That would be my understanding.
Originally I was quite pro this as an idea as I thought it was cheaper and easier to implement than a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon but I’ve since been persuaded and blame that both are shifting blame to marginalized street users. They’re ineffective at stopping traffic violence but allows people to show that they’re doing something.
I can’t confirm the flags are at this crosswalk, but when in Jackson Hole last year I noticed several crosswalks had these and people used them.
This is probably a quarter-mile from my apartment, and yes, that’s what you’re seeing. There’s a little sign on the container that holds the flags explaining how to use it.
I’ve been meaning to complain to the city about it. If it’s that dangerous of a crossing, then they need to reengineer it to make it safer. Or at least get some of those RRFB signals installed (which, like @core2idiot said, are still inadequate, but it’s better than having to carry an orange flag across the street).
Stuff like this is generally nothing more than a CYA for both the city and the drivers (“they weren’t carrying a flag, so it’s the pedestrian’s fault!”). Really frustrating stuff. Pretty sure kids cross here to walk to Conn, so you’d think safety here would be a bigger priority.
I’m having trouble finding a source, but I feel like I saw something within the past month or so about a text change to add raised crosswalks in parts of downtown. Has anyone else here seen something along those lines?
Ooh, new driving challenge for me: trying to get some air as I drive over them without slowing down!
8 posts were merged into an existing topic: McDowell and Dawson Streets
Bricks would be a great alternative to flags 
:
Article in the N&O about the city updating how they plan on putting in new sidewalks.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article287729425.html
Seems like a change for the better. It is absurd that a lot of roads so close to downtown have no sidewalk infrastructure, even if they are on “low-traffic” streets.
N Harrington is absolutely begging for one near the railroad tracks
YES. The area around the sad warehouse next to the Alexan is one of the weirdest sidewalk wastelands considering how many pedestrians it gets.
Can anyone offer a recap for those of us without a N&O subscription?
“We reviewed this program, and our conclusion was that, as currently structured, it is not leading to equitable outcomes, and we therefore are recommending to you that we shift to a data-driven approach.”
“The new approach will take in several new factors. Will new sidewalks make the streets safer? How much easier will will they make getting to bus stops and schools. The city is not eliminating residents’ input. There will be no balloting of neighbors if a street is designated to have sidewalks in a city plan, like the city’s street plan. If a street has not been previously designated to have sidewalks, however, all residents within two blocks of the street will be balloted including renters. The city previously only balloted property owners for sidewalk preference.”
I thought this part was kinda crazy:
“The city added 17.1 miles of sidewalks between 2017 and 2022 through its sidewalk petition program.”
Adding about 3 miles of sidewalk per year in areas where people are telling you they need them seems…underwhelming. I honestly didn’t even know the program existed but would’ve used it if I could.
Thanks!
I hope this means that the neighborhoods south of MLK are given some attention. There is a huge need there. As far as I can tell, within the part of the city highlighted below, there are no sidewalks except along Blount and Person (which means zero east-west sidewalks). Pretty bad for an area that’s part of the street grid.
In fact, if you walk south on Garner Rd from MLK, excepting the greenway, you would walk for 2 miles without a westward sidewalk.
Something has to be done at all railroad crossings downtown. It’s a disgrace to dump people into Atlantic/Whitaker Mill, W Hargett, the Pit- Depot areas . Just grant the city an easement to connect the sidewalks!
While I totally agree, not sure it’s as bad as that. I could be wrong but I think that’s not including any roadway widening or upgrades that happens to include sidewalks. (Example, when they turned Tryon from a two lane road to a four lane, sidewalks were naturally part of the project.)
Nor is this counting areas when development/redevelopment occurs and sidewalk inclusion by the developer is required.
I think that’s strictly counting adding sidewalks on existing non-modified streets with no other related work.
I guess that the NIMBYs are now NIMFYs? They don’t want sidewalks in their front yards. Am I correct in saying that the areas where the city would put in a sidewalk aren’t really privately owned property of individual homeowners? Doesn’t the city right of way extend into properties?
Octavia Rainey will scream “sidewalks are gentrification!
NIMFY here… The only full sun part of our garden is in the right of way. 
That said I recognize the city’s right to it, just won’t be signing up for a sidewalk.
Weirdly, our next door neighbor does have sidewalk. Only in front of their house. One house further down, no sidewalk again. It’s the only stretch of sidewalk on our street in the whole neighborhood.
