Our View: City Administration Backs City Council into Corner on Crawford Street
Council Should Find Strength to Not Fast Track Grant Applications
This publication has gone to great lengths to discuss and engage residents on a project that will no doubt change the physical character of Crawford Street, a rarely mentioned residential street on the city’s East Side.
The City Administration has conceived nearly $2 million of improvements that encompass two projects. First, a $1.7 million shared-use path for Crawford Street and a more modest request of $160,000 for park improvements to Herrlinger Park, which is the southern terminus of the path.
Revitalizing Herrlinger Park
To be clear, this publication supports the effort to revitalize Herrlinger Park. The park is probably best known for being the home of a water tower, rather than any recreational amenities that it currently has. Plans to put in pickleball courts and a nine-hole disc golf course and a new piece of playground equipment are welcome. However, this publication would also advocate for reconditioning and repair of the basketball court, which is in disrepair. The modest request of $160,000, using $100,000 in grant funds and $60,000 in park funds, is an effort this publication fully supports.
Why a $1.7 Million Shared-Use Path is a Bad Idea
However, this publication has serious concerns about a $1.7 Million shared-use path from Herrlinger Park to East Water Street. The City Administration claims that this project is called for by the City’s Downtown Riverfront Development Study and the City’s Complete Streets Plan. This publication wants to make one point perfectly clear. The Downtown Riverfront Development Study advocated strongly for additional bicycle infrastructure on residential streets on the east side. However, that infrastructure was based on implementing a more sensible and cost-effective “Share the Road” type of improvements, such as painted bike lanes; as was pointed out in the last meeting of the Community and Economic Development Committee meeting, streets on the east side of town are wide enough to accommodate this type of infrastructure. These studies certainly did not call for $1 million shared use paths. If it is so critical to link the Eastside through bike infrastructure, can the residents of this neighborhood expect to see more million-dollar shared-use paths throughout the neighborhood?
Beyond the price tag, there are other, more logical reasons why this share-use path is not a wise decision. First, cyclists traversing the east end of town do not go north-south, they tend to go east-west. This publication would dare say that 80 to 90 percent of all bicycle traffic on the Eastside of town uses East Canal and East Franklin to get downtown. If putting in bike infrastructure is so critical, why put these million-dollar dedicated paths on streets that will not be used over streets that are currently being used by cyclists now?
Second, ask any cyclist what they hate doing in the saddle, and one of the answers they will give is simple — stopping. Continually going through the gears and continually slowing down and speeding up can make a good bicycle ride much less enjoyable. Looking at the layout of the project, traffic on Crawford Street stops at Race Drive, East Canal Street, East Franklin Street, East Main Street and East Water Street; in other words, cyclists will need to stop at every intersection of the shared-use path. This publication doubts many cyclists will enjoy that experience.
Finally, at the Community and Economic Development Committee said that the installation of the new 10’ shared-use path can happen within the existing 60’ right of way. Currently, the 60’ right of way contains a 40’ street, a 5’ curb lawn on each side and 5’ sidewalk on each side (or at least dedicated space for a sidewalk). Taking out a 5’ sidewalk on the west side and adding a 10’ share-use path means that the width of Crawford Street will likely shrink by five feet.
And that five feet could be critical.
If residents have any recognition of Crawford Street it is largely because the Race Drive underpass of the CSX rail line ends there. Ask any Eastside resident, the CSX rail line is heavily used. Dozens of trains every day go through the east side of town and my extension, the Race Street underpass is heavily used. If five feet of width is taken from Crawford Street, what kind of effect will that have for large vehicles (such as fire trucks) to navigate any tight turns at the corner of Race Drive and South Crawford Street. Face it, it’s much easier to navigate a turn with 40’ of street width rather than 35’ of street width.
How Council is Being Boxed In
This publication is not appreciative of how the City Administration is boxing in City Council by linking the shared-use bike lane and the improvements to Herrlinger Park together and asking this to be adopted as an emergency measure.
