On May 28th, City Council’s Community and Economic Development Committee will discuss recommending the city apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that will build a $1.7 Million shared-use path and new sidewalks for Crawford Street between East Water Street and Herrlinger Park in 2026 and make park improvements at Herrlinger in 2025.
I'm not sure the top diagram even reflects what the real design would have to be for a 10-ft path off the street. Several houses on Crawford are right on the sidewalk, so the only way to get a 10-ft path would be to take out the curb lawn. (Which, in my opinion, is a better way to add a bike path than putting it on the street.) I do think marked bike lanes in cities are a good thing, but dedicated bike paths are better when they can be achieved.
That preliminary design shows that the tree lawn is staying, and front yards are being cut down. That might be a tough sell. The critical question is can we achieve a dedicated bike path? Sure. But if you are not going to take private property and you are keeping the tree lawn, options become pretty limited.
My point is that for many houses in that stretch there is not even any private property to "take" between the house and the existing sidewalk. So the sidewalk has to stay where it is; the added width HAS to come where the existing curb lawn is unless they are looking at actually tearing houses down, which doesn't seem to be the case. If the plan is to both widen the foot/bike path to 10 feet and have 5 feet of curb lawn as well, that would need to be new curb lawn in what is presently the parking lane. This is, of course, a factor for several houses on the street that do not have driveways. I don't think it is front lawn space that is going to be sacrificed. It's either going to be curb lawn, on-street parking, or some of both.
You are probably right. But, that leads to a bigger question. Why would the consultants draw something up that clearly shows that both the 10' path and the 5' tree lawn can stay? Did the consultants not even look at the study area? I would think even a cursory look of the street would show that keeping the curb lawn may not be feasible. Either way, it's going to have a dramatic impact on the neighborhood at a pretty significant cost.
I'm admittedly biased in favor of improvements east of the tracks. The dramatic impact on the neighborhood seems to me like it would be net favorable. Whether or not it's worth the significant cost is always going to depend on who you ask. The two blocks on either side of the tracks can use as much public enhancement as they can get because the private ownership investment there will continually be limited.
I have no problem with making these types of investments, but I would much rather see it connect to the system as it currently exists. I would dare postulate that the bicycle traffic on this side of town goes east to west more than north to south. Putting in a dedicated bicycle lane on either Franklin or Canal that links up to the current path near Boyer Park to downtown I would think would be much more used and much more welcome.
I feel like this is a piece of the puzzle, but we lost the lid. There needs to be a better and more robust discussion on how this fills a gap in bicycle infrastructure.
Yes! I was tempted to comment about the need to also connect to the path by Boyer park, but I refrained. That would be a great next step to connect to this proposed path. And I'm just guessing this Crawford path would connect to the proposed southeast levy path. Those ideas all combined would be the real winning combination.
Looking at a little closer, Crawford Street is 40 feet from curb to curb, and the diagram has the street at 36 feet. Maybe shaving four feet in street width can help make the plan happen?
I'm not sure the top diagram even reflects what the real design would have to be for a 10-ft path off the street. Several houses on Crawford are right on the sidewalk, so the only way to get a 10-ft path would be to take out the curb lawn. (Which, in my opinion, is a better way to add a bike path than putting it on the street.) I do think marked bike lanes in cities are a good thing, but dedicated bike paths are better when they can be achieved.
That preliminary design shows that the tree lawn is staying, and front yards are being cut down. That might be a tough sell. The critical question is can we achieve a dedicated bike path? Sure. But if you are not going to take private property and you are keeping the tree lawn, options become pretty limited.
My point is that for many houses in that stretch there is not even any private property to "take" between the house and the existing sidewalk. So the sidewalk has to stay where it is; the added width HAS to come where the existing curb lawn is unless they are looking at actually tearing houses down, which doesn't seem to be the case. If the plan is to both widen the foot/bike path to 10 feet and have 5 feet of curb lawn as well, that would need to be new curb lawn in what is presently the parking lane. This is, of course, a factor for several houses on the street that do not have driveways. I don't think it is front lawn space that is going to be sacrificed. It's either going to be curb lawn, on-street parking, or some of both.
You are probably right. But, that leads to a bigger question. Why would the consultants draw something up that clearly shows that both the 10' path and the 5' tree lawn can stay? Did the consultants not even look at the study area? I would think even a cursory look of the street would show that keeping the curb lawn may not be feasible. Either way, it's going to have a dramatic impact on the neighborhood at a pretty significant cost.
I'm admittedly biased in favor of improvements east of the tracks. The dramatic impact on the neighborhood seems to me like it would be net favorable. Whether or not it's worth the significant cost is always going to depend on who you ask. The two blocks on either side of the tracks can use as much public enhancement as they can get because the private ownership investment there will continually be limited.
I have no problem with making these types of investments, but I would much rather see it connect to the system as it currently exists. I would dare postulate that the bicycle traffic on this side of town goes east to west more than north to south. Putting in a dedicated bicycle lane on either Franklin or Canal that links up to the current path near Boyer Park to downtown I would think would be much more used and much more welcome.
I feel like this is a piece of the puzzle, but we lost the lid. There needs to be a better and more robust discussion on how this fills a gap in bicycle infrastructure.
Yes! I was tempted to comment about the need to also connect to the path by Boyer park, but I refrained. That would be a great next step to connect to this proposed path. And I'm just guessing this Crawford path would connect to the proposed southeast levy path. Those ideas all combined would be the real winning combination.
Looking at a little closer, Crawford Street is 40 feet from curb to curb, and the diagram has the street at 36 feet. Maybe shaving four feet in street width can help make the plan happen?