(august 2014) 2014 - living streets alliance...from october 2013 through may 2014, ... larger issue...

i

This program was made possible through the regional Alternative Modes program at

PROMOTING “STREETS FOR PEOPLE”IN THE GREATER TUCSON REGION

www.livingstreetsalliance.org

Sky Islands High School Walkability Assessment Report

(August 2014)

WAL

K RE

PORT 20

14

ii

For more information about Living Streets Alliance’s Neighborhood Walkability Assessment program, please contact:

Evren SönmezProgram Manager(520) [email protected]

THANK YOU AND CONTACT INFORMATION

LIVING STREETS ALLIANCE THANKS ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE SKY ISLANDS HIGH SCHOOL WALKABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR

THEIR TIME AND VALUABLE INPUT.

Sky Islands High School Neighborhood Walkability Assessment Report (August 2014)

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS

1-3 INTRODUCTION

1 About Living Streets Alliance (LSA)

1 Program Overview

1 Program Goals

2 Walkability Workshop

3 Neighborhood Walk & Talk

3 Walkability Audit

4-5 METHODOLOGY

4 Data Analysis Summary

6-15 NEIGHBORHOOD WALKABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS

6 Key Assessment Findings Across Neighborhoods

7 Sky Islands High School Walkability Assessment

16-19 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

20-34 APPENDICES

20 Appendix 1 - Walk & Talk Segment Survey

21 Appendix 2 - Walk & Talk Intersection Survey

22 Appendix 3 - Walkability Audit Survey

23 Appendix 4 - Walk & Talk Map Tour

30 Appendix 5 - Walkability Audit Maps

34 Appendix 6 - Additional Resources


1

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT LIVING STREETS ALLIANCE Founded in 2011, Living Streets Alliance (LSA) is a Tucson-based non-profit organization dedicated to encouraging and advocating for sustainable alterative transportation options in the greater Tucson region. The mission of Living Streets Alliance is to promote healthy communities by empowering people to transform our streets into vibrant places for walking, bicycling, socializing, and play.

In 2012, LSA launched a Pedestrian Safety & Comfort Campaign with the goal of “making the simple act of walking safe, comfortable, and convenient in the greater Tucson region.” The campaign encompassed a variety of initiatives geared toward improving walkability for people of all ages and abilities in the region. Implementation of the Neighborhood Walkability Assessment Program was one of many concrete objectives achieved through the campaign. This round of the program was made possible through a partnership with Pima Association of Governments as part of their regional Alternative Modes program.

PROGRAM OVERVIEWFrom October 2013 through May 2014, Living Streets Alliance conducted a Neighborhood Walkability Assessment Program in five neighborhoods. The Program was informed by participant feedback and lessons learned from the pilot phase of the program (February to April 2013).

Through the Neighborhood Walkability Assessments, LSA engaged residents in thinking and learning about walkability, while helping them identify the challenges that discourage walking and the assets that encourage walking in their neighborhoods. The program gave residents the opportunity to share their personal experiences of their neighborhood streets from a pedestrian perspective and initiated a conversation about neighborhood priorities regarding possible future improvements to the walking environment.

Program Goals• Explore and evaluate methods for collecting and assessing qualitative information from

neighborhoods regarding walkability and pedestrian safety and comfort. • Educate residents of the greater Tucson region about the benefits of walking and having

walkable neighborhoods. • Share walking safety tips and “rules of the road” with participants.• Engage residents in identifying their neighborhood walkability assets and challenges. • Explore and evaluate ways to identify improvements based on resident input through

walkability assessments. • Explore and evaluate ways to communicate recommendations and data summaries

with neighborhoods. • Work to get relevant elected and appointed officials and/or local jurisdiction staff to attend

components of the walkability assessment.• Contribute to the PAG 2014 Pedestrian Plan Update.• Continue to develop LSA’s regional walkability database and document the walkability needs

across the greater Tucson region.

Each Neighborhood Walkability Assessment consisted of three components: a Walkability Workshop, a Neighborhood Walk & Talk, and a Walkability Audit.


2

WALKABILITY WORKSHOP The first form of engagement in each neighborhood was a 1.5-hour interactive Walkability Workshop, designed to introduce participants to the concept of walkability and identify key aspects of walking in the neighborhood. During the workshop, participants were given a brief introduction on walkability, including the various elements that make an area walkable, and the benefits of walking and walkable neighborhoods. This presentation was followed by an interactive mapping exercise. Participants worked in small groups with large aerial maps of their neighborhoods and marked:

• Walking destinations in or around the neighborhood• Neighborhood walking assets (such as shaded sidewalks, convenient crossings, etc.) • Neighborhood walking challenges (such as obstacles on the sidewalk, speeding traffic, etc.)

