City of Nashua City-Wide Pedestrian Infrastructure Conditions Assessment and Ranking
: e 2 6 Aver Shattuck St ¢
Nashua Bike-Ped Level of Service £ és wa wn peasant St g" tamst pons Ly Ay neve ly
+ e 6
. NAG A %
s ” po x ‘te
Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Conditions ““""™" os Lock St §
Sidewalk Condition g
4N/ Good £ é Brigham s,
~ Fak H Hughey st
‘OOF Hevae
Ramp Condition Sas
o Fair Tanga St
e@ Poor
ie
a
&
=
wigs gS
‘S auhbes
wet ag? gate
& ws 4 we ~
at Se
? 4% 4, Z ‘ < q i
€ fo? ey *) Y o ay % 3 % a> ye aids St 3
& eget? gg %, % yD F) 40 4 15, LOH so WP rest ABS St pad NE ‘ica
"ry 3 y* 9 % “eG %. e é ee eo Sesh
m = ba E &*s T + ¥ *, % ‘ % & we oS rang eco carters
oe iat “a 4% 2 es 3 per” 2
wae oe i Pid o% iat ene 4 ThA. J F porsel Ue Meno Ae
Ee" @D 7 eral
Nashua Bike-Ped Level of Service Ye Se oe i \ Sums pen 4 4 Ly rere
3 ors 0 a Surrenes A ¥ * ;
Crosswalk Conditions petatsd os a 4 7 a, tae i 3 o* Leos
"erg a oq be eo gd ge
AP No Lighted Utilities £ a, Py, i writen 2 i i
AS Faded Paint A nese Hy * %,,, Sot? get Tare a * Rows Fe a
AS Faded Paint and No Lights i rye § emus % 4 ot 7 aes fj tons §
AVA No Deficiencies Noted pets ra 9 @ go gaeem Or gf uF
3 3 g 3 an eck gots & g Gaeape Avt aE wo?
iis ers
3 Tarps $1 Sy 8 A wee ? . & Ly i 18 #,
tf é . s, onan wat ae 4 ,, vé i wg 4
% wine 9 ot Fem, “a root pee? be
a eo gy or® o
} ene 6 WO ne rem
MiP gh e° e ven een? 3
gs . aod He § Me oe? ” wears
x! .
4 AAG BE Lee ROP Best ower ME wart |
wont greene °* 7 .? se be
% 2% % oe 4 > oer ii St yor? ©
o” thy: eds 2 Bh & gar es OF a esa
se Ld we ’ yore aS
” 4 ns Wa ara \ 5s a. i er
, a? 4% € «, 4% ge ¢ oe 3 we 4 % Oe z 4°
f ote ae : yy \ 7 ye % 6 wa? FO
fe, e (se a *, %,°¢ . 2 i > gi? ee AREY 54st Ot seek
& ’ ba, VF % ad g a f a e % xs 5 $ % esta ort Spexing DS acute
* bd Ww
wor ge a oso? + 3 as <3 2 43,48 j a i wr
wttoas oS Ca - 2 i: oor FE 2” § beatae ad
Figure 3: Relative Conditions Assessment: 2020 SADES Pedestrian Infrastructure Pilot for Nashua.
pg. 4
