Walkability Assessment Draft

N 56th Street Walkability Assessment

Prepared by:

September 2015

2 Introduction

The City of Temple Terrace is the irst city in Florida to have its entire jurisdiction designated as a Multimodal Transportation District, which is an area where emphasis is placed on alternative modes of transportation such as walking, cycling, and transit. The District’s Design Guide- lines support improved facilities, access, and safety to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity throughout the city. In accordance with these goals, the City of Temple Terrace has re- quested that the Florida Department of Trans- portation (FDOT) install a crosswalk across N 56th Street halfway between E Fowler Avenue and E Whiteway Drive (Figure 1). The proposed crosswalk would be at a bus stop near City Hall and connect pedestrians with public transportation (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The crosswalk would be located near a bus stop and Tem- ple Terrace City Hall. FDOT uses speciic criteria to determine the ne- cessity of a mid-block crossing. (Appendix A) These have been listed below along with the corresponding data for the proposed crosswalk.

 Minimum Levels of Pedestrian Demand:

 Any location under consideration for a possible mid-block crosswalk Figure 1. An aerial view of 56th Street between Fowler Avenue and should exhibit (1) a well deined spa- Whiteway Drive.

tial pattern of pedestrian generators, mately 1340 feet .25 miles away) attractors, and low (across a road- were included. way) between them or (2) a well de-  Minimum Location Characteristics ined pattern of existing pedestrian crossings.  A minimum vehicular volume of The study area has a well-deined 2,000 Average Daily Trafic (ADT) spatial pattern of pedestrian genera- along the roadway segment. tors, including residential neighbor- Vehicular volumes along the roadway hoods, grocery stores, and restau- segment were approximately 33,000 rants. It also has a well-deined pat- AADT in 2013 (Appendix C). tern of existing pedestrian crossings,  Minimum distance to nearest alterna- with a signalized crossing at Fowler tive crossing location is 300 feet. Avenue to the north and Whiteway The distance to the nearest alterna- Drive to the south. tive crossing is approximately 1340  Minimum of 20 pedestrians during an feet. hour (any four consecutive 15-minute  If the proposed location is between periods) at the vicinity of the pro- intersections, the minimum block posed location, or at an adjacent length is 660 feet. (nearby) intersection) The proposed location is between in- Data collected by FDOT (Appendix B) tersections, and the block length is showed that the criteria was not met approximately 2,680 feet. when pedestrian volumes were calcu-  The proposed location must be out- lated within 700 feet of the proposed side the inluence area of adjacent crosswalk. However, the criterion signalized intersections, including the was met when the number of pedes- limits of the auxiliary turn lanes. trians at adjacent intersections Where an adjacent intersection is sig- (Fowler Avenue and Whiteway Drive, nalized, the ends of standing queues approximately 1340 feet, or .25 miles should be observed not to extend to away) were included. the proposed location.  Minimum of 60 pedestrians during The proposed location is outside the any 4 hours of the day, not necessari- inluence area of adjacent signalized ly consecutive hours intersections at Fowler Avenue and Data collected by FDOT showed that Whiteway Drive. Standing queues at the criterion was not met when pe- these intersections do not extend to destrian volumes were calculated the proposed location. within 700 feet of the proposed cross- To supplement the quantitative data provided walk. However, the criterion was met by FDOT, LiveMove USF conducted a walkability when the number of pedestrians at assessment of the study area. This report details adjacent intersections (Fowler Ave- the qualitative indings of that assessment as nue and Whiteway Drive, approxi-

well as some recommendations to enhance the multimodal environment. The checklist used to conduct the audit can be found in Appendix D.

5 Observations

Facilities 3). There were some areas of the sidewalk that were lifted or otherwise damaged (Figure 4 Continuous sidewalks were available along the ), but entire study area with appropriate ramps for these were minimal. One section of the sidewalk Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessi- was temporarily blocked for construction bility. The sidewalks were 4 feet in width and (Figure 6). In some areas, property landscape were separated from the street by a grass buffer. borders encroached on the sidewalk, reducing In some areas, the sidewalk is located next to a the amount of sidewalk space available to pe- steep drainage ditch, which presents a potential destrians (Figure 5). This impedes the ability of hazard for individuals forced to sidestep the pedestrians to walk side-by-side, including par- pavement to make room for passersby (Figure ents or caregivers with children.