LSA continually modified the workshop format and content to make the information more pertinent and practical for the neighborhoods. Starting with the third Neighborhood Walkability Assessment, a new section on walkability improvements was added to the workshop curriculum. This walkability improvements section included an introductory presentation on the “Walkability Toolbox” consisting of various street and intersection treatments aimed at traffic calming, volume management, improved pedestrian crossings at un-signalized and signalized locations, and other elements that can enhance pedestrian comfort and sense of being welcome. A mapping exercise followed this presentation, allowing participants to discuss and identify specific locations where these treatments might be beneficial in their neighborhoods. Participants were also asked to suggest routes for the second component of the program, the Neighborhood Walk & Talk. After these sessions, the maps were digitized and uploaded to Google Maps to share with neighborhoods.

INTRODUCTION

Sky Islands High School Neighborhood Walkability Assessment Report (August 2014) Sky Islands High School Neighborhood Walkability Assessment Report (August 2014)

3

INTRODUCTION

NEIGHBORHOOD WALK & TALK Following the initial Walkability Workshop in each neighborhood, LSA hosted a Neighborhood Walk & Talk to engage residents in observing and identifying the elements in the neighborhood pedestrian environment that might encourage or discourage walking as well as to discuss improvements that could potentially enhance walkability.

The 2-hour walk was led by LSA staff along neighborhood streets following a route suggested by residents during the initial workshop. Whenever possible, the selected route included different types of streets (for example a neighborhood residential street and a collector street), with the purpose of providing residents with a sample subset of their neighborhood streets from which the findings and recommendations can be extrapolated to other similar streets in the neighborhood. The Walk & Talk was designed to be participatory, allowing ample time for ideas and discussions.

A note-taker and a photographer were designated at each event to document the conversations and the neighborhood features discussed. Additionally, participants completed short surveys for each street segment to give everyone a chance to provide input regarding pedestrian comfort and safety.

WALKABILITY AUDITAfter each Neighborhood Walk & Talk, LSA facilitated more detailed data collection on pedestrian safety and comfort elements, mainly along potential future bike boulevards identified in the City of Tucson’s Draft Bike Boulevard Network1 and other key pedestrian corridors identified during the workshop. An audit survey was created to collect qualitative information regarding how people felt walking in an area. Volunteers and neighborhood residents completed audit surveys one block at a time to give feedback on safety, traffic, shade, attractiveness of the streetscape, and a number of other items related to overall comfort and safety. The surveys provided space for open-ended comments about each element, asking the participant to share why they rated a particular street segment as they did.

1 For more information on bike boulevards in Tucson: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/projects/bicycle-boulevards

http://www.tucsonaz.gov/projects/bicycle-boulevards


4

METHODOLOGY

DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARYMultiple types of data were collected from participants through the variety of engagement methods used. Following is a summary of how data from each of the three program components were analyzed.

1. Walkability WorkshopThe Walkability Workshop focused on soliciting information from participants about the general walking environment in their neighborhood. Participants worked in small groups on large format neighborhood maps (36” x 48”) to identify: walking assets, walking challenges, and walking destinations.

All comments from the maps were digitized using QuantumGIS open source software, and shapefiles of all data were created. Online Google Maps were created to share with neighborhoods. These can be added to and edited by neighborhoods on an ongoing basis. Content analysis was conducted by classifying each map comment by theme (i.e. open space, crossings, lighting, etc.).

2. Neighborhood Walk & Talk During the 2-hour Walk & Talk, participants completed brief surveys (Appendix 1) assessing each segment on the route based on how safe, comfortable, and welcoming the pedestrian environment feels. Open-ended questions also provided an opportunity for participants to share why they rated a segment as they did. All surveys were input by LSA staff and volunteers into online spreadsheets using Google Drive and a summary of participant responses was provided to each neighborhood. In some neighborhoods, a separate intersection survey was also completed (Appendix 2).


5

METHODOLOGY

Participants filling out surveys during a Neighborhood Walk & Talk

Each Walk & Talk also included a dedicated note-taker who recorded participant discussion and questions, and a photographer who captured images of the group and key elements in the environment as they were discussed. An online photomap tour was created and key points of the participant discussion were summarized for each neighborhood.

3. Walkability AuditAn audit survey (Appendix 3) was created to collect qualitative information about how people feel about walking in their neighborhoods. The goal was to complete audit surveys for all streets identified as priority pedestrian corridors or as potential future bike boulevards in the City of Tucson’s Draft Bike Boulevard Network. This was achieved to varying degrees across the neighborhoods. Completed surveys were entered into an online spreadsheet in Google Drive. A simple content analysis was conducted to provide a summary of issues along the audited segments.


6

NEIGHBORHOOD WALKABILITY ASSSESSMENT RESULTS

KEY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ACROSS NEIGHBORHOODS • Across all five neighborhoods, participants seemed interested and curious about the concept

of walkability.

