Downtown Putnam Audit October 2011

Prepared for Town of Putnam by CME Associates, Inc.

Funded in part by a Preservation of Place Grant bestowed upon the Town of Putnam by the Connecticut Main Center

table of Contents

Walking Audit Report • Design Considerations • Scoresheet Spreadsheet • Checklist • Walking Audit Slides • Walking Audit Advertisement

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

WALKING AUDIT REPORT

Introduction: As part of an effort to enhance the experience and quality of Downtown Putnam, a group of committed business-owners and residents of Putnam created a “Putnam Visions” document, which, among other points, advocated for a stronger invest- ment in improving the sidewalks and experience in Downtown Putnam. This document was shared widely with stakeholder groups, including elected offi- cials, Town staff, and business associations.

Following up this initiative, the Putnam Office of Community and Economic De- velopment pursued and received support from the Connecticut Main Street Center’s “Preservation of Place” grant program. The purpose of the projects funded in part through the CMSC was to take a steady, stepwise approach to assessing and improv- ing conditions in Putnam’s historic Main Street/Downtown area. The first of these projects involved an assessment of public parking supply and demand based on both current and projected conditions. Recommendations for the addition of pub- lic parking and for modifications to traffic circulation were included in this study.

The second CMSC study was a stakeholder participation process entitled “A 2020 Vision for Downtown Putnam.” This project took the form of numerous vision- ing sessions that sought to put Downtown stakeholders such as business owners, landlords, customers, and merchants into conversation with local officials and deci- sion-makers. The process began with a consensus mapping project determining the rough geographic boundaries of “Downtown Putnam” (see attachments) and then identified priority tasks for improving and enhancing the Downtown experience.A frequently repeated priority task was upgrading the pedestrian environment Down- town. That visioning process led directly to the current undertaking of a “Walking Audit” of Downtown Putnam.

While all participants in the “2020 Vision” process agreed that the sidewalks, cross- walks, signage, and overall pedestrian environment in Downtown Putnam needed improvement, the methods by which improvements are identified and prioritized was not apparent. Further, the Town did not seem to have a comprehensive under- standing of the extent of the pedestrian problem. Putnam, like many communi- ties, often makes public improvements such as sidewalk repairs on a reactive basis. When a certain area receives a number of complaints, this area will receive a higher priority on public works’ scheduling. Further, sidewalk repairs are often only con- ducted when State or Federal grant funds are available, and are not included with standard schedules of street repaving or construction. As a final factor, the gauntlet of stakeholders and authorities in Downtown Putnam is complicated further by the active presence of both the Putnam Merchants Association and the Special Services District.

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit WALKING AUDIT REPORT

Purpose: The purpose of the Downtown Putnam Walking Audit is to take a comprehensive and methodical look at the pedestrian environment in Downtown Putnam. Using planning consultants, local officials, and a number of stakeholder volunteers, a sur- vey and assessment of the of the Downtown area will record the existing conditions for . In addition to having a systematic narrative and pho- tographic summary of pedestrian conditions that can be used to guide municipal infrastructure decisions and support funding applications, this study will provide recommendations into the process that the Town may take in proactively working with stakeholders in improving and enhancing the Downtown experience.

Approach and Methodology: According to research and advocacy groups that study community walkability, there are several elements that are required. The website Walkable Communities (http:// www.walkable.org) lists factors such as In-tact Town Centers, Residential densities, Mixed Uses, Mixed Incomes, Public spaces, Appropriately-scaled buildings, Univer- sal design, Progressive Leadership, and the actual presence of actual pedestrians as important to overall walkability. TheS afe Routes to School program established by the Federal Highway Administration and its partners (http://guide.saferoutesinfo. org) includes more nuts-and-bolts elements such as street lighting, sidewalk width and condition, traffic volume, presence of bicycle lanes, topography, and presence of dogs, trash and debris. There are numerous guides and checklists for conduct- ing walking audits that were useful in organizing an approach in Downtown Put- nam. Some of these may be found through the Pedestrian Bicycle Information Center (http://www.walkinginfo.org/library), the National Center for Safe Routes to School (http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/education-walkability- checklist), Victoria Walks (http://www.victoriawalks.org.au), and the work of Mark Fenton (http://markfenton.com/resources.html). Web resources such as Walk Score (http://www.walkscore.com) can provide interesting estimates of walkability based on density of population, businesses, and resources, but does not seem to include understanding of sidewalk condition, etc.