Figure 3. Ramps create accessibility for bicyclists and the disabled. Figure 4. Crumbling sidewalk poses a trip hazard.

Figure 5. Border hedges encroach on the sidewalk. Figure 6. A portion of the sidewalk is blocked off for construction.

Crossing Signalized crosswalks were available at 56th While appropriate signage was displayed to in- Street and Fowler Avenue and at 56th Street and struct drivers to yield to pedestrians, visibility at Whiteway Drive. The distance between these this intersection was impaired by signage, utili- crosswalks is approximately half of a mile. The ties, and landscaping. This makes it dificult for intersections were exceptionally wide and had cars turning right from 56th Street onto Fowler long crossing distances (Figure 7, Figure 8). At Avenue to see pedestrians waiting or attempting the Fowler intersection, pedestrians must cross to cross. Large turning radii allow drivers to nine lanes of trafic with only a small median to turn quickly, further diminishing pedestrian serve as a refuge. The crossing time allotted was safety. The utilities also interfered with the logi- suficient for the group walking at a brisk pace. cal placement of the sidewalk, creating an incon- However, those who do not have the ability to venience for pedestrians (Figure 9).

Figure 7. An aerial view of the 56th Street and Fowler Avenue intersection shows the very large crossing distance.

Figure 9. Signage, utilities, and landscaping interfere with the logical placement of the sidewalk and make it dificult for turning vehicles to see pedestrians waiting to cross. Driver Behavior No conclusion could be drawn regarding driver behavior. Drivers appeared to interact relatively well with pedestrians and typically yielded to pedestrians when they were crossing driveways and intersections. However, these observations were based on only one site visit. One pedestrian approached the group and complained that Figure 8. A street-level view shows the large crossing distance at she was consistently in danger of being hit by 56th Street and Fowler Avenue. drivers who did not see her or disobeyed trafic walk briskly (e.g. children, the elderly, or the rules. More research would have to be done on disabled) may have dificulty crossing in time. this corridor before making any generalizations

about driver behavior. Large building setbacks, low-density development, and large parking lots gave pedestrians Pleasantness of Walk little visual interest while walking. High vehicle While 56th Street had the sidewalk facilities to speeds produced signiicant amounts of noise support pedestrian trafic, the overall design did and air pollution. Though the assessment was not encourage walking or cycling. Several as- conducted during the daytime, there was a nota- pects made walking unpleasant. There were ble lack of sidewalk lighting for nighttime use. some trees along the sidewalk, but many areas Lighting structures exist for parking lots and the had no trees or landscaping to provide shade or street, but fail to adequately illuminate side- aesthetic appeal. walks.

Figure 12. Large building setbacks impair visual interest for pedestrians. Large parking lots also separate the sidewalk from the adjacent buildings which shows the development is more sensi- Figure 10. Street trees provide much needed shade for pedestri- tive to vehicles than pedestrians. ans and increase the pleasantness of the walk.

Access The group noticed several issues related to access. While there were continuous sidewalks along 56th Street, pedestrian access to the adjacent land uses was rarely provided and pedestrians were often separated from buildings by border landscaping and parking lots. The lack of pedestrian access forces pedestrians to either en- ter a property through the vehicular driveway, increasing the potential for conlict, or by other means, creating an unnecessary inconvenience. Figure 11. Lack of landscaping makes for little visual appeal and harsh walking conditions.

Another issue is the large turning radii and width of some of the driveways which allow vehicles to turn at higher speeds, thereby increasing the danger to pedestrians attempting to cross the driveway. Most driveway crossings were unmarked and drivers had to block the sidewalk while waiting for an opportunity to access the corridor from a property. Additionally, the number of driveways along 56th Street is an issue because it increases the potential for con-

Figure 13. Lack of pedestrian access to this restaurant at 56th lict when pedestrians attempt to cross them. and Fowler forces pedestrians to make their own path to access the property.