• In all neighborhoods, the presence of sidewalks (or walking paths2) was considered a walkability asset, as were safe and convenient pedestrian crossings. Subsequently, the lack of sidewalks and absence of good crossings were cited as walkability challenges.

• All neighborhoods had at least some areas where safety was a concern, although this was a larger issue in some more than others. Presence or absence of sidewalks (or walking paths) contributed to this across all neighborhoods. Where sidewalks were not present, uneven terrain and obstructions were frequently brought up as issues that compromised pedestrian safety. Poor lighting was also a concern in most neighborhoods.

• Areas with difficult and dangerous crossings (primarily at arterial or collector streets) were identified in all neighborhoods. In those neighborhoods where potential improvements were explored (Menlo Park, Flowing Wells, and Dunbar Spring), there was great interest in pedestrian refuge islands, crosswalks and HAWKs as a way to facilitate safer pedestrian crossings.

• Traffic and driver behaviors were connected to how participants perceived safety. Speeding, not yielding to pedestrians, and cut-through traffic led to lower safety scores, while low traffic volumes and traffic calming features enhanced pedestrian safety and comfort ratings. Varying levels of traffic calming installations were identified along the audited streets in all of the neighborhoods except Westwood Village. In all three neighborhoods where potential improvements were explored, participants expressed interest in traffic calming.

• Shade trees and landscaping were highly associated with pedestrian comfort and the attractiveness of the streetscape across all neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the majority of the audited street segments had no shade or minimal shade in all of the neighborhoods; this was the case to a lesser extent in Dunbar Spring.

2 Many of the assessment participants in Dunbar Spring Neighborhood prefer walking paths with smooth compacted surface rather than actual sidewalks.


7


SKY ISLANDS HIGH SCHOOL WALKABILITY ASSESSMENTLSA worked primarily with Sky Islands High School for this assessment. The focus area covered the square mile from Broadway to 22nd Street and Craycroft to Wilmot, including Wilshire Heights, Loma Verde and Colonia del Valle neighborhoods. LSA and Sky Islands High School both conducted outreach to engage the residents of these neighborhoods.

Walkability Assessment area


8

1. Walkability Workshop (11/14/2013 – 8 participants) A total of 28 map points were collected from the workshop participants. Summaries below are presented in order of frequency of comment (items listed first were the most frequently mentioned). To see everything that was shared, visit the online Sky Islands Walkability Map: http://goo.gl/maps/gHioe

Walkability Workshop Walkability presentation to Sky Islands High School students prior to the Walkability Workshop

Walking Assets Summary• Parks: Sears Park, Mesa Village Park, Wilshire Heights Park

Walking Challenges Summary• Access: Park Place Mall wall blocks access• Dangerous crossings: Wilmot/Park Place Drive, Wilmot/16th Street• Safety: concerns about loitering groups in Sears Park • Sidewalks: areas with no sidewalks, or sidewalks in need of ramps

Walking Destinations Summary• Bus stops: on Broadway and 22nd • Shopping: Walmart, Park Place Mall, Albertsons• Sky Islands School• Walking path: through Sears Park


http://goo.gl/maps/gHioe

http://goo.gl/maps/gHioe


9

2. Neighborhood Walk & Talk (11/16/2013 - 27 participants)Sky Islands Walk and Talk Route

For an overview of the Walk and Talk visit the Sky Island Walk & Talk Map Tour: http://bit.ly/1gnRxzk (See Appendix 4 for map tour slides)

Synopsis of Route Surveys SafetyAccording to the survey results, safety was not a critical issue along any of the segments of the Walk & Talk route, although it came up frequently during the Walk & Talk discussions, especially with respect to the activity at Sears Park. Presence or absence of sidewalks also informed participants’ safety ratings.

Segment Very Safe Safe Somewhat Safe Unsafe Very Unsafe Total1 1 3 4 0 1 92 0 1 4 0 1 63 0 2 2 0 0 4

Total 1 6 10 0 2 19

Comfort and WelcomePedestrian comfort and welcome ratings were generally at the middle and lower end of the spectrum. Trees, shade, and sidewalks were the main elements that influenced different scores. Participants unanimously agreed that the Broadway and Chantilly intersection offered an inconvenient crossing for pedestrians.