The assessment of Downtown Putnam’s walkability was divided up into seven geo- graphic areas so that the audit could be conducted quickly and efficiently by a rela- tively small group of volunteers and stakeholders. The core intersections of Route 44 (Pomfret Street/Front Street) and Kennedy Drive were included in overlapping areas. The categories of analysis within the audit were:S idewalks/, In- tersections, Traffic, Signage/Facilities, Safety/Lighting, and Aesthetics. Within each area of analysis, several questions were posed, and the auditor would provide a score between 1 (an awful circumstance with many deficiencies) and 5 (an excellent pe-

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit WALKING AUDIT REPORT destrian experience) in response. Total scores were aggregated and averaged both for each geographic sub-area and for each area of analysis. A copy of the checklist and maps of the areas are also attached.

The audits themselves were conducted over two separate Saturday mornings. Vol- unteers gathered at a public parking area and were briefed on the basics of the audit process and given safety instructions. Teams of two or three were formed and were given the geographic sub-areas to review. Clipboards with maps, audit checklists, and notes pages were also distributed. Most participants brought cameras (or had camera-phones) and did some photo-documenting of conditions. Because of the relatively small number of participants, traditional “role-playing” for audit purposes was not employed for the most part (i.e. wheelchair participant, mother with stroll- er, child on bicycle, blind pedestrian, etc.). One participant did bring a wheelchair and assessed a section of the Downtown core using that perspective, and another participant had an artificial leg. The rest of the participants were asked to include as much of these other considerations as possible in their assessment of their area.

Results and Findings: Unsurprisingly, despite the Downtown Putnam area being quite small geographi- cally, the audit revealed a wide range of pedestrian conditions and walkability. For each area of analysis, the conditions varied not only across different geographic sec- tions of Downtown, but also frequently within a given geographic section. While one side of a street may have a wide, paved sidewalk in reasonably good repair, the opposite side of the street may have a narrow sidewalk that is torn up or obstructed by telephone poles, street signs, or mailboxes. Scores are required to aggregate these conditions and considerations to a certain extent, but the notes and photos pro- vided by participants allow for some more fine-grain analysis of specific conditions.

An aggregation of results is included as a spreadsheet appended to this report. The areas highlighted in orange are those that received scores of “2” or lower, indicating a particularly substandard pedestrian experience. Areas highlighted in blue received scores of 4 or 5, indicating a largely acceptable or good condition.

Overall, the highest-scoring geographic area was Area V, which is the northwest sector of Downtown, including sections of Church Street, Kennedy Drive, Bridge Street, and Providence Street. The lowest-scoring geographic area, by a substantial margin was Area III, which is the section of Pomfret Street (Route 44) between Kennedy Drive and Day-Kimball Hospital. This is significant from the perspec- tive both that Day-Kimball is the area’s single largest employer and the fact that this organization is committed to public health and safety. Being able to safely and

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit WALKING AUDIT REPORT conveniently connect the hospital complex with the core of Downtown businesses, parks, shops, and restaurants, would be a tremendous benefit to Putnam.

The two specific areas of analysis that received the lowest average score (1.5 out of 5) were in response to the questions “Are there any devices in place to slow traffic down (islands, speed humps, etc.)?” and “Is there street furniture (seating, trash bins, shelters) and is it in good condition?” Both of these clearly reflect specific focus areas of improvement when identifying physical upgrades to the pedestrian environment. The highest scored areas of analysis (3.6 - 3.7) all were within the “Safety/Lighting” topic. Generally, it was felt that the area felt safe, had adequate street lighting, and there was a sense that pedestrians were visible to drivers, residents, etc. The very notable exception to this was again in Area III toward the hospital. Vehicle speeds, poor sight lines, inadequate separation between street and sidewalk, and areas with- out sidewalk at all contributed to a substantial impression of danger along this stretch of roadway.

