Category: Transportation

In my initial write up of this, I swapped Park Street and Center Street while looking at Google Maple satellite view.  This post corrects that, but also corrects my statement that Center Street south of Maple is 32′ wide.  It is 32′ wide well away from Maple, but widens as it approaches Maple.   At Maple, it is substantially wider than the 32′ proposed for Wade Hampton Drive.

A corrected and revised posting follows.

My earlier contention (Post #232) is that 11 people can park legally on Wade Hampton now, and that, looking at the diagram of the future Wade Hampton, with the majority of it striped to accommodate three lanes at the end, almost all of that parking would be eliminated.

The Town, as reported by the developer, says otherwise.  In particular, the report was that no parking would be eliminated on the side of the street across from 380 Maple West.

What’s the correct explanation?  Somebody has to be wrong here.  At this point, the easiest way to resolve those two views is to suggest that the diagram of the street, as offered by the builder, is incorrect.  As long as you take away almost all the lane striping that is shown, and make the street more of a free-for-all, then you can plausibly claim more-or-less no loss of parking on the west side of Wade Hampton.

To be clear, you have to assume that the lane striping on the 32′-wide Wade Hampton will be nothing like the striping on the 32′-wide Park Center Street, as it meets Maple. Even though the setup (one lane incoming, two lanes outgoing) and width (32′) are the same.  And even though the striping on Park Center Street is almost identical to the builder’s diagram.  But if the Town stripes Wade Hampton as it did Park Center, all streetside parking would be eliminated.

So, I could be dead wrong.  But I had some help getting there.  To get to the Town’s reported position: you have to ignore the Builder’s drawing of Wade Hampton, you have to ignore the real-world example of Park Center Street at Maple, and you have to ignore one legal space on Wade Hampton that nobody uses anyway.  And if you do that, and leave most of Wade Hampton as a free-for-all, so that we can drive down the middle of the road as we see fit — then you can see that the Town’s reported claim of no parking loss is credible.

Detail follows:

Continue reading Post #238, Revised: Wade Hampton Parking

The Town has made much about closing curb cuts (parking lot entrances) along Maple, under MAC.  And the consultants for the (thing formerly known as the) Maple Avenue traffic study (post #223) duly echoed this with extended reference to the many curb cuts on Maple.

At various times, these curb cuts have been blamed for a) slowing traffic, b) increasing vehicular accident rates, and c) endangering pedestrians on the sidewalk.  For the moment, let me put aside truth versus fiction in these claims, and ask a simple question:

If these Maple Avenue curb cuts are such a clear public menace, why hasn’t the Town already started getting rid of them?   The Town owns the sidewalk.  How can our elected officials idly stand by, when the menace of excess curb cuts stalks the Town, threatening our prosperity and our very lives?

That was sarcasm.  But it’s a legit question.  It’s a question that I naively asked.  Seriously, if curb cuts are so bad, why don’t they close some of them? And the answer to that shows you exactly how proponents of MAC zoning will tell you only what they want you to hear. And not the full story.

After some research, my conclusion is that, practically speaking, the only way the Town can close a curb cut is to stuff a whole bunch of high-density housing on the lot behind it (i.e., MAC rezoning).  And so, the only practical way to close a curb cut is to have a more people  turning on and off of Maple, during the rush hour periods.

Once you figure that out, then it’s clear that the full effect of “closing curb cuts on Maple” is not the rosy picture painted by the Town.  You have to pay for that curb cut closure by adding to traffic turning on and off Maple.  Anyone who tells you that “getting rid of curb cuts” is an unalloyed positive for the Town is pulling your leg.  To put it politely.

In fact, I’ll up the ante on this.  If a property owner voluntarily agreed to allow it,  the Town could close a Maple Avenue curb cut.  So, with all the mayhem now being attributed to curb cuts, has the Town done anything at all about them?  Has the Town systematically pressured Maple Avenue property owners about closing Maple Avenue curb cuts?   Has it offered (e.g.) a property tax incentive for closing off curb cuts?   Has it identified the ones apparently associated with high accident rates and developed policies targeting those specific locations?

In short, if this is such a problem, then has the Town done anything whatsoever to address it?  Other than to use it to flack MAC?

Detail follows.

Continue reading Post 226: #closethecurbcutsnow