A sidewalk legend that just won't die

Instead of posting this comment on the previous sidewalk piece, "Sidewalks: Fines? Red China? Remove fences?" I want to highlight it here, in hopes of killing some out-of-date misinformation that has a remarkable shelf life in local memory.

The fact that people continue to be confused about whether the city will repair a sidewalk or makes property owners pay for repairs is an indicator, I think, of how lame the city's overall sidewalk policies and advocacy have been. This shouldn't be read as an indictment of Charlotte Department of Transportation's pedestrian program manager, Vivian Coleman. [Note, 1:40 p.m. Jan. 5: Coleman has been promoted and is now Transportation Planner.] She has to swim upstream in a city of nonpedestrians and a city government that is only oh-so-slowly concluding pedestrians do, after all, deserve consideration. Indeed, CDOT may now be more enlightened on that matter than many other local agencies. (Can you say, "Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools"?)

Here's the comment, sent from "Bruce Keith" sent about 10 p.m. Monday (Jan. 3):
If a sidewalk fails or breaks and the homeowner doesn't pay to repair it, the city will pave it with Asphalt, even in Historic Districts. This fence most likely is in the right of way but the city should maintain ALL of its infrastructure and ENFORCE all of its ordinances. This fence should be moved or removed and the city should maintain the walk, as it is Public Property in a Public ROW [right-of-way].
Commenter Keith is about 10 years out of date on that repair issue. CDOT used to charge property owners part of repair costs and, if owners wouldn't pay, the patch was cheap asphalt. But it changed its sidewalk repair policy in 2001. "Just as CDOT repairs potholes for cars, broken sidewalks are repaired to maintain quality facilities for pedestrians," CDOT spokeswoman Linda Durrett wrote me in an e-mail.

Plenty of Charlotteans don't realize the repair policy changed, and many repeat that bit of lore, maybe because some of those old asphalt patches are still around? In any event, if you want to read more about sidewalk repair policies, here's a link.

You'll note I didn't address the issue of rights-of-way and whether the city can legally require people to clear off sidewalks in the city (or state) right-of-way. I'm still checking on the legal issues. The city also expects property owners to mow the grass in planting strips, an expectation that doesn't seem to bring out nearly the hostility as asking people to keep leaves, snow, ice, etc. off their sidewalks. Go figure.

And the comment about rollout trash bins? Yet another reason that those horrible back-of-curb sidewalks are and were an abomination. Thank goodness the city no longer allows them to be built that way. But if you're in an area that's stuck with them, you have little choice but to clog the sidewalks with them, and, if you're thoughtful, haul them back in as soon as you can.

Sidewalks: Fines? Red China? Remove fences?

A commenter to my previous post, who read the Sunday editorial "Urban streets will need urban sidewalks" correctly nailed it with his/her suspicion, based on the Runnymede Lane photo that ran with it, at left, that I was its author. (I'm among the four people at the Observer who write the unsigned editorials on behalf of the editorial board.) And he/she raises one of the trickiest issues that city transportation officials are going to have to confront: If you want to encourage people to walk, how can you ensure that sidewalks are kept clear? Read the comment in full, at the end of this.

Currently, property owners are expected to keep sidewalks clear. But the city's ordinances are murky about what the city can/can't order property owners to and it's generally silent on what punishment is allowed.

The commenter raises the specter of Red China and its cultural education camps. But rather than having an "education czar" (oops, those czars were in Russia, not China), he/she suggests the city should remove the fence shown in the photo. Er, wouldn't that be taking private property?

The commenter asks if I've ever called CDOT (Charlotte Department of Transportation) for enforcement. As a matter of fact I have called them about that messy stretch of sidewalk off and on for 10 years. After I wrote a June article about sidewalks ("Walk this way. If you can") with photos and called CDOT officials for information, the Runnymede sidewalk was finally cleared. I'm not sure whether CDOT contacted property owners or the publicity alerted them. But in the six months since then, the sidewalk has clogged again with leaves.

If you don't want an education czar, do you want to spend city taxpayer money on a fleet of clean-sidewalk enforcers? Hire people to monitor telephone or email complaints, dispatch inspectors and – if warranted – cite or otherwise notify property owners? And if you really want walkable sidewalks, should you wait for complaints or be pro-active in keeping them clear?

Currently, CDOT says it responds when people complain, but in my experience, my complaints haven't seemed to get much attention unless I put something in the newspaper with photos. I can't imagine they are hopping to it when people without access to printing presses or editorial pages complain.

But the underlying question is: Should the city beef up its attempts to keep sidewalks clear? And if the answer is "yes," (which is how I'd answer) what's the best way? Cite and fine property owners? Use city staff to clean sidewalks?