Following are notes and analysis based on findings for each area of analysis in the audit:

1) Sidewalks/Footpaths: Scoring in this area reflected a wide variety of side- walk condition. In the core of Downtown, which tended to be older, more heavily trav- elled paths, sidewalk condition was a concern. In most areas, sidewalks needed patching, widening. In several areas, particularly along Main Street, temporary or permanent obstruc- tions have compromised the walking paths. The relatively new addition of outdoor dining to several restaurants, while improving the dining experience and overall atmosphere, has compromised the pedestrian environment. Long sections of several roads, including Providence Street, Kennedy Drive, Church Street, Massicotte Circle and particularly the pedestrian path along the Quinebaug River, are wide, level, and in relatively good condition. Other areas, such as School Street, Canal Street, Front Street, South Main Street, and Livery Street are in need of substantial work to repair and upgrade. As stated previously, Pomfret Street between Kennedy Drive and Day-Kimball Hospital was the lowest-scoring area. Sidewalk in this area is in terrible shape, is only available on the south side of Route 44 past Church Street, and is discontinued entirely past the

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

WALKING AUDIT REPORT

Sabin Street intersection. The overall score of this area of analysis was 2.3 out of 5, though Areas I-IV scored much lower than Areas V-VII, which had been more recently constructed or maintained. For much of the Downtown area, simple maintenance would correct most issues.

2) I ntersections: A variety of sub-areas within Downtown yielded a variety of scoring relative to intersection quality. In the southern portion of Downtown, the only real pedestrian option is the River Trail along the Quinebaug. There are no viable sidewalk options down Canal Street or Kennedy Drive, and no crosswalk opportunities. Several offices along Kennedy Drive and residential neighborhoods further to the southeast would be well served by the addi- tion of intersections for pedestrians. Intersections in the core of Downtown scored higher, and major crossings along Kennedy Drive are in relatively good condition. Major intersections are controlled by traffic lights with pedestrian phases. The exception to this is the three- way intersection at Front Street/South Main Street/School Street. Though pedestrian phase is available, it is broken and pressing the button achieves no signal, creating a frustrating and potentially dangerous situation. Fresh paint is needed at all crosswalks. Attention to smaller intersections, such as those connecting residential areas across School Street to the Owen Tarr Park and the Downtown area, is needed. In the absence of major traffic-calming features such as raised intersections, speed humps or signalization, simple road paint and small pedestrian signs placed on the median striping can dramatically improve the safety at an intersection. Again, heading west on Route 44 toward Day-Kimball Hospital, the absence of intersections is as noteworthy as the absence of a continuous sidewalk system.

3) T raffic: The scores on the traffic portion of the audit raise an chicken-and- egg dilemma. Are uncomfortably high traffic speeds and the lack of traffic calming devices the result of a low pe- destrian population or are they the cause of it? Are people not walking because cars are traveling through intersec- tions too recklessly, or is the driver behavior the result of an absence of having to pay attention to pedestrians? The answer is probably that both are partially true, but nei- ther one explains the situation in total. Traffic speeds are

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

WALKING AUDIT REPORT

highest (and audit scores are the lowest) in those areas that have the fewest intersections and potential pedestrian interactions. Area III on Route 44 near the Hospital and Area VIII along Kennedy Drive near the Farmers’ Market are both high-speed zones with no pedestrian activity or pedestrian activity well away from the road. The establishment of intersections in these areas, with appro- priate signage or devices, will go a long way toward improving traffic conditions.T raffic in the Downtown core is generally slower, and pedestrian activity is higher, leading to generally safer conditions and higher audit scores. The exception to this is the core intersection of Route 44 (Pomfret Street/Front Street) and Main Street. Located at the crest of a hill with poor sight lines and a slightly offset inter- section, this is without question the most hazardous Downtown intersection to navigate as a pedestrian or vehicle. The addition of traffic calming measures would improve traffic safety here, but as recommended in a 2008 Downtown Parking Study, reversing the direction of traffic flow on Main Street would dramatically change the traffic circulation and also improve the pedestrian environment. Further south on Main Street, the addition of the outdoor dining piazzas and the lack of clear pedestrian pathways to the Union Street parking area creates substantial traffic and pedestrian confusion. The resulting low traffic speeds creates less outright traffic danger, but does substantially degrade the pedestrian experience.

