Manchester: Manchester has instituted a city-wide sidewalk plan that governs and coordinates sidewalk projects. The project was first published in 2004 and then revised in 2009. The project outlines a table of sidewalk standards and a strategy for prioritizing and organizing streetscape projects. The plan features a map detailing planned projects for the coming years of adding or removing sidewalks, the existing network and “Neighborhoods for Proposed Sidewalk Removal Projects.” This has influenced our strategy in guiding development of a Proposed Sidewalk Plan Map (Fig. 2). Cheshire: Cheshire has fewer sidewalks in comparison to Meriden and therefore, has no citywide strategy implemented. Cheshire is instead focused around individual streetscape projects. We have found that this is typical of many suburban and rural towns, especially ones without a strongly defined downtown or core. Cheshire also typically focuses on a district scale for their sidewalk projects. This is somewhat similar to our proposed use of Activity Centers to prioritize and focus the scope of work. Meriden can be described as Suburban with Shades of The Downtown core is well defined and relatively developed representing the of urban” while the outer “shades districts generally represent the category. Meriden’s density is close to that of “suburban” Manchester, although Meriden’s per capita is less than Manchester or New Haven’s. To best serve the needs of a high density and low per capita community, a strategy should attempt to strike a balance of reducing surplus sidewalk to cut costs while maintaining accessible and safe routes to destinations within the network. Single sided walkways implemented in lower density areas would help to directly achieve this goal. The budget discussed above of $300,000 dollars provides the City’s current budget. The report disregards CDGB funding as a viable source of funding for the proposed sidewalk strategy because the amount awarded varies annually and is difficult to determine accurately in advance.
Manchester: Manchester has instituted a city-wide sidewalk plan that governs and coordinates sidewalk projects. The project was first published in 2004 and then revised in 2009. The project outlines a table of sidewalk standards and a strategy for prioritizing and organizing streetscape projects. The plan features a map detailing planned projects for the coming years of adding or removing sidewalks, the existing network and “Neighborhoods for Proposed Sidewalk Removal Projects.” This has influenced our strategy in guiding development of a Proposed Sidewalk Plan Map (Fig. 2). Cheshire: Cheshire has fewer sidewalks in comparison to Meriden and therefore, has no citywide strategy implemented. Cheshire is instead focused around individual streetscape projects. We have found that this is typical of many suburban and rural towns, especially ones without a strongly defined downtown or core. Cheshire also typically focuses on a district scale for their sidewalk projects. This is somewhat similar to our proposed use of Activity Centers to prioritize and focus the scope of work. Meriden can be described as Suburban with Shades of The Downtown core is well defined and relatively developed representing the “shades of urban” while the outer districts generally represent the “suburban” category. Meriden’s density is close to that of Manchester, although Meriden’s per capita is less than Manchester or New Haven’s. To best serve the needs of a high density and low per capita community, a strategy should attempt to strike a balance of reducing surplus sidewalk to cut costs while maintaining accessible and safe routes to destinations within the network. Single sided walkways implemented in lower density areas would help to directly achieve this goal. The budget discussed above of $300,000 dollars provides the City’s current budget. The report disregards CDGB funding as a viable source of funding for the proposed sidewalk strategy because the amount awarded varies annually and is difficult to determine accurately in advance.
meriden_sidewalk_report_(final).docx