--- 1. INTRODUCTION --- 2. MAP OF GROWTH --- 3. WATER SUPPLIES ---
--- 4. WASTEWATER --- 5. TRANSPORTATION --- 6. GLOBAL WARMING --- 7. HOUSING ---
--- 8. ECONOMY --- 9. OPEN SPACE --- 10. MIX LAND USE --- 11. TOD --- 12. PEDESTRIAN ---

12-1. INTRODUCTION
Connecticut's revised regional planning statute of 2005 calls for more emphasis on the promotion of pedestrian friendly development. There is wide agreement between the public and the planning profession that relative to other issues, sidewalk planning has been historically neglected. More planning needs to be done to weave together existing sidewalk segments and to construct priority extensions.

Route 6 in Bethel showing existing sidewalks in blue
and needed additions in red, as excerpted from the
2007 Bethel Plan of Conservation and Development

Importantly, in rural centers plans for pedestrian pathways can look very different than the more traditional concrete and curb in town and city centers.

HVCEO will assist by preparing some of the detailed pedestrian plans needed by municipalities. The following specific plans have been undertaken by HVCEO to date:

--- IN PROGRESS: NEW MILFORD CENTER PEDESTRIAN PLAN
--- IN PROGRESS: BROOKFIELD ROUTE 202 PEDESTRIAN PLAN
--- IN PROGRESS: BRIDGEWATER CENTER PEDESTRIAN PLAN
--- 2/2007 SHERMAN CENTER PEDESTRIAN PLAN

--- 8/2006 TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN FOR NEWTOWN'S QUEEN STREET AREA
--- 10/2005 NEW FAIRFIELD CENTER PEDESTRIAN AND BEAUTIFICATION STUDY
--- 3/2003 NEWTOWN QUEEN STREET PEDESTRIAN PLAN (PHASE ONE)
--- 11/2001 GEORGETOWN BEAUTIFICATION, PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC PLAN

The HVCEO policy of promoting pedestrian environments is closely related to other sections of this Plan dedicated to promoting transit oriented development and mixed land use, as both those new forms of development have significant pedestrian elements. It also addresses global warming by reducing the reliance on cars for all movement.

12-2. INVENTORY OF
PEDESTRIAN POLICIES
In order to share pedestrian planning ideas between municipalities, the local policies for pedestrian development have been inventoried from the region’s ten local plans of conservation and development, as follows:

PEDESTRIANS IN BETHEL'S 2007 PLAN
According to Bethel’s 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development, “sidewalks, trails and greenways provide for safe pedestrian circulation, an important element in creating and maintaining an active and vital community.

In addition, providing an adequate pedestrian network will increase the chances that someone will choose walking over driving, particularly when the destination is a mile or less away.

In Bethel, the installation of sidewalks on one or both sides of a roadway occur in one of two ways: the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations require the installation of sidewalks for most new projects; and the Town undertakes sidewalk construction projects, through the Capital Improvement Program or in conjunction with specific projects such as the STEAP (Small Town Economic Assistance Program) funded sidewalk improvement program for the Downtown's Village Center.

Excerpt from Bethel's 2007 Town Plan, showing existing sidewalks in the
Downtown Village Area as blue and proposed sidewalks in red. The 2007 Plan
also provides a similar existing and proposed sidewalk policy or the Route 6 corridor.

Bethel has a concentration of sidewalks in the historic Village Center. Sidewalks also exist along Durant Avenue up to the Metro North Rail Station. There are some residential subdivisions and commercial developments that installed sidewalks as part of their site development. The Sidewalk and Walkways Plan (excerpt above) shows the location of existing and proposed sidewalks.

A recommendation of this Plan is to increase and improve the pedestrian network in Bethel. This includes construction of new sidewalks, maintenance of existing sidewalks, connecting sidewalks with greenways and other trails, and addressing conflicts between pedestrians and roadways. A fee-in-lieu of sidewalks may be appropriate in some locations and should be an option where it is appropriate.