Figure 16. Overly large driveways and large turning radii pose Figure 14. Lack of sidewalk access to this plaza on 56th Street safety hazards for pedestrians. Wide driveways create longer forces pedestrians to either access the property through the distances that pedestrians must cross, and large turning radii vehicular driveway or cut through the landscaping. allow vehicles to turn very quickly into a property.

Figure 15. This example depicts proper pedestrian access to a building, reducing the potential for conlict between vehicles and Figure 17. The lack of marked crossing fails to alert drivers that pedestrians. pedestrians may be crossing the driveway.

Figure 18. The close proximity of these driveways poses a major problem to pedestrians. It unnecessarily increases the distance that pedestrians must cross, and the large turning radii allows vehicles to turn quickly, increasing the potential for conlict.

Figure 19. This marked crossing alerts drivers to the possible presence of pedestrians. The smaller driveway also reduces the distance that pedestrians must cross in order to continue along the sidewalk. Ramps also provide ADA accessibility.

10 Walkability Checklist

1. Did you have room to walk? Walkability Score Summary Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 There were several positive aspects to walking along 56th Street between Fowler Avenue and

Whiteway Drive. Suficient sidewalk facilities 2. Was it easy to cross streets? gave pedestrians a place to walk, moderate Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 amounts of trees and landscaping provided shade and some visual interest, and sidewalk

ramps provide ADA accessibility. 3. Did drivers behave well? However, several issues must be resolved before Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 56th Street can be considered “walkable”. 56th Street is a very auto-centric corridor. Low-

density development, large building setbacks, 4. Was it easy to follow safety rules? large intersections, large turning radii, frequent Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 driveway access, and infrequent pedestrian access all make it more dificult, less safe, and less

pleasant for pedestrians to walk along 56th 5. Was your walk pleasant? Street. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 This assessment differs greatly from WalkScore.com’s assessment of the same loca-

tion, giving it a 74 out of 100, which is consid- 6. Was there suficient pedestrian access? ered “very walkable.” This could be a result of Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 WalkScore.com’s methods for determining walkability, which are mainly based on spatial analy-

sis and distance to key locations such as grocery Total Walkability Score: 19 out of 36 stores and restaurants. However, WalkScore ap- pears to ignore the more qualitative aspects to walkability, which include safety, aesthetics, and ease of access. Overall, we determined that this corridor is only somewhat walkable and could use some improvements to support and encour-

age pedestrian activity.

11 Solutions and Recommendations

The corridor has the potential to become much  Pedestrian access to buildings more walkable. In accordance with Temple Ter-  Reducing parking lot requirements to allow race’s designation as a Multimodal Transporta- for denser development, more visually ap- tion District, several improvements need to be pealing land uses, and less emphasis on auto- made to encourage alternative means of trans- mobile use; portation, including walking, cycling, and transit.  Promoting shared parking or parking to the Because distance to a destination is not the only side of buildings; factor in determining walkability, strategies  Promoting a more well-connected street net- should include the integration of transportation work to reduce the need for oversized roads; and land use.  Reducing the number of lanes and the posted speed limit;

 Consider revising FDOT midblock crossing Potential short-term solutions include: criteria to include policy and planning objec- tives. For example, direct connections to bus  Repairing any damaged areas of the sidewalk; stops from the opposite site of the street help support transit use and increased safety  Expanding sidewalk widths to provide com- of riders. fortable walking space;  Installing more landscaping on public property to provide shade and aesthetic appeal;  Painting driveways to indicate pedestrian crossing;  Adding bulb-outs and a wider median for pedestrian refuge at crossing locations;  Increasing lighting on sidewalks to enhance actual and perceived safety;  Removing or relocating obstructions to visibility at driveway corners;  Consolidating driveways that are too close together;  Reducing turning radii on driveways to encourage lower turning speeds.

