Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>



  • pg 1

      Conducted for:

    City of Concord
 Community Planning Dept.
     41 Green Street
   Concord, NH 03301


   The NorthMark Group
   214 South Main Street
    Concord, NH 03301
                                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


As part of the process of updating its Master Plan, the City of Concord Planning Department
desired to obtain broad-based input from Concord citizens with regard to attitudes, opinions, and
aspirations on various issues affecting Concord’s future. In this regard, the services of The
NorthMark Group were engaged to assist with the development and implementation of a
Community Survey.

Copies of the survey instrument as well as an accompanying cover letter and map of Concord’s
Village/Master Plan Districts were mailed during the last week of May, 2004 to a randomly
selected sample of 3220 residents using a mailing list purchased from InfoUSA. Postcard
reminders were mailed one week later. Data has been tabulated from a total of 1,043 surveys
which represents a 32.4% response rate.

Report Format

This report will present data and tabulations based on all survey respondents collectively. The
notation (n=) is used in data tables to indicate the number of respondents to a particular question
and the base upon which percentages have been calculated. Additional cross-tabulations of
selected questions by sub-groups of respondents will be made available upon request.

Copies of the survey instrument and accompanying documents mailed to residents are included
in the Appendix.

Major Research Findings

Historic Resources

             Respondents gave a high priority action rating (2.0 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 =
              Highest) for protecting historic buildings, sites, and landscapes.

             Of those having an opinion, respondents favored adopting additional regulations
              relating to historic preservation by a margin of over 3:1. A large percentage
              (40%), however, reportedly had no opinion or were not sure.

             Of those favoring the adoption of additional historic preservation regulations,
              about 2/3 were in favor of additional limitations on demolition of historic
              structures, restrictions on the alteration of such structures, and implementing
              design standards for new development in historic areas. Respondents were less
              sure about additional historic districts, however. While those with an opinion
              generally favored them, over 40% had no opinion or were not sure.


             Over 2/3 of respondents reportedly favored City funding to increase the
              acquisition of open space and protection of natural resources.

             The most-preferred types of open space were water resources, wildlife habitat,
              and forest lands.

             The most-preferred locations for open space were the Penacook Watershed and
              Merrimack River Floodplains.

Economic Development

             The most-preferred types of Economic Development were: Arts/Entertainment &
              Recreation, Educational & Institutional Uses, and Medical Services.

             The most-preferred locations for Economic Development were Downtown
              Concord, Downtown Penacook, and The Opportunity Corridor followed closely
              by Route 106.


                The heaviest use of Interstate Highways in Concord was reportedly for shopping
                 locally rather than commuting to work.

                The transportation problems/concerns that ranked highest on respondents’ priority
                 lists were excessive traffic speed/volume on neighborhood streets and traffic
                 congestion on major streets in retail areas and getting to Concord Hospital.


                Affordable housing strategies receiving the highest priority ratings were
                 “renovation of older housing units” and “legislation requiring all NH communities
                 to provide”.

Parks & Recreation

                The highest reported participation by adults and children were in individual
                 sports/activities such as hiking/walking, bicycling, and swimming.

                This was reflected in the write-in responses to an open-ended question on
                 additional recreational facilities/resources desired. Topping the list in terms of
                 number of mentions were such things as bike paths and hiking/walking trails.

                The condition and availability of individual City facilities were judged to be
                 “adequate” by the vast majority of respondents. Those facilities receiving lower
                 ratings for “condition” were the various City Community Centers.

Future Growth & Development

                Less than half (47%) of respondents felt that Concord’s projected population
                 growth was considered “acceptable”. Those feeling the projected growth was
                 “not acceptable” reflected a strong desire to grow more slowly.


This community survey reflects the input from a very sizable sample (over 1400) of Concord
residents. While some subgroups are somewhat over- or under-represented, there is reasonable
distribution by key factors such as village residence, length of residency, age, type of housing,
and incidence of children at home/in school.

A review of the quantitative data presented in this report as well as the “qualitative” input
received from write-in responses, suggests there are a few things that people in general seem to
agree on:

              There is a relatively strong desire to adopt additional regulations regarding
               historic preservation and preserve open/undeveloped space.