Here's the comment about sidewalks from the previous post :
I read the editorial in today’s (Jan. 2) Observer about urban sidewalks, to which Mary obviously contributed. (The photo of that leaf-cluttered Runnymede Lane sidewalk, which Mary has long bemoaned, gave it away). Frankly Mary, I agree with much of that editorial. I’m a retiree, live in a densely populated part of South Charlotte, and make good use of sidewalks as both pedestrian and bicyclist. My current sidewalk travel has been primarily for exercise, but given the ever-escalating cost of gasoline, I recently bought a small cart in which to haul groceries and other purchases behind my bike. I appreciate that our city provides an alternative that will keep me trim, save me some money, and help reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. But a sentence in that editorial has me puzzled. In mentioning that sidewalks outside of center city are often impassable, you or another editorialist ask “How can property owners be taught to keep them clean?” What!? Have the Red Chinese finally overrun this city? Will local government be expanded to add an education czar with the authority to haul affluent Runnymede residents off to a remote training camp in the mountains where they’ll be taught a lesson on how to rake leaves? I don’t think the Powell Bill, which helps fund sidewalk maintenance in Charlotte via taxed motor fuel, allows for that. In the case of Runnymede Lane, a better solution may be for the city to remove that tall, solid-wood fence shown in the editorial photo. It appears to be suspiciously close to the sidewalk, probably encroaching on city right-of-way. Have you ever called CDOT for enforcement? Fence removal will eliminate the “out-of-sight out-of-mind” strategy of the usually neat but sidewalk-hating Runnymedians. They – or their lawn service - will be out there with a leaf blower in a flash. Unfortunately, you can’t force folks to be thoughtful and responsible – unless you are part of the Red Chinese bureaucracy. In Charlotte, you have to hit them where they feel it – in their pocketbooks. Just call 311. And if the city doesn’t take care of the problem, the Observer should ask why we are paying bloated salaries and retirement benefits to government officials and not getting anything in return.

A few small sidewalk victories

All but this section of Runnymede sidewalk (above) has been cleared off.

Some of you recall that a few weeks back I wrote an op-ed (with lots of photos) "Walk This Way. If You Can," about my experience walking to work, a 4.2-mile hike along Providence and Queens Roads and Morehead Street. I mentioned several spots where unkempt sidewalks would pose obstacles to anyone in a wheelchair (or on roller skates, or trying to walk two abreast, for that matter). The one that brought the most comment from readers was my mention of several sections of the sidewalk along Runnymede, between Sharon Road and Colony Road. I pass there regularly in the car and walk there occasionally, and the sidewalk has been covered in leaves, mud and crud for at least a decade.


Finally! All but a small section has been cleared. (see photo at right).

I don't know if it was publicity or whether the city's transportation department contacted the property owners, but several Saturdays ago I spotted a guy with a big broom sweeping off the muck. And the scraggly holly bushes planted at the edge of the sidewalk (their prickly leaves making for a tight squeeze past the hollies) have been cut down.


I had called 311 to report a couple of spots on Providence Road where, in one case, ivy and in another case, azaleas, had grown over the sidewalk leaving only a narrow passage. The city DOT is on the case. The ivy's been cut back. The azaleas remain in need of severe pruning.


For the record, I have nothing against hollies and azaleas. I have planted, fertilized and otherwise tended both in our own yard, and they are valuable living things. Just not planted next to a too-narrow sidewalk.

Parking gives way to sidewalks (update)

Here's a city that's not afraid to try new things. San Francisco is taking away some parking spaces in order to have wider sidewalks. Here's a link to the full article, courtesy SF.streetsblog.org

Gee. In Charlotte we're still trying to get the city to allow MORE onstreet parking – as a way to slow traffic and avoid having to build surface lots or decks. They were on the right track but after 9/11 someone deep in the bowels of the CMGC decided Osama was planning to park a bomb-laden truck outside all the local banks, so a lot of the parking vanished. Interestingly, no such protection was afforded to the daily newspaper office (or the weekly ones for that matter) or multiple other businesses uptown.

Update, 5:35 p.m., from Charlotte Department of Transportation's Jim Kimbler: It turns out Charlotte is doing a small version of what SF is, along Fifth Street between North Tryon and Church streets. Kimbler told me via e-mail that the city is helping the retail property owner at the Ivey's building, Stefan Latorre, who plans to open the interior restaurant space onto Fifth. It would mean wider sidewalks and removing the on-street parking on that block.

"Both the widened sidewalks and the removal of parking are consistent with the Center City Transportation Street Enhancement Standards," Kimbler wrote. "We believe this will help activate this street with outdoor dining and more comfortable sidewalk space."

(And no, Mayor Gavin Newsom is no relation. But at least he spells his name right.)

Walking uptown? Good luck

Without question downtown Charlotte is the most pedestrian-friendly neighborhood in town. But there are still some, ahem, issues. I spotted a few during a Sunday afternoon walk through downtown.