Sky Islands High School

http://bit.ly/1gnRxzk



10


SegmentVery Comfortable / Welcoming

Comfortable / Welcoming

Somewhat Comfortable / Welcoming

Uncomfortable / Unwelcoming

Very Uncomfortable/ Unwelcoming

Total

1 1 0 4 4 1 102 0 0 3 2 1 63 0 1 3 1 0 5

Total 1 1 10 7 2 21

Summary of Discussion and Open-ended Survey Responses Segment 1: Sears Park cut-through between Del Valle and ChantillyThis segment is not a street, but it was included in the route because residents use it as a pedestrian cut-through. Such shortcuts are especially important in neighborhoods like this, where street connectivity is somewhat limited due to cul-de-sacs, long blocks, and looped streets. A great deal of the Walk &Talk discussions were focused on Sears Park due to residents’ concern about poor park maintenance and the types of users it attracts, and also due to the involvement of Sky Islands High School as well as the newly-established Loma Verde Neighborhood Association in park improvement efforts. Participants emphasized the need for a pedestrian path, additional park furniture to make the area more inviting, and better landscape maintenance.

Where Del Valle neighborhood meets the park, a lengthy discussion took place about the wall that separates Park Place Mall from the park. Many of the participants felt that an opening in the wall with a marked entry point and a shaded pedestrian walkway that connects directly to the mall entrance could benefit the residents, the mall, and the park. They highlighted that more amenities and activities in the park (such as splash pads and inviting sitting areas) could bring in more people. Along with these improvements, relocating the farmers market from the front of the mall to this area might generate more foot traffic and make the park safer and more vibrant. Creating cutouts in the wall to improve the visibility between the park and the mall parking lot was also suggested.

Four out of nine respondents rated this block as somewhat safe followed by three marks for safe and one each for very safe and very unsafe. Safety was mostly attributed to the presence of lights, but also to lack of car traffic and the presence of houses towards the western end of the

The wall between the park and the mall

Mature trees at Sears Park


11

The wall between the park and the mall

segment. Factors that negatively affected the perception of safety include broken glass, aggressive dogs, the presence of few people, and “the kind of people” who use the park.

This segment received four ratings each for somewhat comfortable/welcoming and uncomfortable/unwelcoming. One respondent each marked it as very comfortable/welcoming and very uncomfortable/unwelcoming. Positive ratings were associated with trees, shade, and grass while negative ratings were explained largely by little shade, dead grass, insufficient sitting areas, and the lack of a pedestrian path. Poor park maintenance and “people” were also mentioned in negative responses.

Segment 2: Chantilly between north of Whittier and BroadwayThis segment is an approximately 20-foot-wide street with no curbs on the west side. There are speed humps and the speed limit is 15 mph. Participants noted the lack of sidewalks on Chantilly or a path that runs parallel to Chantilly on park property. Lack of sidewalk ramps where east-west streets meet Chantilly was also highlighted as an accessibility problem.

Boarded-up playground equipment at the park spurred a second discussion about the park and neighbors shared that they are working with the Park and Recreation Department on possible improvements. Where Chantilly meets Park Place Drive, the group discovered that there was no safe and easy way for pedestrians to get to the mall (no sidewalk, no crosswalk, poor yielding behavior by drivers turning south from Broadway). A possible solution discussed was to make another opening in the wall south of this intersection and create a defined pedestrian crossing.

Boarded-up Play Equipment Chantilly leading up to a challenging crossing

Four out of six respondents rated this block as somewhat safe while safe and very unsafe received one mark each. Lack of sidewalk/path was the primary reason for negative feedback, but participants also mentioned “the people” who hang out at the park.



12

On the comfort and welcome scale, out of six respondents, half rated the segment as somewhat comfortable/welcoming followed by two marks for uncomfortable/unwelcoming and one for very uncomfortable/unwelcoming. Lack of sidewalks and shade were quoted as reasons on the negative end of the scale, while the presence of the park, playground, and picnic tables contributed positively.

Intersection: Broadway and ChantillyMany Sky Islands students reported using this intersection to access the bus stop. One of the major complaints about the intersection was the lack of a pedestrian countdown integrated into the traffic light. A participant informed the group that the walk interval was on for only 4.5 seconds before switching to the clearance interval (flashing upraised hand). Participants also commented on the hostile pedestrian environment along Broadway, including the lack of a buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk and discontinuous sidewalks that place people in driveways and parking lots where there is no clear pedestrian space to alert turning vehicles.

Broadway and Chantilly intersection

Participants were asked to fill out a separate intersection survey. All respondents marked the pedestrian crossing as inconvenient due to a short walk signal, speedy drivers, dominance of vehicular traffic, unfriendly sidewalks, and a circuitous crosswalk (pedestrians are provided a north-south crossing only on the east side of the intersection, necessitating three separate crossings to walk from the SW corner to the NW corner of the intersection). For similar reasons, six out of seven respondents said that this environment didn’t make them feel comfortable, while one remained neutral.