              The City receives “high marks” for its Parks and Recreation facilities.

There are a few other areas, however, where some concerns were expressed:

              The major concerns seem to be transportation-related (traffic congestion, parking,
               and maintenance of City streets).

              Affordable housing and taxes are other notable mentions.

Regarding future growth and development, the mandate is less clear. Less than half of the
respondents felt that Concord’s projected population growth was “acceptable” and there seemed
to be a desire to control the rate of growth as well as balance other issues such as public safety
and education.

In summary, people seemed to indicate that Concord is a good place to live, felt the “City has
done well”, and appreciated the opportunity to provide their input.

                               (CITIZEN PROFILE)

Village Residence

Respondents were asked to indicate in which of Concord’s six villages/districts they lived. Table
1 summarize the responses which indicate that, compared to the population as a whole, Penacook
residents are noticeably over-represented in the survey, while residents from the North/West end
and the Heights are under-represented.

                                            Table 1
                                          Where Live?


                                 Penacook                  19.7
                                 East Concord              11.4
                                 North/West End            17.5
                                 West Concord              17.0
                                 Heights                   14.6
                                 South End                 19.8


Length of Residency

As can be seen in Table 2, there was a reasonable mix of relatively new and longer-term
residents. The average length of residency in Concord was 24.4 years.

                                            Table 2
                                      Length of Residency


             5 years or less                                                   22.1
             6 - 10 years                                                      13.5
             11 - 15 years                                                      8.9
             16 - 20 years                                                     10.5
             21 - 25 years                                                      7.9
             26 - 40 years                                                     16.5
             More than 40 years                                                20.6


Age of Respondent

The distribution of survey respondents by age is summarized in Table 3. In general it shows that
older residents (age 65 and over) are over-represented in the survey when compared to the
population at large.

                                           Table 3
                                      Age of Respondent


                                  Under 25                 1.7
                                  25 – 34                 10.6
                                  35 – 44                 18.4
                                  45 – 54                 25.0
                                  55 – 64                 19.1
                                  65 – 74                 12.5
                                  75 or more              12.7

Home Ownership

As indicated in Table 4, eighty percent (80%) of all survey respondents indicated that they own
their home. While this percentage is considerable greater than the population as a whole, it
seems logical since it is assumed that homeowners would be more apt to participate in a Master
Planning exercise.

                                           Table 4
                                      Own/Rent Residence


                                 Own                       80.0
                                 Rent                      20.0


Type of Housing

Table 5 summarizes the distribution of survey respondents by type of housing. As can be seen,
almost two-thirds of respondents indicated they live in a single family home. Similar to the
observation noted above, this percentage is greater than the population as a whole.

                                            Table 5
                                        Type of Housing


 Single family                                                                             64.2
 Attached dwelling/townhouse                                                                7.9
 Manufactured housing/mobile home                                                           6.4
 Duplex/Two-family dwelling                                                                 8.5
 Multi-family dwelling                                                                     13.0


Children At Home/In School

Respondents were asked about children age 18 or under living at home and their attendance at
different school levels. As indicated in Table 6, less than one-third (29.2%) reported incidence
of children living with them.

                                            Table 6
                                   Children Living at Home?


                     Yes                                                 29.2
                     No                                                  70.8


                     Avg. # in public schools                             1.4
                     Avg. # in private schools                            0.7
                     Avg. # in Elementary School                          1.1
                     Avg. # in Middle School                              0.8
                     Avg. # in High School                                1.0


Just over two-thirds (69.5%) of all survey respondents indicated that they were currently
employed. Table 7 summarizes the responses to the question on location of principal place of
employment. As can be seen, some three-quarters of respondents report being employed either
in Concord or elsewhere in Merrimack County.

                                           Table 7
                                        Where Employed


                   Concord                                                 62.7
                   Elsewhere Merrimack County                              14.0
                   In NH/Outside Merrimack County                          20.1
                   Out of state                                             3.2


Motor Vehicles at Residence

Respondents were asked about the number of motor vehicles parked on a regular basis at their
residence for personal or business use by members of their family. Table 8 summarizes the
responses which indicate that almost half (48%) reported 2 vehicles while some 20% reported
three or more.