Potential long-term solutions include:

 Developing design guidelines which promote the following:  Increased building density  Reduced building setbacks  Fewer vehicular access points

Appendix A

Florida Department of Transportation Mid- Block Crossing Criteria TopicNo.750Ͳ000Ͳ005 March1999 TrafficEngineeringManual Revised:September2014 Signals Section 3.8 MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS

3.8.1 PURPOSE

To establish criteria for the installation and operation of mid-block pedestrian crosswalks on the State Highway System.

3.8.2 GENERAL

(1) Mid-block crosswalks are intended to improve pedestrian connectivity and reduce instances of pedestrians crossing at random and unpredictable locations which can create confusion and add risk to themselves and other road users. Mid-block pedestrian crosswalks may be an appropriate tool to safely accommodate pedestrians at locations where there is a documented pedestrian demand and the distance to the nearest intersection crossing location would result in significant out-of direction travel for pedestrians.

(2) Mid-block crosswalks that are well located and thoughtfully designed can serve as a mechanism for improving pedestrian connections, community walkability, and pedestrian safety. However, they are not suitable for all locations and careful evaluation must be undertaken regarding expected levels of pedestrian crossing demand, safety characteristics of the crossing location, and design considerations for the crossing control type.

3.8.3 DEFINITIONS

(1) Marked crosswalk. Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Marked crosswalks serve to highlight the right-of-way where motorists can expect pedestrians to cross and designate a stopping location.

(2) Mid-block location. Any location proposed for a marked crosswalk on a roadway with an uncontrolled approach.

(3) Pedestrian attractor. A residential, commercial, office, recreational, or other land use that is expected to be an end destination for pedestrian trips during a particular time of day.

(4) Pedestrian generator. A residential, commercial, office, recreational or any other land use that serves as the starting point for a pedestrian trip during a particular time of day.

MidͲBlockPedestrianCrosswalks 3Ͳ8Ͳ1 TopicNo.750Ͳ000Ͳ005 March1999 TrafficEngineeringManual Revised:September2014 Signals (5) Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. An experimental pedestrian actuated traffic control device that provides a dark indication to motorists until activated by a pedestrian at which time a solid red indication is provided to motorists to direct them to stop. The solid red indication advances to a flashing red indication that allows motorists to proceed with caution once a pedestrian is clear.

(6) Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon. An (RRFB) consists of two rapidly and alternately flashing rectangular yellow indications having LED-array based pulsing light sources that function as a warning beacon.

(7) Two-stage marked mid-block crosswalk. A marked crosswalk that is designed to require pedestrians to cross each half of the street independently, with the median serving as a refuge area for pedestrians to wait before completing the crossing.

3.8.4 PROCEDURE

(1) Any marked crosswalk proposed for an uncontrolled location on the State Highway System shall be reviewed and approved by the appropriate District Traffic Operations Engineer prior to installation.

(2) A request from a State agency or local government shall be submitted to the appropriate District Traffic Operations Engineer. Non governmental entities wishing to obtain authorization for a mid-block crosswalk shall do so through the local government with jurisdictional authority.

(3) If the District Traffic Operations Engineer’s review of available information supports the installation of a mid-block pedestrian crosswalk based upon the criteria outlined in Section 3.8.5, then a full engineering study may be conducted.

(4) The criteria referenced in Section 3.8.5, as documented in an engineering study, shall be met as a condition for approval of a proposed marked crosswalk at an uncontrolled location. Within the engineering study, the following information shall be provided:

(a) Document field data to demonstrate the need for a crosswalk based upon minimum pedestrian volumes and availability of any alternative crossing locations that satisfy the criteria described in Section 3.8.5. The Department’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies (MUTS) provides additional information on obtaining Pedestrian Group Size and Vehicle Gap Size field data for use in making assessments of opportunities for safe crossings at uncontrolled locations.

MidͲBlockPedestrianCrosswalks 3Ͳ8Ͳ2 TopicNo.750Ͳ000Ͳ005 March1999 TrafficEngineeringManual Revised:September2014 Signals (b) Document potential links between pedestrian generators and attractors. This information is required for establishing the mid-block crossing location or to confirm existing pedestrian crossing patterns.

