The second Flagstaff Pathways Regional Transportation Plan online survey built on the focus and results of the first survey with more specific questions regarding development preferences, the usefulness of potential transportation projects, and the importance of investing in various travel choice options, such as high capacity transit service. A wide range of responses were received from people within the city as well as those living in outlying areas, with more than 220 participants taking the survey.

If you are interested in printing or viewing the OFFICIAL results in PDF format, they are available here. Interactive survey results can be accessed using the link below. The latest version of Adobe Flash Player, is required to view the interactive presentation below.

• Fifty two percent of respondents also participated in the first survey. Approximately 72% of all respondents agree or strongly agree with the first survey’s conclusions that community character and travel choices are more important than widening roadways to enable faster traffic flow.

• When asked why people choose to live where they do, neighborhood character (62%), housing affordability (38%), and proximity to work and/or school (33%) were the three most frequent responses. (This question allowed for multiple responses.)

• Participants were then asked to consider a “sub-regional center” near their home containing basic daily services to which they could walk, bike, or ride the bus to shop, recreate, or even work. When asked what currently prevents using such a center for more daily needs, 42% of respondents indicated frequent use with no barriers, while 31% said the right mix of shops/services are not available and 25% noted that it is not close enough to walk, bike, or ride the bus.

• In thinking about desired or supportable development intensities in different areas, respondents indicated up to five stories for downtown, up to three stories along north Fourth Street and around the Flagstaff Mall. Development of no more than two stories was the most-supported option for other areas, such as Woodlands Village, Southside, Milton Road, and Canyon del Rio.

• A substantial majority (82%) believe that roadways leading to and through activity centers should help create an identity for those centers by increasing the frequency or amount of medians, landscaping, sidewalks, crosswalks, bus stops, lighting, and other amenities.

• While a majority agree that existing rural and outlying activity centers should be expanded over time to reduce the need to drive into Flagstaff for basic services, there were mixed feelings on how to do so: 36% indicated that buildings should be no more than two stories and limited to existing parcels, 29% support three stories and limited to existing parcels, and 22% support limiting development to one story and adjacent to existing activity centers.

• When asked to comment on a few major potential roadway projects – extensions to Lone Tree, Switzer/Butler, Fourth Street, and bypasses for US 89 and 180 – participants indicated that Fourth Street, Lone Tree, and a US 180 bypass would be useful or very useful. A majority also support Switzer and a US 89 bypass, but by smaller margins and much higher “neutral” responses.

• The most-supported conditions under which it is acceptable to widen a four lane road to six lanes include incorporating bike/ped paths (52%), where no other traffic flow alternatives are available (48%), no historic buildings are affected (40%), and no schools are present (39%).

• Fifty three percent support investigating the potential for high-capacity, uninterrupted transit service along major corridors, even if it means converting an existing lane to transit-only or constructing a new transit-only lane.

• Finally, most participants have lived in the region at least six years, with 57% having lived locally for longer than 10 years. Almost half (49%) use travel choices besides a personal car (transit, walk, bike) at least once a week, and most are between the ages of 35 and 54. Eighty five percent are Caucasian, and have a household income between $50,000 and $150,000.