                                            Table 8
                              # Motor Vehicles Parked at Residence


                       None                                            3.4
                       One                                            28.7
                       Two                                            48.1
                       Three                                          14.8
                       Four                                            4.3
                       Five or more                                    0.7


                                    HISTORIC RESOURCES

Protecting Historic Resources

Respondents were asked to indicate their priority for action by the City in protecting historic
buildings, sites, and landscapes. Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = highest, the average rating by
all respondents was 2.0.

Adoption of Historic Preservation Regulations

Respondents were next asked if they felt the City should adopt additional regulations relating to
historic preservation. As indicated in Table 9, of those having an opinion, this was reportedly
favored by over 3:1. A large percentage (40%), however reportedly had no opinion or were not

                                            Table 9
                       Adopt Additional Historic Preservation Regulations?


                   Yes                                                       45.8
                   No                                                        13.8
                   No opinion/not sure                                       40.4


Those who responded “Yes” to this general question were then asked more specifically about
certain regulatory measures relating to the demolition or alteration of historic structures, design
standards for new development, and interest in additional historic districts. Responses are
summarized in Tables 10-13. As can be seen, results were varied:

              Essentially two-thirds of all respondents were in favor of additional limitations on
               the demolition of historic structures, restrictions on the alteration of such
               structures, and implementing design standards for new development in historic

              Respondents were less sure about additional historic districts. While those with
               an opinion favored implementing them, over forty percent (41.4%) indicated they
               had no opinion or were not sure.

                  Table 10
   Adopt Additional Demolition Limitations?

Yes                                           69.7
No                                             9.3
No opinion/not sure                           21.0

                   Table 11
         Adopt Alteration Restrictions?

Yes                                           65.6
No                                            12.2
No opinion/not sure                           22.2

                 Table 12
  Adopt New Development Design Standards?

Yes                                           72.9
No                                             9.2
No opinion/not sure                           17.9

                  Table 13
      Adopt Additional Historic Districts?

Yes                                           41.7
No                                            16.9
No opinion/not sure                           41.4


Open Space/Natural Resources

Respondents were asked if they would favor City funding to increase the acquisition of open
space and protection of natural resources. As can be seen in Table 14, over two-thirds of all
respondents indicated “Yes”.

                                           Table 14
                          Favor Increased Funding for Acquisition of
                         Open Space/Protection of Natural Resources?

                       Yes                                           69.3
                       No                                            16.1
                       No opinion/not sure                           14.6


Preference for Types of Open Space

Respondents were provided a list of various types of open space and asked to provide a
preference rating using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Highest. Table 15 summarizes the responses
which indicate that the most preferred types (in order of preference) were water resources,
wildlife habitat, and forest lands. Write-in responses are summarized in the Appendix.

                                            Table 15
                              Preference for Types of Open Space
                               (Scale: 1 to 5, where 1 = Highest)
                                                            Mean Rating

                       Water resources                                1.5
                       Wildlife habitat                               1.7
                       Forest lands                                   1.9
                       Wetlands                                       2.2
                       Agricultural land                              2.3
                       Flood plains                                   2.5
                       Ridgelines/views                               2.6
                       Steep slopes/bluffs                            3.0

Preference for Location of Open Space

Similarly, respondents were provided a list of locations and asked about their preferences for
open space using the same rating scale. Table 16 summarizes the responses which indicate that
the most preferred locations were the Penacook Lake watershed and Merrimack River

                                               Table 16
                               Preference for Locations of Open Space
                                  (Scale: 1 to 5, where 1 = Highest)
                                                                        Mean Rating

                  Penacook Lake watershed                                        2.0
                  Merrimack River floodplains                                    2.2
                  Clinton Street farmland/wetland                                2.3
                  Contoocook River floodplains                                   2.4
                  Oak Hill                                                       2.5
                  Turkey River floodplains                                       2.5
                  Snow Pond                                                      2.5
                  Garvins Falls area                                             2.5
                  Soucook River floodplains                                      2.6
                  Broken Ground                                                  2.6
                  Fisk Hill area                                                 2.6
                  District #5 Rd/Ash Brook area                                  2.6

                                ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Preference for Type of Economic Development

Respondents were next provided with a list of various types of economic development and asked
about their preferences using the same 1 to 5 scale. Table 17 summarizes the responses which
indicate that the most preferred types were “arts, entertainment & recreation”, “educational and
institutional uses”, and “medical services”.