4) Signage/Facilities: Without question, the most significant finding of the audit in this area of analysis is the lack of street furniture. In the core of Downtown, particularly along Main Street, one can find a few places to sit on a bench or dispose of trash in a nearby receptacle. While the benches are only in fair condition, at least they are there. Throughout most of the rest of Downtown, benches are either entirely absent or are in inconvenient locations. Trash bins are few and far between, particu- larly on areas that could very much benefit from them such as Providence Street,

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

WALKING AUDIT REPORT

Kennedy Drive, and School Street. Street trees are present in many areas, albeit sporadic and not uniformly maintained – some trees create as much hazard to pedestrians as they add in shade and aesthetic benefit.S ignage is inconsistent. There are areas in which the signage is useful to visitors and vehicles looking for public parking. The theme of some of the Downtown wayfinding signage, such as the “Rest Room” sign pictured above, is a good approach and goes part of the way to establishing a uniform sense of place, but needs substantial updating and expansion to include a wider area. Un- fortunately for desperate pedestrians, the sign pictured above also points visitors in the opposite direction from the public restrooms. A companion report to this audit study will present ideas and options for street furniture, signage, sidewalk treatments, and wayfinding that will help better brand and unify the Downtown experience, particularly for visitors and pedestrians.

5) S afety/Lighting: This area of analysis received the best overall score in the audit, with an average score across questions of 3.4/5. This indicates that in general, the pedestrian has a relatively good feeling of security and safety circulating through the Downtown area. Lighting along roadways such as Kennedy Drive, Providence Street, School Street, and Church Street is standard roadway streetlighting, which is adequate if unremarkable. Lighting in the core of Downtown and along Main Street is inconsistent and would greatly benefit from a unified theme, design, and approach. From a safety perspective, there was general consensus that pedestrians were adequately visible to drivers and residents. Again, the significant outlier in this area of analysis was the Area III section of Route 44 toward Day-Kimball Hospital. The travel speeds, lack of pedestrian-scaled lighting, proximity of sidewalk to street with no buffering, and ultimate absence of sidewalk approaching the Hospital property all contributed to an extremely negative and unsafe feel. In a few other areas, such as the east side of School Street, the sidewalk is narrow, in relatively poor condition, has low curbing, and is significantly impaired by the presence of utility poles.A ll of this combines to force pedestrians, particularly those with strollers or in wheelchairs, out into the roadway, creating an unsafe condition.

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

WALKING AUDIT REPORT

6) Aesthetics: Given the “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” nature of aesthetic impressions, it is difficult to read too much into the scoring on this area of analysis. Generally, the built environment of shops and businesses were given good scores, and in fact the great majority of commercial and residen- tial development in the Downtown area is of a pedestrian scale. Most of the larger buildings are appropriately set back from the road and do not crowd out the human element. Several areas were noted as having trash problems. It was found that substantial improvement could be made to the aesthetic experience of the pedestrian through landscaping, public art, street trees, and other features. The one significant note is that the Putnam has done very well in taking advantage of the Downtown area’s most prominent feature: the Quinebaug River. The River Trail and twin landmark structures of the Farmers’ Market pavilion and the bandstand at Rotary Park anchor well the ribbon of land and water that marks this area. The Mill Heritage Trail also attempts to organize an interesting pedestrian experience with the natural and industrial underpinnings of Putnam, but somewhat less successfully. A tighter integration of the mill complexes that anchor the Downtown structures, Day-Kimball Hospital, the River itself, and the businesses and restaurants at the core of Downtown through design theme, pathways, and wayfinding signage would dramatically improve the aesthetic, and would reinforce the ongoing maintenance of the area.

Recommendations – Improvements: Given that the purpose of this study is more related to inventorying, data gathering, surveying, and rating, too strong a focus on the prioritization of specific improvements or repairs would be inappropriate. Despite that caution, there are a few areas within the analysis of the audit that stand apart as such obvious deficiencies that any list of priorities would have to include these close to the top. The extension of, and improvement to, the sidewalk extending along Route 44 from Kennedy Drive toward Day-Kimball Hospital is a glaring gap in the pedestrian network of Downtown Putnam. To have the region’s single largest employer, an institution dedicated to public health, less than a half-mile from the core of a vibrant down-

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

WALKING AUDIT REPORT town area and not be accessible to walking is anathema to the idea of a pedestrian- friendly environment. Establishing this connection should be a top priority for local or regional transportation funds.

Secondarily, the issue of lack of street furniture and amenities such as benches, trash cans, shelters, signage, public art, etc. and the resulting trash problems and lowered sense of pleasing aesthetic should be a priority. For the most part, these amenities can be installed at low costs relative to the expense of intersection redesign or sidewalk extension, and the impact on the pedestrian environment can be substantial. Further, the design and placement of these amenities can con- tribute greatly to a unified Downtown aesthetic and sense of place.

