ames drive to work (alone or carpool), 7.4% take
transit to work, 2.6% bike to work, and 8.8% walk to work. Looking at historic data,
the percentages of those driving and walking to work has not seen much variation
over the past several years. However, biking to work peaked at 3.4% in 2017 and has
gradually declined since. The share of people working from home has increased
significantly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (to 9.3% see Figure 2).The remain-
ing 1% of the population ride a motorcycle to work or reported “other” as their mode
to work.
Figure 3 | Trip Purpose in Ames. Source: Replica.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
172
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
18
While the ACS journey to work data is informative, most
trips people take every day are not trips to work (11.3%
of all trips). In fact, according to Replica more often trips
end at home (35% of all trips) and shopping destinations
(15.3%) (see Figure 3). Considering the mode used for
these non-work trips, the general pattern is the same as
journey to work, with most trips by car. However, Replica
shows that 14.1% of all trips (work and non-work) are by
walking and 2.2% are by bike.
So where are walking and biking trips happening
today? Analyzing StreetLight data shows that more
than 60% of the pedestrian trips and more than 50%
of the bike trips in Ames originate on Iowa State
University’s main campus. Of those trips originating on
campus, the majority (approximately 85% of walking
trips and 70% of biking trips) are entirely within
campus, or they are trips to and from the South Duff
retail corridor, where Walmart, Target, and other large
retail destinations are located (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 | Primary starting Census Block Groups of Pedestrian Trips (Patterns for
Biking trips are Essentially Identical).
Source: StreetLight.
Effects of COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic affected travel patterns in
Ames in several ways. The proportion of people that
work from home increased significantly (4.3% in 2019
and 9.3% in 2021) and proportion that take the bus to
work decreased (9.1% in 2019 down to 7.4% in 2021).
This reflects an overall decline in transit use caused by
the pandemic. Prior to 2020, CyRide served approxi-
mately 35,000-40,000 passengers daily. In FY2022 the
system served about 20,000 passengers daily and is still
recovering from the pandemic’s impact on decreased
ridership.
While the pandemic initially reduced the overall
amount of weekday travel in Ames by all modes,
Replica data shows that by 2023 the number of trips
taken in Ames had risen and surpassed pre-pandemic
rates, even though many people continue to work from
home or have hybrid work schedules.
Figure 5 | Total Daily Trips in Ames in 2019 Versus 2023.
173
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
19
Converting Short Trips
to Active Modes
Replica data was analyzed for a typical Thursday in
Spring 2023. Replica estimates there were 218,000
total trips (all modes) that originated in Ames taken by
55,500 people that live in Ames. Approximately 25%
of those trips (54,500 trips) were less than a mile. More
than 78% of trips were less than 4 miles. In other words,
the vast majority of trips were less than four miles long.
This indicates a significant opportunity to increase
biking and walking and decrease driving by providing
people opportunities to walk and bike for shorter trips,
especially those under a mile.
Figure 6 | Distribution of Trips by All Modes by Length in Miles (Fall 2021)
Short Trips
When looking only at trips that are less than a mile
in length, a little less than half are taken by foot (and
1,600 by bike), but nearly 22,000 trips under 1 mile
in Ames are taken by car. When excluding very short
trips (under 0.25 miles), an even greater proportion of
trips are made by driving than by walking in Ames. See
Figure 7.
These short trips of less than one mile were mapped to
the street and shared-use path network to understand
the routes people take when they make short trips
and where key opportunities may lie (see Figure 8).
Short trips are concentrated around ISU, Campustown,
downtown, South Duff, Somerset, and North Grand
Mall. This indicates the areas in Ames with the greatest
opportunity to capture more walking and biking trips.
Figure 7 | Mode of Trips under 1 Mile (Spring 2023) (Left); Mode of Trips between 0.25 Miles and 1 Mile (Spring 2023) (Right)
174
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
20
Figure 8 | Network Distribution of Trips under 1 Mile (all modes, Fall 2021)
175
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
21
Analyzing the Network
Existing Walk, Bike, and Roll Facilities
The City of Ames has built an extensive network of
shared-use paths, sidewalks, and on-street bikeways
over the years. WBRA builds upon the existing network
by recommending new connections and identifying
valuable improvements to existing facilities, all with an
eye toward building a more accessible and better-con -
nected network.
Existing Paths & Bikeways
Figure 9 displays the many bicycle and shared use path
facilities existing in Ames. The city is well connected
overall, in large part due to the presence of shared
use paths along major streets (paths along roadways
are also referred to as “sidepaths”). However, several
significant gaps exist, requiring circuitous routes to
reach several major destinations. Furthermore, as
described later, several existing shared use paths have
poor pavement conditions and are narrow.
Existing Sidewalks
Ames currently has extensive sidewalk coverage in most
of the residential areas of the city. Figure 10 illustrates
the location of sidewalks within Ames by identifying
whether each street has sidewalk on both sides, one
side, or no sides (sidewalks are missing). The majority of
gaps are present along streets in more rural areas in the
east and south. However, there are several key sidewalk
gaps located more centrally near key destinations.
176
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
22
Figure 9 | Existing Paths and Bikeways
177
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
23
Figure 10 | Existing Sidewalk Presence and Gaps
178
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
24
Safety Analysis
Making streets safer for people walking and bicycling
is a key goal of WBRA. Evaluating crash patterns helps
identify locations where additional sidewalk, crossing,
path, or bikeway infrastructure may have the greatest
likelihood of improving safety for active transportation
users. Bicycle and pedestrian crash data from 2013 to
2022 was downloaded from the Iowa Department of
Transportation’s Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT) and
reviewed. Only records of crashes that were reported to
the police are available and may not include all crashes,
especially minor crashes.
Trends
From 2013 to 2022 there were approximately 9,800
crashes of all types in Ames. Of those, 137 reported
crashes involved people walking (1.4% of all crashes),
and 170 reported crashes involved people biking (1.7%
of all crashes) reported in Ames. As shown in Figure 11,
crashes have generally declined over the past decade,
but with a recent uptick in bicycle crashes.
Severity
Figure 12 displays a breakdown of crash severity for
people walking and biking. Most reported crashes
involving people walking resulted in injuries. There
were 7 total crash fatalities during the 10-year
period and 3 of those were pedestrians (43% of
fatal crashes). Most bicycling-related crashes also
led to injuries but comparatively fewer led to serious
injuries and no fatalities were reported during the
10-year period.
Figure 11 | Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes by Year
Figure 12 | Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes Severity
179
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
25
Location
Rather than simply map crash locations, the planning
team performed a Crash Density Analysis using a
subset of crash data (years 2017 through 2021) to
reflect recent conditions. This approach offers several
advantages in highlighting corridors with greater crash
impacts. The Crash Density Analysis utilizes a “sliding
window” approach, which identifies segments with the
highest crash density, weighted by crash severity. A 0.5
mile length of roadway section (the “window” segment)
is moved along the roadway alignment in increments
of smaller steps (0.1 mi). Crashes occurring within 50
feet of these window segments are then counted and
summarized by mode and severity.
Figure 14 shows the results of the analysis. Segments
with higher crash densities (represented by darker
lines) represent portions of the roadway network that
have a higher concentration of overall crashes and a
higher proportion of fatal/severe crashes. The results
show that the corridors with the highest crash densities
for people walking and biking are concentrated near
the ISU campus / Campustown and downtown Ames,
particularly along Lincoln Way, Grand Avenue, and
Duff Avenue.
Figure 13 | Illustration of the 1/2 Mile “Sliding Window” Analysis to Identify Segments with the Highest Crash Density
180
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
26
Figure 14 | Roadway Segments with High Density of
Crashes Involving Pedestrians and Bicyclists.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Density
181
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
27
Level of Traffic Stress Analyses
Comfort is a key factor in whether individuals choose to
walk or ride a bike, whether it’s for commuting, every-
day needs, recreation, or multimodal transportation
connections. Comfort is measured as the level of stress
a person experiences when walking or biking. Creating
good low-stress connectivity increases the likeli -
hood that people will walk or ride a bicycle. Several
factors—such as the number of motor vehicle travel
lanes, traffic volumes and speeds, and walking and
biking infrastructure—can help discern the expected
comfort at intersections and along streets. Using these
data, the comfort level of streets and crossings for all of
Ames were analyzed and stress ratings of one through
four were assigned. The detailed methodologies for
the Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS)
and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) analyses are
explained in the Walk Bike Roll Ames State of Active
Transportation Report, available separately on the City
of Ames’ website.
Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress
Ames’s roadway network consists of collector and arterial roadways that have relatively high vehicle volumes and
high posted speed limits that contribute to stressful pedestrian crossing experiences. The collector and arterial
roadways provide direct north-south and east-west connectivity for motor vehicle travel through the city but act as
both real and perceived barriers to connectivity for many people who are uncomfortable crossing these high-stress
streets on foot. Figure 15 displays low-stress crossings as green (PLTS 1) or blue (PLTS 2) dots, high-stress crossings
as orange (PLTS 3) or red (PLTS 4) dots. Figure 16 shows how streets currently act as barriers to walking, by showing
only high-stress crossings (PLTS 3 and 4) and identifying segments of street where the distance to the nearest
low-stress crossing exceeds 1/8 mile.
Both maps clearly show a similar pattern of high-stress pedestrian crossing along major streets. This is most notable
along Lincoln Way, Duff Avenue, Stange Road, Oakwood Road/Airport Road, East 13th Street, Ontario Street, and
North and South Dakota Avenues. These corridors are generally wide and have both high vehicle speeds and
volumes. Many of these high-stress crossings along major streets are at CyRide stops. It is also important to note
that limited access roadways such as US-30 are clear barriers to active transportation use in the City.
In addition, the analysis shows the roadway network to have long distances between low-stress crossings on
multiple corridors. To put it in perspective, to use a low-stress crossing more than 1/8 of a mile away to get to a
destination directly across the street would require a person to walk 1/4 mile, or roughly 5 minutes out of their way.
These delays or detours may be enough of a barrier in terms of time, distance, and energy to discourage someone
from deciding to make a trip on-foot or may lead to pedestrians crossing at potentially risky locations.
Measuring Traffic Stress
Stress Rating Stress Level Simplified Stress Level
1 Lowest
Low Stress
2 Medium-Low
3 Medium-High
High Stress
4 Highest
182
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
28
Figure 15 | Results of PLTS Analysis
183
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
29
Figure 16 | High-Stress Crossings and Excessive Distance to Nearest
Low-Stress Crossing as Determined by PLTS Analysis Results
184
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
30
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) depends on traffic
conditions as well as the configuration and type of
bicycle accommodation. Generalized examples of
what various levels of traffic stress look like for biking
are shown in Figure 17. Only paths (including trails,
shared-use paths, and sidepaths, which are shared use
paths along streets) are considered BLTS 1. Sidepaths
can be low stress; however, if they are very narrow and
immediately adjacent to the curb and roadway (as are
many of the older sidepaths in Ames), they receive
higher stress ratings.
The results of the BLTS analysis are shown in Figure 18.
This map displays low-stress streets and paths as green
(BLTS 1) or blue (BLTS 2) lines, and high-stress streets as
orange (BLTS 3) or red (BLTS 4) lines. Note that several
high-traffic streets (such as portions of Stange Road,
13th Street, etc.) are identified as low-stress because
they have a sidepath alongside the roadway. Biking in
the roadway along these streets would be high stress.
The City of Ames has built sidepaths along many of its
higher-traffic streets; however, several arterial streets
(such as those surrounding downtown) still create
barriers and prevent the pockets of low-stress trails
and lower-stress streets found in neighborhoods from
forming a connected network. While many, if not most,
residents have access to facilities that score at a BLTS
2 level within their neighborhoods, many are not able
to access adjacent neighborhoods or further away
destinations using low-stress routes because of the
barriers that the larger streets present.
