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 alterna- tive 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 ac- tivity 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 transporta- tion (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. 3 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- 4 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. 6 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 in- tersection 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 pedestri- an 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 7 about driver behavior. Large building setbacks, low-density develop- ment, 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 pe- destrians. 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 ac- cess. While there were continuous sidewalks along 56th Street, pedestrian access to the adja- cent land uses was rarely provided and pedestri- ans were often separated from buildings by bor- der landscaping and parking lots. The lack of pe- destrian 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. 8 Another issue is the large turning radii and width of some of the driveways which allow ve- hicles to turn at higher speeds, thereby increas- ing 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 ac- cess 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.