The third area that received substantially lower audit scores related to the absence of physical or structural devices to slow traffic speeds and create a calmer pedestrian environment. Using pedestrian islands, speed humps, elevated crosswalks, or tex- tured pavement at intersections would not only slow traffic, but also make a strong statement about the importance of pedestrians in the transportation hierarchy and the Town’s commitment to walkability. Because of the variety of traffic calming approaches at intersections and of the various critical intersections in the Down- town, it is difficult to target a single solution or most important intersection. It would be appropriate, however, to target the most visible intersections for maximum impact; these would include Kennedy Drive and Route 44, Route 44, South Main Street and School Street (just east of the railroad overpass), Main Street and Route 44, Kennedy Drive and Bridge Street, Providence Street and School Street, Providence Street and Kennedy Drive, and Church Street and Bridge Street.

Finally, while it’s not a specific improvement or area, the issue of maintenance is vitally important to a strong sense that an area is friendly to pedestrians. The presence of trash, overhanging trees, poorly maintained bushes or other landscaping features, broken benches, signs turned the wrong way, or cars repeatedly parked with two wheels on the sidewalk all create a “death by a thousand cuts” that erodes the walkability of an area. A strong commitment from property owners and busi- nesses, enforced by an active Town or District staff, will have the longest-lasting impact on improving Downtown Putnam’s pedestrian environment.

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

WALKING AUDIT REPORT

Recommendations – Process: For the purposes of this study, the establishment of specific priorities is less impor- tant than a comprehensive assessment of the problem at hand. The logical next step to an overall approach to improving the walkability of Downtown Putnam would be to have the Town traffic authority review this audit and incorporate its findings into the transportation improvement planning process. Based on discussions with business owners, residents, town staff, and elected officials, it is clear that more guidance is needed. The structure of decision-making on public improvements, particularly within Putnam’s Special Services District, and even more particularly in dealing with the Downtown area, consensus and clear directives are often difficult to come by. Accordingly, some discussion of a recommended process is appropriate.

Currently, most major decisions for Downtown improvement would have to run a gamut of agencies that would include the Board of Selectmen, the Zoning Commission, Economic Development Commission, Putnam Merchants Associa- tion, Special Services District, as well as offices of theB uilding Official,N ortheast District Department of Health, Water Pollution Control Authority, and Economic and Community Development. Meanwhile, it is not clear how the Public Works crew, responsible for much of the roadway and sidewalk improvements, makes their decisions, and whether they follow the lead of the Board of Selectmen or the Special Services District. If they are like many Public Works departments, they take an extremely reactive (as opposed to proactive) role, responding to areas with the most frequent complaints.

Improvement of the Downtown area, from sidewalks to signage, from parking to planting, from traffic flow to trash pickup, should be under a unified authority. A “Downtown Improvement Authority” could be created and empowered to identify priority projects and participate in overall planning and implementation process that can move Downtown Putnam forward. Participation from the Town (Mayor’s office, Economic and Community Development, and Planning Commission), the Special Services District, Public Works, Day-Kimball, and the Putnam Merchants Association is essential, as is their ability to manage activity and improvement of Downtown in an effective and holistic manner.B ecause of the presence of so many utility poles and street signs associated with state highways, this group will also have to engage in an active dialogue with other stakeholders such as the Connecticut Department of Transportation and Connecticut Light & Power. Without an Authority such as this, or alternatively, a shift in authority and oversight (and an increase in staff capacity) of the Special Services District that enables them to act on the findings of this audit and the recommendations of previous studies, it is likely that the efforts of those behind these initiatives and those that continue to care deeply for the improvement of Downtown Putnam will be largely disregarded. It is

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

WALKING AUDIT REPORT terribly important to the process that those who devote time to thinking and plan- ning how to improve Downtown Putnam see some forward progress of their efforts.

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Introduction The purpose of this section is to suggest design elements that contribute to pedestri- an safety and enjoyment of Downtown Putnam while harmonizing with its historic assets and unifying the streetscape. It is anticipated that these design considerations will be a useful tool for public and private improvements within the downtown as they are intended to preserve and enhance the character defining features of the district thereby creating a desirable destination and contributing to the economic vitality of the area.

Compliance with the Connecticut Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual standards for state road improvements and accessibility requirements have been incorporated into the following design considerations.