                                                Table 17
                            Preference for Types of Economic Development
                                   (Scale: 1 to 5, where 1 = Highest)
                                                                              Mean Rating

               Arts, Entertainment & Recreation                                        2.2
               Educational & Institutional uses                                        2.3
               Medical services                                                        2.4
               Retail trade                                                            2.9
               Personal & Business services                                            2.9
               Office/research parks                                                   2.9
               Restaurants                                                             3.2
               Banking & Offices                                                       3.3
               Hotels                                                                  3.4
               Industrial uses                                                         3.4
               Automotive sales & service                                              4.1

Preference for Location of Economic Development

As indicated in Table 18, the most-preferred locations for economic development were
downtown Concord, downtown Penacook, and the “Opportunity Corridor” followed closely by
Route 106.

                                          Table 18
                     Preference for Location of Economic Development
                             (Scale: 1 to 5, where 1 = Highest)
                                                                       Mean Rating

       Downtown Concord                                                        2.0
       Downtown Penacook                                                       2.4
       Opportunity Corridor                                                    2.6
       Route 106                                                               2.7
       Whitney Industrial Park                                                 3.0
       Fisherville Road/Village Street                                         3.2
       Manchester Street                                                       3.2
       Pleasant Street adjacent to Concord Hospital                            3.3
       Garvins Falls area                                                      3.4
       Loudon Road                                                             3.7


Use of Concord’s Interstate Highways

Respondents were asked about their use of Interstate Highways in Concord for various purposes.
As can be seen in Table 19, while 30-40% reported use for some type of commuting, the vast
majority (90%) reported using the Interstate Highways for shopping locally.

                                        Table 19
               Use of Interstate Highways in Concord for Various Purposes

   % for commuting to work within Concord                                          33.5
   % for commuting to work outside Concord                                         39.8
   % for shopping in Concord                                                       90.3

   Note: Percentages add to more than 100% due to multiple mentions.

Transportation Problems/Concerns

Respondents were provided a list of transportation problems and concerns and asked to provide a
priority rating for each using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Highest. Table 20 summarizes the
responses which indicate that the issues highest on respondents’ priority list are:

              Excessive traffic speed and volume on neighborhood streets.

              Traffic congestion on major streets in retail areas and getting to Concord Hospital.

A considerable number of write-in responses reflected similar concerns and are summarized in
the Appendix.

                                           Table 20
                    Priority Rating for Transportation Problems/Concerns
                              (Scale: 1 to 5, where 1 = Highest)

Excessive traffic speed on neighborhood streets                               2.0
Traffic congestion on major streets in retail areas                           2.1
Excessive traffic volume on neighborhood streets                              2.2
Traffic congestion getting to Concord Hospital                                2.2
Inadequate sidewalk system                                                    2.4
Inadequate bicycle lanes and paths                                            2.6
Inadequate access for emergency vehicles                                      2.6
Excessive truck traffic on neighborhood streets                               2.7
Lack of availability of local bus service                                     3.0
Inadequate frequency of local bus service                                     3.0


Affordable Housing Strategies

Respondents were presented a list of various strategies for increasing the opportunities for
affordable housing in Concord and asked to give a priority rating for each using the same 1 to 5
scale, where 1 = Highest. Table 21 summarizes the responses which indicate that the strategies
receiving the highest priority ratings were “renovation of older housing units” and “legislation
requiring all NH communities to provide”.

                                           Table 21
                     Priority Rating for Affordable Housing Strategies
                              (Scale: 1 to 5, where 1 = Highest)
                                                                                Mean Rating

Renovation of older housing units                                                        1.9
Legislation requiring communities provide                                                2.3
Housing in other Central NH communities                                                  2.5
Construction of housing in Downtown Concord                                              3.1
Construction of housing at higher densities                                              3.4

                              PARKS and RECREATION FACILITIES

Participation in Various Sports/Activities

Respondents were provided with a list of various sports or activities and asked to indicate
whether any adults or children in their household participated in each. While participation varied
widely by sport/activity, those with the highest reported participation by both adults and children
were individual sports/activities such as hiking/walking, bicycling, and swimming. Team-
oriented sports such as baseball, basketball, and soccer ranked somewhat lower on the
participation scale. Table 22 summarizes the responses.

