Something else about that picture as I look at the tree well in the background: why are we allowing new construction that doesn't leave the required sidewalk clearance? Obviously, I'm not able to measure from here. So maybe it is sufficient. But it sure looks like less than the preferred 5 feet and the required 4 feet. I see this sort of thing all over the city (the new construction on Florence is a great example). Why is new non-compliant construction being approved? These new projects are a great opportunity to get it right. Why aren't we? Instead we're going to end up stuck with mistakes for decades. Malden: Please complete and follow an ADA transition plan. It's really not that hard. And it's the law.
I’m trying to understand this. This is the 3rd post by the same user. How is the bike blocking the sidewalk? They have to be parked on the sidewalk; they are not straddling the sidewalk. It likes like there is room to pass...
Maureen: I agree that this is not the worst example. At the same time, the bike should not be so close to the pedestrian ramp and crosswalk. But again, not horrible. At least it is in the "furniture/curb" zone. So I'd give this one a B-. The bigger issue here is the overall design of the sidewalk. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how this design, especially the tree well, was approved. Even if it barely meets the requirements (and I think it probably doesn't), we can do better, especially with new construction.
As far as the other posts from this person are concerned, both were right on point, even if the problem isn't obvious to many. In both cases, the "pedestrian through zone" had an obstruction in it. That just isn't allowed.
Here's how a properly designed sidewalk should function.
Maureen, the bicycles absolutely do not have to be parked on the sidewalk. If you have ever seen the way this is handled in Boston and many other neighboring cities, there are docks, which are on the streets, NOT taking up sidewalk space. Even if we decide to stay with the dockless system, which frankly I do not agree with, there should be marked, designated areas, and they should be where the sidewalk bumps out so that the pathways are not blocked. Right now there is no system at all.
7 Comments
City of Malden (Verified Official)
Ghazi (Registered User)
Neighbor (Registered User)
Ghazi (Registered User)
Maureen: I agree that this is not the worst example. At the same time, the bike should not be so close to the pedestrian ramp and crosswalk. But again, not horrible. At least it is in the "furniture/curb" zone. So I'd give this one a B-. The bigger issue here is the overall design of the sidewalk. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how this design, especially the tree well, was approved. Even if it barely meets the requirements (and I think it probably doesn't), we can do better, especially with new construction.
As far as the other posts from this person are concerned, both were right on point, even if the problem isn't obvious to many. In both cases, the "pedestrian through zone" had an obstruction in it. That just isn't allowed.
Here's how a properly designed sidewalk should function.
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/sidewalks/
And if the sidewalk is too narrow, you sacrifice the other elements first, and the "pedestrian through zone" last.
Ghazi (Registered User)
BethC (Registered User)
Closed Limebike Support (Registered User)