Healthy Corridor Audit Tool

Similar documents
How walk, bike, and transit friendly is your neighbourhood?

Active Neighborhood Checklist: Protocol

What are the greatest challenges for the Route 9 Corridor? Number of responses received by category

Active Transportation Audit

Agenda. Overview PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA METRO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Vision. Goals and Objectives. Walking

Item to be Addressed Checklist Consideration YES NO N/A Required Description Complete Streets Guidelines

Creating walkable, bikeable and transit-supportive communities in Halton

NJDOT Complete Streets Checklist

Charrette #1 Keypad Polling Results. June 27, 2012

APPENDIX A: Complete Streets Checklist DRAFT NOVEMBER 2016

Existing Pedestrian Conditions. PSAC February 8, 2011

All Season Age Friendly Pedestrian Safety and Walkability Checklist *

Complete Streets for Niagara A working method to visualize the creation of a complete street June 20th, 2013

Figure 4-10: Pedestrian Improvements Types of Potential Station Area Improvements - Place-Making Improvements

MAG Town of Cave Creek Bike Study Task 6 Executive Summary and Regional Significance Report

If a person walks within this focus area, these are examples of the places he or she could walk to or from:

PUBLIC REALM MASTER PLAN

PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA METRO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Tool used and their usefulness Google Map/Earth Google Street View Microsoft Visual Oblique

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING June 17, Streetscape Overview Burlington Comprehensive Master Plan

CURBSIDE ACTIVITY DESIGN

El Camino Real Specific Plan. TAC/CAC Meeting #2 Aug 1, 2018

MASTER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Practicing what we preach in POMONA! Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director, City of Pomona, California

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) November 21, 2013

RIVERSIDE, Newton MA BH NORMANDY RIVERSIDE LLC. Riverside Station. A green, transit-oriented community

CHAPTER 3: Vision Statement and Goals

Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan Public Comment Report

Long Island Rail Road Expansion Project Floral Park to Hicksville

9/25/2018. Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Bianca Popescu, Transportation Planner

Completing the Street: Denning Drive

Proposed. City of Grand Junction Complete Streets Policy. Exhibit 10

Project Narrative. Albuquerque, NM. July 31, 2015

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Active Community Checklist

5 CIRCULATION AND STREET DESIGN

Eliminate on-street parking where it will allow for a dedicated bus only lane %

Route Item and Subscale Reliability Table All Countries

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT EVALUATION GUIDELINE FOR UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS

Obey Creek PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION EAST WEST PARTNERS PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION CREEK SIDE LANE SLIP STREET SCOTT MURRAY MAIN STREETS EAST/WEST

Active Transportation Facility Glossary

In station areas, new pedestrian links can increase network connectivity and provide direct access to stations.

Clarkson Walkability Audit: Results and Recommendations Summary

burlington MobIlITY Hubs study Aldershot GO Mobility Hub

DRAFT. System Components. Greenway Trails. Introduction. Trail Types. Zebulon Greenway Master Plan

San Francisco Asian, Inc.

CONNECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES

Table #6 VISION CHARACTERISTICS

Appendix B - Street Sections

S T A T I O N A R E A P L A N

Audit information collected by: Foot Auto Both. Location information collected by: Foot Auto Both LAND USE ENVIRONMENT

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Transportation Plan Fiscal Year Introduction:

Steps to Conducting a Complete Streets Assessment

Aurora Urban Street Standards For Transit Oriented Developments and Urban Centers

6/14/2013 VIA . Evan Compton, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Sacramento 300 Richards Blvd Sacramento, CA 95814

River Road Healthy Neighborhood Walkabout October 15, 2016

Cottage Grove Road Activity Centers Plan

Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS), Mini Version

NEWS-CFA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Scoring for Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (Updated: March 15, 2011)

Tigard Tigard Transit Center

ROUTE 81 CORRIDOR STUDY DESIGN CONCEPTS

Regional trends in walking and biking Transport Chicago conference. June 9, 2017

11/3/2014 VIA . WALKSacramento has reviewed the Stockton and T Mixed-Use project at 3675 T Street in the