The Commission recommends that the Board of Selectmen fully fund a Sidewalk Improvement Plan, to be administered by the Town Engineer. The goal of the SIP should be to assess the condition all sidewalks addressing gaps, potential extensions, handicap access and maintenance issues at one time.

PEDESTRIANS IN BRIDGEWATER'S 2001 PLAN
Bridgewater is a small rural community with scant potential for sidewalks. However an objective in the plan is to “Provide safe pedestrian circulation in the village center and surrounding high density development.”

Then also to “Develop a plan to provide for pedestrian circulation in the village enter and adjacent high density areas.” HVCEO will prepare this plan for Bridgewater in 2008.

PEDESTRIANS IN BROOKFIELD'S 2001 PLAN
The Brookfield Plan proposes the development of “a walkable village type development pattern in the Four Corners area,” including the establishment of “a network of pedestrian sidewalks” there, and also “pedestrian friendly streetscape” and “interconnected parking areas and pedestrian walkways.”

The Brookfield Plan is also admirable in that it contains a definitive townwide “Sidewalk Plan” for the municipality. It uses color to denote primary and secondary sidewalk areas and recommended future connections.

According to the “Sidewalks” section of the Brookfield Plan “The lack of sidewalks and the low-density pattern of development in Brookfield limits pedestrian circulation. Existing pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks and crosswalks, are basically located in some of the main retail areas on Route 202 and the Four Corners area.”

Excerpt from the "Sidewalk Plan" within Brookfield's 2001 Town Plan.
Orange denotes a Primary Sidewalk Area and yellow a Secondary
Sidewalk Area, while red lines and arrows identify "Future Connections."

Continuing “There is also a 'Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance' in Brookfield which determines minimum standards. While interest in pedestrian activities is increasing, Brookfield does not presently have a specific sidewalk policy. The Brookfield Zoning Commission can require sidewalks for new development, if appropriate.”

And also, “Sidewalks should be required in the business area, in the designed “Village District”, in the Historic District on Route 25, and other commercial or high activity areas. Sidewalks should also be considered along minor arterial roads and near schools and parks.”

Since 2001 Brookfield has undertaken detailed planning for a mixed use development in the Routes 7 and 25 intersection area. Pedestrian amenities will play a key role in the Brookfield Village Plan.

In 2008 HVCEO will complete a pedestrian plan for part of Route 202 (Federal Road) in southern Brookfield.

Excerpt from new Brookfield Village Plan showing
proposed crosswalks and sidewalks along Route 7.

PEDESTRIANS IN DANBURY'S
2005 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Danbury’s 2005 Transportation Plan is a recently added subsection and expansion of the CT APA award winning 2001 Danbury Plan. Sidewalk improvement policies are well organized in this document, as follows:

“The greatest concentration of sidewalks, found within the older sections of the City, were originally built before vehicular travel reduced the demand for sidewalks. Unfortunately, that has left the City with many sidewalks in fair to poor condition.

Although the City systematically repairs and replaces sidewalks, cost is an inhibiting factor. Proposed replacement of downtown sidewalks that experience especially high pedestrian use were listed in the 2001 Plan of Conservation and Development.

In addition, gaps in sidewalks located along streets in the urban core need to be interconnected to ensure a continuous sidewalk network within these high density areas.

There is no comparable network of sidewalks outside the urban core. While new developments are often required to install sidewalks on property frontages, such improvements frequently result in numerous unlinked sidewalk segments. The completion and connection of sidewalks on key streets should be a long-term goal for the City.

Of greater importance is the need to construct sidewalks along major corridors, especially as part of road improvement programs. This would greatly improve pedestrian safety, encourage walking, and improve the visual quality of the commercial corridor when combined with landscaping.

Roadways which combine major commercial destinations with high traffic volumes ought to include continuous sidewalks or multi-use paths along one or both sides of the road, as feasible, including the following: Newtown Road, Triangle Street to Eagle Road; Federal Road, White Street to Nabby Road; Park Avenue/Backus Avenue, Greenfield Avenue to Kenosia Avenue; and, Lake Avenue /Mill Plain Road, Abbot Avenue to I-84 Exit 2.

