Before a municipality can effectively implement a plan to get people out of their houses and onto the streets, it should conduct a “walkability assessment” to understand whether or not their streets and paths are safe and useable. Walkability assessments identify problems that need to be addressed and highlight specific areas where outdoor activities, such as walking, biking, skating or running, would best occur. A community walkability assessment should be considered instrumental in guiding discussions about the development of pedestrian plans or pedestrian-friendly changes.
An assessment has three goals:
Performing a walkability assessment is an excellent first step for municipalities interested in addressing both pedestrian access and larger issues of community sustainability related to good pedestrian facilities. City planning officials can use a walkability assessment to create pedestrian-friendly communities that allow people to reach destinations safely and conveniently by foot. An important step for local governments is to adopt circulation plans (as part of a municipal master plan) that have been developed in concert with a walkability assessment conditions.
Three very effective tools can be referenced when developing a walkability assessment for a municipality:
New Jersey Community Walkability Audit
VTC has specifically designed the New Jersey Community Walkability Audit as a tool to assist New Jersey communities in making improvements to their pedestrian realms. The Walkability Audit should help a community articulate its pedestrian-related concerns to planning and transportation authorities and to develop a circulation plan that can be incorporated into the transportation element of a Master Plan. As a stand-alone report, or as part of a circulation plan included in a Master Plan, the Walkability Audit can also be used to guide future land use and capital investment decisions.
In general terms, this is done by considering 10 criteria:
The audit approach is flexible so as to address the great diversity of New Jersey’s communities. It is also important to consider the needs of different populations in the community. Within this context, three columns labeled “G” (General Population), “C/E” (Children/Elderly), and “H” (Handicapped) allow for criteria ratings geared for different populations or user groups.
One of the strongest elements of the audit is the use of overall rating results computed by criteria and user category. This rating system allows the community to easily identify problem areas and encourage walking by rating the criteria for each user group. Addressing these concerns will benefit the entire community by allowing residents to walk in their own neighborhoods for exercise or as an alternative to car travel.
Who Should Perform the Audit?
It is very important that the auditor is capable of assuming a pedestrian’s perspective. An individual or a team (e.g., school groups or community groups) can perform the audit and should be familiar with the pedestrian realm of the community to be assessed. It is helpful if the auditor(s) is acquainted with the community’s pedestrian policies. Even more desirable is a team member who is knowledgeable of state and national pedestrian guidelines and standards as well. If several audits or a large-scale audit are planned, the community may decide to host a half-day workshop to train auditors to recognize pedestrian-friendly design and to assess compliance with established pedestrian standards. The audit is self-explanatory and is designed to be performed by community members without specific training; regardless of the auditor’s background, it will capture valuable information about the existing pedestrian environment.
When Should the Area be Audited?
If possible, the audit should be performed at least twice: at peak traffic hours and after dark so as to gauge the adequacy of lighting facilities. Consideration should be given to variations in “peak” traffic hours for pedestrians and vehicular traffic, particularly in areas where sidewalk or crosswalk volumes are problematic. Seasonal variations should also be documented by community members familiar with areas affected by heavy rains or snowfalls and to overgrowth of grass and brush.
Walkability Checklist
Developed through partnership between the EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Partnership for a Walkable America, the CDC, and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, this simple and straight-forward checklist enables ordinary citizens to assess the walkability of their communities. Contending that “everyone benefits from walking” if it is safe and easy, the checklist is designed to be conducted with the assistance of children. The checklist consists of five simple questions that allow the user to identify common problems and rate specific aspects of the walkability in a municipality, including sidewalk availability/usefulness, ease of crossing the street, driver patterns, safety rule adherence, and scenery/cleanliness.
The checklist asks users the following questions and to rate each aspect of the pedestrian environment from 1 (awful) to 6 (excellent):
Following the questionnaire, a list of suggestions address each area of concern and offers steps to be taken immediately by individuals or over the longer term by the community. Suggested measures include talking to local officials, writing petitions, reporting bad drivers, organizing neighborhood clean teams, and attracting media attention. The checklist is a great tool for community members and local officials alike. It gives residents a way to alert local leaders of pedestrian issues and to let their voices be heard about what constitutes a safe and walkable community. The checklist also offers a number of valuable resources that may be helpful in designing an individualized walking assessment.
Livable Communities: An Evaluation Guide
The 2005 AARP Policy Institute publication, Livable Communities: An Evaluation Guide, focuses on issues to be addressed when creating safe and accessible active areas. The report lays out a comprehensive guide to assess whether a community can be easily used by all of its citizens. Walkability is one of eight sections highlighted. Each section describes livability with respect to a particular aspect of community life, a survey to assess that criterion, and suggestions to address any identified issues.
The walkability section begins with a discussion of common problems that can hinder walkability: weather, discontinuous and disjointed routes, traffic conflicts, difficulty in crossing streets, personal security, poor design, lack of maintenance and obstructions. A checklist follows, summarizing preparation steps relevant to the walkability survey. The walkability audit itself is a 20-question survey divided into sections about sidewalks and their maintenance, traffic signals, and pedestrian amenities.
The guide addresses elements of walkability, such as the availability and condition of sidewalks, similar to those covered in the tools introduced above. However, rather than a rating scale, this approach offers a yes/no format for answering specific questions and the option of marking inadequacies in any area on an accompanying survey map. The guide offers comprehensive suggestions for pre-survey preparation and post-survey action stages that are geared towards enhancing community-wide involvement in and consensus around the walkability concerns addressed by the audit.
New Jersey Community Walkability Audit Rating Scale
An overall rating is calculated for each criterion and population category on the audit form. The use of ratings allows one to focus on the most salient challenges to walkability in the community.
Rating Scale:
1 = Awful Lack of criteria is found to be so widespread as to seriously compromise the security, integrity or aesthetic of the walking environment. Urgent attention is required to adequately address the criteria category.
2 = Quite a few problems Criteria are not consistent. The weaknesses identified, taken together or individually, significantly impair the overall walking environment. Prompt corrective action is required to improve the criteria category.
3 = Some problems Although the majority of criteria are in existence, they lack consistency or effectiveness. While some criteria compensate in part for the weakness(es) of others, timely corrective action is required.
4 = Good Although some problems were identified, the weaknesses were not sufficiently critical to compromise the security, integrity or aesthetic of the walking environment. Some care should be taken to ensure that conditions do not deteriorate.
5= Very good Criteria exist consistently, effectively, and in good repair. Problems that exist are minor and can be easily remedied.
6 = Excellent. Congratulations. Your community is a model of walkability. Go take a walk!