Public Meeting #1 January 30, 2018

MAPS DATA DICTIONARIES - ABBREVIATED

Vision: Traditional hamlet with an attractive business/pedestrian friendly main street connected to adjacent walkable neighborhoods

SETTINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES MOBILITY & ACCESS

Omaha s Complete Streets Policy

Watertown Complete Streets Prioritization Plan. Public Meeting #1 December 14, 2017

David Hung, Associate Planner City of Sacramento Community Development Department 300 Richards Boulevard, 3 rd Floor Sacramento, CA

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

Strategies to Promote the Availability of Affordable Healthy Food and Beverages

Bridgewater Complete Streets Prioritization Plan and Pedestrian Safety Assessment

Tri-State Transportation Campaign Greater Newark Conservancy Newark Complete Streets Walking Audit July 2013

7/23/2017 VIA . Michael Hanebutt City of Sacramento Community Development Department 300 Richards Boulevard, 3 rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95811

Montclair s Complete Streets Experience

FLETCHER AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST BEHAVIOR CHANGE FORMATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT

GENERAL. 1. Description

People Active in Community Effort Walkable Community Workshop Report May 1, 2008

5/31/2016 VIA . Arwen Wacht City of Sacramento Community Development Department 300 Richards Blvd., 3 rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95811

The National Citizen Survey. Bowling Green, KY. Technical Appendices

CHAPTER 16 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA TABLE OF CONTENTS

complete streets design and construction standards public primer City of Edmonton

See Figure 38, Existing Nonmotorized Connections.

Washington County SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. & SW Scholls Ferry Rd.

PART A: IDENTIFICATION/LOCATION

USDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Assessment Gary, Indiana April 16, 2015

Use this guide to learn more about walkability and how you can make your community safer to walk

Bowling Green, KY Technical Appendices

Mapping Food Deserts : Access to Healthy Foods in Cities

Chapter 2: Standards for Access, Non-Motorized, and Transit

About the Active Transportation Alliance

Safe Routes to School: Valverde Elementary Walk Audit Report. Image: CPLIVE, SkyscraperPage.com

Town of Ashland. Downtown Planning Initiative 2 nd Community Workshop. March 29, Presented by:

Active Transportation Rail to River Corridor. Community Meeting - Segment A

Safe Routes to School: Munroe Elementary Walk Audit Report. Image: Drexel, Barrell & Co.

Pedestrian Safety: A Federal Perspective. Emmett McDevitt Transportation Safety Engineer September 28, 2010

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study

Florida Coalition CTST COMMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY TEAMS COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

Cross Street Corridor Non-Motorized Enhancement Project Project Description

Transcription:

Healthy Corridor Audit Tool How to Use:»» Complete the first section for the entire study area. Many indicators can be collected from existing data; they do not have to be collected on site.»» To assess the indicators in section 2, break the corridor into segments. The recommended assessment length is about 0.5 miles.»» Copy section 2 for subsequent segments.»» Take notes or include comments for subjective or qualitative ratings so that future assessors get an idea of why the rating was given.»» Take photos when possible, and include them with the audit for future reference. Healthy Corridor Audit Tool: Baseline and Follow-up Conditions Assessment Corridor Name: Date Assessed: Field Notes Study area boundaries (including blocks adjacent to corridor) North boundary: South boundary: East boundary: West boundary: Length of corridor Number of blocks: Number of miles: General description (neighborhoods encompassed, perceptions of area, etc.):

Section 1: Entire Study Area ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USE & PROPERTY CONDITION, GENERAL AMENITIES, ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS Date: Date: Date: 1 Number of residential units in the study area Number off corridor: Number on corridor: Number off corridor: Number on corridor: Number off corridor: Number on corridor: 2 Types of residential housing present m Single-family detached m Duplex/multifamily m Mobile homes m Other (describe) m Single-family detached m Duplex/multifamily m Mobile homes m Other (describe) m Single-family detached m Duplex/multifamily m Mobile homes m Other (describe) 3 Presence of front porches, patios, or balconies m A lot m Some m Few or none m A lot m Some m Few or none m A lot m Some m Few or none 4 Presence of boarded-up or visibly abandoned residential units Number and location: Number and location: Number and location: 5 Number of locally owned retail businesses Number (baseline): Number existing since baseline: Number new since baseline: Number existing since baseline: Number new since baseline: 6 Number of publicly accessible parks in study area