The legislative requirement for the installation of sidewalks for new development is mixed. The Subdivision Regulations require sidewalks along all primary (i.e. major thoroughfares) and secondary high-density roads (i.e. lots of less than 20,000 sq. ft. permitted) but not along industrial or secondary low-density roads (i.e. lots of 20,000 sq. ft. or greater required) unless within designated walking distances to schools.

But in the Zoning Regulations, the Planning Department may, in conjunction with Conn DOT, only require sidewalks on lots with frontage on State highways, although the Planning Commission often requires sidewalks as part of special exception site plan approvals.

The Zoning Regulations ought to be amended to require sidewalks along the entire street frontage of all lots proposed for new development or major expansions thereto, as follows: (1) for RA-80, RA-40 and LCI-40 Zoning Districts, along arterial streets only; and, (2) for all other Zoning Districts, along all arterial, collector and local streets.

Sidewalks should also be required where necessary to provide safe and convenient access to public schools. All differences in requirements between the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations must be reconciled.”

A map in the Danbury Transportation Plan then shows areas for development of “Major Sidewalks”, with an excerpt below:

Excerpt from the 2005 Danbury Transportation Plan
identifying development of major sidewalks in brown.

PEDESTRIANS IN NEW FAIRFIELD'S 2003 TOWN
PLAN AND 2005 CENTER BEAUTIFICATION STUDY
The section of the New Fairfield Plan entitled “Pedestrian Walkways” states that “New Fairfield does not have sidewalks. As a result, there is very little pedestrian traffic and people feel they must drive between destinations, even when they are nearby.

In the Center, the 1998 Beautification Plan recommended the creation of informal public pathways as a means to connect development. New Fairfield should strive to implement the recommendations of the Beautification Plan, but continue to explore options for public sidewalks in the future.”

A goal of the 2003 New Fairfield Plan of Conservation and Development in regards to New Fairfield Center is to encourage pedestrian activity. According to the Plan:

Though described as a 'center' in terms of its geographic location, this area essentially functions as a series of fragmented strip shopping centers than a 'traditional' town center.' Explore alternative development patterns that will result in a pedestrian scale Center that is a focal point for the community and surrounding towns.. new zoning regulations can be implemented for the Center to allow development that is more in keeping with the desire for a walkable Center with a strong 'sense of place.

Note that HVCEO prepared a pedestrian plan for New Fairfield Center in 1998 and then in 2005 update and aerial extension of that plan.

The 1998 Plan was the base for a successful federal grant application for streetscape and pedestrian improvements at Town Hall. The 2005 Plan can be the base for additional pedestrian improvements.

Using the 1998 Center Beautification Plan,
New Fairfield received federal funding for streetscape
and pedestrian improvements at Town Hall

Excerpt from the 2005 updated and extended Beautification Plan
showing a proposed pathway in New Fairfield Center
with the Routes 37 and 39 Intersection at left.

2005 CENTER PLAN'S RECOMMENDED
PEDESTRIAN ROUTES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA:
1. SIDEWALK ALONG ROAD FROM TOWN HALL TO VETERANS GREEN.
2. SIDEWALK ALONG ROAD AND ACROSS EXISTING CROSSWALK FROM BOARD OF EDUCATION TO HERITAGE PLAZA.
3. SIDEWALK AND NEW MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK FROM ROUTE 37 AND 39 INTERSECTION TO SAW MILL ROAD.
4. SIDEWALK FROM TOWN HALL WEST TO MEMORIAL FIELD PARKING.

2005 PLAN'S RECOMMENDED
PEDESTRIAN ROUTES BEYOND STUDY AREA:
5. NORTH ON ROUTE 39 TO CANDLEWOOD CORNERS.
6. FROM SHAWS GAZEBO CONNECT TO NEW FAIRFIELD LAND TRUST TRAIL SYSTEM.
7. POSSIBLE DIRECT CONNECTION FROM MEMORIAL FIELD TO VETERANS GREEN VIA EASEMENT THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY.
8. POSSIBLE DIRECT CONNECTION FROM VILLAGE GREEN SHOPPING CENTER TO POSSIBLE NEW PUBLIC BUILDING ON DUNHAM ROAD.
9. ALONG SAW MILL ROAD FROM SENIOR HOUSING TO ROUTE 37.

