The point is that this should not be considered a major road, it’s a park.
I agree it should be just a road in a park, but the Parkways in and around Boston developed into major arterial roads in the 20th century, serving as important mini-expressways for commuter traffic. Storrow Drive and Revere Beach Parkway are extreme examples of this unfortunate reality.
Yes, which is why a road diet is planned here. Adding a median to the design is counterproductive when the goal is traffic calming.
Maybe the narrowing down to two lanes of this stretch of SFR will set a precedent for the narrowing, or outright elimination, of the rest of SFR and Storrow Drive.
These two posts are actually saying the same thing, under different value systems.
I've learned in my life that two opinions, seemingly in opposition to each other, can both be right.
yeah - this is bordering on a false equivalency. The research isn't categorical indicating that medians = higher speeds. It's also easy to tell that by looking at street designs where they've been effective in reducing crashes, keeping speeds at the designed speed, and traffic calming have medians - where they make sense. Primarily reinforcing design elements that keep average speed down.
DCR, asking itself: What purpose do I serve then?!
I don't think it even needs 2 lanes in each direction - but i do worry if they're trying only to re-use a single barrel of this dual carriageway they won't get the turn lanes needed to take more traffic off the Western Ave transitway and thus that transitway idea won't work.
The Commonwealth made the decision over a century ago that cities and towns could not be trusted to provide public access to waterfronts. So they aggressively used eminent domain to create systems of public access under the Metropolitan Park District then the MDC. The difference in the level of public access between cities and towns where they intervened and where they did not is astonishing (I live on Nahant Bay where the DCR reservations provide outstanding public access, the towns of Swampscott and Nahant and the City of Lynn, not so much.). Turn these parks back over to the various cities and towns and I will guarantee some of them will be sold off to developers.
Sailfish Park begs a question: Is it ever a good idea to sell public land for development?
From Stuart and Vero Beach to the Pacific Northwest, residents have opposed selling publicly owned green space to developers.www.tcpalm.com
The prospect is being raised across the US.
Well noted, though it seems to actually be the Massachusetts Constitution that heavily restricts the transfers - the Governor actually made it slightly easier by allowing cash payment in lieu of land, but it still requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to sell a park.
Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution more or less prohibits development or sale of park, recreation, conservation and most other open space. Any changes require a supermajority of the legislature to approve, and exceptional circumstances to remove Article 97 protection should be cited in order to begin the disposition process. Also, depending on whether a subject property was acquired, improved, or supported using NPS, USDA, or other federal funding, Congressional or other federal approval might be required too. The MassMapper site has a tool that identifies Article 97 land and also identifies open space (mostly public, but some private) by level of protection.Sailfish Park begs a question: Is it ever a good idea to sell public land for development?
From Stuart and Vero Beach to the Pacific Northwest, residents have opposed selling publicly owned green space to developers.www.tcpalm.com
The prospect is being raised across the US.
That is really good to know, because in other states cash-strapped municipalities have been known to do some really stupid things with their public assets to raise a quick buck.
If any federal money has been or will be used anywhere along the line, they'd have to go through the 4(f) process which is extremely strict, as it should be.