Section 1: Entire Study Area ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USE & PROPERTY CONDITION, GENERAL AMENITIES, ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS 7 General physical quality of publicly accessible parks m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor/deteriorated m Mixed (extreme differences) m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor/deteriorated m Mixed (extreme differences) m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor/deteriorated m Mixed (extreme differences) 8 Are publicly accessible parks well lit? 9 Number of privately owned open spaces in study area (nonpublic parks, plazas, etc.) 10 General physical quality of privately owned open spaces m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor/deteriorated m Mixed (extreme differences) m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor/deteriorated m Mixed (extreme differences) m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor/deteriorated m Mixed (extreme differences) 11 Opportunities for recreation or leisure-time physical activity in the study area (e.g., fitness equipment, fitness classes, indoor walking tracks, pools), private gym, fitness equipment in public spaces (parks, plazas, etc.), community center, walking/jogging track open to the public, public pool, other:, private gym, fitness equipment in public spaces (parks, plazas, etc.), community center, walking/jogging track open to the public, public pool, other:, private gym, fitness equipment in public spaces (parks, plazas, etc.), community center, walking/jogging track open to the public, public pool, other:

Section 1: Entire Study Area ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USE & PROPERTY CONDITION, GENERAL AMENITIES, ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS 12 Presence of walking, biking, hiking, or multiuse trails that bisect or are adjacent to the study area 13 Number of regular (weekly, monthly, annual, etc.) programs or events in public spaces (list types and estimated attendance) Types and attendance: Types and attendance: Types and attendance: 14 Presence of anchor institutions (university, hospital, major employer) along or adjacent to corridor

Section 1: Entire Study Area RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS 15 Average monthly rent over the past 12 months $ $ $ 16 Average home price ($ per sq ft) over the past 12 months $ $ $ 17 Crashes along corridor Number of pedestrian injuries: Number of pedestrian injuries: Number of pedestrian injuries: pedestrian fatalities: pedestrian fatalities: pedestrian fatalities: bicyclist injuries: bicyclist injuries: bicyclist injuries: bicyclist fatalities: bicyclist fatalities: bicyclist fatalities: traffic crashes: traffic crashes: traffic crashes: 18 Primary block group: Number of residents: % under 18: % homeowner: Average annual income: $ Number of residents: % under 18: % homeowner: Average annual income: $ Number of residents: % under 18: % homeowner: Average annual income: $ % below poverty level: % below poverty level: % below poverty level: % free or reduced lunch: % free or reduced lunch: % free or reduced lunch: Race: % white: Race: % white: Race: % white: % black/african American: % black/african American: % black/african American: % Asian: % Asian: % Asian: % American Indian/Alaska Native: % American Indian/Alaska Native: % American Indian/Alaska Native: % Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander: % Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander: % Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander: % other: % other: % other: % two or more races: % two or more races: % two or more races: % Hispanic or Latino: % Hispanic or Latino: % Hispanic or Latino: % not Hispanic or Latino: % not Hispanic or Latino: % not Hispanic or Latino: % or number of refugees (if applicable): % or number of refugees (if applicable): % or number of refugees (if applicable):

Section 1: Entire Study Area RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS 19 Additional block group: Number of residents: % under 18: % homeowner: Average annual income: $ Number of residents: % under 18: % homeowner: Average annual income: $ Number of residents: % under 18: % homeowner: Average annual income: $ % below poverty level: % below poverty level: % below poverty level: % free or reduced lunch: % free or reduced lunch: % free or reduced lunch: Race: % white: Race: % white: Race: % white: % black/african American: % black/african American: % black/african American: % Asian: % Asian: % Asian: % American Indian/Alaska Native: % American Indian/Alaska Native: % American Indian/Alaska Native: % Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander: % Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander: % Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander: % other: % other: % other: % two or more races: % two or more races: % two or more races: % Hispanic or Latino: % Hispanic or Latino: % Hispanic or Latino: % not Hispanic or Latino: % not Hispanic or Latino: % not Hispanic or Latino: % or number of refugees (if applicable): % or number of refugees (if applicable): % or number of refugees (if applicable):