185
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
31
š
€ ‚
€
‚
€ ƒ € „
…
š
„
„ € ‚
…
„
€ ‚
†‡
*Presence of on-street parking increases tra c stress
Figure 17 | Generalized Examples of BLTS Ratings of Various Bicycle Facilities
186
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
32
Figure 18 | Bicycle LTS Results
187
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
33
Hearing from the Community
Community Values
Various surveys and public engagement activities allowed the WBRA planning team
to understand why walking, biking, and rolling are important for Ames residents.
From the beginning, engagement focused on articulating the underlying communi-
ty-identified values that should be that drive the vision and goals for this plan. Safety,
enjoyment, health, and environment or sustainability were all important values for
Ames. Nearly 80 percent of survey respondents wanted to walk or bike more than
they currently do, but safety concerns about traffic and lack of sidewalks, bike lanes,
and paths are concerns that make residents reluctant to do so.
“What’s to not like about walking,
biking, and rolling in Ames?”
Figure 19 | Word cloud of things people do not like about walking, biking, and rolling in Ames.
“What’s to love about walking,
biking, and rolling in Ames?”
Figure 20 | Word cloud of things people like about walking, biking, and rolling in Ames.
188
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
34
Needs
Input from residents also helped identify what types
of changes WBRA should focus on. When asked what
the most important thing to improve/expand in
Ames was, most people wanted more places to bike
and safer places to cross the street (Figure 21). The
infrastructure recommendations in Chapter 3 reflect
these needs, with more than 100 recommended street
crossing improvements and over 77 miles of bikeway
recommendations.
Specific concerns about bikeways, crossings, gaps, and
safety issues were also addressed at multiple points
through online interactive maps and discussions with a
Community Advisory Committee (CAC).
Non-infrastructure recommendations in Chapter 5
also reflect discussions with the CAC and other public
input on the need to improve safety and increase street
sweeping of bikeways.
Figure 21 | Public Feedback on Ames’ Active Transportation Needs
Opportunities
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) made up of City,
agency, and ISU staff met at multiple points during
WBRA planning process and provided input on the
feasibility of various potential infrastructure changes,
including specific wants and concerns on Lincoln Way,
Main Street, and South Duff Avenue. They also helped
shape the strategies and program actions in Chapter 5
by identifying current or previous programs and initia-
tives that WBRA recommendations could build upon.
Priorities
For the most part, WBRA priorities in Chapter 4 were
shaped by the four goals (Safe and Comfortable,
Connected and Easy, Healthy and Sustainable,
Equitable and Accessible) which were developed after
early public input. However, some targeted discussions
with the CAC also helped guide the development of the
recommendations. For example, the CAC helped point
out that shared-use paths are in poor condition and are
too narrow for comfort and use by people both walking
and biking. The CAC members said that widening
existing shared use paths should be as important as
adding new bikeways.
189
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
35
»Types of bikeways &
crossings considered
appropriate for Ames
»Need for widening
existing paths, etc.
Who is the
design user?
What to build
(fi rst draft)
Public & Stakeholder
Input
What to do
(fi rst draft)
Proposed programs
How to
prioritize
Scores and weights
for projects
Which projects
should be
done fi rst
»Priority sidewalks and
pedestrian crossings
»Priority bikeways and
bike crossings
What to do
(second draft)
Proposed programs
Public & Stakeholder
Input
»Proposed sidewalks
»Proposed bikeways
and paths
»Proposed crossings
Public & Stakeholder
Input
Public & Stakeholder
Input
Input
What to build
(second draft)
Safe and Comfortable Connected and Easy Healthy and Sustainable Equitable and Accessible
Vision and Goal
Figure 22 | How Public Input Shaped WBRA
190
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
36
Summary of Key Issues
What’s needed for more people to
walk, bike, and roll in Ames?
Synthesizing community input with evaluation of existing conditions and mobility
trends, the following needs were identified as key issues that will influence whether
more people in Ames choose to walk, bike, and roll.
Walking & Rolling
Primary Needs
Intersection / Crossing Treatments
»Safer, more comfortable crossings of major streets, including enhancements at
existing signalized intersections to provide refuge for people outside of cars, and
treatments to encourage driver yielding and slow turning vehicles.
»Closer spacing between comfortable crossings, especially in areas with higher
levels of pedestrian activity.
Secondary Needs
Fill Sidewalk and Path Gaps
»While there are some critical sidewalk gaps that need to be completed, most
streets in Ames have sidewalks or paths on both sides.
»Focus should be placed on filling gaps along busier streets and in areas with
higher levels of walking and rolling activity. This means filling gaps on low-traf-
fic neighborhood streets that already have complete sidewalk on one side is
a priority.
191
OPPORTUNITIES & NEEDS WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
37
Biking & Micromobility
Primary Needs
Improved Sidepaths (Shared Use Paths along Streets)
»Wider sidepaths that provide adequate space for sharing with people walking and
rolling (at least 10 feet wide).
»Sidepaths set back from the curb by at least 3 feet to provide a buffer from
moving car traffic.
»Better pavement surfaces to address potholes and cracks.
»Reduced conflicts with bus stops.
Fully Separated Bikeways
»Separated bike lanes (also known as protected bike lanes) are for the exclusive use
of people biking and using micromobility, and provide vertical separation from car
traffic.
»Separated bike lanes are potential solutions when right-of-way does not exist
for a sidepath (or when pedestrian traffic is very high in the area), but adequate
roadway space exists.
Traffic-Calmed Bike Boulevards
»Bike boulevards can be established along quiet neighborhood streets, which is
where many people prefer to bike already (compared to busier streets). Traffic
calming features can be incorporated to manage traffic speeds. Traffic diversion
features can be incorporated to reduce the amount of car traffic on the street.
»This treatment is preferred by many in Ames over conventional bike lanes on
busier streets. Bike boulevards can also improve the pedestrian experience.
Intersection / Crossing Treatments
»Infrastructure to improve street crossings for people biking is an important step
toward increasing the amount of bicycle activity in Ames. Some kinds of crossing
treatments (such as median islands) are more suited to improve safety for bicy-
clists than crossing treatments aimed at pedestrians (such as curb extensions).
Secondary Needs
Bike Lanes, Bike Routes, Etc.
»People prefer biking on sidepaths, separated bike lanes, and bike boulevards.
However, there remains a need for bike lanes, bike routes, and other types of treat-
ments where the more desirable bikeway types are not feasible or appropriate.
192
38
CHAPTER 3
Facility Selection
& Guidelines
193
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
39
Best Practice Design
This chapter provides high-level descriptions, consid-
erations, and guidance for the physical infrastructure
to create a safe and comfortable active transportation
network, with a focus on designing for people of all
ages, abilities, and identities, as described in Chapter
1. The guidance in this chapter was used to select facil-
ities for the recommended bikeway and path network
for Ames. The toolkit is also meant to be a resource for
the City to use during implementation of the Plan. The
toolkit is not meant to replace engineering studies,
feasibility evaluation, or design—those will always be
subject to engineering judgment, context, and commu-
nity engagement.
As an overarching principle: walking and biking
infrastructure in Ames will be designed for people of
all ages and abilities. This emphasizes separation from
motor vehicle traffic and designing intersections to
prioritize people on foot. Sometimes people walking
and biking will share the same space, but in some
situations, it is preferable to separate them.
194
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
40
Figure 23 | City of Ames Bicycle Facility Selection Matrix
Paths & Bikeways
Low-stress connected bicycle networks improve bicyclist safety and encourage
bicycling for a broad range of user types. Creating such a network requires selecting
appropriate bicycle facilities for the context and ensuring appropriate design of said
facilities. Bicycle networks should be continuous and provide convenient access to
destinations. Anywhere a person would want to drive to for utilitarian purposes,
such as commuting or running errands, is a potential destination for bicycling. As
such, creating a low-stress bicycle network is not achieved by simply avoiding motor
vehicle traffic. Rather, bikeways should be provided along many higher traffic streets
and planners and engineers must therefore identify ways to lower stress along
higher traffic corridors so that bicycling can be a viable option for the majority of
the population.
Appropriate bicycle facilities are selected based on roadway width, traffic volumes,
speeds, and other considerations. Figure 23 identifies thresholds that guide the selec-
tion of bicycle facility types in Ames. These thresholds were informed by the FHWA
Bikeway Selection Guide and originally published in the Ames Complete Streets
Plan. They have been further refined for WBRA. The FHWA guide provides additional
guidance on the selection of appropriate bicycle facilities.
Path & Bikeway Toolkit
The toolkit below presents high-level guidance for path and bikeway implementation
tailored for the City of Ames. Design considerations, guidance, and context informa-
tion are provided for each treatment type. Compatible Place Types are identified for
each facility type. These place types are defined on page 15 of the Ames Complete
Streets Plan (CSP) and include Activity Center, Urban Mix, Residential, Large Scale
Commercial, and Industrial. For the purposes of this toolkit, a sixth place type (Park/
Rural) was identified.
195
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
41
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Shared Use Paths
Construction Cost per Mile:
$1,100,0001
Shared use paths, also known as trails, include paved and unpaved
paths that can be used by pedestrians and bicyclists. Shared use
paths can follow streets for short distances but are typically located
away from streets in natural and unsettled environments.
Trail intersections should provide clear wayfinding to direct trail
users. Where heavily utilized or around curves, a centerline can
encourage users to stay to the right. Crossings at major streets
should draw motorists’ attention and encourage yielding.
CSP Place Types: Any
Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume
N/A – See Sidepaths section below for shared use paths along streets.
Posted Speed Limit
N/A – See Sidepaths section below for shared use paths along streets.
Shared use paths (and sidepaths, below) should be designed accord -
ing to state and national standards. This process includes establishing
a design speed (typically 18 mph) and designing path geometries
accordingly.
10 ft should be used as a minimum width for paths and sidepaths.
Greater widths (or separate facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians) are
necessary where higher bicycle and pedestrian traffic is expected in
order to minimize conflicts between users.
Vertical objects close to the path edge can endanger users and reduce
the comfortable usable width of the path. Shoulders also provide
space for users who step off the path to rest or allow users to pass
one another.
Setback width guidance for shoulders and vertical objects:
»2 ft minimum
»3 ft typical
»5 ft preferred
All shared-use paths should be designed to meet standards in the US
Access Board’s Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).
Trail lighting is an important amenity, as it ensures that trails can be
used year-round (during winter months) and for transportation.
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Paths & Bikeways, p. 47
196
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
42
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Sidepaths
Construction Cost per Mile:
$1,100,0001
Sidepaths are paved shared use paths, used by both pedestrians
and bicyclists, which are located adjacent to streets. This distinction
is made because sidepaths present far more interactions with motor
vehicle traffic.
Crossings at intersections and driveways should draw motorists’ at-
tention and encourage yielding. There are various design solutions
that can improve interactions between bicyclists and motorists,
including shifting the sidepath further away from the side of the
road at driveways.
CSP Place Types: Urban Mix, Residential, Large Scale Commercial,
Industrial, Park/Rural.
Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume
Any volume (typically 4,500 ADT or greater)
Posted Speed Limit
Any speed (typically 30 mph or higher)
Sidepaths should be at least 10 ft wide, and wider where higher
bicycle and pedestrian traffic is expected (e.g. activity centers and
mixed-use areas).
Vertical objects close to the path edge can endanger users and reduce
the comfortable usable width of the path. Shoulders also provide
space for users who step off the path to rest or allow users to pass one
another.
Setback width guidance for shoulders and vertical objects:
»2 ft minimum
»3 ft typical
»5 ft preferred Sidepaths should not be located immediately
next to the curb unless they are at least 12 ft wide in total.
