It sounds like it’s only a matter of time.
Just a point of clarification here: the right-of-way and private property are two distinct areas. A lot of folks might think their property extends out a certain distance to the road, but more often than not, it doesn’t. Any land that’s in the ROW isn’t yours even if you’ve been using it as such. iMAPS is a good resource to determine that.
Yes. That’s understood by me. Not so sure it is by others.
1 Like
Yeah, I meant that to be more of a PSA than a reply to you specifically.
I was looking at iMaps this morning and found the right of way in the suburban neighborhood where I grew up to be interesting. While the neighborhood has sidewalks, it often only has them on one side of a street, while having none at all in cul-de-sacs. In the case of my immediate childhood neighborhood, the side of the street with a sidewalk seems to have a deeper right of way than the side that doesn’t. The right of way in cul-de-sacs also seem to be narrower. Sidewalks in this specific neighborhood have that strip of landscaped land between the sidewalk and the street. I suspect that any additional sidewalks there would have to be immediately against the street without the buffer.
(Boston)
This sidewalk is roughly 7’ wide, imagine if it were 4-6’ like the majority of the existing sidewalks on the outskirts of town.
This is an ADA issue that needs be addressed in every neighborhood with a school, especially elementary and middle schools.
7 Likes
We’re getting some raised crosswalks!
17 Likes
I’m watching the Design Review Commission meeting from yesterday on YouTube and a developer is seeking complete relief from having to install sidewalks on a small redevelopment site on the far west side of Bragg St., between Wilmington St. & S. Blount.
What struck me the most is that while this site is within a TOD corridor, the developer’s representative is arguing to not build sidewalks to maximize the number of townhouses and to preserve (get this) the character of the two streets at the site: which don’t currently have sidewalks. The applicant’s representative (in my opinion) exaggerated the possible number of units that would be lost if the developer conformed.
This site seems to be first out of the gate with redevelopment (gentrification) in this pocket sized neighborhood, and the commission was wisely skeptical of granting full relief to this developer and its impact on the entire neighborhood’s walkability to an identified transit corridor.
The applicants representative requested tabling the case for a month when it became obvious that the commission was going to vote down the request for full relief. The commission discussed with the applicant’s representative for a bit and expressed that there needed to be a proposal for public connectivity.
The commission tabled the case for a month, and I’m happy that they didn’t capitulate to the developer for full relief.
18 Likes