Section 1: Entire Study Area RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS 20 Additional block group: Number of residents: % under 18: % homeowner: Average annual income: $ Number of residents: % under 18: % homeowner: Average annual income: $ Number of residents: % under 18: % homeowner: Average annual income: $ % below poverty level: % below poverty level: % below poverty level: % free or reduced lunch: % free or reduced lunch: % free or reduced lunch: Race: % white: Race: % white: Race: % white: % black/african American: % black/african American: % black/african American: % Asian: % Asian: % Asian: % American Indian/Alaska Native: % American Indian/Alaska Native: % American Indian/Alaska Native: % Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander: % Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander: % Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander: % other: % other: % other: % two or more races: % two or more races: % two or more races: % Hispanic or Latino: % Hispanic or Latino: % Hispanic or Latino: % not Hispanic or Latino: % not Hispanic or Latino: % not Hispanic or Latino: % or number of refugees (if applicable): % or number of refugees (if applicable): % or number of refugees (if applicable):

Section 1: Entire Study Area TRANSPORTATION AND ROAD CONDITIONS 21 Transit options ne m Bus stop without bench or shelter m Bus stop with shelter m Bus stop with bench m Metro or subway stop m Trolley or streetcar m Bus rapid transit m Light rail ne m Bus stop without bench or shelter m Bus stop with shelter m Bus stop with bench m Metro or subway stop m Trolley or streetcar m Bus rapid transit m Light rail ne m Bus stop without bench or shelter m Bus stop with shelter m Bus stop with bench m Metro or subway stop m Trolley or streetcar m Bus rapid transit m Light rail 22 Transit ridership numbers (if available, by type of transit option) 23 Number of vehicle travel lanes Min. number of lanes for pedestrians to cross: Max. number of lanes for pedestrians to cross: Min. number of lanes for pedestrians to cross: Max. number of lanes for pedestrians to cross: Min. number of lanes for pedestrians to cross: Max. number of lanes for pedestrians to cross: 24 Speed limit along corridor Highest mph: Mph range: Highest mph: Mph range: Highest mph: Mph range: 25 On-street parking ne or not allowed, partial, along entire corridor m Other: ne or not allowed, partial, along entire corridor m Other: ne or not allowed, partial, along entire corridor m Other: 26 Number of curb cuts Total: Average number per block: Total: Average number per block: Total: Average number per block:

Section 1: Entire Study Area TRANSPORTATION AND ROAD CONDITIONS 27 Traffic control devices, crossing aids, and signs in corridor ne m Traffic light(s) m Pedestrian countdown signals m Flashing warning sign(s) m Stop sign(s) m Pavement marking/ crosswalks m Yield to pedestrian signs/ signals m Other pedestrian-friendly traffic signs m Bike-friendly traffic/ warning signs m Speed bumps m Median/traffic island m Curb extensions/bulb outs ne m Traffic light(s) m Pedestrian countdown signals m Flashing warning sign(s) m Stop sign(s) m Pavement marking/ crosswalks m Yield to pedestrian signs/ signals m Other pedestrian-friendly traffic signs m Bike-friendly traffic/ warning signs m Speed bumps m Median/traffic island m Curb extensions/bulb outs ne m Traffic light(s) m Pedestrian countdown signals m Flashing warning sign(s) m Stop sign(s) m Pavement marking/ crosswalks m Yield to pedestrian signs/ signals m Other pedestrian-friendly traffic signs m Bike-friendly traffic/ warning signs m Speed bumps m Median/traffic island m Curb extensions/bulb outs 28 Presence of bike lanes ne (skip to No. 49) ne (skip to No. 49) ne (skip to No. 49)