Special consideration must be given to the design of roadway cross-
ings to increase visibility, clearly indicate right-of-way, and reduce
crashes.
Alternative accommodations should be sought when there are many
intersections and commercial driveway crossings per mile.
All sidepaths should be designed to meet standards in the US Access
Board’s Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Paths & Bikeways, p. 47
197
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
43
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Separated Bike Lanes
Construction Cost per Mile:
$500,000-$1,000,000
(depending on type of sepa -
ration), including intersection
treatments1
Separated bike lanes dedicate spaces to people on bicycles that
are physically separated from both motorists and pedestrians.
Common vertical separators include planters, curbs, plastic delinea -
tors, and on-street parking. Separated bike lanes can be designed
to accommodate one- or two-way travel.
Bicycle signals, lateral offsets, signs, and markings can improve
safety at intersections and driveways. Transitions to trails and other
bicycle facilities should be clear, comfortable, and intuitive.
CSP Place Types: Activity Center, Urban Mix, Residential.
Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume
Any volume (typically 4,500 ADT or greater)
Posted Speed Limit
Any speed (typically 30 mph or higher), though higher speeds ne -
cessitate more durable/solid separators, such as concrete barriers.
Separated bike lanes can generally be considered on any road with
one or more of the following characteristics:
»3 or more total traffic lanes
»Frequent turnover for on-street parking
»Frequent bike lane obstructions
»Streets that are designated as truck or bus routes
»Critical connections to key destinations/routes
The minimum width of a one-way protected bike lane is 5.5 ft if
sidewalk level or between sloped curbs and less than 150 bikes per
hour. A desirable width is 8 ft which includes a 3 ft buffer separation.
Separated bike lanes are preferred over multi-use paths in higher
density areas, commercial and mixed-use development, and near
major transit stations or locations where pedestrian volumes are
anticipated to exceed 200 people per hour on a multi-use path.
Parking removal may be required to construct separated bike lanes.
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Paths & Bikeways, p. 47
198
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
44
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Bike Boulevards
Construction Cost per Mile:
$150-000-$450,0001
Bike boulevards optimize local streets for bicycle travel by
reducing traffic volumes and speeds. Some measures can be
implemented with roadway resurfacing and signage, while others
require construction.
Beyond signs and markings, bike boulevards generally include traffic
calming features – such as speed humps, curb extensions, traffic
circles, and traffic diversion treatments – and should be placed on
local streets to discourage speeding and cut-through traffic.
CSP Place Types: Activity Center, Urban Mix, Residential.
Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume
»Up to 1,000 (preferred)
»2,500 ADT (maximum)
Posted Speed Limit
»20 mph or lower (preferred)
»25 mph (maximum)
Wayfinding signage may be required to direct bicyclists. Additional
traffic control at minor intersections may be considered to prioritize
pedestrian and bicycle through travel.
Treatments like curb extensions increase the visibility of children at
crossings, due to their short stature.
The shared roadway design may be an opportunity for plantings, rain
gardens, and green infrastructure.
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Paths & Bikeways, p. 47
199
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
45
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Bike Lanes
Construction Cost per Mile:
$80,000-$190,0001
Conventional bike lanes provide space within the street for exclu-
sive bicycle travel. Signs and markings remind motorists that the
bike lane is intended solely for bicyclist travel.
Bike lanes should be striped all the way to the intersection (and not
disappear at turn lanes) and through intersections if the need for
clarity exists. Bike lanes should meet minimum width requirements
exclusive of the gutter pan.
If space allows, a striped buffer area can be provided in addition
to the bike lane, typically positioned between the bike lane and
adjacent travel lane. In some cases, the buffer may be placed next
to on-street parking to mitigate collisions with opening doors.
CSP Place Types: Activity Center, Urban Mix, Residential, Large
Scale Commercial, Industrial.
Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume
4,500 ADT or lower
Posted Speed Limit
30 mph or lower
The minimum width of a bike lane adjacent to a curb is 5 ft exclusive of
a gutter; a desirable width is 6 ft.
The minimum width of a bike lane adjacent to parking is 5 ft, with a
preferred width of 6 ft.
Parking T’s or hatch marks can highlight the door zone on constrained
corridors with high parking turnover to guide bicyclists away from doors.
When a buffer is provided, the minimum buffer width is 18 inches.
Diagonal cross hatching should be used for buffers <3 ft in width.
Chevron cross hatching should be used for buffers >3 ft in width.
There is no maximum width for a bike lane or buffered bike lane.
However, when the total width of bike lane and any buffer(s) exceeds 8
feet, there is an increasing chance that people will drive and/or park in
these spaces. In these cases, separated bike lanes should be considered.
On hills where inadequate space exists for bike lanes in both direc-
tions, a climbing lane can be provided in the uphill direction and
paired with a shared lane in the downhill direction.
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Paths & Bikeways, p. 47
200
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
46
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Bike Routes
Construction Cost per Mile:
$50,0001
Bike routes are designated routes typically identified by signage
and shared lane markings (or “sharrows”). They do not provide
any dedicated space for biking or any dedicated forms of traffic
calming. Bike routes typically include “Bikes May Use Full Lane” and/
or “Bike Route” signs, along with wayfinding signs guiding people
to destinations.
Bike routes identified in this plan are along streets with very low
traffic speeds and volumes that are important connections to
destinations, but where any additional bikeway treatment has been
deemed infeasible or unwarranted based on the traffic conditions
and surrounding context.
CSP Place Types: Residential, Park/Rural.
Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume
1,000 ADT or less (preferred, to serve all ages, abilities, and
identities)
2,500 ADT (maximum)
Motor Vehicle Operating Speed
20 mph or lower (preferred)
25 mph or lower (maximum)
Shared lane marking centerline must be at least 4 ft from the curb
or edge of pavement where parking is prohibited to direct bicyclists
away from gutters, seams, and other obstacles.
Shared lane marking centerline must be at least 11 ft from the curb
where parking is permitted so that it is outside the door zone of
parked vehicles.
The preferred shared lane marking placement is in the center of the
travel lane to minimize wear from motor vehicles and encourage
bicyclists to use the full travel lane.
Shared lane markings should be paired with “Bikes May Use Full Lane”
signs (MUTCD R4-11) to clearly inform road users that bicyclists may
choose to fully occupy travel lanes, discourage passing by motor vehi-
cles, and also inform bicyclists that they can or may operate towards
the center of the travel lane for safest operation.
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Paths & Bikeways, p. 47
201
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
47
Summary of Costs – Paths & Bikeways
The opinions of probable costs for paths and bikeways
were developed by identifying major pay items and
establishing rough quantities to determine a rough
order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have
been assigned approximate lump sum prices based
on a percentage of the anticipated construction
cost. Planning-level cost opinions include a 25%
contingency to cover items that are undefined or are
typically unknown early in the planning phase of a
project. Unit costs are based on 2023 dollars and were
assigned based on historical cost data from City of
Ames, Wisconsin DOT, City of Madison, WI, and City
of Austin, TX. Cost opinions do not include easement
and right-of-way acquisition; permitting, inspection,
or construction management; engineering, surveying,
geotechnical investigation, environmental documenta -
tion, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for
ongoing maintenance. A cost range has been assigned
to certain general categories such as utility relocations;
however, these costs can vary widely depending on
the exact details and nature of the work. The overall
cost opinions are intended to be general and used
only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC
makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost
estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on
the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and
constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the
time of construction.
Facility Action/Description Typical Cost per Mile (FY 2023 Dollars)1
New Shared Use Path2 Construct new concrete shared use path (10’ width, 6” depth)$1,100,000
Widen Existing Shared Use Path Remove and repave shared use path at 10’ width (with
concrete)$1,160,000
Separated Bike Lanes
Delineator-Separated, Add Striping/Marking $180,000
Construct New, Curb-Separated $970,000
Protected Intersection (cost per intersection)$150,000
Bike Boulevards
Construct traffic calming infrastructure such as curb ex-
tensions, pedestrian islands, and other measures to reduce
speeds and traffic volumes.
$150,000 to
$450,000
Bike Lanes
Add Striping/Marking (no existing markings)$110,000
Road Diet (4 to 3 conversion)$190,000
Lane Diet (narrow travel lanes)$130,000
Climbing Lane (bike lane on one side, marked/signed bike
route on the other)$80,000
Bike Routes Install bike route signs and shared lane markings $50,000
1 Assumptions for all facility costs: The existing ROW is clear and free of obstructions (trees, structures, etc.) except for
shared use paths. Costs do not include installation of curb and gutter (unless noted).
2 Shared use paths costs exclude the costs of structural concrete, steel, and fencing
202
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
48
Crossing Treatments
The selection and application of crossing treatments is
highly dependent on the context of the location. Motor
vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, roadway width, the
presence of existing infrastructure (such as medians),
surrounding land use, and amount of foot and bike
traffic all factor in.
The FHWA published its Guide for Improving Pedestrian
Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations in 2018, which
includes guidance for pedestrian crash countermeasures
that can be used at crossings based on roadway config-
urations, speed limits, and average daily traffic volumes.
Figure 24 is a key resource in that guide, providing
facility selection methodology for crossings.
As illustrated in the matrix, crossing treatments are
typically used in combination. Selecting those com-
binations is often a case-by-case decision. However,
there are common combinations used that align with
common crossing situations. Examples are provided on
“Typical Treatment Combinations” on page 54.
Figure 24 | Crossing Treatment Selection Matrix (Source: FHWA)
203
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
49
Crossing Toolkit
The toolkit below presents high-level guidance for common crossing elements tailored for the City of Ames.
Design considerations, guidance, and context information are provided for each treatment type. Compatible Place
Types are identified for each treatment type. These place types are defined in the Ames Complete Streets Plan
(CSP; Page 15) and include Activity Center, Urban Mix, Residential, Large Scale Commercial, and Industrial. For the
purposes of this toolkit, a sixth place type (Park/Rural) was identified.
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Crossing Treatments, p. 56
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Marked Crosswalks
Construction Cost per Location:
$2,000-$8,0001
Crosswalks facilitate pedestrian crossings at intersections
and mid-block locations. Per Iowa State laws and regulations,
motorists are legally required to yield to pedestrians in any
unsignalized crosswalk.
CSP Place Types: All
Location Characteristics
Not all crosswalks need to be marked. The City of Ames will
default to providing marked crosswalks in the following
locations:
»On all legs of signalized intersections
»On all legs of intersections in school zones
»Where a shared use path or sidepath crosses a roadway
»At all midblock crossings
»At locations where motor vehicle traffic might block pe -
destrian traffic when stopping for a stop sign or red signal
The City of Ames will also consider providing marked crosswalks
at pedestrian crossing locations within 100 feet of bus stops
and parks.
High visibility crosswalks are recommended at all locations, but are
prioritized in school zones, near parks, at midblock crossings, and where
shared use paths/sidepaths cross roadways. Where applied, the bars in
high-visibility crosswalks should be spaced 2-3 ft apart to increase the
visibility.
Crosswalks should be at least 6 ft wide (10 ft preferred) or the width of the
approaching sidewalk if it is greater.
In areas of heavy pedestrian volumes (such as near the ISU campus and
downtown) crosswalks can be up to 25ft wide.
Stop lines at stop-controlled and signalized intersection approaches
should be striped no less than 4 ft and no more than 30 ft from the edge
of crosswalks.
Crosswalks should be oriented perpendicular to streets, minimizing
crossing distances and therefore limiting the time that pedestrians
are exposed.
