Questions:
- What is missing from MAPS-Mini? What did you keep wanting to report but didn’t find on the survey tool?
We found that the MAPS-Mini never asked about the presence of street parking and if it was adequate for the street (too much, too little or just enough). We also wanted to report on the density of the street. The houses were quite close together, limiting privacy and sight-lines, we think this important to the audit.
- Did you find the public realm (streets/sidewalks) mattered more or less to you than private realm (buildings/parking lots)? Why?
We found the public realm mattered more to us. We saw some improvements to be made to the sidewalks. In between the two intersections the overall quality of the paths were decent, however we found many issues at the intersections. A few of these were the lack of crosswalks, ramps, truncated domes and appropriate signage/signals for crossing. Recent attempts of improvements may have made more problems because of incomplete crosswalks, tripping hazards, uneven ground and dead-end sidewalks.
(crosswalk and sidewalk future-model)
- What issues do you think would be more important to community members as opposed to planners?
We think street lighting, parking and condition of sidewalks are more important to community members. For planners, we think they would be more concerned with adding bike areas, outdoor public seating, buffers and the overall set up of both intersections. The intersection of Norwich and Tuttle is specifically concerning with the trip hazards, cut-off sidewalk and lack off crosswalks. The intersection of Norwich and High is disjointed and puts cyclists and pedestrians at risk. The addition of a high-visibility crosswalk, with ladder design, in-street signs and overhead signs and beacons would limit the danger to the public.
(Norwich and High)
(High-visibility crosswalk solution)
(Norwich and High)
(Crosswalk model)
(High-visibility crosswalk)
(Norwich and Tuttle)