Section 1: Entire Study Area TRANSPORTATION AND ROAD CONDITIONS 29 Types of bike lanes along the corridor m Shared with traffic lane m Separate bike lane m Protected bike lane m Shared with traffic lane m Separate bike lane m Protected bike lane m Shared with traffic lane m Separate bike lane m Protected bike lane 30 Presence of bike share stations, this city does not have bike share, this city has bike share but no stations on this corridor Number and locations:, this city does not have bike share, this city has bike share but no stations on this corridor Number and locations:, this city does not have bike share, this city has bike share but no stations on this corridor Number and locations: 31 What organizations or partnerships (e.g., neighborhood organizations, business associations, nonprofits, partnerships) focus on this study area Describe: Describe: Describe:

Section 2: Segment 1 LAND USES AND SERVICES Boundaries: Indicator Baseline Condition Follow-Up Assessment 1 Follow-Up Assessment 2 Field Notes 32 Presence of residences on this segment m Single-family #: m Single-family #: m Single-family #: m Multifamily #: m Multifamily #: m Multifamily #: m Mobile home #: m Mobile home #: m Mobile home #: m Other (describe): #: m Other (describe): #: m Other (describe): #: 33 Presence of buildings facing the corridor with active ground-floor uses (e.g., restaurants, cafés, retail) Number and description: Number and description: Number and description: % of all buildings on the corridor segment with active ground-floor uses: % of all buildings on the corridor segment with active ground-floor uses: % of all buildings on the corridor segment with active ground-floor uses: 34 Presence of industrial land uses that could be considered toxic or a brownfield Number and description: Number and description: Number and description: 35 Presence of religious structures

Section 2: Segment 1 LAND USES AND SERVICES Boundaries: Indicator Baseline Condition Follow-Up Assessment 1 Follow-Up Assessment 2 Field Notes 36 Presence of civic or public buildings m School m Library m Police station m Fire station m Community center (YMCA, etc.) m Post office m Other (describe): m School m Library m Police station m Fire station m Community center (YMCA, etc.) m Post office m Other (describe): m School m Library m Police station m Fire station m Community center (YMCA, etc.) m Post office m Other (describe): 37 Presence of health services (e.g., medical or dental provider offices, clinics, hospitals, pharmacies, or school-based health care centers) 38 Presence of social services providers such as food pantries, nonprofits providing direct service (Boys & Girls club, etc.), behavioral health providers

Section 2: Segment 1 LAND USES AND SERVICES Boundaries: Indicator Baseline Condition Follow-Up Assessment 1 Follow-Up Assessment 2 Field Notes 39 Presence of food retailers who sell fresh produce or who provide access to other healthy food, full-service grocery store or supermarket, corner store, drug store, or food mart with fresh/healthy options, full-service grocery store or supermarket, corner store, drug store, or food mart with fresh/healthy options, full-service grocery store or supermarket, corner store, drug store, or food mart with fresh/healthy options, farmers market, farmers market, farmers market, community garden, community garden, community garden 40 Presence of restaurants or specialty food establishments (e.g., bakeries, coffee shops, butcher shop, cafés) 41 Presence of professional office or nonprofit businesses Number and types: Number and types: Number and types:

Section 2: Segment 1 LAND USES AND SERVICES Boundaries: Indicator Baseline Condition Follow-Up Assessment 1 Follow-Up Assessment 2 Field Notes 42 Presence of undeveloped or vacant/ abandoned buildings or both Number and location: Number and location: Number and location: Parcel owners (if known): Parcel owners (if known): Parcel owners (if known): 43 Are there any businesses or land uses in this corridor segment not already mentioned above (e.g., hotel, gas station, senior-only housing?) Describe: Describe: Describe:

