Appendix 10: Community Walk Survey Results & Comments MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2011 TO: Glenn O’Connor, G. O’Connor Consultants FROM: Michael Hintze, AICP, Toole Design Group, LLC SUBJECT: Pedestrian Mobility Master Plan Community Walk and Online Survey Results Introduction Toole Design Group (TDG) developed and managed an online survey and web‐based interactive mapping tool using the CommunityWalk platform to gather public input on specific issues and conditions related to walking in the City. This memo provides a summary of the results of both the online survey and CommunityWalk mapping exercise. CommunityWalk Results Members of the public were encouraged to add markers, paths, and descriptive comments to an interactive map in twelve (12) preselected category areas. Between February 2011 and April 2011, 453 markers and 149 paths were added. The map was viewed 1,643 times. Table 1 below shows a ranking of the category areas placed by map users. Figure 1 shows a screen shot of the online mapping tool with the markers and paths added by the public. Table 1: Interactive Map Category and Number of Markers Category # of Markers 5. Poor sidewalk pavement conditions 64 9. Route I'd like to see improved for pedestrians 62 7. Unappealing pedestrian environment 61 14. Missing connection or crossing 56 1. Route I use frequently 50 3. Traffic is uncomfortable 34 8. Personal safety concerns 32 4. Difficult intersection 29 6. Pedestrian‐vehicle accident location 21 11. Long wait time/unresponsive "walk" signal activation 12 2. I take the bus (on & off points) 12 12. "Walk" signal does not provide adequate time 8 10. Bridge improvement needed (existing or new) 7 13. Better access to transit facility needed 5 05/20/11 1 Toole Design Group Figure 1: Screen shot of the Interactive Map The TDG team imported the comments received through the online mapping tool into ArcGIS for improved display of the data and to conduct analysis of the data. This memo is accompanied by two maps: Map 1 shows all the comments that were placed on the interactive map. Map 2 shows comment density using a kernel density method. As both maps shows, comments were dispersed throughout the City, however there are distinct areas where there is a higher concentration of comments. Based on an analysis of Map 2, the following areas of concentration were identified: Areas of Highest Comment Concentration • Intersections of Dundurn St with Main St and King St • Along James St between approximately Young St and Barton St, with a hotspot occurring near intersection of James St and Colbourne St • Intersection of King St and Oglivie/Main St Areas of Medium Comment Concentration • Downtown core approximately bounded by Charlton Ave (to south), Barton St (to north), Chedoke Expy (to west), and Wellington St (to east). This areas encompasses previously mentioned high concentration areas. • Aberdeen Ave between Queen St and approximately Mt. Royal Ave 05/20/11 2 Toole Design Group • Area bounded by Gage Ave (to west), Ottawa St (to east), Main St (to south), and Cannon St (to north) • Broadway Ave and Main St W (County Rd 2) Other Areas of Notable Comment Concentration • Intersection of Mohawk Rd and McNiven Rd • Wilson St E (County Rd 2) between Lovers Lane and Rousseaux St • Jerseyville Rd just west of Fiddlers Green Rd • Main St W in vicinity of McMaster Children’s Centre • Wellington St N between railroad tracks and Burlington St E • Wentworth St around Sherman Access • Gage Ave in vicinity of Gage Park • Gage Ave at Fennell Ave and Queensdale Ave • Barton St/ Lake Ave/Centennial Pkwy 05/20/11 3 Toole Design Group Online Survey Results Introduction Public involvement was an important part of the planning process for the City of Hamilton’s Step Forward: Pedestrian Mobility Master Plan. Residents and visitors provided feedback on a wide variety of topics, ranging from driver behavior to locations needing pedestrian improvements. An online survey was developed in the spring of 2011 with input from the Consultant team, City Project Manager, Pedestrian Advisory Group (PAG), Project team/City Staff. The survey was available online for two months from March 3rd, 2011 through April 30th, 2011. The survey was publicized via: City of Hamilton website, PICs, Local media coverage, Notice of Study Commencement, Newsletter. Four hundred and seventy‐eight (478) surveys were started and 294 were completed, representing a 62.2% response rate. The most frequently cited concerns expressed by survey respondents regarding walking in the City include: • Uncomfortable street crossings or intersections • Driver behavior (speeding, failing to yield to pedestrians, etc) • High traffic volumes • Lack of street trees • Major arterials and intersections need the most improvements for pedestrians Demographic information was collected as part of an optional section of the survey. Less than half of the respondents skipped this section. From the responses received on optional questions, it may be concluded that the survey response was well‐balanced in terms of age and gender. A