                                           Table 22
                 Participation in Various Activities/Sports by Adults/Children

Activity/Sport                                           % by Adults             % by Chidren

Baseball                                                        10.3                    14.0
Basketball                                                      10.6                    13.3
Bicycling                                                       42.3                    23.0
Canoeing/Boating                                                35.2                    13.6
Cross-country skiing                                            22.6                     6.7
Fishing                                                         30.0                    13.9
Football                                                         4.3                     6.0
Golf                                                            26.3                     6.8
Hiking/walking                                                  68.5                    21.0
Horseshoes                                                      10.1                     2.9
Ice hockey                                                       7.0                     4.8
Ice skating                                                     23.3                    16.1
Lacrosse                                                         1.8                     5.4
Rollerblading                                                    9.6                    10.6
Rugby                                                            1.1                     0.9
Running/jogging                                                 26.9                     8.4
Skateboarding                                                    2.2                     8.3
Soccer                                                           5.8                    13.4
Softball                                                        11.1                     7.1
Swimming                                                        40.0                    23.8
Tennis                                                          17.5                    10.5
Volleyball                                                       5.0                     3.4

Additional Facilities/Amenities Desired

The opportunity was provided for respondents to “write in” responses regarding additional
recreation and support facilities and park amenities they thought the City needed to consider
providing or providing more of. These responses have been summarized and are listed below.
The number in parentheses indicates the number of mentions for that particular response.

As can be seen, “topping the list” were bike paths and hiking/walking trails.

Bike paths (69)
Hiking/walking trails (48)
More ball fields (36)
Great as they are! (33)
Better maintenance of existing facilities (26)
More places for teens (18)
Ice skating rinks/hockey arena (16)
Outdoor swimming pools open longer – hours/months (15)
Dog park/walking area (14)
Youth centers (14)
Enclosed, year-round swimming facility (12)
Adult swimming pools (10)
Bathrooms at parks (10)
More use of Merrimack River (10)
More/better boat ramps (9)
Band concerts/outside music (9)
More green space (9)
Roller skating/hockey rink (8)
Swimming beaches along Merrimack River (8)
Indoor arenas (8)
Skateboard park (7)
Wild habitat protected area (7)
Soccer fields (6)
Outdoor park for seniors to play chess, checkers, read (6)
More advanced playgrounds (6)
Sidewalks (6)
Pristine clean-up (6)
Crosswalks/parking at Memorial Field (5)
Civic center (5)
Senior indoor activities (4)
Canoe access to water bodies (4)
Arts/theater (4)
Turf at Memorial like at Stellos for football/lacrosse (3)
ATV trails (3)
Handicap fishing – Sewalls Falls (3)
Better landscaping in parks (3)
Picnic shelters (3)

Family park in Penacook (3)
Convenient location for exercise gym (2)
Saturday night dance hall & fun house for kids (2)
Sound system/speakers for 4 th of July concerts, etc. (2)
Education Science Centers (2)
Remote trail system (2)
Marking of hiking trails (2)
Make other parks like White Park (2)
More safe walking paths/areas for seniors (2)
Anything that attracts kids (2)
Another sheet of ice at Everett Arena (2)
Archery range (2)
River recreation areas (2)
Basketball hoops removed too early last year (1)
More family events/flea markets/auto shop meets (1)
Lighting for evening use at parks (1)
New seats at west end of Everett Arena (1)
Full time staff at pools/parks during school vacation (1)
Shade cover on pool decks (1)
Supervised games/activities for families (1)
Knowledge of what we already have (1)
Re-opening of King Hill at White Park for sliding (1)
Arcade/mini golf (1)
Free criminal checks on renters at property rooms (1)
Renovations of lodge at White Park/provide concession stand (1)
More public tennis locations (1)
Fields for remote control planes, etc. (1)
Swim team for kids (1)
Rebuild Rollins Park with more accessories (1)
Horseback riding trails (1)
Supervisor of children in parks (1)
Easy access to fishing spots (1)
Riverside trails (1)
Trails to downtown (1)
Deal with water table at White Park (1)
Go carts (1)
Men’s softball league (1)
Stock car racing (1)
Bring back play sets at Rolfe Park (1)
Frisbie golf course (1)
Duplicate pool passes (no charge) for kids with divorced parents both in area (1)
Rollerblade paths (1)