PEDESTRIANS IN NEW MILFORD'S 1997 PLAN
Pedestrian concerns are limited to the section of the New Milford Plan discussing development along Route 7, which suggests that there be pedestrian links between development sites there.

Pedestrian policies for New Milford’s relatively large and attractive downtown are planned in detail within another town document, the 1996 Downtown New Milford Study.

According to the 1996 Study, “The Village Center has an intimate size that lends itself to the pedestrian experience. However, because of the demands of the automobile, pedestrian needs have been neglected. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of most of all of the streets, but the system is fragmented with walks not always linking to one another.

The well developed pedestrian environment
in Downtown New Milford is highly valued by Town residents.

General walk conditions are poor. Although some walks appear to be in good condition, many need to be replaced (editors note: many have been since this was written in 1996).

Walk materials vary, in many cases, from property to property. To provide a more aesthetic and cohesive feeling, one material should be used throughout the walk system.”

Continuing, “Within the Village Center pedestrian system, several areas of modifications would greatly benefit the overall circulation pattern in terms of connecting parking, business, and public spaces.” These areas and their pedestrian issues are then described. The accompanying map in the 1996 Downtown Plan identifies routes for enhancing primary and secondary pedestrian circulation.

Excerpt from the 1996 New Milford Center Study,
identifying Primary Pedestrian Circulation in red
and Secondary Pedestrian Circulation in blue

PEDESTRIANS IN NEWTOWN'S 2004 PLAN
According to the 2004 Plan, "There is support in this Plan for the Borough of Newtown’s proposal for regulations that will 'improve pedestrian mobility.' There is noted in the plan a need in hamlet areas for “streetscape specifications regarding sidewalks...”

An important policy in the Plan is to “evaluate an integrated planned community design strategy that reinforces existing built up, mixed use areas of Town and creates new nodes of mixed use development along Routes 6 and 25, and incorporates the historical pedestrian friendly development patterns traditional to New England communities.”

The “Pedestrian Circulation” section of the 2004 Plan states, “Because of Newtown’s low density character, most local roads do not have sidewalks.” Also, that “considerable interest has been expressed for improved facilities, especially as relates to activities within the Borough and the Sandy Hook Village area. The Town and the Borough have completed a planning process that resulted in proposals for improved pedestrian movement along Queen Street.”

Continuing, “A planning study for the revitalization of the Sandy Hook Village area has been completed with recommendations calling for improvements that will result in enhanced pedestrian mobility and safety.

Recommendations for pedestrian improvements to Queen Street in the Borough and the Sandy Hook Village area have been endorsed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for incorporation into the Plan.” (The Pedestrian Safety Plan for Queen Street cited above was completed for the Town by HVCEO in 2003).

The Plan proposes clear strategies for sidewalk development, including “establish a long range plan and priorities for sidewalks located in the Borough, the Sandy Hook Design District, and Fairfield Hills.... Identify existing and desired pedestrian circulation routes, and where sidewalk gaps exist, plan for the construction of new sidewalks, with new sidewalks in the Borough and Sandy Hook Center as priority areas....”

Also “Implementation of the 2003 Pedestrian Safety Improvement Plan for the Queen Street corridor... Develop a plan for and implement a continuous sidewalk on Church Hill Road extending between the flagpole and Sandy Hook Center...”

An update and expansion of the 2003 pedestrian plan was completed by HVCEO in 2006. Detailed recommendations to address pedestrian issues are included.

"Before and after" pedestrian recommendation
from the 2006 Queen Street Area Traffic Study

PEDESTRIANS IN REDDING'S 1999 PLAN
The Plan for this semi-rural Town does not deal with pedestrian issues. However pedestrian issues are addressed in detail within specialized plans for the more built up Georgetown section.