Segment 3: Del Valle between 14th and 15th

Some pedestrian comfort and access issues, including lack of shade, lack of sidewalks on the west side, and lack of ramps on sidewalks connecting to Del Valle, were noted along this one-block section of Del Valle abutting Sky Islands High School. Debris that covered part of the sidewalk as a result of runoff from the school property was noted as an issue that can be addressed through landscaping/water harvesting projects on school property. Additional ideas discussed included bike racks incorporating public art near the park, a landscaping project initiated by the school in the dirt area at the SE corner of Del Valle and



13

Wilshire Terrace, and traffic calming/water harvesting features such as chicanes and/or traffic circles along this 36-foot-wide street.

Measuring Del Valle

Measuring Del Valle

Del Valle: Shade and sidewalk issues

This segment received two marks as safe and two as somewhat safe. Safety was highly attributed to the sidewalk, but also to stop signs and having slightly more “eyes on the street”.

Pedestrian comfort responses were evenly distributed between the lower and upper halves of the scale, with three marks as somewhat comfortable/welcoming and one mark each as comfortable/welcoming and uncomfortable/unwelcoming. People noted their personal -and different- perceptions of the same elements in their ratings. For example, shade was quoted as a positive amenity at the same time as lack of it was attributed to lower comfort ratings. Similarly, the presence of the sidewalk was listed as a



14

reason for higher pedestrian comfort, while the dirt on the sidewalk was noted to explain the low comfort rating. One respondent also remarked on a more qualitative aspect of walkability, noting that there was “nothing to look at.”

3. Walkability AuditEighteen audit surveys were completed on potential bike boulevard routes in the neighborhood surrounding Sky Islands High School (see map). Twelve unique segments were audited at least once. A brief summary of audit results by survey category follows. (See Appendix 5 for maps of Walkability Audit findings.)

Dashed lines indicate audited streets. Potential Bike Boulevard Routes (City of Tucson) are shown in yellow.

Safety• The only section reported as very unsafe was Chantilly between Broadway and Whittier (due to

lack of sidewalks).• Sections reported as unsafe were Del Valley between 20th and 22nd (due to big trucks cutting into

the neighborhood), and Eli between Alamo and Wilmot (due to lack of sidewalks).

Traffic• Traffic made respondents feel unsafe along the south side of Sears Park between

14th and Del Valle.• At other places traffic made participants feel unsafe when there were no sidewalks (on 18th

Street) or when large speeding trucks were present (on Del Valle between 22nd and 20th).



15

Traffic calming• The only traffic calming noted in any of the audited sections were speed humps on Chantilly

between Broadway and Whittier.

Shade• All audited sections were reported as having either no shade or minimal shade, except the south

side of Sears Park that was reported as having full shade.

Attractiveness• The only section noted as very unattractive was Chantilly between Broadway and Whittier (due

to looking very rundown). • Sections noted as unattractive were primarily due to lack of shade (Eli), or lack of trees/

vegetation (south side of Sears Park). • Other sections were reported as either attractive or neutral.



16

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SEARS PARK SAFETY CONCERNS AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES The safety concerns –real or perceived – and the poor maintenance practices at Sears Park have a negative effect on the walking environment in this part of the neighborhood. The park serves as an informal pedestrian cut-through that connects a cul-de-sac and a looped street. Both the newly-established Loma Verde Neighborhood Association and Sky Islands High School are involved in conversations with the Parks and Recreation Department to improve the park. Sky Islands High School has also recently adopted the park through Tucson Clean and Beautiful’s Adopt-a-Park and Public Areas Program, which is likely to help with basic park maintenance and shorten the time frame that maintenance issues are communicated to the Parks and Recreation staff.

Recommendation [Loma Verde Neighborhood Association and Sky Islands High School]: Continue to work with the Parks and Recreation Department to implement improvements that would activate the park and help attract a wider range of users. The ideas that were shared during the Walkability Assessment (such as better landscape maintenance, additional park furniture, a pedestrian path, additional shade trees, functional play equipment, and a splash pad) can be evaluated and implemented in phases based on funding availability.

MALL ACCESSAccess to Park Place Mall from the residential areas to the south and to the west of the mall is largely blocked by a wall. Not only does the wall act as an obstacle for the pedestrians in these areas, it also fails to prevent people from jumping over it from the mall side, which residents attribute to some of the “undesirable activity” at the park. Currently, the two shortest ways to access the mall are: a) walking to the wall opening at the corner of Sears Park and the overflow mall parking abutting 14th Street, which leads to an unpleasant walk through the parking lot (see aerial image on next page) or b) walking north on Chantilly only to end up at the Chantilly and Park Place Drive intersection with no sidewalk and no marked crosswalk, exposing pedestrians to vehicles both turning in from Broadway and exiting the mall.

