Downtown Putnam Walking 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 STReet 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 pedestrian 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 walkability of the Downtown area will record the existing conditions for pedestrians. 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. The Safe 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/Footpaths, 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