Capital Parks Master Plan: Park Program Fees and Bike Lines

Pope Park Recreation Center, now being called the Samuel V. Arroyo Recreation Center, played host to the final public input session for the Capital Parks Master Plan Monday night. This was the only of three meetings to be held in one of the city’s parks; the other two were at the Hartford Public Library.

Enthusiasm and engagement was low. New material was sparse. The audience was told that results from the online surveys were in, but that “the team” would not be spending any time sharing this information with the group who had come to hear more about potential plans and give feedback on them.

Most of the evening was a rehash of previous meetings, the process, and a mix of abstract concepts. There was no question-and-answer period. After the presentation was given, residents were told to write down their top three items (desires? dislikes?) on postcards. From there, the meeting seemed to fall apart.

Does Input Matter? 

There has been more of an effort with this project than with others to get public comment. Besides the three meetings, there was an online survey used to collect thoughts on the parks and there continues to be a feedback form on the Sasaki website.

But what has happened to those ideas?

Materials from the presentation in October did not include all remarks made in the first meeting. Suggestions challenging the iQuilt plan seemed to be omitted from record. Another slide providing early data on barriers to park and recreation program use stated in a large font that “use is hindered by a lack of information, maintenance, and safety concerns,” as if those were the top three issues. Looking at the numbers directly next to the statement, the top three concerns are actually the lack of information about services, poor maintenance, and programs being offered that park users do not have an interest in. During the first meeting, there were plenty of remarks about programs park users would enjoy, but these did not seem to go anywhere.

On other slides, only the negative comments given about Pope Park and Colt Park were shown, despite there being positive comments submitted. As expected, Bushnell Park, Elizabeth Park, and Riverside Park were portrayed as favored.

There were also claims that many comments came in suggesting that the parks need better marketing and branding. From everything witnessed in the first meeting, there was no indication that the public was pushing for yet another branding campaign, which is a creature different from marketing the programs and events offered at the parks.

During Monday’s meeting, it seemed almost nothing from the first meeting had been incorporated. There was no mention of leash law enforcement, programming, cooking grills, or historic fencing at South Green. Allowing some areas of parks to “renaturalize” and creating better infrastructure for cyclists seemed to  be the only items, besides that perennial complaint about ATVs, that made it into this round. It was suggested that hillsides and other areas allowed to renaturalize might discourage ATV use in parks.

It was unclear if those previous ideas from the other meetings and survey were mostly discarded or if the team opted to just not discuss them.

Bike Lines and Lanes: The High Point

The concept of “bike lines” was re-introduced with more details provided.

This would be a combination of bike lanes and sharrows, marked with different color paints to delineate routes, much like how subways have a “red line” or “green line.”

This bike network would include signs indicating the distance to and direction of parks, neighborhoods, and neighboring towns.

Not sure this was requested, but one team member said that “Hartford has an underground art scene” and promoted the idea of using “unconventional wayfinding art.” None of the examples shown looked like they would help anyone to navigate — if anything, they would do the opposite — though they were interesting to look at.

Francisco, one of the four team members present who apparently lacked last names, said that “money is not the issue here, it’s will,” regarding the bike friendly changes.

Sharrows, one of the proposed changes, are the arrows painted on roads suggesting to motorists that they share the road with cyclists. Except for highways, however, cyclists can be on all roads, making the sharrows redundant. Cyclists themselves are not always sure what these symbols indicate. For instance, there are roads with sharrows painted in the center of a lane. Does this mean that cyclists should ride in the middle, or still be in the right portion of the lane?

It was said that the connected bike network could be completed in a 1-3 year time frame.

Maintenance and Roads

One team member said that maintenance would require “a team effort” from the “City,” “park users,” and “citizens and other stakeholders.” The park users would be tasked with “encouraging civic behavior” and “loving parks.” The City would be in charge of rule enforcement, positive signage, and park rangers.

No concrete details were provided to explain how problems like illegal dumping would be curbed. Right now, there are many signs posted in Keney Park. Police make their presence known there. There are rangers. Still, there is illegal dumping.

There was mention of how Goodwin Park might be changing its road, but this is happening independent of the Capital Parks Master Plan. Those familiar with the park have seen that the road was barricaded months ago, making through-traffic for motor vehicles more challenging.

Private Enterprise in Parks

Giving Madison Square Park as an example of a place that turned around through some maintenance adjustments and the opening of the “Shake Shack,” a stand operated by a third party, the same was suggested for certain parks here, namely Colt Park where there are a number of sporting events on weekends.

It was not mentioned in the meeting, but there are typically hot dog carts and the like that show up around that particular park.

With the “Shake Shack,” a certain percentage of proceeds goes back to the park, according to the team members.

A second example was given for how our public parks could be used by private enterprise. The Adventure Park in Bridgeport has created a draw with its aerial forest park.

These were presented as ways to generate revenue, along with potentially charging “nominal” fees for programs like yoga classes and use of the public pools. It was said that people value experiences more if they have to pay something, even if it is a small amount.

Next 

Final results from the survey, which is now closed, will be posted online. There continues to be a feedback form open on the Sasaki site.

The team says that a final report should be available in late January.