Pedestrian Challenges at Chantilly and Park Place Drive


17

Recommendation 1 [Loma Verde Neighborhood Association and Sky Islands High School]: Initiate a conversation with neighborhood residents to gauge support for creation of a wall opening on the south side of the mall. Depending on the outcome, approach the mall management about the possibility of creating such an opening and a marked entry point with a shaded pedestrian walkway connecting to the southern entrance of the mall. This might be accomplished by removing only 18 parking spaces directly to the south of the mall entrance (see aerial image below). The mall has approximately 5,300 parking spaces, so removing only 18 spaces would not have an impact on customers driving to the mall. Creating a comfortable and appealing walkway while adding distinctive family-friendly features to the park (such as a splash pad) can attract mall shoppers and help activate the park. If these features are built, the neighborhood can collaborate with the mall management and stores to help direct the customers to the new attractions at the park.

Recommendation 2 [Loma Verde Neighborhood Association and Sky Islands High School]: Also consider taking similar steps toward creating a wall opening on the west side of the mall combined with an enhanced pedestrian crossing, including a marked crosswalk and stop signs for the northbound and southbound traffic. Two possible alternative locations are marked on the aerial image below. Alternatively, the intersection at Chantilly and Park Place Drive can be evaluated for retrofitting with a safe and convenient pedestrian crossing.

Improving mall access for pedestrians



18

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGSParticipants observed some unfavorable conditions at the intersection of Broadway and Chantilly, including a short walk signal, lack of a north-south pedestrian crossing on the west side, and an unfriendly pedestrian environment in which cars dominate and pedestrians are not well buffered from traffic. Additionally, crossing challenges were identified across Wilmot during the workshop due to few existing pedestrian crossings. Even the pelican crossing3 at Wilmot at Park Place Mall was identified by some of the participants as a “bad crossing” that “favors vehicles.”

Recommendation [City of Tucson Department of Transportation]: Evaluate these two crossing locations to determine if improvements can be made. Consider installing a pedestrian countdown at Broadway and Chantilly and evaluate Wilmot for possible HAWK4 crossings. (Wilmot and Eli is ranks #12 on City of Tucson’s draft potential HAWK ranking list. The lists consists of a total of 92 locations.)

NEIGHBORHOOD STREET WIDTHS Street widths vary in the three neighborhoods that make up the Walkability Assessment area. In the absence of elements that physically narrow the street (such as on-street parking) or visual elements that help the street read narrower (such as mature street trees), wider streets may encourage speeding and negatively impact the pedestrian experience as they make it harder to create a human scale environment. One such example is Del Valle at 36’ just west of the Sky Islands High School. This segment was discussed in greater detail in the Neighborhood Walk & Talk section. Speeding vehicles and trucks cutting into the neighborhood were observed where Del Valle approaches Colonia (also 36’ wide) just north of 22nd Street.

3 A pelican crossing is a two-stage pedestrian crossing with a median refuge island in between the two stages. Visit http://tdot.tucsonaz.gov/tdot/pedestrian-traffic-signal-operation for a description of different types of pedestrian crossings.4 A HAWK is a pedestrian-activated signal that provides safe pedestrian crossings while minimizing trafficdelays. Visit http://tdot.tucsonaz.gov/tdot/pedestrian-traffic-signal-operation for a description of different types ofpedestrian crossings.


http://tdot.tucsonaz.gov/tdot/pedestrian-traffic-signal-operation


19

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation [Loma Verde, Wilshire Heights, and Colonia del Valle Neighborhood Associations and Sky Islands High School]: Contact Watershed Management Group to inquire about an assessment of Del Valle for installing green infrastructure, an environmentally-friendly stormwater management system utilizing planted basins to capture stormwater runoff from the street. Green infrastructure elements such as chicanes and traffic circles can double as traffic calming strategies, not just on Del Valle but also on other neighborhood streets. (See the Additional Resources section for contact information.)

SHADEThe majority of the streets assessed during the Walkability Audit had a limited number of shade trees. Shade trees are essential for pedestrian comfort in our desert environment and are an effective way of beautifying neighborhoods.

Recommendation [Loma Verde, Wilshire Heights, and Colonia del Valle Neighborhood Associations and Sky Islands High School]: Work with Trees for Tucson to plant shade trees in the neighborhood through the School & Community Shade Trees Program. Del Valle west of the Sky islands High School can be a good first location for the school to initiate a pilot planting project. Additional corridors can be prioritized with the shade information collected during the Walkability Audit. Pima Association of Governments (PAG) has created an online map of tree canopies, which can also be helpful in determining areas of greater need. (See the Additional Resources section for contact information and the link to PAG’s map.)


20

APPENDIX 1

Please fill out a half-‐sheet survey form for EACH BLOCK Location: ________________St./Ave. between ________________ St./Ave. and ________________ St./Ave. 1. Safety: How safe do you feel walking on this block?

☐Very safe ☐Safe ☐Somewhat safe ☐Unsafe ☐Very unsafe

Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Comfort: How comfortable and welcoming is this block?