On higher-volume, higher-speed, multi-lane streets, marked crosswalks
should be accompanied by treatments to encourage motorist yielding
and improve pedestrian safety, such as parking restrictions, nighttime
lighting, yield signs and markings, median refuge islands, and pedestrian
hybrid beacons.
204
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
50
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Curb Ramps
Construction Cost per Location:
TO BE DETERMINED
Curb ramps provide smooth transitions from sidewalks to streets
at intersections and crossings which serve pedestrians with
mobility devices. Curb ramps can also serve people with strollers
or people on bicycles.
Curb ramp design and construction must comply with ADA
requirements to ensure that they can be used by people
with disabilities. ADA-compliant curb ramps typically include
detectable surfaces to warn Blind and visually-impaired people
of the bottom of the ramp.
CSP Place Types: All
Location Characteristics
At any legal crossing
The Public Right of Way Accessibility guidelines set forth detailed
standards that address the design of curb ramps.1
Crosswalk Visibility
Enhancements
Construction Cost per
Location:
$4,500-$21,5002
Crosswalk visibility enhancements such as nighttime lighting,
parking restrictions, and pedestrian warning signs are used to
identify optimal or preferred locations for people to cross and
help reinforce the driver requirement to yield the right-of-way to
pedestrians. These countermeasures are a minimum first line of
defense where safety at intersections is in question.
CSP Place Types: All
Location Characteristics
Lighting and parking restrictions are recommended at any
marked crosswalk
Warning signs are recommended at all midblock crosswalks
and intersection crossings with challenging configurations or
visibility
Marking crosswalks and increasing crosswalk visibility should almost
always occur in conjunction with other pedestrian safety countermea-
sures on streets with over 9,000 ADT.
Install pedestrian warning signs (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1).
On streets with more than 3 lanes, use Yield Here for Pedestrians MUTCD
R1-5 and shark teeth markings).
Restrict parking within 20-50 ft of the crosswalk to improve visibility.
Ensure adequate nighttime lighting levels. Crosswalks with high pedestri -
an activity across collectors and arterials should have high illuminance.
1 Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). (2023). Retrieved from: https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/
2 Refer to Summary of Costs – Crossing Treatments, p. 56
205
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
51
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Curb Extensions
Construction Cost per Location
(One Pair):
$10,000-$50,0001
Curb extensions involve extending the curb beyond the side -
walk or buffer edge to shorten crosswalk length and increase
visibility of people entering the crosswalk, particularly when
there is on-street parking. Curb extensions are also effective
tools for narrowing streets or tightening intersections to reduce
motor vehicle turning speeds. Near schools and parks, they can
help increase the visibility of children waiting to step into the
intersection.
CSP Place Types: Activity Center, Urban Mix, Residential, Park/
Rural.
Location Characteristics
»Where on-street parking is provided
»Near schools, parks, or other areas where children may be
present
»Often used on bike boulevards
Curb extensions are especially effective on streets where drivers habitual -
ly encroach on crosswalks or park too close to crosswalks.
Corner radii should be kept as small as possible while still accommodat-
ing the design vehicle at a crawl speed. Larger design vehicles can be
accommodated with mountable curbs or aprons.
Curb extensions that extend less than 6 ft into the street are compatible
with bike lanes next to on-street parking.
Stormwater drainage concerns can pose a challenge. If needed, preserve
1-2 ft between the sidewalk and curb extension to provide space for
drainage structures or install additional drainage inlets to prevent
ponding water.
Curb extensions can be an opportunity to incorporate green infrastruc-
ture, street furniture, bike parking, wayfinding, public art, or other public
space elements into the street design.
Median Island /
Pedestrian Refuge
Island
Construction Cost per Location:
$25,000-$50,0001
Median islands provide a protected refuge space in the center
of two-way streets to allow pedestrians to cross the street in two
steps, negotiating only one direction of traffic at a time. Islands
also provide traffic calming by narrowing the roadway and
creating edge friction.
CSP Place Types: All
Location Characteristics
»Where the roadway width is 30 ft or greater
»Any traffic volume (always consider on any street with
9,000 ADT or greater)
»Often used on bike boulevards
Median islands should be a minimum of 6 ft wide. An island width of 8-10
ft is preferred, especially at shared use path crossings or other locations
where people bicycling may also be crossing to accommodate strollers
and bicycles with trailers.
Follow the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidance
for warning signage, signalization, pavement markings, and painted curb
on the island approach.
Consider flush accessible paths through the pedestrian island to minimize
the need for ramps.
Can be paired with curb extensions to further reduce crossing distances,
where space allows.
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Crossing Treatments, p. 56
206
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
52
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Raised Crossing
Construction Cost per Location:
$15,000-$30,0001
Raised crossings are used for traffic calming and to improve
motorist yielding to people walking and biking at intersections
and midblock crossings. Crosswalks are elevated to reduce or
eliminate the transition from the sidewalk to the street crossing.
Transition aprons on each approach to the raised intersection
are marked to alert drivers of the grade change.
CSP Place Types: Activity Center, Urban Mix, Residential, Park/
Rural
Location Characteristics
»Typically, 2-lane or 3-lane streets
»Generally, not on truck routes, emergency roues, and
arterial streets
»Less than 9,000 ADT
»Speeds of 30 mph or less
»Often used on bike boulevards
Raised crosswalks are typically flush with the height of the sidewalk. The
crosswalk table is typically at least 10 ft wide.
Detectable warnings should be provided at sidewalk edges to indicate to
pedestrians that they are exiting the sidewalk and entering the street.
On-street parking should be stopped at least 20 ft before the marked
crosswalk to provide adequate sight distances and visibility between
people crossing and people driving. Consider supplementing parking
restrictions with signage, pavement markings, and vertical elements such
as curb extensions.
Warning signs and pavement markings on transition aprons should be
included to alert drivers.
Provide transition apron slopes between 5 and 8%.
Where vehicles with low height wheelbases are likely (e.g., lowboy
trailers), the raised crosswalk height should be limited to 3 inches.
Stormwater drainage concerns can be an issue and additional drainage
inlets may need to be installed to prevent ponding water.
Raised Intersection
Construction Cost per Location:
$50,000-$75,0001
Raised intersections are effective traffic calming measures
where there are high volumes of people. The entire intersection
area is elevated to create a level transition from sidewalk to
street crossing. Transition aprons on all sides of the raised area
are marked with pavement markings to alert drivers of the grade
change.
CSP Place Types: Activity Center, Urban Mix, Residential, Park/
Rural
Location Characteristics
»At crossings of 2-lane or 3-lane streets
»Less than 9,000 ADT
»Speeds of 30 mph or less
Vehicle stop bars should be located 20 ft back from transition aprons.
The raised intersection should be designed to ensure that stormwater
drainage is properly accommodated.
Special paving material, color, and/or pattern can be used to delineate
and accentuate raised intersections.
Stormwater drainage concerns can be an issue and drainage inlets may
need to be moved; however, raised intersections can also be used to
address stormwater concerns depending on the location.
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Crossing Treatments, p. 56
207
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
53
Facility Type Description + Design Considerations Guidance
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
Construction Cost per Location:
$10,000-$30,0001
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) alert drivers
to yield when pedestrians or bicyclists are crossing the street.
Crosswalk users activate the beacon with a pushbutton. Other
types of activation (e.g., infrared detection) can be used.
RRFBs are an effective treatment option at many types of
uncontrolled crosswalks. Their bright, irregularly flashing LEDs
are aimed directly in motorists’ range of vision. RRFBs increase
driver yielding at mid-block crossings
CSP Place Types: All
Location Characteristics
»Any street configuration, but more common on multilane
and wider streets
»Under 15,000 ADT
»Speeds less than 40 mph
The design of RRFBs should be in accordance with FHWA’s Interim
Approval 21 for Operational Use of Pedestrian-Actuated Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing Beacons at Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks.
On streets with more than one lane in each direction, RRFBs should always
be accompanied by with advance yield markings (shark teeth) and Yield
Here to Pedestrian signs.
RRFBs are installed on both sides of the roadway at the edge of the cross-
walk. If there is a pedestrian refuge or other type of median on roadways
with multi-lane approaches, an additional beacon should be installed in
the median.
High-visibility crosswalk markings may accompany RRFBs
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
Construction Cost per Location:
$190,000-$210,0001
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) are appropriate at cross-
walks on streets with higher speeds and traffic volumes. PHBs
signal for vehicles to come to a complete stop for pedestrians
and bicyclists in the crosswalk. Crosswalk users activate PHBs
with a pushbutton.
CSP Place Types: All
Location Characteristics
»Multilane crossings
»Any volume (typically 9,000 ADT or greater)
»Typically speeds 30 mph or higher
PHBs must comply with MUTCD traffic control device warrants.
Accessible pedestrian actuation features should be used on all PHBs.
1 Refer to Summary of Costs – Crossing Treatments, p. 56
208
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
54
Typical Treatment Combinations
The crossing treatments shown on the previous pages
are typically used in combination. While treatments are
selected and combined based on the unique conditions
and constraints of each project location, there are
common combinations used that align with common
crossing situations. Examples of common situations and
common treatment combinations are shown on this
and the following page. These images represent how
the City will typically approach crossing design in these
situations—however, actual conditions at each project
location will guide how the City evaluates needs and
makes decisions about which treatments are used.
Major Signalized Intersection
Intersections where major arterials (such as Grand
Avenue, Lincoln Way, University Boulevard, and South
Duff Avenue) cross each other often have traffic signals
and high amounts of car traffic. Crossing treatments
are selected to achieve the goals of shortening crossing
distances, providing refuge for pedestrians, and
slowing the speed of turning motor vehicles.
These locations can be enhanced for people walking,
biking, and rolling by retrofitting treatments such as:
1. High Visibility Marked Crosswalks
2. Median Islands
3. Curb Extensions (the graphic shows mountable curb
extensions that encourage lower turning speeds
while allowing semi trailers to roll over the surface)
4. Leading Pedestrian Intervals (signal phasing that
gives a WALK signal before parallel car traffic
receives a green light)
2
3
1
209
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
55
Arterial Street Crossing
There are numerous locations in Ames where neighborhood streets cross four-lane
arterial streets. These crossings are also often located along Bike Boulevards (see
page 44). These locations typically do not have space to add median islands
without reducing the number of travel lanes (and therefore roadway capacity).
Crossing treatments are selected to achieve the goals of increasing visibility of people
walking, biking, and rolling, raising driver awareness, and controlling traffic. When
the cross street is a Bike Boulevard, an additional goal is to reduce car traffic on the
Bike Boulevard.
These locations can be enhanced for people walking, biking, and rolling by retrofit-
ting treatments such as:
1. High Visibility Marked Crosswalks
2. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
3. Advance Yield Lines
4. Hardened Centerlines (Optional; typically used on Bike Boulevards)
Collector Street Crossing
There are numerous locations in Ames where people walking, biking, and rolling
need to cross two-lane collector streets (with or without a center turn lane). These
include locations where neighborhood streets cross, as well as mid-block crossings.
Both types of locations are shown below. Crossing treatments are selected to achieve
the goals of increasing visibility of people walking, biking, and rolling, raising driver
awareness, and providing pedestrian refuge.
These locations can be enhanced for people walking, biking, and rolling by retrofit-
ting treatments such as:
1. High Visibility Marked Crosswalks
2. Crosswalk Warning Signs (or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at higher-traffic
locations)
3. Advance Yield Lines
4. Median Islands
2
3
41
2
3
4
1
2341
210
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
56
Summary of Costs –
Crossing Treatments
The opinions of probable costs for crossing treat-
ments assume that a variety of crossing treatments
will be used for each crossing or intersection. Costs
were developed by identifying major pay items and
establishing rough quantities to determine a rough
order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have
been assigned approximate lump sum prices based
on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost.