Use/Condition/Availability of City Park/Recreation Facilities

Respondents were provided a list of various park or recreation facilities and asked how
frequently each was used by members of their household. Those reporting use of a specific
facility were then asked whether they felt the condition and availability of each was adequate.
Table 23 summarizes the responses which indicate that:

              The frequency of use of specific facilities varies widely. Some are more
               appropriate for children rather than adults and some are oriented toward team
               sports with league play.

              The condition of individual facilities was judged to be “adequate” by the vast
               majority of respondents. Those facilities receiving lower ratings were the various
               City community centers.

              The availability of individual facilities was judged to be “adequate” by the vast
               majority of respondents.

                                                   Table 23
                                Use/Satisfaction with Park/Recreation Facilities

                                   Frequency of Use by Household
                                                 Some-                             Condition   Availability
Park/Recreation Facility             Often        times      Never                  % Adeq.      % Adeq.

Rolfe Park                              8.8         28.4         62.8                  89.8           94.4
Garrison Park                           1.4         10.7         88.0                  89.6           93.7
Beaver Meadow Park                      6.3         19.7         74.1                  91.1           95.6
Merrill Park                            8.4         21.1         70.5                  91.8           95.9
Keach Park                              2.0          9.0         89.0                  85.7           87.7
Kimball Park                            3.1         10.9         86.0                  81.8           93.8
White Park                             30.0         45.6         24.4                  91.6           94.6
Rollins Park                           15.5         35.5         49.0                  90.9           94.2
Russ Martin Park                        4.1          6.9         89.1                  90.1           86.3
Memorial Field                         20.8         47.3         32.0                  92.6           88.3
West Street Playground                  2.2          4.8         93.0                  82.8           92.5
Thompson Playlot                        0.8          1.3         97.9                  90.0           87.5
Fletcher Murphy Playlot                 1.0          2.0         97.0                  88.0           89.5
Beaver Meadow Golf Course              12.0         29.3         58.7                  97.1           88.8
Everett Arena                          11.3         50.7         38.0                  82.1           83.1
Green Street Community Center           6.4         20.2         73.4                  77.4           83.3
East Concord Community Center           2.6          9.2         88.2                  65.0           85.9
Heights Community Center                2.8         11.3         85.9                  64.4           82.5
West Street Ward House                  1.5          9.9         88.6                  82.4           92.0
Penacook Community Center               5.6         12.0         82.4                  70.6           80.0

                            FUTURE GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT

Level of Future Growth

Respondents were provided with a framework for evaluating future growth plans for Concord by
comparing the relative population and land areas of other cities (Manchester and Nashua). More
specifically, people were asked if a projected population of 53,577 in 25 years for Concord was
considered “acceptable growth”. As indicated in Table 24, less than half (47%) responded “Yes”
while another 20% had no opinion or were “not sure”.

                                             Table 24
                                Level of Future Growth Acceptable?

                          Yes                                        47.4
                          No                                         32.1
                          Not sure/no opinion                        20.5


Alternative Growth Strategies

Those respondents feeling that the projected level of growth was “not acceptable” were asked to
choose a preferred alternative growth strategy from a list provided. Table 25 summarizes the
responses which suggest a strong desire to grow more slowly.

                                          Table 25
                                Alternative Growth Strategies

Least amount legally possible                                                         51.7
Somewhat less than allowed by regulations                                             33.6
Somewhat more than allowed by regulations                                              7.4
Less constrained by regulations                                                        7.2


                                 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Respondents were provided an opportunity to write-in any additional comments for
consideration by the Concord Planning Board. These have been compiled and organized by
major survey topic and are presented in the Appendix for reference. While providing some
additional insight into “what’s on peoples’ minds”, these comments tend to reinforce the survey
findings already presented.