Sidewalks adjacent to the curb zone In order to be compliant with the Highway De- sign Manual, sidewalks should be designed to be a minimum clear width of 36 inches. Passing spaces shall be provided at reasonable intervals not to exceed 200 feet if the sidewalk is less than 60 inches wide. Sidewalk surfaces shall be stable, firm and slip resistant, free of abrupt changes un- less beveled with a slope not greater than 50%. Changes in level greater than 0.5” shall be accom- modated with a ramp. Protruding objects such as signs, canopies, etc. between 27 and 80 inches above grade shall not project more than 4” into any portion of the sidewalk.

Sidewalks adjacent to the curb zone along Main Street and Route 44 where traffic slows as it moves through downtown should continue to be designed and upgraded utilizing the existing palette of materials consisting of a brushed natural grey colored concrete sidewalk with a granite curb abutted by a brick border. This pattern visually reinforces the curb edge and, if extended throughout downtown Putnam as sidewalks are rebuilt, will serve as a unifying design feature.

Brick design elements may also be used to empha- size sidewalk plantings, providing a unique sur- face that signals an impediment to a blind person. Sidewalk grates should be chosen to be compliant

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit design considerations with accessibility codes. Tree grates can be both decorative street furnishings and protective devices, but their condition should be checked regularly as tree growth can cause the grates to heave creating a tripping hazard. Sidewalks along roadways with increased vehicular traffic and speed should be designed or redesigned to incorporate a landscape buffer between the street and the sidewalk. In these areas, the brick striping is not a necessary visual signal but could be included as a design element.

Intersections Sidewalks at intersections are required to be accessible through the use of a curb ramp. If there is a curb ramp on one corner of an intersection, then a curb ramp must be installed on all corners. Curb ramp functions shall not be impeded by items such as catch basins, utility poles or signs and they should be located so as to be consistent with the operation of pedestrian activated traffic signals. Detectable warning surfaces are required on all curb ramps and placed on both sides of pedestrian crossings of at-grade railroad tracks.

Traffic Calming Through the most congested center of downtown Putnam it may be advantageous to consider traffic calming devices such as the design pictured to the right. “Bulbouts” provide space for pedestrians to gather at road crossings. Crosswalks themselves may be more than painted lines, enhanced with paving that can also serve as a speed hump. Necking down the traffic at the intersections also acts as a traffic calming device while the bulbouts provide space for plantings, signage, trash receptacle as well as a safety zone for pedestrians.

Signage Downtown Putnam has developed a new signage standard for identification of public facilities including parking lots, rest rooms and the downtown area. Unfortunately many of the signs have been stolen or vandalized so as to not be effective. When signage is reinstalled or added within the downtown area, the new design should be utilized to pres- DOT signage contributes to visual noise. Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

design considerations ent a consistent way finding symbol and the old blue DOT signage removed to eliminate visual noise.

Lighting There is currently no municipal street light- Custom signage ing in the immediate downtown except for telephone pole mounted fixtures sporadi- cally placed along major roadways. Pedestrian scale lighting simi- lar in style to that found along the River Trail and Rotary Park could be installed along Main Street, Kennedy Drive and Route 44 to highlight and unify the downtown. Provisions for event signage, street signage and even trash receptacles could be incor- porated into the light pole in order to minimize the amount of separate appurtenances. Light fixtures with banners or planters visually connect the downtown during both daytime and night- time hours.

Street Furniture Street furniture adds value to the pedestrian experience in a downtown area. A unified theme that considers consistent style, materials and color will contribute to providing a unique identity to Downtown Putnam.

Trash Receptacles Presently a variety of trash receptacle styles are found along the in downtown Putnam. As modifications are made to street furniture, a consistent style, material, color and scale of trash receptacles should be considered.

Planters Planters can enliven a streetscape by incorporating seasonal plantings. Consistency of design, scale and color of the planter is key to the suc- cessful implementation of the planter as a unifying element in the downtown area.

Benches Where sidewalks are wide enough, the in- stallation of benches provides resting spots for pedestrians. Placement of benches on both sides of a street is an ideal way to pro-

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit design considerations

vide both sunny and shady resting places. Coordination of style, material and color with other street furnishings contributes to a consistent theme throughout downtown.