Planning-level cost opinions include a 25% contingency
to cover items that are undefined or are typically
unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit
costs are based on 2023 dollars and were assigned
based on historical cost data from City of Ames, City
of Madison, WI, and City of Austin, TX. Cost opinions
do not include easement and right-of-way acquisition;
permitting, inspection, or construction management;
engineering, surveying, geotechnical investigation, en -
vironmental documentation, special site remediation,
escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance. The
overall cost opinions are intended to be general and
used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group,
LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the
cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based
on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions
and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at
the time of construction.
Facility Description Typical Cost per Mile (FY 2023 Dollars)
Crossings
Crossing - 2- or 3-lane roadway1 $50,000
Crossing - 4-lane roadway (midblock
or unsignalized)2 $250,000
Signalized Intersection
Enhancements3 $290,000
1 Cost opinion assumes installation of high visibility crosswalk markings, curb extensions, and/or median island and RRFBs
2 Cost opinion assumes installation of high visibility crosswalk markings, curb extensions and/or larger median island,
crosswalk warning signs, RRFBs, enhanced lighting, advance Stop Here for Pedestrian sign, and stop line.
3 Cost opinion assumes installation of the following, for all four legs of the intersection: high visibility crosswalk mark-
ings, curb extensions to reduce corner radii, pedestrian refuge islands or centerline hardening, enhanced lighting.
211
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
57
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are paved pedestrian routes located parallel
to the roadway. Sidewalks are typically vertically
separated from the roadway by a curb and horizontally
separated by a vegetated buffer. While designed for
use by people walking and rolling, sidewalks are often
also used for skating and biking, especially by children.
If a sidewalk is regularly used for biking by adults,
that is a clear indication that a sidepath or dedicated
bikeway is needed on that street.
The Ames Complete Streets Plan provides detailed
guidance on the selection of sidewalk width, setback
from the roadway, and other parameters based on
context and street type. The considerations and
guidance provided here align with and support the
guidance of the Complete Streets Plan.
Guidance
»Sidewalks should generally be present on both sides
of all streets. All new streets should have sidewalk
on both sides, and sidewalks should be provided (or
replaced) when adjacent development or redevel-
opment occurs or when the street is reconstructed.
»The minimum width of sidewalks is 5 ft to meet
ADA requirements, however there are instances
where sidewalks should be wider. Wider sidewalks
are appropriate when greater volumes of people
are anticipated, such as in downtown areas, mixed
use zones, around schools, or where sidewalks run
immediately adjacent to roadways or building faces.
»The Ames Complete Streets Plan specifies
minimum and preferred sidewalk width (referred
to as the “Clear Zone” in the plan) in the Pedestrian
Zone Design Criteria section.
»In most areas, sidewalks should be at least 8 ft from
the curb of the street for pedestrian comfort and to
allow street trees to thrive. In some downtown and
urban contexts, it is acceptable to have sidewalks
against the curb, especially if the sidewalk is wider
and/or on-street parking or bikeway provides a
buffer between the sidewalk and moving car traffic.
»Maintenance of sidewalks, such as snow removal,
is often the responsibility of the adjacent property
owners who may need to be informed of this
responsibility. Major repairs or replacement are the
responsibility of the City.
»All sidewalks and shared-use paths should be
designed to meet standards in the US Access Board’s
Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG). Shared use paths and sidepaths take the
place of sidewalks in many situations; see guidance
on Page 44 regarding these facilities.
212
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
58
Summary of Costs – Sidewalks
The opinions of probable costs for sidewalks were
developed by identifying major pay items and estab -
lishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of
magnitude cost. Planning-level cost opinions include
a 25% contingency to cover items that are undefined
or are typically unknown early in the planning phase
of a project. Unit costs are based on 2023 dollars and
were assigned based on historical cost data from City of
Ames and Wisconsin DOT. Cost opinions do not include
easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting,
inspection, or construction management; engineering,
surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental
documentation, special site remediation, escalation,
or the cost for ongoing maintenance. The overall
cost opinions are intended to be general and used
only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC
makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost
estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on
the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and
constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the
time of construction.
Facility Description Typical Cost per Mile (FY 2023 Dollars)
Sidewalk Construct new concrete sidewalk (5’ width, 5”
depth) on one side of the street $320,0000
213
FACILITY SELECTION & GUIDELINES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
59
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
214
60
CHAPTER 4
Network Plan
& Priorities
215
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
61
Building the Future
This chapter organizes planned active transportation infrastructure into three
elements, each designed to move the community toward achieving the vision of Walk
Bike Roll Ames—making Ames a place where walking, biking, and rolling are safe,
enjoyable, convenient, and available to everyone. The three elements are:
1. Paths and Bikeways – Planned changes to streets to better accommodate biking
as well as planned off-street shared-use paths, which are also used by people
walking and rolling.
2. Crossings – Locations for making it safer and more comfortable to cross streets,
both for people walking/rolling and for people biking.
3. Sidewalks – Priority gaps in the sidewalk network that, once built, will increase
connectivity and accessibility for people walking and rolling.
For each of these elements, this chapter includes:
»An overview of how the planned projects were identified
»A map of planned projects
»A data-driven prioritization approach
»A map of projects, prioritized
»Identification of potential costs for implementing the plan
216
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
62
Paths & Bikeways
On-street bikeways and shared use paths form a network
of routes along select corridors that provide connectivity
and access for people biking and using Micromobility.
Designated bikeways and paths are supplemented by low
traffic neighborhood streets, which are inherently condu-
cive to biking and connect many peoples’ residences with
the bike and path network. Shared use paths also serve
walking and rolling but are combined with bikeways
in this element because they form critical parts of the
network upon which on-street bikeways are dependent.
This plan includes new bikeways and paths and identi-
fies upgrades to existing routes, including converting
standard bike lanes to separated bike lanes and
widening and repaving paths and sidepaths. Needs and
opportunities for these changes were identified by the
series of analyses described in Chapter 2. The network
development process included the following steps:
»Review and inclusion of previously-planned shared-
use paths and other bikeways.
»Identification of apparent gaps in the existing
network and opportunities to create connections.
»Review of the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS)
to find isolated areas of the community. Any route
currently on the network with BLTS of 3 or 4 was
identified for upgrade.
»Selection of preferred facility type for new connec-
tions and upgraded routes. This was determined
based on the bikeway selection matrix, shown
on Page 44, as well as high-level evaluation of
probable feasibility and compatibility with the
surrounding context.
»Identification of narrow sidepaths (less than 10 feet
wide and/or immediately against the curb), which
are recommended for widening to 10 or more feet.
The initial draft bikeway and shared-use path network
was presented to the Community Advisory Committee
and the public. The following changes were made to
the network based on their input:
»Added connections to the rear of businesses along
South Duff Avenue (e.g., Target and Walmart).
»Increased physical separation between biking and
car traffic by upgrading several segments (wider
paths, separated bike lanes, etc.).
»Improvements to key corridors, including Clark
Avenue, Lincoln Way, Grand Avenue, and Duff
Avenue.
»Rerouted the planned bike boulevard along
Ridgewood Avenue to instead follow Brookridge
Avenue on the southern end.
»Added planned shared use path connections
between downtown and the Skunk River and a path/
sidepath connecting the cemetery to the Skunk
River.
»Provided additional connections apart from busier
roadways.
The planned bikeway and shared-use path network is
illustrated in Figure 25.
217
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
63
Figure 25 | Existing and Planned Bikeways and Shared-Use Paths
218
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
64
Path & Bikeway Project Prioritization
The City of Ames has a limited amount of funding with
which to build new infrastructure, and limited staff
time to pursue grant funding. Because of this, it is
important to decide which projects should be priori-
tized for implementation. A data-driven prioritization
process—shaped around the WBRA Plan goals—used
GIS data to score and rank projects based on objective
criteria. The criteria and scoring process for bikeway
and shared-use path projects are described in the table
on this page. The results of the prioritization, with the
darkest projects being the highest-priority projects is
shown in the map in Figure 26.
Project prioritization is one tool used to determine
which projects to build first. Feasibility, funding
availability, and the potential to “piggyback” on larger
capital projects all factor in. Timelines for planning,
funding applications, and engineering and design also
influence order of implementation. This prioritization
informs the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),
pursuit of grant funding, and dedication of staff time to
coordination and planning. ISU also has its own priori-
ties and ultimately has final determination of what and
when infrastructure is built within its jurisdiction.
Path and Bikeway Project Prioritization Logic
Variable Associated Plan Goal(s)Input Data Criteria Weight
Safety Safe and
Comfortable
Historic Crash
Density*
Whether the project is along a
corridor with historic crash density.20%
Use /
Demand
Healthy and
Sustainable Trip Potential
Volume of trips 1 mile or less
occurring along the corridor,
representing high walking and
biking trip potential.
20%
Equity Equitable and
Accessible
Locations of Housing,
Social Services, and
Groceries**
Whether the project is in an area
where people receiving social ser-
vices live, and whether it helps to
connect communities to important
resources.
20%
Comfort /
Lowering
Stress
Safe and
Comfortable
Connected and Easy
Bicycle Level of
Traffic Stress (BLTS)
Whether the project is along a
roadway that is stressful for biking
(LTS 3 or 4)
20%
Connecting
Destinations Connected and Easy
K-12 schools, parks,
and grocery stores
(including Target and
Walmart)
Wayfinding Priority
Routes
Whether the project is near
important destinations. Proximity
to multiple destinations increases
score.
Whether the project is along
priority wayfinding route.
20%
* Historic bike crash density and pedestrian crash
density are merged for the purposes of prioritization.
Enhancements for either mode will benefit the other. This
also helps to account for the relatively small dataset.
** This dataset includes address of Section 8 households
throughout the community, low-income housing
complexes/units, food pantries, medical clinics/facilities,
human service agencies, churches that provide services,
grocery stores, financial counseling services, thrift
stores, senior centers, Walmart, and Target.
219
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
65
Figure 26 | Prioritized Bikeway and Shared-Use Path Projects
220
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
66
Potential Cost of Implementation of
Path & Bikeway Recommendations
The table on this page illustrates the potential cost,
in 2023 dollars, of implementing all of the paths and
bikeways recommended in this Plan. However, it should
be noted that many of the new shared use paths and
bikeways on the edges of the City, including some
labeled as “Further Study Needed” may not require the
City to shoulder the full financial burden:
»As private property is subdivided or redeveloped,
City ordinances will trigger shared use path
construction.
»Some of shared-use path connections could be the
responsibility of Story County. Figure 25 includes
markers identifying where the City’s responsibility
would end, and the County’s responsibility would
begin.
»Projects under ISU jurisdiction would be the
university’s responsibility.
»Projects along state or federal highways would be
the Iowa DOT’s responsibility.
»Other opportunities may arise to reduce the finan -
cial burden, such as using federal or state grants.
Nevertheless, the cost of implementing the recommen -
dations illustrates the necessity of prioritizing projects
as shown in Figure 26. The Implementation Horizon
section in Chapter 5 provides more detail on what
portion of these path and bikeway recommendations
may be reasonably implemented in the next 25 years.
Facility Type Potential Cost/Mile Miles Proposed
Approximate Total Cost (FY 2023 Dollars)
New Shared Use Path $1,100,000 45.1 $49,600,000
Widen Existing Shared Use Path 10.3 $11,400,000
Bike Lanes $180,000 3.6 $500,000
Separated Bike Lanes $1,100,000 1.7 $1,800,000
Bicycle Boulevard $300,000 5.0 $1,500,000
Bike Routes $70,000 3.4 $200,000
Further Study Needed $1,100,000 8.7 $9,600,000
Total 77.7 $74,600,000
221
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
67
Crossings
Safe, comfortable, and convenient street crossings are
essential for walkability and bike-friendliness. In Ames,
uncomfortable street crossings are a primary barrier to
walking, biking, and rolling for many people. This plan
recommends projects to enhance crossings for people
walking and rolling, crossings for people biking, and
crossings that serve both.