(c) Document all safety considerations as described in Section 3.8.5(5) with respect to stopping sight distances, illumination levels, and proximity to intersection conflict areas.

(d) Document the proposed crossing location and corresponding signing, marking, and signal treatments (if applicable). A schematic layout should be provided over aerial photography or survey to show locations of signs, markings, and other treatments in proximity to existing traffic control devices.

(e) Document any pedestrian-vehicle crash history within the vicinity of the proposed mid-block crosswalk that has occurred based upon a minimum three years of data. Also, from field observation, document the number and nature of any near-miss pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.

(5) If the evaluation results in a decision not to consider the installation of a mid- block crosswalk, the District Traffic Operations Engineer shall document the reasons and advise the requestor of the findings. Meeting the minimum criteria outlined in this section does not guarantee approval of a request.

(6) Prior to the approval of a mid-block pedestrian crossing, coordination is necessary between the appropriate District Traffic Operations Office and local agencies to determine and document responsibilities for maintenance of any proposed traffic control devices.

3.8.5 INSTALLATION CRITERIA AND CONSIDERATIONS

(1) Placement of mid-block crosswalks should be based upon an identified need and not used indiscriminately. Important factors that should be considered when evaluating the need for a mid-block crosswalk include:

(a) Proximity to significant generators

(b) Pedestrian demand

(d) Distance between crossing locations

(2) To be considered for a mid-block pedestrian crosswalk, a mid-block location shall meet all the criteria in Sections 3.8.5(3) and 3.8.5(4). The only exception to this

MidͲBlockPedestrianCrosswalks 3Ͳ8Ͳ3 TopicNo.750Ͳ000Ͳ005 March1999 TrafficEngineeringManual Revised:September2014 Signals criterion is within a school zone, where there is no minimum pedestrian volume for a school crossing.

(3) Minimum Levels of Pedestrian Demand

(a) Any location under consideration for a possible mid-block crosswalk should exhibit (1) a well defined spatial pattern of pedestrian generators, attractors, and flow (across a roadway) between them or (2) a well defined pattern of existing pedestrian crossings. Generators and attractors should be identified over an aerial photograph to illustrate potential pedestrian routes in relation to any proposed mid-block crosswalk location.

(b) Sufficient demand should exist that meets or exceeds the thresholds for three consecutive days of data collection. Data collection should be based upon pedestrian volumes observed crossing the roadway outside a crosswalk at or in the vicinity of the proposed location, or at an adjacent (nearby) intersection.

x Minimum of 20 pedestrians during an hour (any four consecutive 15- minute periods).

x Minimum of 60 pedestrians during any 4 hours of the day, not necessarily consecutive hours.

(4) Minimum Location Characteristics

(a) A minimum vehicular volume of 2,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along the roadway segment.

(b) Minimum distance to nearest alternative crossing location is 300 feet per the Department’s Plans Preparation Manual, Vol. 1, Section 8.3.3.2. An alternative pedestrian crossing location may be considered to be any controlled location with a STOP sign, traffic signal, or a grade-separated pedestrian bridge or tunnel that accommodates pedestrian movement across the subject roadway.

(c) If the proposed location is between intersections, the minimum block length is 660 feet. Mid-block crosswalks should not be located where the spacing between adjacent intersections is less than 660 feet per the Department’s Plans Preparation Manual, Vol. 1, Section 8.3.3.2.

(d) The proposed location must be outside the influence area of adjacent signalized intersections, including the limits of the auxiliary turn lanes. Where an adjacent intersection is signalized, the ends of standing queues should be observed not to extend to the proposed location.

MidͲBlockPedestrianCrosswalks 3Ͳ8Ͳ4 TopicNo.750Ͳ000Ͳ005 March1999 TrafficEngineeringManual Revised:September2014 Signals (5) Safety Considerations

For any proposed mid-block crosswalk, the location should be conducive to providing a minimum level of pedestrian safety. The following conditions should be satisfied for existing crosswalks or, if not, should be achieved in conjunction with any implementation of the proposed marked crosswalk:

(a) The location for a mid-block crosswalk must provide adequate stopping sight distance. The Department’s Plans Preparation Manual, Vol. 1, Section 2.7 provides additional information for identifying appropriate stopping sight distance. To provide adequate sight distance, parking restrictions in the vicinity of the marked mid-block crosswalk may be required. Other optional treatments, including curb extensions, may also be considered for improving sight distance and reducing pedestrian crossing distance.