Bicycle Racks As consideration is given to adding bicycle racks throughout the downtown area, consistency of style and materials should be taken into account as well as a design that provides optimal security for users and is scaled to minimize visual noise.

Downtown Putnam

Walking Audit

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit Scoresheet - Results Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Category Sidewalks/Footpaths Average

Is there a continuous on both sides of the road, with no missing sections? 3 21.52533 2.8 What is the overall physical condition of the footpath (well-maintained, level, and smooth)? 1.5 2 1.5 2 3.5 2 5 2.5 Is the path wide enough for anyone to use (wheelchairs, strollers, etc.)? 2.532.52545 3.4

Is the path free of temporary or permanent obstructions (signs, parked cars, telephone poles)? 1.5 2 2.5 2 3 3.5 5 2.8 Section Subtotal 8.5 9 8 8 16.5 12.5 18 11.5 Average Question Score within Section 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.0 4.1 3.1 4.5 2.3

Intersections Are there street crossings at logical places (at schools, shops, major intersections)? 2.541.52341 2.6 Are there the right sort of crossings for the type of road and amount of traffic? 3 312342 2.6 Are signals adequate and allow enough time to cross the road safely? 3.532.54441 3.1 Can you see oncoming traffic with no obstructions at crossing locations? 2 325543 3.4 Section Subtotal 11 13 7 13 15 16 7 11.7 Average Question Score within Section 2.8 3.3 1.8 3.3 3.8 4.0 1.8 2.9

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit Scoresheet - Results

Traffic Is the posted speed limit appropriate for the area and are drivers obeying the speed limit? 3.521.53531 2.7 Are there any devices in place to slow traffic down (islands, speed humps, etc.)? 1.5101331 1.5 Are drivers careful to notice pedestrians when entering or leaving driveways? 3 214342 2.7 Are there safety barriers between traffic and pedestrians (e.g. trees, grass strip, guardrail)? 3 102434 2.4 Section Subtotal 11 6 2.5 10 15 13 8 9.4 Average Question Score within Section 2.8 1.5 0.6 2.5 3.8 3.3 2.0 2.3

Signage/Facilities Is there street furniture (seating, trash bins, shelters) and is it in good condition? 1.5101313 1.5 Are there enough trees or shade to keep the pedestrian path cool on hot days? 2 423423 2.9 Is there enough signage to guide and direct visiting pedestrians (and vehicles)? 2 333322 2.6 Is signage adequate and does it promote the resources of the Downtown area? 2 2 2.5 3 2 2.5 2 2.3 Section Subtotal 7.5 10 7.5 10 12 7.5 10 9.2 Average Question Score within Section 1.9 2.5 1.9 2.5 3.0 1.9 2.5 2.3

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit Scoresheet - Results

Safety/Lighting Does the area feel safe to walk around? 5 3 2 5 3.5 4 3 3.6 Is there adequate street lighting? 4 325444 3.7 Are you aware that other people can see you as you walk around – residents, drivers, etc? 4 31.55444 3.6 Would you be comfortable having a child/teen walk unsupervised in this area? 3 413322 2.6 Section Subtotal 16 13 6.5 18 14.5 14 13 13.6 Average Question Score within Section 4.0 3.3 1.6 4.5 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.4

Aesthetics

Is the area attractive and pleasant to walk around? 2 314433 2.9 Is there attractive landscaping (plantings, trees, public art)? 1.5114442 2.5 Are shops and businesses well-maintained and accessible? 2.5443332 3.1 Is the area free of trash? 4.5223241 2.6 Are there interesting features that support and promote a pedestrian experience? 3.512.54332 2.7 Section Subtotal 14 11 10.5 18 16 17 10 13.8 Average Question Score within Section 2.8 2.2 2.1 3.6 3.2 3.4 2.0 2.8

TOTAL SCORE 68 62 42 77 89 80 66 Average Question Score 2.7 2.5 1.7 3.1 3.6 3.2 2.6

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit – Questionnaire and Scoresheet Area Audited: _____

For each question, provide a numeric score between 1-5 (1=awful, many problems; 5=excellent pedestrian experience)

Sidewalks/Footpaths Signage/Facilities

__ Is there a continuous footpath on both sides __ Is there street furniture (seating, trash bins, of the road, with no missing sections? shelters) and is it in good condition?

__ What is the overall physical condition of the __ Are there enough trees or shade to keep the footpath (well-maintained, level, and smooth)? pedestrian path cool on hot days?