Achieving a comfortable crossing is very context-de -
pendent—the design treatments, amount and speed of
motor vehicle traffic, presence of traffic controls, street
lighting, sight lines, and crossing distance all influence
the comfort of a crossing. This plan identifies locations
for crossing projects but does not specify designs.
Rather, City staff should use the guidance provided
in Chapter 3 and engineering judgment to select
appropriate treatments for each location during the
implementation process.
Needs and opportunities for crossing enhancement
projects were identified by the series of analyses
described in. This process involved evaluating the
currently-high-stress crossings and large gaps between
low stress crossings, and identifying locations for
projects that meet one or more of the following criteria:
»Where bikeways intersect major streets, taking into
consideration the intersection geometry, Bicycle
Level of Traffic Stress of the cross-street, and
presence of traffic control.
»In areas where more than 1/8 mile between low-
stress crossings, selected intersections roughly
midway between currently-low-stress crossings, or
approximately every 1/8 mile or less. This focused
on intersections close to bus stops and longer cross-
streets. Crossing projects were not recommend if
little to no development exists on one or both sides
of the street.
»Intersections near schools (within 1/4 mile). Not
every intersection was selected—especially those
not directly leading to the school and if there are
other locations with adequate crossings nearby.
»Where existing or proposed shared-use paths
intersect streets and adequate crossing treatments
do not already exist.
During public review of recommended crossing
projects identified using the above logic, approximate -
ly 60 additional crossing needs were identified. These
were reviewed, and where feasible were added to the
plan. This resulted in a total of 108 crossing projects in
WBRA, which are displayed in Figure 27.
222
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
68
Figure 27 | Planned Crossing Projects
223
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
69
Crossing Project Prioritization
The City of Ames has a limited amount of funding with
which to build new infrastructure, and limited staff
time to pursue grant funding. Because of this, it is
important to decide which projects should be priori-
tized for implementation. A data-driven prioritization
process—shaped around the WBRA Plan goals—used
GIS data to score and rank projects based on objective
criteria. The criteria and scoring process for crossing
projects are described in the table on this page. The
results of the prioritization, with the darkest projects
being the highest-priority projects is shown in the map
in Figure 28.
Project prioritization is one tool used to determine
which projects to build first. Feasibility, funding
availability, and the potential to “piggyback” on larger
capital projects all factor in. Timelines for planning,
funding applications, and engineering and design also
influence order of implementation. This prioritization
informs the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),
pursuit of grant funding, and dedication of staff time to
coordination and planning. ISU also has its own priori-
ties and ultimately has final determination of what and
when infrastructure is built within its jurisdiction.
Crossing Project Prioritization Logic
Variable Associated Plan Goal(s)Input Data Criteria Weight
Safety Safe and
Comfortable
Historic Crash
Density*
Whether the project is along a
corridor with historic crash density.20%
Use / Demand Healthy and
Sustainable Trip Potential
Volume of trips 1 mile or less
occurring along the corridor, repre -
senting high walking and biking trip
potential.
20%
Equity Equitable and
Accessible
Locations of Housing,
Social Services, and
Groceries**
Whether the project is in an area
where people receiving social
services live, and whether it helps to
connect communities to important
resources.
20%
Comfort /
Lowering
Stress
Safe and
Comfortable
Connected and Easy
Bicycle LTS;
Pedestrian Crossing
LTS
Whether the crossing is currently
high-stress OR the street being
crossed is stressful (BLTS).
15%
Connecting
Destinations Connected and Easy
K-12 schools, parks,
and grocery stores
(including Target and
Walmart)
Wayfinding Priority
Routes
Whether the project is near important
destinations. Proximity to multiple
destinations increases score.
Whether the project is along priority
wayfinding route.
15%
Network
Completion /
Filling Gaps
Equitable and
Accessible Crossing Gaps
Whether the project is more than
1/8 mile from the nearest low-stress
crossing, and whether the project is
near bus stops.
10%
* Historic bike crash density and pedestrian crash
density are merged for the purposes of prioritization.
Enhancements for either mode will benefit the other. This
also helps to account for the relatively small dataset.
** This dataset includes address of Section 8 households
throughout the community, low-income housing
complexes/units, food pantries, medical clinics/facilities,
human service agencies, churches that provide services,
grocery stores, financial counseling services, thrift
stores, senior centers, Walmart, and Target.
224
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
70
Figure 28 | Prioritized Crossing Projects
225
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
71
Potential Cost of Implementation
of Crossing Recommendations
The table on this page illustrates the potential cost, in
2023 dollars, of implementing all crossing recommen-
dations in this Plan. However, it should be noted that
some of the crossing enhancements may not require
the City to shoulder the full financial burden:
»Projects under ISU jurisdiction would be the
university’s responsibility.
»Projects along state or federal highways would be
the Iowa DOT’s responsibility.
»Other opportunities may arise to reduce the finan -
cial burden, such as using federal or state grants.
Nevertheless, the cost of implementing the recommen -
dations illustrates the necessity of prioritizing projects
as shown in Figure 28. The Implementation Horizon
section in Chapter 5 provides more detail on what
portion of these crossing recommendations may be
reasonably implemented in the next 25 years.
Facility Type Potential Cost per Crossing Location (FY 2023 Dollars)
Approximate Number of Locations
Approximate Total Cost (FY 2023 Dollars)
Crossing - 2- or 3-lane roadway $50,000 29 $1,500,000
Crossing - 4-lane roadway (midblock or
unsignalized)$250,000 48 $12,000,000
Signalized Intersection Enhancements $290,000 31 $9,000,000
Total 108 $22,500,000
226
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
72
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are fundamental to walking and rolling.
While they do not take the place of sidepaths and on-
street bikeways, sidewalks can also support biking—es-
pecially for younger children and along higher-speed
streets with very low walking, biking, and rolling
activity. Ames fortunately has sidewalks along both
sides of most streets, so this plan focuses on projects
that fill key sidewalk gaps.
Needs and opportunities for sidewalk projects were
identified by the series of analyses described in Chapter
2. This process involved determining whether each
street segment in the city has sidewalk on one or both
sides and then identifying where there are gaps. Not
all gaps are identified as sidewalk projects. Rather,
locations for projects were identified based on the
following criteria:
»For busier streets (classified as arterial or collector
streets, as well as any local street with more than
1,000 cars per day), any sidewalk gap is identified as
a project, unless:
»Significant physical constraints exist (such as
retaining walls, etc.), and nearby pedestrian
activity is likely low (such as industrial areas,
neighborhood settings, etc.).
»The gap is along a lengthy street corridor
through undeveloped areas and park land.
While this plan does not identify such locations
for sidewalk projects, the City will still require
sidewalks on both sides of such streets if and
when development occurs in these areas.
»For all other streets that are within 0.25 mile of a
K-12 school, sidewalk projects are recommended
where there are gaps on both sides of the street so
that complete sidewalk is provided on at least one
side of the street.
In total, WBRA recommends 15 miles of sidewalk projects
to fill the key sidewalk gaps shown on Figure 29.
227
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
73
Figure 29 | Planned Sidewalk Projects
228
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
74
Sidewalk Project Prioritization
The City of Ames has a limited amount of funding with
which to build new infrastructure, and limited staff
time to pursue grant funding. Because of this, it is
important to decide which projects should be priori-
tized for implementation. A data-driven prioritization
process—shaped around the WBRA Plan goals—used
GIS data to score and rank projects based on objective
criteria. The criteria and scoring process for sidewalk
projects are described in the table on this page. The
results of the prioritization, with the darkest projects
being the highest-priority projects is shown in the map
in Figure 30.
Project prioritization is one tool used to determine
which projects to build first. Feasibility, funding
availability, and the potential to “piggyback” on larger
capital projects all factor in. Timelines for planning,
funding applications, and engineering and design also
influence order of implementation. This prioritization
informs the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),
pursuit of grant funding, and dedication of staff time to
coordination and planning. ISU also has its own priori-
ties and ultimately has final determination of what and
when infrastructure is built within its jurisdiction.
Sidewalk Project Prioritization Logic
Variable Associated Plan Goal(s)Input Data Criteria Weight
Safety Safe and
Comfortable
Historic Crash
Density*
Whether the project is along a corridor
with historic crash density.20%
Use /
Demand
Healthy and
Sustainable Trip Potential
Volume of trips 1 mile or less occurring
along the corridor, representing high
walking and biking trip potential.
20%
Equity Equitable and
Accessible
Locations of Housing,
Social Services, and
Groceries**
Whether the project is in an area
where people receiving social services
live, and whether it helps to connect
communities to important resources.
20%
Comfort /
Lowering
Stress
Safe and
Comfortable
Connected and Easy
Pedestrian Crossing
LTS
Whether the project is near a stressful
pedestrian crossing.15%
Connecting
Destinations Connected and Easy
K-12 schools, parks,
and grocery stores
(including Target and
Walmart)
Wayfinding Priority
Routes
Whether the project is near important
destinations. Proximity to multiple
destinations increases score.
Whether the project is along priority
wayfinding route.
15%
Network
Completion
/ Filling
Gaps
Equitable and
Accessible Sidewalk Gaps
Whether the project fills a gap in the
existing system, with locations where
sidewalk is missing on both sides and
locations within 100 feet of a bust stop
scoring higher.
10%
* Historic bike crash density and pedestrian crash
density are merged for the purposes of prioritization.
Enhancements for either mode will benefit the other. This
also helps to account for the relatively small dataset.
** This dataset includes address of Section 8 households
throughout the community, low-income housing
complexes/units, food pantries, medical clinics/facilities,
human service agencies, churches that provide services,
grocery stores, financial counseling services, thrift
stores, senior centers, Walmart, and Target.
229
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
75
Figure 30 | Prioritized Sidewalk Projects
230
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
76
Potential Cost of Implementation
of Sidewalk Recommendations
The table on this page illustrates the potential cost, in
2023 dollars, of implementing all the sidewalks recom-
mended in this Plan. However, it should be noted that
some of the new sidewalks may not require the City to
shoulder the full financial burden:
»As private property is subdivided or redevel-
oped, City ordinances will trigger sidewalk
construction.
»Projects under ISU jurisdiction would be the
university’s responsibility.
»Projects along state or federal highways would
be the Iowa DOT’s responsibility.
»Other opportunities may arise to reduce the
financial burden, such as using federal or
state grants.
Nevertheless, the cost of implementing the recommen -
dations illustrates the necessity of prioritizing projects
as shown in Figure 30. The Implementation Horizon
section in Chapter 5 provides more detail on what
portion of these sidewalk recommendations may be
reasonably implemented in the next 25 years.
Facility Type Potential Cost/Mile Miles Proposed Approximate Total Cost (FY 2023 Dollars)
Sidewalk $320,0000 15 $4,800,000
Total 15 $4,800,000
231
NETWORK PLAN & PRIORITIES WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
77
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
232
78
CHAPTER 5
Implementation
Strategies & Action
233
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
79
Strategies & Actions
Achieving the goals of Walk Bike Roll Ames requires
more than infrastructure. In addition to building side -
walks, pedestrian crossings, bikeways, and trails, the
City and partners need to amend policies and invest in
community programs—key ingredients to creating a
place where walking, bicycling, and rolling are connect-
ed, safe, and convenient. Community programs can be
led by the City, Iowa State University, various commu-
nity groups, and advocacy organizations. Proposed
policy actions are at the discretion of City Council.