                                         Exhibit 1
                  Write-in Responses Re: Transportation Problems/Concerns

Downtown parking (6)
Condition of streets (5)
Traffic on Fisherville Road (4)
Lack of traffic lights at critical intersections (3)
Better public transportation (3)
Traffic on Loudon Road (3)
More enforcement of traffic laws (3)
Need Langley Parkway/NW Bypass (2)
Poor construction scheduling (2)
Excessive traffic on N. State Street (2)
Excessive traffic on limited major thoroughfares (2)
Sidewalks for walking in winter/poor snow removal (2)
Bicycle lanes/parking (2)
Subway (1)
Sidewalk system (1)
More crosswalks (1)
Need bypass (1)
Handicap parking (1)
Senior transit (1)
More access roads (1)
Less parking in residential areas (1)
Through streets through neighborhoods (1)
Highway flow through Concord (1)
Another bridge over river to alleviate Exit 14 (1)
Traffic lights – N. State Street (1)
Need light on Bog Road (1)
No parking for Capitol Center for Arts (1)
Better plowing/snow removal (1)
Snow removal Village Street (1)
Fix Auburn/Centre Street (1)
Poorly programmed signals – especially Loudon Rd. at I-93 overpass (1)
Ruts and no breakdown lane on Manchester St. (1)
Drivers (especially cabs) not adhering to right-of-way (1)
I-93 exit at Sewalls Falls Rd. (1)
Inadequate entrance/exit to I-93 in areas of Exit 14-16 (1)
Markings for pedestrian crosswalks (1)
Loudon Rd/I-93 interchange (1)
High speed train (1)
Inadequate dog-letting areas (1)
Silly traffic calming stuff (1)
Street parking in congested areas (1)
Four-way stops are dangerous (1)
Two sets of lights at Congregational Church & N. Main unnecessary (1)

Too many crosswalks on Main St. (1)
Inadequate lights/crossings at schools (1)
Exit at Concord Monitor from I-93 (1)
I-93N and I-93S in Concord area (1)
Shaker Rd. and Mountain traffic (1)
Paint crosswalks on Broadway (1)
Congestion – parking for High School (1)
Excessive truck traffic at I-89 creates noise in residential areas (1)
Traffic lights that do not respond to bicycles (1)
Inadequate speed lanes (1)
One-way street (1)
Skateboarders on sidewalks & intersections (1)
On-demand traffic light timing (1)

                                           Exhibit 2
                                     Additional Comments

Historic Resources

State buildings take too much space (1)
Just because a building is old doesn’t make it historic (1)
Make solid design regulations that work in historic neighborhoods (1)


Preserve open/undeveloped space (19)
Environmental conservation important (human/animal); protect natural areas (13)
Keep curbside recycling (4)
Concern about building on steep slopes - Carter Hill, Future Horse Hill (1)

Economic Development

Taxes too high (17)
More grocery and retail shopping areas downtown & elsewhere (11)
More industry needed to lower taxes (7)
Supermarket in Penacook area (6)
Professional/office space (5)
Vacant/dead business lots need to be filled with retail (4)
Increase business growth (3)
More tourism (2)
With all the businesses, why do my taxes keep going up? (2)
Retail buildings should be placed more reasonably so people can find parking spots (1)
Encourage development of Peter restaurants (1)
There’s not much more room for further development on Loudon Road (1)
Boards drive good business away (1)
Concord looks more and more like Claremont with closed businesses and decaying housing (1)
We need a State sales tax to keep older people in their homes and property taxes down (1)
Planning Board needs to consider best possible places to put retail (1)
Like to see supermarket on Clinton St. or West-end area (1)
Force high density areas to avoid sprawl (1)