For instance, although the city code says property owners are supposed to keep the sidewalks in front of their property free of obstruction, on Sunday afternoon some spots that were in the shade were still filled with slushy ice, such as the spot in front of the restaurant Press on West Trade Street. No, it isn't fair that some people get the sun to do the work for them. Life isn't fair. Clear your sidewalks, please.

Unfortunately, the city doesn't do what many Northern cities do - you get a certain number of hours to clear your sidewalks of snow and then you're cited (in theory, at least). In recent snowy weekends I've noticed that hardly anyone seems to feel it's important to shovel the sidewalk in front of their home - not just uptown either. The result is dangerous ice and slush, and pedestrians having yet more difficulties getting around.

Charlotte has no staff or policies about enforcing the few ordinances it does have, such as keeping sidewalks clear of obstructions. A large pile of leaves was composting in the sidewalk in front of the County Services Center annex building on North College Street. (And since 2001 I've been watching some leaves actually turn into compostable soil on a sidewalk on Runnymede between Alexander Graham Middle School and Sharon Road. In addition, I noticed in fall 2008 that a section of sidewalk on Sharon Road, on the back end of a very exclusive and expensive property, was ankle deep in leaves - as though the property owner had no idea it was his/her responsibility to keep it clear.)

And finally, here's something you don't want to stumble over on a dark night uptown. Come on, guys, just get a hacksaw out and cut that one all the way to the pavement. It's on Fourth Street, just a few feet uphill from College.

Another road diet, this one for South Tryon

This is a street project I can love. The city wants to widen the sidewalks on South Tryon Street over I-277, plus create bike lanes. The picture above is an artist's rendering of what it might look like, looking north toward the skyline. Note the lovely Charlotte Observer building at left, just over the bridge. Here's what it looks like now. The idea is to make South Tryon Street between Stonewall Street (the corner where the Observer office and the Gantt Center sit) and Carson Boulevard (the street formerly known as Independence Boulevard until I-277 was born) more suitable for pedestrians and bicyclists. If you want to hear more, there's a public meeting today at 5:30 p.m. at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center, in room 280.

The city intends to start with a 90-demonstration project, starting March 15. They'll temporarily restripe the lanes on the pavement and put up bollards. Tryon will go from four lanes to three - two northbound and one southbound - between Stonewall and Carson. "It's going to require some signal phase tweaking" for the traffic light at Morehead and Tryon, says Jim Kimbler with the Charlotte Department of Transportation.

The goal is to turn the excessively wide four-lanes into three lanes with better sidewalks, especially over the bridge. Currently when you walk over the I-277 bridge you're on a 5-foot back-of-curb sidewalk looking down on traffic zooming below. It is not pleasant. And because I work at that spot I can report that traffic on Tryon is usually sparse. Jay-walking is routine, and easy.

Why a demonstration project? The bridge is state-owned, as is South Tryon south of Morehead, so the N.C. DOT has veto power, and it wants to make sure that the changes won't foul traffic or hurt the bridge. If the state agrees the "street diet" will work, then the city will move forward.

Tryon between Morehead and Carson isn't as wide as the section over I-277. Kimbler said the sidewalks there won't be widened right away, because the city hopes development in the near future will produce better sidewalks. Let us hope that is the case, or that the city will improve the sidewalks if no development ensues in a year or so. The photo here is what the sidewalk is like now. It is not a scene that makes your heart sing.

'I think that I shall never see ... '

(Something more interesting for you, while the council debates wording of its Focus Area Documents - "public" safety vs. "community" safety vs. "Focus Area Two"):

Those readers interested in the sidewalk v. trees issue from Park Road (story here, editorial here) might enjoy this 1952 exchange of letters between Ray Warren, executive director, Greensboro Housing Authority, and H.L. Medford, Greensboro director of public works.

In a March 18, 1952 letter, Warren asks that a huge oak tree on Florida Street not be removed for a sidewalk. His letter uses some effusive prose, ends with Joyce Kilmer's ode to trees: "I think that I shall never see," etc. etc.

Medford, in a March 21, 1952, response, uses even more florid prose ("The poet, drunk with the goodness of nature, nature as moulded by the hand of God with no adulterations of mimicing man ...") and concludes with a parody of the famous Kilmer poem:

I think that I shall never see
A tree where a tree shouldn't be;
A tree whose hungry roots are pressed
Into the sewer, choking its breast.
A tree that drops its leaves all day
and clogs all drains unless we pray,
A tree that may in summer tear
A block of street and cause grey hair
Its branches on the street are lain,
They must be removed in torrents of rain;
It heaves the walk day by day
An accident occurs: the City must pay!
Nobody loves a tree like me
but I like a tree where a tree should be.

And, Medford's letter concludes: "In other words, Ray, I still think the tree should be removed."

Two immediate observations:
1. I don't think city bureaucrats today write as well, or as poetically.
2. I'm glad municipal public works officials today aren't quite so anti-tree as to think none belong in a city!