This chapter sets forth eight high-level strategies,
information about past and ongoing work that sup -
ports the strategy, and the specific actions to develop
policies and programs that can be implemented over
the next 10 years.
The icons below are used throughout this section to
illustrate how each strategy aligns which the four goals
of Walk Bike Roll Ames.
Safe and Comfortable
Connected and Easy
Healthy and Sustainable
Equitable and Accessible
The strategies—expanded on the following pages—include:
»Strategy 1: Increase maintenance and repair of
sidewalks, bike lanes, and paths
»Strategy 2: Lower motor vehicle speeds
»Strategy 3: Standardize decisions about street,
bikeway, and walkway design
»Strategy 4: Improve pedestrian crossings, especially
near bus stops
»Strategy 5: Encourage mode shift from driving to
walking, biking, and rolling
»Strategy 6: Develop a Safe Routes to School plan and
program for elementary, middle, and high schools
»Strategy 7: Improve bike parking throughout Ames
»Strategy 8: Update and accelerate implementation
of the Ames ADA Transition Plan
234
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
80
Strategy 1
Increase maintenance and repair of
sidewalks, bike lanes, and paths
Having well maintained walking, biking, and rolling
infrastructure was a major theme in community
conversations on walking and biking. Concerns
included gravel and debris in bike lanes and on paths,
and issues with leaves and snow. Paths throughout
Ames have a variety of owners: a maintenance program
would include a plan to keep active transportation
infrastructure clear of debris and snow with priority
routes, responsible parties, and consistent schedule.
In addition to regularly-scheduled maintenance, the
City should consider developing a systemic approach
to repairing and repaving paths. The City has already
allocated increasing levels of funding for path repair
in the next five years in the Capital Improvement Plan.
Having a more systemic and clearly defined program
for inventorying the quality of the active transportation
network and keeping it in good condition would have
clear comfort and safety impacts for all users.
Additional Implementation Partners:
»Ames Parks & Recreation, ISU
Specific Actions Action Lead
Continue use of the Ames On the Go app to address debris concerns such as leaves and snow
and encourage residents to use the app to report concerns.Ames Public Works
Adopt a maintenance plan that details what entities are responsible for maintenance and repair
of walking, biking, and rolling infrastructure throughout the City and campus, and existing
maintenance plans, programs, and methods. Use a tiered priority system of routes and/or trails
that connect facilities that are critical to Ames’ walkability and bikeability.
Ames Public Works
Leverage the City’s GIS system to incorporate infrastructure construction and maintenance
history and continue to leverage construction and maintenance best practices to provide
increased pavement surface conditions.
Ames Public Works
Continue to allocate dedicated funding in the CIP to path pavement resurfacing and repair.Ames City Council
Educate property owners about their responsibilities for snow clearing and other sidewalk
maintenance. Enforce maintenance requirements for negligent property owners.Ames Public Works
It should be noted that these actions were prepared with recognition of the existing staffing and equipment avail-
ability. The impacts to available resources should be evaluated before increasing the maintenance aspects beyond
current recommendations.
235
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
81
Active Transportation Maintenance Recommendations
This plan recommends a system of primary, secondary, and tertiary routes to guide the
City in maintaining the active transportation network. Implementing these maintenance
recommendations will require additional operating funding. The primary, secondary,
and tertiary corridors are shown in Figure 31. The table below proposes frequency and
standards for maintenance of different corridors.
The responsibility of each segment will need to be agreed upon through further nego -
tiations and discussions between Ames Public Works, Ames Parks and Recreation, ISU,
business districts, Story County, and Iowa DOT; the City of Ames may also need to amend
its Ice and Snow Management Policy.
Frequency of Maintenance for Active Transportation Corridor Tiers
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES PRIMARY CORRIDORS SECONDARY CORRIDORS TERTIARY (ALL OTHER) CORRIDORS
Ice and Snow Management
On-Street Bicycle Facilities »Maintain in accordance with current City Ice and Snow Management Policy
Shared-Use Paths and Trails »Maintain in accordance with current City Ice and Snow Management Policy
Ongoing Maintenance
On-Street Bicycle Facility street sweepings
»Every month between April and
November (8x per year)
»Spring and Fall (twice a year) »Once yearly
Shared Use Path sweepings »Spring and fall (twice a year) »Spring and fall (twice a year) »Once yearly
Shared Use Path vegetation maintenance
»Mow bi-weekly during the growing
season. A minimum 4’ shoulder
on either side of the path should
be mowed for sight distance and
vision triangles.
»Mow a minimum of once a month
during the growing season. A
minimum a 3’ shoulder on either side
of the path should be mowed.
»Mow at discretion of path or trail
management agency.
Pavement Management
Pavement ratings
»Evaluate condition of pavement for all streets every two years using accepted Pavement Condition Index (PCI). For paths,
implement a pavement condition assessment tool using a combination of visual and pavement condition evaluation methods
appropriate for trails every 5 years.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities
»Joint seal and seal coat in accordance with current City pavement management practices
»Repair potholes and patch in accordance with current City pavement management practices
»Resurface in accordance with current City pavement management practices
Shared-Use Paths and Trails
»Joint seal and seal coat every 5 years or as needed
»Phase out asphalt paths; all new paths should be concrete
»Resurface asphalt paths every 20 years or as funding allows
»Joint seal and seal coat at discretion of
path or trail management agency
»Resurface and replace at discretion of
path or trail management agency.
236
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
82
Figure 31 | Draft Maintenance Tiers
237
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
83
Strategy 2
Lower motor vehicle speeds
Research has shown that motor vehicle speed is the
main indicator of how severe a crash will be, especially
when people walking and biking are involved. Having
slower speeds, especially on streets where there are
high levels of pedestrian and bicycle use along or across
the roadway, is essential to improve safety outcomes. In
addition, high motor vehicle speeds are a key indicator
of how comfortable people of all ages and abilities feel
walking or biking along a roadway. Lowering motor
vehicle speeds improves the sense of comfort and
security for people walking, biking, and rolling.
20 MPH
13%Likelihood
of fatality or
severe injury
30 MPH
40%Likelihood
of fatality or
severe injury
73%Likelihood
of fatality or
severe injury
40 MPH
Data Citation: Tefft, B.C. (2011). Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death
(Technical Report). Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Specific Actions Action Lead
Periodically identify a set of streets and/or corridors where speed reduction is needed to
increase safety for people walking, biking, and rolling using citywide speed data, traffic data,
multimodal data, safety/crash data, and roadway/land use classifications. Use appropriate
engineering, education, and, potentially, enforcement, strategies to reduce speed limits on
these streets.
Ames Public Works
In accordance with recommended practices, conduct a reduced speed limit pilot program for
residential streets. Identify key streets to test the program. Streets should include residential
streets used frequently by people walking, biking, and rolling and/or be near important
destinations such as schools and parks. Streets in other key corridors, such as Downtown and
Campustown, or identified in the Ames Complete Streets Plan should also be considered.
Ames Public Works
Evaluate whether actual speeds are reduced and measure changes in crash rates and severity.
Use findings from these evaluations to plan, design, and implement strategies for reducing
speeds throughout Ames. Based on the results of the pilot, consider systemic implementation
of strategies or changes in tactics.
Ames Public Works
Additional Implementation Partners:
»Ames Police, City Attorney, Neighborhood &
Business Associations, ISU
238
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
84
Strategy 3
Standardize decisions about street,
bikeway, and walkway design
Right-of-way (ROW) design and space allocation can
be one indication of how a city prioritizes the comfort
and safety of people walking, biking, and rolling. Ames’
subdivision and zoning ordinances could be updated
to directly influence active transportation users’ safety
and comfort on new and reconstructed streets. For
example, the Ames Complete Streets Plan recommends
consolidation and narrowing of commercial driveways
on throughput-oriented streets, wider sidepaths in
areas where pedestrians will be present, wider buffer
from the curb, and separate spaces for walking and
biking where feasible. In the older part of the city,
process guidelines can standardize the way the City
makes decisions to allocate street space when difficult
trade-offs need to be made. For example, if a street
is identified as being part of the bicycling network in
this Plan, then staff should place a higher priority on
building the bicycle facility to the proper standard,
and allocate the remaining right-of-way by applying
design flexibility for the other street users or placing
a lower priority on other uses, such as narrowing or
reducing vehicle lanes, removing on street parking, or
narrowing buffers.
Additional Implementation Partners:
»Ames Planning, Neighborhood & Business
Associations, Development Community, ISU
Figure 32 | A Drawing of a Bike Boulevard (variant of the Neighborhood Street type) from the Ames Complete Street Plan.
Specific Actions Action Lead
Incorporate the Complete Streets Plan street types and design standards into city development
ordinances for both new subdivisions and infill development to better accommodate and
encourage walking, biking, and rolling. Make requirements consistent with the design criteria
parameters and guidelines in the Complete Streets Plan.
Ames Planning
Utilize street reconstruction or redevelopment opportunities to widen sidepaths, sidewalks,
and bike lanes to desired widths when feasible.
Ames Public Works
Continue to utilize internal process guidelines or checklists to help the City make decisions
about allocating space in the public right-of-way (especially in older neighborhoods) that is
consistent with the Complete Streets Plan.
Ames Public Works
Coordinate with ISU to create a more cohesive walking and biking network. Ames Public Works
239
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
85
Strategy 4
Improve pedestrian crossings,
especially near bus stops
Safe and convenient street crossings are an instrumen -
tal part of creating a complete transportation network.
People walking will cross the street to get to their desti-
nations and are only likely to use formalized pedestrian
crossings if they are nearby and provide an enhanced
feeling of safety and comfort. Ames has installed a
number of Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
and high-visibility crosswalks at certain intersections
and mid-block crossings with high pedestrian volumes.
The City has also historically funded enhanced pe -
destrian crossings on a case-by-case basis. This Plan
includes recommendations to improve safety at more
than 100 crossing locations through a variety of mea-
sures, such as removing turn lanes, tightening corner
radii, or installing curb extensions (see the Crossing
Toolkit in Chapter 3).
Additional Implementation Partners:
»CyRide, ISU, Ames Planning
Specific Actions Action Lead
Apply best practice pedestrian crossing standards that account for vehicle speeds and volumes,
projected pedestrian use, number of lanes/length or crossing, and destination types, such as
the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations. Incorporate
these standards into the City’s development ordinances and street design standards.
Ames Public Works
Collaborate with CyRide to study existing bus stop spacing and placement and develop recom -
mendations for co-locating bus stops with crossings based on ridership, crossing visibility, and
bus frequency, among other characteristics.
Ames Public Works
Pursue grant funding to build the pedestrian crossing infrastructure for the priority crossings in
the Plan.
Ames Public Works
Continue to allocate funding in the CIP for the priority crossings in the Plan.Ames City Council
Evaluate and selectively prohibit right turns on red to reduce conflicts with pedestrian and
bicycle traffic. Prioritize prohibiting right turns on red downtown, near ISU, and along corridors
with high levels of walking and biking activity.
Ames Public Works
240
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
86
Strategy 5
Encourage mode shift from driving
to walking, biking, and rolling
Ames has set a greenhouse gas emission reduction
target, with the goal of reducing emissions and
reaching net-zero emissions by 2030. It is currently de -
veloping a Climate Action Plan to identify the specific
strategies it will use to achieve this goal. The plan will
likely include strategies to increase active transporta-
tion and transit use in the city. To achieve those goals,
the safety and convenience of active transportation
and transit needs to be increased. Changing land use
and development patterns to make walking and biking
easy and convenient is one way of encouraging mode
shift. Bike share programs and e-bike incentives that
make biking easier and more convenient could be
explored, especially if they can be tailored to support
people with low incomes.