__ Is the path wide enough for anyone to use __ Is there enough signage to guide and direct (wheelchairs, strollers, etc.)? visiting pedestrians (and vehicles)?

__ Is the path free of temporary or permanent __ Is signage adequate and does it promote the obstructions (signs, parked cars, telephone resources of the Downtown area? poles)? Safety/Lighting Intersections __ Does the area feel safe to walk around? __ Are there street crossings at logical places (at schools, shops, major intersections)? __ Is there adequate street lighting?

__ Are there the right sort of crossings for the __ Are you aware that other people can see you type of road and amount of traffic? as you walk around – residents, drivers, etc?

__ Are signals adequate and allow enough time __ Would you be comfortable having a to cross the road safely? child/teen walk unsupervised in this area?

__ Can you see oncoming traffic with no Aesthetics obstructions at crossing locations? __ Is the area attractive and pleasant to walk Traffic around?

__ Is the posted speed limit appropriate for the __ Is there attractive landscaping (plantings, area and are drivers obeying the speed limit? trees, public art)?

__ Are there any devices in place to slow traffic __ Are shops and businesses well-maintained down (islands, speed humps, etc.)? and accessible?

__ Are drivers careful to notice pedestrians __ Is the area free of trash? when entering or leaving driveways? __ Are there interesting features that support __ Are there safety barriers between traffic and and promote a pedestrian experience? pedestrians (e.g. trees, grass strip, guardrail)?

Please return completed scoresheet to Delpha Very, Director of Community & Economic Development c/o Putnam Town Hall, 126 Church Street 860-963-6834

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit – AREA I: Main Street South

South Main/Front St. Pomfret St./Front St. Intersection

Main St./Union St.

Canal St./Parking

South Main St. Lower Main St. and Monohansett St.

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit – AREA II: Main Street North Main Street from Route 44 Livery Street and To Massicotte Circle Massicotte Circle

Bundy, Lee, and Canal Streets

Main Street/Route 44 Intersection and Front St.

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit – AREA III: Pomfret Street to Day-Kimball

Sabin St. Triangle to Quinebaug Ave. Quinebaug Bridge to Church St.

Church St. to King Car Dealership Quinebaug Avenue to Hospital

Car Dealership to Little River/Sabin St.

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit – AREA IV: Church Street/Bridge Street/Kennedy Drive

Kennedy Drive/Bridge Street Bridge Street and Intersection Intersection: Plaza Entrance Of Bridge/Church St.

Kennedy Drive and River Trail to Route 44

Church Street (South), Town Hall

Kennedy Drive/Route 44 Intersection Crossings

Church Street/Route 44 Intersection

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit – AREA V: Church Street/Providence Street/Kennedy Drive Providence Street to Church St. (including intersection) Providence St./Kennedy Drive Intersection and Crossings

Providence Street from Church St. To Van den Noort (including intersecs)

Kennedy Drive (North), Plaza Intersections, Driveways

Church Street (North) from Providence St. to Bridge Street

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit – AREA VI: Riverfront Plaza/Providence Street/School Street

Riverfront Plaza – Providence Street from Sidewalks/Crosswalks Kennedy to School St.

Providence/School/ Barber St. Intersection

Massicotte Circle and May Street

School Street from Providence St. to Front Street, including Bolles, Railroad, and Corbin Sts.

Downtown Putnam Walking Audit – AREA VII: Kennedy Drive from Route 44 to Farmers’ Market

Kennedy Drive (South) to Canal Street and Harris Street Farmer’s Market – River Trail

Parking Areas

Farmers’ Market Area

Improving Putnam’s Walkability ...One Step At A Time Putnam Economic & Community Development invites residents and business owners to participate in a “walking audit” of Downtown Putnam. Recent Downtown Visioning Sessions indicated that sidewalks and pedestrian access need improve- ment. The audit will help the Town to identify and prioritize the necessary improvements... and we need your help.

The walks will take place Saturday, August 20th from 9:00 a.m. – Noon in Downtown Putnam. (Rain date: August 21, 2011)

To participate in the walk, please call Delpha Very, Director of Economic & Community Development 860-963-6834 or email at [email protected]

This study is being conducted by Putnam Economic & Community Development with support from CME Associates, Inc. with funds provided by the CT Main Street Center, in cooperation with the Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism.