Post date: Mar 17, 2019 10:26:3 PM
Stewart,
You are likely thinking of the same treatment I mentioned: speed table and raised intersection are similar. They are flat and longer than speed humps. I probably should have called the treatment I was suggesting a raised crosswalk; speed table is more commonly an entire intersection. The idea is to have the pedestrian at sidewalk level and the car slowing to cross an elevated area.
Generally, I am dismayed to see all the focus be on vehicle circulation with bikes and peds as an afterthought. Garfield is our most centralized neighborhood school and is highly walkable compared to many of the other elementary schools. It should be a model for how to accommodate kids on bike and foot. If anything, the proposed design discourages bicycling and walking. I get the idea that it's an afterthought to the process.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/TechSheet_RaisedCW_508compliant.pdf
Thanks for seeking follow up on this.
ThanksStewart,
From the perspective of a biker, walker & public health specialist, the concept of having the south parking lot exit onto Dixon seems unnecessarily hazardous. It seems avoidably hazardous to have parent cars exiting so close to the intersection of Dixon where busses must use to get to their designated drop-off / pick-up zone.
Additionally - and I think more importantly:
Having the the south parking lot exit onto Dixon means that all students who are biking or walking from either the south or west must cross at least one parking lot entry or exit driveway.
If the SW exit on the south parking lot were repositioned onto Garfield, it would allow students who are walking or biking from either the west or south to cross at Garfield / Dixon and use the sidewalk on Dixon to get to the wide, multi-modal walkway without crossing the exit driveway.
Further, this design could help control traffic flow near the Garfield / Dixon by having all crossing guard controls on one street (Garfield), thereby facilitating communication / coordination between crossing guards & decreasing the risk of traffic/pedestrian hazards on the south end of Dixon.
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in,
First, on the proposed covered play area on the playground, I would like to know much more about what type of structure is planned. I think that it is essential that whatever is built be very transparent. As you and I have discussed before, even though the playground is supposed to close at 10 PM, during good weather there are people there until much later almost every day. In fact the playground after dark is a very busy place. Therefore security is a concern and I think that the proposed structure must be very transparent in order to avoid future problems. In my opinion the best design would be basically a roof held up by four posts so that all activities in the structure would be visible from outside. What I think we do not want is a structure where there are solid any solid walls. Also what activities will be provided for in the proposed structure? I mention this because the proposed indent for buses and parking and the location of the proposed play structure will certainly eliminate the current basketball area which is one of the most popular features of the current playground both during school hours and after school.
Second I think the proposed structure needs to be moved more towards the center of the playground and away from the street. It should be closer to the actual school doors so that the students will not have to go so far in bad weather. Also, with the proposed indent from Dixon Street to allow for both buses and new parking, the area close to the street is going to be very crowded (just as it is today when the students are behind the existing fence waiting for or departing from the buses on the street).
Third, I believe that it is essential that security cameras be placed around the proposed structure, and indeed elsewhere on the playground, no matter what the final design of the covered play area.
As for the indent from Dixon Street for buses and parking, I believe that could be a good idea. However, given the size of the standard SUV and also the size of the largest current buses, both of which I see now on every school day, the indent is going to have to be very deep to accommodate both bus loading and parking. Therefore I would suggest that the better alternative would be an indent for a bus loading zone and a curb strip along for the street for new trees. I do not think that having both parking and buses in one place -- where I note that parked cars cannot enter or leave while the buses are there -- is going to be a problem. I also do not believe that the parking spaces, which are supposed to be for the staff, will be used only by the staff if any are empty when the parents come to deliver or pick up their children. I think that it would be better to look for more parking at the front of the school to accommodate the additional staff spaces required.
I look forward to discussing the proposed redevelopment plan at the neighborhood association meeting on Tuesday night.