small minority of the respondents indicated that they have mobility impairments. It is important to note that this survey was self‐selected; therefore the results are not statistically significant. The main purpose of the survey was to broaden the reach of public input. The survey is a component of a much broader public outreach effort that includes other strategies to insure that the concerns of communities underrepresented in the survey are taken into account during the planning process. Below are highlights gathered from the survey results. Following the highlights are summary tables and charts illustrating the results of each survey question in the order that they appeared in the online survey form. Write‐in responses to questions are Included with the tables and chart. Highlights • A total of 478 respondents completed the survey. 459 of the respondents took the survey online, while 19 submitted hard copies that were entered by the project team. • The majority of survey respondents live in urban communities (387, 80%), most of which were built prior to 1949. o Urban Community built prior to 1949 (249, 53%) o Urban Community built after 1949 (138, 29%) • A significant majority of the respondents walk in the City (393, 82%) 05/20/11 Toole Design Group • When asked about the purpose of walking trips in the City, the most common purpose chosen from a list was for running errands (288), followed closely by walking for exercise and personal fitness (278) and walking for leisure (267). Respondents could select multiple answer choices, which is why percentages are tno included with these counts. • Respondents were asked how frequently they make these walking trips in the City. Most respondents indicated that their walking trips are made frequently (5 or more times per week). o Among the respondents, the most common walking trips are for the purpose of running errands, and these trips are commonly made 5 or more times per week (136). It is likely that walking conditions between neighborhoods and the City are also good as trips to work, and to the bus/transit were commonly selected answer choices. o Among the respondents the least common walking trips were to school,( all frequency answer choices combined) (158). One reason for this may be that the respondents are not attending school or do not have children of school‐age in their household. Another possibility may be that schools are not located in areas with comfortable walking conditions. • It is not surprising that most respondents walk for transportation and fitness as many of the respondents live on streets with sidewalks (278, 86%) and chose to walk on them. • When sidewalks are not present, nearly all of the respondents choose to walk in the road or shoulder (232, 94%). • Many of the respondents live within a 15 minute walk of a trail (274, 85%). • Nearly all of the respondents use recreational trails (288, 90%). • Trips made for necessity (work/school) and for leisure, appear to be comfortable in Hamilton so long as they route through the following places1 o Niagara Escarpment o Lake Ontario and Hamilton Harbor o Historic neighborhoods o Parks and open spaces • Hamilton generally scored well as a place to walk. Respondents who make walking trips for necessity or leisure generally gave Hamilton a score of “good” or better overall. o Hamilton can improve some aspects of the pedestrian network. When asked how aspects of Hamilton rate as a place to walk, the following choices were most commonly selected as aspects that are “fair” or “poor” regardless of the purpose of the trip (to school/work, or for leisure): Comfortable, safe street crossings Plenty of street trees and shade 1 When asked to rate the walking conditions in the City for those trips made to work/school, and again for leisure the highest marks (either ”excellent” or “very good”) were given to the locations listed in the bullets. Respondents could select more than one answer option – the answer options included places and pedestrian facility types 05/20/11 Toole Design Group Retail/commercial pedestrian amenities Continuous networks for sidewalks Good transit system • When asked about the challenges along routes to work/school the most common answer choices selected were the following: (respondents could select more than one answer options) o Heavy traffic (volume) o High‐speed traffic o Perceived dangerous drivers o Perceived dangerous/difficult road crossings (multi‐stage) • The least challenging aspects about walking along routes to work/school included the following: o Lack of Sidewalks o Physical mobility (wheelchair/walker/scooter) o Travel time (takes too long to reach destination) o Lack of recreation trails • When asked about the challenges along routes for leisure/physical activity the most common answer choices selected were the following: (respondents could select more than one answer options) o High‐speed traffic o Heavy traffic (volume) o Perceived dangerous drivers o Space between sidewalk and traffic o Perceived dangerous/difficult road crossings (multi‐stage) o 28 write‐in responses were recorded.