☐Very comfortable/ ☐Comfortable/ ☐Somewhat comfortable/ ☐Uncomfortable/ ☐Very uncomfortable/ very welcoming welcoming somewhat welcoming unwelcoming very unwelcoming

Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Overall impressions: Do you like walking along this block?

☐Yes ☐No ☐Neutral

Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

Location: ________________St./Ave. between ________________ St./Ave. and ________________ St./Ave. 1. Safety: How safe do you feel walking on this block?


Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Comfort: How comfortable and welcoming is this block?

☐Very comfortable/ ☐Comfortable/ ☐Somewhat comfortable/ ☐Uncomfortable/ ☐Very uncomfortable/ very welcoming welcoming somewhat welcoming unwelcoming very unwelcoming

Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Overall impressions: Do you like walking along this block?


Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

Walk & Talk Segment Survey


21

APPENDIX 2

Please fill out a half-‐sheet survey form for each major INTERSECTION/CROSSING Location: ________________St./Ave. and ________________ St./Ave. (Crossing direction: ___________) 1. Safety: How safe do you feel crossing this intersection?


Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Convenience: How easy/convenient is it to cross this intersection?

☐Very convenient ☐Convenient ☐Somewhat convenient ☐Inconvenient ☐Very inconvenient

Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Comfort/Welcome: Does the environment around this crossing make you feel comfortable?


Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

4. Overall impressions: Do you like crossing this intersection?


Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

Location: ________________St./Ave. and ________________ St./Ave. (Crossing direction: ___________) 1. Safety: How safe do you feel crossing this intersection?


Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Convenience: How easy/convenient is it to cross this intersection?

☐Very convenient ☐Convenient ☐Somewhat convenient ☐Inconvenient ☐Very inconvenient

Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Comfort/Welcome: Does the environment around this crossing make you feel comfortable?


Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

4. Overall impressions: Do you like crossing this intersection?


Why?_____________________________________________________________________________________

Walk & Talk Intersection Survey


22

APPENDIX 3

1. Safety: How safe do you feel walking on this block?

� Very Safe � Safe � Somewhat safe � Unsafe � Very unsafe Why: 2. Traffic: Does the traffic along this block make you feel

uncomfortable or unsafe? ☐ Yes ☐ Somewhat ☐ No Why:

3. Night: Would you feel comfortable walking here at night? ☐ Yes ☐ Somewhat ☐ No ☐ Unsure Why: 4. Shade: Is the pedestrian area shaded? (Please indicate

which side of street) ☐ Full shade (____________side of street) ☐ Moderate shade (____________side of street ☐ Minimal shade (____________side of street ☐ No shade (____________side of street 5. Major roads: If this street meets a major road, is there a

safe and convenient way to cross the road? ☐ N/A (street does not meet a major road) ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, what type of crossing (ex: crosswalk):

6. Are there any destinations or neighborhood hang-‐outs on

this street (such as a park, store, or walking path?) ☐ Yes ☐ No

If yes, please describe:

7. Traffic calming: Do you see any of the following? ☐ Traffic circle ☐ Speed hump ☐ Bulb out

☐ Chicane ☐ None of the above 8. Street crossing: Is it easy to cross the street? ☐ Yes ☐ Somewhat ☐ No Please explain: 9. Attractiveness: How attractive is this block?

☐ Very attractive ☐ Attractive ☐ Neutral (neither attractive nor unattractive) ☐ Unattractive ☐ Very unattractive

Why:

10. Additional thoughts:

11. What else do you notice on this block? (Check all that apply) ☐ Benches ☐ Garage doors facing the street ☐ Bike racks ☐ Abandoned buildings ☐ Front porches ☐ Vacant lots ☐ Street lights ☐ Lots of blank walls/high fences ☐ Chairs or ledges ☐ Bus stops with seating ☐ Neighborhood signage ☐ Drinking fountains ☐ Other:____________________ ☐ Public restrooms ☐ On-‐street parking ☐ Street trees

Living Streets Alliance – Neighborhood Walkability Assessment

Name:___________________________ Date:_______________ Neighborhood:_______________________________

I am on street:___________________on the block between _________________ street and _________________street

Walkability Audit Survey


23

APPENDIX 4

Walk & Talk Map TourGo online for interactive version: http://bit.ly/1gnRxzk

On November 16, 2013 the LIving Streets Alliance and Sky Islands High School went on a Walk & Talk through the neighborhood with neighbors, teachers, and students. Here’s what we saw.

See the images for each map point on the following pages.



24

APPENDIX 4

Walk & Talk Map Tour

Map Point 1

Map Point 2

Our group starts out in Sears Park. There is a lot of discussion about the wall that separates the park and the mall.

Sears Park and Mall

On Chantilly along Sears park there is no sidewalk and most participants choose to walk in the street.