Traffic needs to be fixed – congestion (26)
Need more parking (12)
Some streets in need of major repair (11)
More traffic lights – Washington St., East St., Fisherville Rd., and Manchester St. (7)
More enforcement of traffic violations (7)
More sidewalks on Old Turnpike (6)
Need mass transit options to lessen traffic (6)
More walking areas – no more transit (4)
Garvin Falls Rd. should be dead-ended at Manchester St. & connected to Black Hill Rd. (3)
Quiet traffic noise (3)
Don’t expand I-93 (3)
More direct routs to Concord Hospital (3)
Need stable infrastructure – maintain/expand (3)
Beautification of main streets needed (2)
Need set of lights at Dunkin Donuts & Jensen Crestwood with sensors not timers (2)
Residential parking permits (2)
Priority – funding for infrastructure especially street repair (2)
Bike paths/extra lanes to fix traffic congestion (1)
Keep Loudon Rd. the way it is (1)
With current construction, city streets are inadequate (1)
Overnight parking on streets (1)
North/West end of Concord is very congested with traffic; like to see at least South leg of Bypass
        put through (1)
Very concerned about increased traffic on Village Street/Fisherville Road due to new
        development near 30 Pines (1)
I’ve paid hundreds of dollars of fines for parking on my own street in front of my own house (1)
Can’t imagine anyone not wanting access to Concord Hospital and emergency services (1)
Bus service should be increased to Saturdays and more (1)
More road signage – stop signs, etc. (1)
No more traffic lights (1)
Expand I-93 (1)
Would like better public transportation – especially trolley cars (1)
Stop lights on Loudon Rd. and Manchester St. need complete overhaul (1)
Side road parking is a serious issue (1)
A third lane for turning on Fisherville Rd. could alleviate some traffic (1)
Traffic calming measures are needed (1)


Affordable homes in more areas (15)
High density areas (7)
Creative use of available space – use existing buildings (5)
Too much low-income housing (3)
There is no place for baby boomers to move to within Concord when children leave home. It
       would be great to have a viable & attractive housing downtown along the river (2)
Land restrictions drive rent/housing prices too high (1)
Apartment houses and condos never pay their share based on the system we have now (1)


Keep parks (5)
More recreation (4)
It would be great to have a dog park (1)
Additional parks and recreation development in Penacook area considering extensive new
       housing (1)

Future Growth

Growth should be checked so it doesn’t get out of control (9)
Control growth (8)
Public safety needs to keep up with growth (7)
Limit growth/no more development (7)
Limit lot sizes on new homes to 1-2 acres (6)
Growth in southern NH is taking away from rural feel of NH (5)
Education is just as important as development (5)
Development is good/growth essential (4)
Growth should be slow (3)
Consideration of the future (20+ years) is essential (2)
Penacook – more schools/schools overlooked; no more children (2)
Build more (2)
More economic/social progress needed in Concord (1)
Need more trained professionals involved with planning (1)
Allow limited development along the Merrimack River (1)
No more rules and regulations (1)
Connect downtown to river (1)
Don’t develop Horseshoe Pond area (1)
Stop wasting time/money on half-baked ideas – find important things (1)
Don’t need as many public meetings over small things (1)
More growth in villages vs. developed areas (1)
Please do all you can to promote growth & sustainable business downtown (1)
Would like to see more equity in development in Concord (1)
I’m glad I won’t be around to see the growth (1)
Current regulations are quite adequate for Concord’s needs (1)
We’re happy with Planning Board’s effort to improve our community (1)
I don’t see growth as a positive thing (1)
Construction is good for the economy but it seems unchecked in some areas (1)
Penacook should form its own government so that civic and educational incentives will be
        aligned (1)
Not everyone on the Heights should have to go to Dame School (1)
Public planning needs input of what planning board is doing (1)
Discontinue public/private partnerships; Sears & Tannery returns 75% as land use; change tax to
        general funds; make conservation commission accountable; stop funding 20/20 (1)
I’d like to see regulations on keeping yards clean and tidy (1)
Like to see more “Welcome to NH” programs (1)
Should be limit on building permits/year (1)
Development resulting from population should be focused on downtown (1)


Enjoyed living in the Concord area (17)
Thank you (16)
City has done well (15)
More snow plows/lower snow banks (2)
Survey confusing/not clear (2)
At what cost is this to the taxpayers? (1)
Keep lawyers out (1)
Survey results would be nice (1)
Would like opportunity to discuss survey results at a public meeting and then have opportunity to
       reconsider after discussion (1)
Too many dead-headed city employees riding around in Trooper vehicles (1)


To top