In future phases, the City and the MPO should evaluate
programs that work with major employers or specific
neighborhoods to encourage transit use, biking, and
walking. For example, ISU students use of CyRide is
included in their student fees, while ISU offers bus
passes to faculty and staff at discounted rates.
Additional Implementation Partners:
»Ames Planning, ISU, Ames Area MPO, Ames Electric,
Neighborhood & Business Associations
Specific Actions Action Lead
Explore opportunities to further reduce or eliminate the amount of car parking required in
development standards, and potentially eliminate parking minimums in more areas of the city.
Ames Planning
Evaluate minimum bike parking requirements for new development Ames Planning
Regularly update this Plan to include planned bike and pedestrian facilities in growth areas to
coordinate recommendations for the growth areas in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ames Public Works
and Planning
Work with partners to evaluate the potential for a bikeshare program. Bikeshare can encourage
people to try biking again by removing barriers to biking such as maintenance, bike locks, and
bike storage. Most North American bikeshare programs offer e-bikes which make biking more
attractive. Bikeshare also provides an opportunity to collect data on travel patterns to help
inform infrastructure projects and prioritization.
Ames Public Works
As bikeshare is established and expanded, explore strategies for a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program to encourage mode shift from vehicles to walking, biking, rolling,
and transit. TDM can include a variety of methods and target individual residents, campuses,
specific neighborhoods, or major employers (ISU, USDA) using programs and/or incentives
such as transit passes, pay-as-you-go parking passes (instead of annual or monthly passes), or
guaranteed ride programs.
Ames City Council
Consider an e-bike rebate program (such as examples in Raleigh, NC or Denver, CO) to subsidize
e-bikes, prioritizing low-income residents. E-bikes have the potential to significantly increase
the number of bike trips, but people who may benefit most from e-bikes cannot afford them.
Ames City Council
Regularly collect, evaluate, and report data on walking, biking, and rolling volumes / rates in
Ames, mode shift, and crashes involving people walking, biking, or rolling. Evaluate the use of
data sources and physical data sensors to create data where none is currently available.
Ames Area MPO
241
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
87
Strategy 6
Develop a Safe Routes to School
plan and program for elementary,
middle, and high schools
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a national movement
to increase the numbers of students walking, biking,
and rolling to school using a holistic approach that
incorporates encouragement, education, evaluation,
and engineering. The Ames Area MPO has developed
“SRTS maps” identifying routes to schools for the five
elementary schools and the middle school in the Ames
Community School District (ACSD). However, a full-
fledged SRTS plan would identify specific infrastructure
investments to improve the safety of children walking
and biking to school, as well as other programs such
as encouragement and education. The Iowa DOT
administers SRTS funding as part of the Transportation
Alternatives Program (TAP). A SRTS plan would help the
City, ACSD, or the Gilbert School District (GSD) apply for
funding to provide educational resources to students
and their families, apply for funding to improve walking
and biking infrastructure near schools, and/or promote
walking and biking to school.
Additional Implementation Partners:
»Ames Area MPO, Ames Community School District,
Gilbert School District, Ames Public Works, Ames
Parks & Recreation, Ames Police, Story County Public
Health, Mary Greeley Medical Center
Specific Actions Action Lead
Develop a SRTS Plan update that identifies infrastructure projects near all elemen-
tary, middle, and high schools in Ames, as well as programs such as encouragement
and education.
Ames Area MPO
Support bicycle safety education programming provided through ACSD, GSD, Ames
Parks and Recreation, or local youth program providers such as YSS. The SRTS Plan should
include evaluation and recommendations of appropriate agencies and organizations to
lead bicycle education programming in Ames, and the appropriate ages or grades for
such programs.
TO BE DETERMINED
Support programs to encourage and promote children walking and biking to school and
other activities. The SRTS Plan should include evaluation and recommendations of appro -
priate agencies and organizations to lead encouragement programs in Ames.
TO BE DETERMINED
242
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
88
Strategy 7
Improve bike parking
throughout Ames
One of the most common obstacles for traveling by
bike is the lack of bicycle parking. People who live in
multifamily housing without dedicated sheltered long-
term parking for bikes will find it inconvenient to bring
their bicycles in and out of the building every time.
When people arrive at destinations and cannot find a
convenient place to lock their bike, they are discour-
aged from traveling by bike in future trips. Currently,
there is a variety of bike rack styles used throughout
Ames, many of which do not meet best practices. New
bicycle parking in Ames should align with national best
practices and include guidance on rack design; sizing
for cargo bikes, e-bikes, and bikes with trailers; and
placement relative to building entrances.
Additional Implementation Partners:
»Ames Area MPO, Ames Planning, Ames Parks &
Recreation, Ames Fleet Services
Specific Actions Action Lead
Review and update existing parking requirements in development standards to require
new commercial, office, and multifamily to provide publicly-accessible bike racks
(minimum spaces based on square feet, units, etc.). Bike parking standards should also
accommodate cargo bikes, bikes with trailers, and e-bikes (which are heavier and have
larger tubing which make locking with a U-lock more difficult). The City of Cambridge
Bicycle Parking Guide can serve as a best practice resource for the amount and type of
bicycle parking for different types of land uses.
Ames Planning
Install high-quality bike parking in public spaces. There will first need to be an inventory of
existing bike parking in downtown, Campustown, at CyRide stops, and parks to determine
where bike parking is missing or needing replacement. Bicycle parking should be selected
and installed following the Association of Pedestrian & Bicycle Professionals Bicycle
Parking Guidelines.
Ames Public Works
Updating development standards will only apply to new developments. Evaluate a
program that subsidizes bike parking near businesses. To accelerate the installation of bike
racks throughout the city—especially on large privately-owned commercial parcels—Ames
could establish a program to incentivize additional bike parking or offer to install it for free
when a business or property owner asks for it. Madison, Wisconsin offers a program that
can serve as a model.
Ames City Council
243
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
89
Strategy 8
Regularly Update the Ames
ADA Transition Plan
Poor pavement on paths and sidewalks and curb ramps
that do not meet current standards limit accessibility
for people with disabilities. These and other accessibil-
ity issues should be addressed through an Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan, a document
required by the ADA for agencies over 50 employees
that lists the changes necessary to achieve equitable
access to City programs, facilities, and services. The
Ames ADA Transition Plan was last updated in 2023 to
include an audit of all parks and recreation facilities in
Ames. This plan should be reviewed and updated to
ensure that walking, biking, and rolling infrastructure
along streets (i.e., curb ramps, sidewalks, and traffic
signals) are accessible to all ages and abilities.
Additional Implementation Partners:
»Ames Planning
Specific Actions Action Lead
Update the ADA Transition Plan with an inventory of all sidewalk obstructions, maintenance
issues, pedestrian push-button access at traffic signals, and missing sidewalk ramps.
Ames Public Works
Review the process for allowing permitted uses of public sidewalks and paths to ensure
that compliant accessible routes are maintained.
Ames City Manager’s
Office
Continue to allocate funding in the CIP for addressing the obstructions and concerns
identified in the ADA Transition Plan.
Ames City Council
244
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
90
Priority Level
Paths & Bikeways Crossings Sidewalks
Total Costs
(FY 2023 Dollars)Miles Approximate Cost
(FY 2023 Dollars)Locations Approximate Cost
(FY 2023 Dollars)Miles Approximate Cost
(FY 2023 Dollars)
High 11.4 $ 10,900,000 33 $ 6,900,000 3.1 $ 1,000,000 $ 18,800,000
The City’s current
dedicated funding for
Active Transportation can
pay for this plan’s high
priority projects in 15 to
20 years.
Med-High 19.6 $ 18,800,000 18 $ 3,700,000 1.5 $ 500,000 $ 23,000,000
Medium 7.4 $ 7,100,000 14 $ 2,900,000 4.2 $ 1,300,000 $ 11,300,000
Med-Low 20.5 $ 9,700,000 23 $ 4,800,000 4.9 $ 1,600,000 $ 26,100,000
Low 18.8 $ 8,100,000 20 $ 4,200,000 1.3 $ 400,000 $ 22,700,000
Totals 77.7 $ 74,600,000 108 $ 22,500,000 15.0 $ 4,800,000 $ 101,900,000
Implementation Horizon
This plan includes recommendations for 77.7 miles
of paths and bikeways, 108 crossing projects, and
15.0 miles of new sidewalks. The total cost of these
infrastructure recommendations is nearly $102 million,
which far exceeds the current funding sources for active
transportation infrastructure in the City of Ames. The
table on this page illustrates the quantity and cost of
projects in each of the three plan elements, categorized
by priority level (see Chapter 4 for explanation of the
prioritization methods used for each type of project).
How Will the City Decide
What Gets Built?
The City of Ames will focus on implementing the high
priority sidewalks, bikeways and crossings identified in
the table on this page and in Chapter 4. But the City will
also need to consider other factors when deciding what
to build each year, such as the feasibility and construc-
tibility of each project; unforeseen opportunities to
build other projects; and time needed to plan, apply for
funding, and conduct engineering and design. ISU also
has its own priorities and ultimately has final determi -
nation of what and when infrastructure is built within
its jurisdiction.
Funding Strategy
The path, bikeway, crossing, and sidewalk projects
identified in this plan will be funded through various
means. Some of these sources are more predictable
than others.
Dedicated Funding
The City of Ames dedicates funding to active transpor-
tation infrastructure projects each year. In the past few
years, the funding amount has been $1.2 million per year.
Starting in fiscal year 2025, this level is anticipated to in-
crease to $1.3 million per year—and then further increase
by $100,000 per year every 5 years (e.g., $1,400,000 per
year for 2030-2034, $1,500,000 per year for 2035-2039, etc.).
At its current and anticipated funding levels, the City’s
dedicated funding can fully cover the costs of the high
priority projects identified in this plan over the course
of 15 to 20 years. Because of inflation, increases in the
real costs of implementation will outpace planned
increases in dedicated funding.
Said simply, the City’s current and anticipated funding
levels cannot alone bear the entire weight of this plan.
Implementing this plan in its entirety—as well as imple-
menting the high priority projects more rapidly—will
require a change in revenue, whether that means increas-
ing the City’s dedicated funding or better capitalizing on
some of the other funding options outlined below.
245
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES & ACTION WALK BIKE ROLL AMES (DRAFT | MARCH 2024)
91
Roadway and Other Capital Projects
Some portion of the recommendations of this plan
(including some of the high priority projects) can be
implemented as part of larger street reconstruction
projects, major utility projects, or other large capital
projects that impact the right-of-way. In many cases,
implementing this plan’s recommendations as part
of these larger capital projects will not add any cost
to those projects and will therefore reduce the total
implementation costs of this plan.
New Development
Regulations in Ames require developers to provide
various elements of the infrastructure when developing
and redeveloping land. Most of the plan recommen -
dations in the new growth areas of Ames will likely be
implemented in this way. These projects have lower
priority scores because they are in areas without many
existing destinations; however, they will become
important as those parts of the community grow.
Grants
Numerous competitive grant programs are available to
fund the implementation of paths, bikeways, crossings,
and sidewalks. Some of the larger and more notable
programs include the Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP; the Ames Area MPO is appropriated
funding and allocates it annually) and the more recent
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, a federal
program with $5 billion in appropriated funds between
2022 and 2026. While these programs can be valuable
sources of funding, preparing applications takes staff
time and long-term funding levels cannot be predicted.
Conclusion
Walk Bike Roll Ames establishes a vision and set of
goals for active transportation in Ames, recommends
specific infrastructure investments, identifies priorities
for implementation, and provides strategies and action
items to help meet the plan’s goals. However, the
degree to which this plan is implemented depends
entirely on the level of commitment and investment
that will be chosen by the community and its leaders.
246
247