(b) If sidewalks connecting the crosswalk to established pedestrian generators and attractors are not already present, they should be provided. The Department’s Plans Preparation Manual, Vol. 1, Section 8.3.1 provides additional sidewalk design considerations.

(c) Crosswalk illumination shall be provided at all newly constructed mid-block or uncontrolled approach crosswalks. However, there may be locations such as environmentally-sensitive areas or crosswalks serving facilities that are open during daylight hours only, etc, where lighting may be omitted.

(d) If not already present, a raised median or refuge island is recommended for consideration. Where physical constraints prevent the accommodation of a median refuge, documentation of the roadway and safety conditions shall be required and this information should be taken into consideration in identifying whether the location is appropriate for a mid-block crosswalk. Median refuge areas should meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements that includes maximum slopes, ramp designs, and use of truncated dome detectable warning surfaces (at the ramps and within a median refuge area). Refer to the Department’s Design Standards, Index No. 304.

x For volumes greater than 12,000 ADT or where crossing distances exceed 60 feet, a refuge island or raised median should be considered unless controlled by a pedestrian signal or pedestrian hybrid beacon.

(e) Consideration should be given to the location of nearby bus stops when locating a proposed pedestrian crossing. Bus stops provided on the far side of the mid-block crossing are preferred.

MidͲBlockPedestrianCrosswalks 3Ͳ8Ͳ5 Appendix B

FDOT Pedestrian & Bicycle Crossing Data

Appendix C

FDOT Historical AADT Report FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2013 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 10 - HILLSBOROUGH SITE: 5230 - SR 583/N 56TH ST, S OF SR 582/FOWLER AVE YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ------2013 33000 C N 17500 S 15500 7.50 58.20 2.70 2012 34000 F N 18000 S 16000 7.50 59.00 3.70 2011 34000 C N 18000 S 16000 7.50 57.20 3.70 2010 34000 C N 18500 S 15500 9.51 56.00 3.60 2009 35000 C N 18500 S 16500 9.54 55.72 2.90 2008 37000 C N 19500 S 17500 9.13 55.29 4.00 2007 39500 C N 21000 S 18500 9.52 56.79 3.60 2006 36000 C N 20000 S 16000 9.41 55.29 5.20 2005 40000 C N 20500 S 19500 9.70 55.90 3.70 2004 40000 C N 21000 S 19000 8.60 54.00 3.70 2003 37000 C N 19500 S 17500 9.80 58.50 4.60 2002 40000 F N 21000 S 19000 9.80 55.20 8.20 2001 39000 C N 20500 S 18500 9.20 53.50 3.20 2000 37500 C N 19000 S 18500 9.60 55.00 5.70 1999 39000 C N 20500 S 18500 10.40 54.60 2.40 1998 35500 C N 18000 S 17500 9.90 54.40 4.30

AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; F = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Appendix D

Walkability Checklist Walkability Checklist

How walkable is your community?

Take a walk with a child and decide for yourselves.

Everyone benefits from walking. These benefits include: improved fitness, cleaner air, reduced risks of certain health problems, and a greater sense of community. But walking needs to be safe and easy. Take a walk with your child and use this checklist to decide if your neighborhood is a friendly place to walk. Take heart if you find problems, there are ways you can make things better.

Getting started:

First, you'll need to pick a place to walk, like the route to school, a friend's house or just somewhere fun to go.

The second step involves the checklist. Read over the checklist before you go, and as you walk, note the locations of things you would like to change. At the end of your walk, give each question a rating. Then add up the numbers to see how you rated your walk overall.

After you've rated your walk and identified any problem areas, the next step is to figure out what you can do to improve your community's score. You'll find both immediate answers and long-term solutions under "Improving Your Community's Score..." on the third page.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center