First off, from the time this item was first placed on the agenda for the Community and Economic Development Committee to discuss to the time the Administration expected full approval of these nearly $2 Million projects is a mere ten days. Rarely has local government moved at such breakneck speed. The Administration knowing that it has the June 12th deadline to apply for funding is asking for the grant request to be approved as an Emergency Measure. In the Community and Economic Development Committee, the City Staff admitted that they knew of the grant deadline for “a while”, but waiting until the very last city council meeting before the deadline is governmental malpractice. An emergency on the City Administration’s part should not constitute an emergency on City Council’s part.
Second, this publication is disappointed that the City Administration is linking these two projects together as an “all or nothing” proposition. The screenshot below shows the detailed committee report to all council members in the next meeting agenda packet. The last line of the report says, “If neither of the FY 2024 CDBG grant applications are awarded, then both the Crawford Street Pedestrian Pathway Project and the Herrlinger Park Improvement Project will be delayed until grant funding can be secured.”
Such bureaucratic sleight-of-hand is rarely seen, but has been par for the course with this administration.
The fact of the matter is that the piece of legislation that council will vote on has unnecessarily linked these two projects together. The City, will get $150,000 of CDBG funds through the state’s CDBG allocation program, if the city applies for the funds and a council resolution is required for that application. The City is also applying for $750,000 in a more competitive funding process.
The administration could have advocated for a more sensible approach. Apply for the $150,000 that the city, by law, must receive through one resolution and ask for adoption of a second resolution for the more competitive $750,000 funding. By linking the two projects together, the administration has tied the hands of council. If council wants to vote in favor of improvements at Herrlinger Park, council has to vote in favor of a $1.7 Million shared-use lane.
This publication also wants to point out the obvious, the improvements being planned for Herrlinger Park are a modest $160,000 and are widely being applauded. The City Administration is also planning on spending $400,000 of taxpayer general fund dollars and $250,000 of other Community Development Block Grant funds the city has on the shared-use path.
If the administration wanted to be honest and work towards a widely-accepted solution, the city could easily undertake the $160,000 improvements at Herrlinger Park without resorting to using grant dollars. If the city administration wants to use $400,000 of income tax dollars for a poorly conceived shared-use path, wouldn’t it make more sense to use those dollars for the improvements at Herrlinger Park and not leave the project up to being funded by a competitive grant the city may not receive?
What Council Can Do
This publication encourages council not to suspend the rules on Resolution #R-28-2024 at their next meeting. The Three Reading Rule is designed to ensure that legislation has been properly vetted and discussed before being adopted. This resolution is being rammed down the collective throats of the council as an emergency measure (largely by the administration’s poor planning). Face it, there are more questions than answers when it comes to this resolution, and council is well within their rights to ask more questions and get better answers.
If the three reading rule is suspended, then council should have the courage to vote this measure down. If the administration cries that “we are losing out on all that money”, the response from council should be, “you wanted to spend $400,000 on a poorly planned bike path, spend it on Herrlinger Park, oh, and find a way to get a splash pad in this town as well.”
Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Did you know, for less than $1 per week, you can support this effort to bring local news and information directly to you and your neighbors? If you have not considered being a paid subscriber to this effort, please do so. Through your generous paid subscription, you are helping provide this information to our community!
Feel free to share this information! Through informing and educating our community’s stakeholders, we are creating a stronger community.
I certainly agree with your insights, Mr. Lutz.
Residents along the proposed bike route, taxpayers and potential users who pay the salaries of these bureaucrats deserve to be taken seriously and heard.
These applications for opportunities are always published months in advance. The fact that so many issues are now being presented to Council members as ‘ emergency’ measures is a sham to ramrod and an insult to the folks paying for these often dangerous proposals. This one certainly reminds me in part of the Riverside Drive bike path debacle.
Regarding the shared path project, with this administration it’s déjà vu all over again. Ask the city what’s in this for you? Sounds like grant money in search of a project.