Mayfair Triangle hearing/decision, July 10, 2017

The ill-fated Mayfair triangle, looking south from Roxbury. Opponent Chris Lane’s house is in the background.

One wonders what could be accomplished if this much political energy were spent on something more substantial than preserving a concrete traffic triangle for sidewalks that had already been bid. But that was the question at this afternoon’s Public Safety Committee meeting, where 75+ men, women and especially children were present for a final showdown over the fate of the triangle. It lost.

Proponents of removing the Mayfair triangle to move a Mayfair Drive sidewalk project forward — and their children–packed the committee room.

On one side were the (seeming) majority of stakeholders who want the sidewalk planned down the north side of Mayfair to Roxbury, where it will cross to the west side of the street and then to Huntington Road one block north. They brought their children to drive home their stance that the sidewalk will provide a safe path to play and walk to and from school. On the other were the triangle preservationists, who saw in the removal the city slowly chipping away at city charm and whose main spokesman, Chris Lane, originally objected to the sidewalk’s removal of trees on Mayfair. A discussion, with background but no public portion, was on the June Planning Commission agenda. 

The presentation began with Greg Cobb showing a rendering of the proposed intersection modification, with the sidewalk crossing from Mayfair across Roxbury where the triangle used to be. A vestigial grassy area would be created there, planted in zoysia, and with a street light, according to the proposal. There would be a three-way stop. Fire Marshal Nickolas Hill concurred, saying firefighters would prefer all triangles to be eliminated in the city, along with speed bumps and any obstruction that delayed response time. Traffic consultant Darrell Skipper then explained that a T-shaped intersection was, in general, more safe than an island that increased “driver decision-making” about which way to go, or the number of points that cars could collide.

Moderator Alex Wyatt, one of the three committee members of five present (McClusky and Thames absent), allowed two speakers on each side to speak, then allowed any council member present to weigh in, which several did.

The drawn plan to connect U.S. 31 to Roxbury to Huntington.

Councilman Peter Wright led the discussion through the options that had been eliminated, 1) Allowing the crosswalk to cross Roxbury north of the triangle (eliminated because the slope is steeper on the east side of the road), and crossing Roxbury through the triangle itself (eliminated due to lack of room).

During the public portion, Mr. Lane’s attorney Roger Lucas disputed that the traffic engineer had performed a safety study (he had not), and said no regular firefighters interviewed thought the triangle was unsafe. Another resident said the T-shaped intersection actually provided a reduced radius for fire engine turns, making it less safe.

Speaking in favor of the removal were two residents, who said they didn’t understand why the project was on hold now that the trees were removed and the project bid out. They both emphasized the need for children’s safety.

Concluding the session were council members Barry Smith, Jennifer Andress and Andrew Wolverton, all three speaking in favor of letting the sidewalk project–including the triangle removal–commence.

Committee members Wolverton, Wyatt and Andress then voted to recommend the item to the full council, which passed the measure at its regular 6 p.m. meeting.










2 responses to “Mayfair Triangle hearing/decision, July 10, 2017

  1. I do not appreciate the snide remark at beginning of your summary. Preserving the traditional landmarks and design aesthetics of our historic neighborhoods is critically important. As is preserving our urban forest. All of these are under attack under the leadership of the current administration. And you begin with a false comparison – lose a triangle, gain a sidewalk. The original design plan brought the sidewalk around the East side of Roxbury. There is no slope issue in the East side of Roxbury – I walk this stretch of road weekly. However, there are some lovely bushes. In my estimation, the city chose bushes over a historical landmark and well-designed speed deterrent (the triangle). The original design that was presented to the public, satisfied both parties – preservationists and sidewalk advocates. I submit that the revised design was devised as a means to appease a well-connected constituent. Just more of the same under the McBrayer regime.


    • Hello Marcus-

      I apologize for not responding. I am just now seeing your comment.
      I’ve heard the same from other people, however, no one was explicit about the issue when I talked to them, including the most vocal opponent, Chris Lane, who spoke to the HEC for 90 minutes about the issue. I agree the slope differences are negligible on either side of Roxbury. Where I don’t agree is that the triangle is an historic marker worthy of preservation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s