Section 2: Segment 1 Boundaries: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (SIDEWALKS, BIKE AMENITIES, NATURAL FEATURES, ETC.) 44 Presence of sidewalks ne (skip to No. 49) ne (skip to No. 49) ne (skip to No. 49) z 45 Average sidewalk width Number of ft: Number of ft: Number of ft: 46 Sidewalk buffer relation to road m Adjacent to street or curb (no buffer) m Within 2 ft of street m Within 2 6 ft of street m Greater than 6 ft from street m Adjacent to street or curb (no buffer) m Within 2 ft of street m Within 2 6 ft of street m Greater than 6 ft from street m Adjacent to street or curb (no buffer) m Within 2 ft of street m Within 2 6 ft of street m Greater than 6 ft from street 47 Sidewalk conditions m Good (very few bumps/ cracks/holes/obstructions) m Fair (some bumps/cracks/ holes/obstructions) m Poor (many bumps/ cracks/ holes/obstructions) m Closed/under repair m Good (very few bumps/ cracks/holes/obstructions) m Fair (some bumps/cracks/ holes/obstructions) m Poor (many bumps/ cracks/ holes/obstructions) m Closed/under repair m Good (very few bumps/ cracks/holes/obstructions) m Fair (some bumps/cracks/ holes/obstructions) m Poor (many bumps/ cracks/ holes/obstructions) m Closed/under repair

Section 2: Segment 1 Boundaries: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (SIDEWALKS, BIKE AMENITIES, NATURAL FEATURES, ETC.) 48 Are sidewalks ADA-compliant (with curb cuts at intersections, appropriate conditions for wheelchairs, etc.)? 49 Percent of buildings separated from the sidewalk or street by a parking lot %: %: %: 50 Are there trees planted along walking areas?, some trees along segment, trees along entire segment, some trees along segment, trees along entire segment, some trees along segment, trees along entire segment If Yes, are trees tall enough to provide shade for pedestrians? If Yes, are trees tall enough to provide shade for pedestrians? If Yes, are trees tall enough to provide shade for pedestrians? 51 Are there any natural environmental features for stormwater management? m Retention ponds m Rain gardens m Other: m Retention ponds m Rain gardens m Other: m Retention ponds m Rain gardens m Other:

Section 2: Segment 1 Boundaries: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (SIDEWALKS, BIKE AMENITIES, NATURAL FEATURES, ETC.) 52 Is there public lighting along the roadway? ne m Road-oriented m Pedestrian-oriented m Both road- and pedestrian-oriented m Exists but nonfunctional ne m Road-oriented m Pedestrian-oriented m Both road- and pedestrian-oriented m Exists but nonfunctional ne m Road-oriented m Pedestrian-oriented m Both road- and pedestrian-oriented m Exists but nonfunctional 53 Are there benches or other public seating in this segment?, number:, number:, number: 54 Visible people in this segment ne m Children/youth only #: m Adults only #: m Both children/youth and adults #: ne m Children/youth only #: m Adults only #: m Both children/youth and adults #: ne m Children/youth only #: m Adults only #: m Both children/youth and adults #: Day and time of assessment: Day and time of assessment: Day and time of assessment: 55 Are there garbage and/or recycling cans available?, garbage only, both, garbage only, both, garbage only, both 56 General quality of walking environment m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor/deteriorated m Mixed (extreme differences) m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor/deteriorated m Mixed (extreme differences) m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor/deteriorated m Mixed (extreme differences) 57 Number of crosswalks in this segment

Section 2: Segment 1 Boundaries: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (SIDEWALKS, BIKE AMENITIES, NATURAL FEATURES, ETC.) 58 Presence of pedestrian-scale wayfinding signage 59 Presence of bike racks Number and location: Number and location: Number and location: 60 Any noteworthy issues in this segment, such as potential ADA incompliance or concerns over lack of universal design? Describe: Describe: Describe: Adapted from Kelly R. Evenson, Daniela Sotres-Alvarez, Amy H. Herring, Lynne Messer, Barbara A. Laraia, and Daniel A. Rodríguez. 2009. Assessing Urban and Rural Neighborhood Characteristics Using Audit and GIS Data: Derivation and Reliability of Constructs. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 6:44. www.ijbnpa.org/content/6/1/44.