In the street, off the street


25

APPENDIX 4

Map Point 3

Map Point 4

Park Mall is clearly visible looming behind Sears Park - but there’s no way in.

Mall wall

We continue walking through the park. Many neighbors share concerns: feels dangerous at night, poorly maintained, isolated by a wall. But a lot of potential! Park furniture could help

Park



26

APPENDIX 4

Map Point 5

Map Point 6

The play equipment at the park has been boarded up.

No more sliding

At the north end of Chantilly it’s a confusing and dangerous situation for pedestrian. No clear crossing or sidewalks, and large expanses of parking lot. Many students share that they walk through here to get to school.

Pedestrian problems

26


27

APPENDIX 4

Map Point 7

Map Point 8

On Broadway and Chantilly there is no real sidewalk. Traffic whizzes past.

Broadway

The group can barely hear eachother with all the traffic. Evren points out how close we are to 4 lanes of traffic with no buffer or protection.

Would you walk here?



28

APPENDIX 4

Map Point 9

Map Point 10

Sears Park on one side - Park Mall on the other

The wall

Along the west side of Sky Islands School there is a long hot stretch of sidewalk with no shade. Even in November this is unpleasant. The sidewalk is also being covered up by gravel/dirt eroding from school property

Shade please!

28


29

APPENDIX 4

Map Point 11

Evren and students measure the width of this neighborhood street....it’s 36’ wide, very wide for a residential street. We discussed the possibility of chicanes and/or traffic circles here.

How wide is this street?



30

APPENDIX 5

Sky Island School Neighborhood Walkability Assessment SAFETY

Map shows results of the Walkability Assessment completed in 2014 in the Sky Islands School Neighborhood SAFETY: ParCcipants were asked to rate assessed blocks by how safe they felt when walking there. Ra*ng Scale: Very Safe Safe Somewhat Safe Unsafe Very Unsafe Note: Block raCngs are determined by the lowest score given to a single side of the street.

Walkability Audit Maps

APPENDIX 5


31

APPENDIX 5

Sky Island School Neighborhood Walkability Assessment TRAFFIC SAFETY

Map shows results of the Walkability Assessment completed in 2014 in the Sky Island School Neighborhood. TRAFFIC SAFETY: ParDcipants were asked to rate assessed blocks by whether traffic made them feel uncomfortable or unsafe Ra,ng Scale: Do note feel unsafe Feel somewhat unsafe Feel unsafe Note: Block raDngs are determined by the lowest score given to a single side of the street.

APPENDIX 5


32

APPENDIX 5

Sky Island School Neighborhood Walkability Assessment SHADE

Map shows results of the Walkability Assessment completed in 2014 in the Sky Island School Neighborhood. SHADE: ParDcipants were asked to rate assessed blocks by the amount of shade. Ra)ng Scale: Full shade Moderate shade Minimal shade No shade Note: Block raDngs are determined by the lowest score given to a single side of the street.

APPENDIX 5


33

APPENDIX 5

Sky Island School Neighborhood Walkability Assessment ATTRACTIVENESS

Map shows results of the Walkability Assessment completed in 2014 in the Sky Island School Neighborhood. ATTRACTIVENESS: ParDcipants were asked to rate assessed blocks by how aEracDve they found it. Ra,ng Scale: Very AEracDve AEracDve Neutral UnaEracDve Very unaEracDve Note: Block raDngs are determined by the lowest score given to a single side of the street.

APPENDIX 5


34

APPENDIX 6

Walking and Walkability Literature/Resources

America Walkshttp://americawalks.org/

Walkable and Livable Communities Institutehttp://www.walklive.org/

Jeff Speck (Author of “Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time”) http://www.jeffspeck.com/

Project for Public Spaceswww.pps.org

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Centerhttp://www.pedbikeinfo.org

Smart Growth Americahttp://www.smartgrowthamerica.org

Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection Systemhttp://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/

Local Organizations/Resources for More Walkable Neighborhoods

Watershed Management Group (WMG)http://watershedmg.org/520-396-3266

Trees for Tucsonhttp://tucsoncleanandbeautiful.org/trees-for-tucson/520-791-3109

City of Tucson Bicycle and Pedestrian Programhttp://tdot.tucsonaz.gov/bicycle520-837-6691 (Program Coordinator: Ann Chanecka)

PAG Tree Canopy Maphttp://gismaps.pagnet.org/PAG-GIMap/#/About

Neighborhood Reinvestment Programhttp://webcms.pima.gov/community/neighborhoods/neighborhood_reinvestment_program/520-724-6769

Additional Resources

http://americawalks.org/

http://www.walklive.org/

http://www.jeffspeck.com/

(august 2014) 2014 - living streets alliance...from october 2013 through may 2014, ... larger issue...

Documents