According to the HVCEO’s 2002 Streetscape Enhancement Plan for Central Georgetown, “As for the pedestrian, Georgetown’s downtown has an intimate pedestrian scale and is close to several neighborhoods. The main issue here is that there is no existing sidewalk network connecting them.” This 2002 plan and related later documents then address these deficiencies in detail.

PEDESTRIANS IN RIDGEFIELD'S 1999
PLAN AND 2002 BRANCHVILLE PLAN
One of the eight priority issues in the Ridgefield Plan is to “improve roads, sidewalks, and bike paths in order to meet local needs....” The policy for Ridgefield Center advises that a detailed study of Ridgefield Center and surrounding area should be undertaken in the near future to “enhance the overall pedestrian and vehicular circulation pattern.”

The 1999 Plan’s multi-family site location criteria state that “multi-family housing should be accessible to, and within reasonable walking distance of, shopping, community facilities, and public transportation.”

The “Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel” section of the Ridgefield Plan then states,“Sidewalks should be extended throughout the Center and outlying areas in order to emphasize pedestrian scale, provide for transportation and recreation, help meet the needs of the disabled, and enhance Ridgefield’s character.

A detailed sidewalk inventory and Plan should be included as part of the proposed Ridgefield Center Study. Due to the dispersed development and low density, there are few sidewalks in outlying areas of Ridgefield at the present time.”

The summary of transportation strategies then states “Consider bicycle and pedestrian use and needs each and every time road improvement work is undertaken in Ridgefield." Also, “Provide the suitable type of pedestrian and bicycle facility as part of road improvements, when appropriate, in order to create a series of interconnected pedestrian and bicycle routes.”

A supplement to the 1999 Town Plan, the 2002 Branchville Village Plan, deals in detail with pedestrian issues in this subsection of Ridgefield. The inventory section finds that “Branchville has very little in the way of coordinated pedestrian or bicycle facilities. There are few sidewalks in the Branchville area and what exists is not interconnected into a system.”

The goal of this neighborhood plan is to help Branchville retain the characteristics of a village and resist conversion to a conventional suburban strip. “Villages work best when they are organized for people and are ‘pedestrian friendly.’ People are prepared and willing to walk rather than drive when destinations are nearby.... Studies have found that a comfortable walking distance for most people is about one half mile.”

Also, “In Branchville, sidewalks should be wide and generous. In addition, the quality of the sidewalk surface is very important.” Detailed guidelines for sidewalk construction are then provided.

In sum, the Branchville Plan in its entirety has a prime orientation toward development of an active and pedestrian friendly streetscape.

Pedestrian issues in Downtown Ridgefield were addressed in part by HVCEO's 2005 Route 35 Traffic Improvement Plan.

PEDESTRIANS IN SHERMAN'S 2001 PLAN,
2007 SHERMAN CENTER PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Sherman is a rural town and its Plan focuses pedestrian issues only upon the small Sherman Center area. According to the Sherman Plan, “if there is a residential housing alternative for senior citizens then it should be in the Center and within walking distance proximity to basic town services.”

The Sherman Plan also endorses the development of “a plan for pedestrian walkways within the Town Center, such that those using the Center, including school children, can move between the major locations of the Center other than by walking on heavily traveled state highways and town roads.”

The needed Sherman Center Pedestrian Plan was completed by HVCEO in 2007.

Excerpt from the Sherman Center Pedestrian Plan

12-3. RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR PEDESTRIAN PLANNING
GOAL: To significantly increase sidewalk development and improve pedestrian amenities in the Region, especially in coordination with mixed use and transit oriented developments.

HVCEO should continue to develop pedestrian plans for municipalities.

--- 1. INTRODUCTION --- 2. MAP OF GROWTH --- 3. WATER SUPPLIES ---
--- 4. WASTEWATER --- 5. TRANSPORTATION --- 6. GLOBAL WARMING --- 7. HOUSING ---
--- 8. ECONOMY --- 9. OPEN SPACE --- 10. MIX LAND USE --- 11. TOD --- 12. PEDESTRIAN ---