Blind adherence to codes leaves pedestrians out in the cold

Roads

Blind adherence to codes leaves pedestrians out in the cold

by Matt Johnson • November 10, 2011 10:36 am

Pedestrians at a Reading, Pennsylvania shopping center find out the hard way what happens when engineers let the rules supersede common sense.

James Howard Kunstler's eyesore of the month for November.

With a design like this, there probably aren't very many people about on foot. I doubt the designers responsible for this, er, eyesore set out to deliberately put up barriers to pedestrians. So how did this situation happen?

In all likelihood it came from adhering to the letter (but not the spirit) of rules about design. When this intersection was rebuilt for the Target, crosswalks and pedestrian signals were included. That was likely done due to a statutory requirement.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that new crosswalks have wheelchair ramps to allow mobility challenged pedestrians to mount the curb. Unfortunately, in this case, grading for the adjacent building pushed a slope right up to the curb. Installing the curb ramp meant making the slope steeper, and the engineer would have referred to a design manual that called for a retaining wall.

The retaining wall was designed only to cover the minimum required area. In this case, that means just the wheelchair ramp. And the result is a wheelchair ramp that is a complete waste of resources, because it's entirely unusable not only by handicapped pedestrians, but by able-bodied ones as well.

And of course, even on the other 3 sides of the intersection, none of the crosswalks are linked to sidewalks. If they're ever installed, this intersection will be ready for pedestrians, with walk signals and painted lines. And it would have been great for the developers of this shopping center to have installed sidewalks along the frontage.

Though that's probably not a realistic approach in many areas. Lots of suburban and exurban areas are so spread out, that even gold-standard pedestrian accommodations would see little use. But this shopping center is actually in a relatively urban area. The neighborhood to the east is dense, and most of the streets have sidewalks, though they don't link to the sidewalk-free arterial.

Of course, while I've outlined what were likely some of the contributing factors to this atrocity, the root cause is a design system which only includes non-automotive users as an afterthought.

Charles Marohn of Strong Towns does a great job of explaining this idea in the context of Springfield, Missouri's famed (at least in engineering circles) "diverging diamond" interchange.

The video was shot by an engineer showing how great the diverging diamond is for pedestrians and cyclists. Marohn narrates over this, explaining that, actually, it's a pretty poor design if the goal is to provide a pedestrian- and cycle-friendly space.

In reality, this interchange was designed to move the most cars as quickly as possible. Cars are the first, second, and third priorities here, according to Marohn. Accommodations for those using alternative modes are just ways to check off the list to make the project a "complete street."

In many cases, we've taken the completely wrong approach to planning and designing our public spaces. It's nice that Missouri's DOT put a place for pedestrians to walk on this bridge. But the whole built environment out there has so marginalized the mode of walking, that few will ever feel particularly welcome walking there.

Designing true pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly spaces means starting the design with them in mind. But in many engineering textbooks, people who don't come in cars are just afterthoughts. And the result is not particularly pretty.

39 comments

Tags: Missouri, pedestrians, Pennsylvania, roads, traffic, video

Crossing the street often unsafe in Fairfax (Nov 12, 2009)
South Capitol: L'Enfant strikes back (Feb 17, 2008)
The waiting game: Two intersections now safer for pedestrians (Aug 26, 2009)
Pedestrians and drivers: Can't we all just get along? (Oct 6, 2008)
Skybridges don't make the connection (Feb 28, 2008)

Matt Johnson has lived in the Washington region since mid-2007. He has a Master's degree in Community Planning from the University of Maryland and a BS in Public Policy from Georgia Tech. He has worked in the planning field since 2006 and lives in Greenbelt, where he serves on the city's Advisory Planning Board.

Comments
Add a comment »

I've seen this kind of blind implementation many places in Columbia MD. There are lots of intersections where there are ramps at the crosswalks, but no sidewalks. There are almost no sidewalks in Columbia, yet somehow someone feels that people in wheelchairs need help getting into the grass.

by Jimmy Obomsawin on Nov 10, 2011 11:06 am • link • report

All you need is a pole for vaulting. What's the problem?

by Crickey7 on Nov 10, 2011 11:08 am • link • report

Looks like this is within a newly built* shopping center - private property - so it's not Stimulus money that's supposedly been mis-spent.

*New enough that it's not shown in Google Maps satellite view.

by Frank IBC on Nov 10, 2011 11:09 am • link • report

A compliment where it is deserved - Montgomery County's recent upgrades of the sidewalks on Wisconsin Avenue and Old Georgetown Road in Friendship Heights and Bethesda.

The new curb cuts make those roads much more bike friendly. Gentle slope and you don't have to make abrupt zigs and zags as you approach them. The one exception is the northeast corner of Old Georgetown and Arlington Roads, which is a maze of traffic boxes and telephone poles. Also, the southeast corner of Old Georgetown Road and Battery Lane, while good for pedestrians and cyclists, is a hazard for cars that happen to clip the corner.

by Frank IBC on Nov 10, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

And let's make sure that no able-bodied person uses this crossing by putting a chain link fence on top of the retaining wall.

by Kevin C on Nov 10, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

I expect that retaining wall to be tagged by delinquent gnomes any day now.

by Frank IBC on Nov 10, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

The Diverging Diamond on the North side of Springfield, MO is amazing and effective at moving cars. There's nothing TOD or walkable about the area. There's poorly implemented DD on teh South side of Springfield that is generally considered too large of an implementation to be praticial.

MODOT is pretty progressive with using all the tools in the bag to move cars, and at embracing Amtrak to move people around the state.

Springfield, in the last year or so, is in a process of promoting a liable / walkable downtown core, with a new grocery store, lofts, bike lanes, etc... but if you go outsie this area, you're pretty much on your own (or in the best public bus system in the region (tounge in cheek))

by @SamuelMoore on Nov 10, 2011 11:35 am • link • report

When I first saw those photos I immediately recognised exactly where they're from... bummer to see such a situation so close to my hometown.

As for DDI's -- they're not inherently poor for peds/bikes, this particular incarnation just happens to be located in an area that's not at-all ped-oriented and the infrastructure itself isn't the best it could be. Every issue the narrator highlights is independent of the interchanges's inherent operation/function.

Unfortunately, the video comes off as a bit too much like reading Kunstler's books (generally only tearing into the bad) without highlighting the many ways things could be made better.

...Though I suppose it's worth saying that despite being in about the least ped-friendly environment and certainly leaving much to be desired, Sprinfield is still the most ped/bike-friendly (if "friendly" is the right word) of all DDI's I'm aware of. Seclin and Versailles don't even have any peds, despite the latter being on a major bike corridor; and urban Le Perreux's DDI is far less pleasant from an operations standpoint despite its gains in aesthetic compared to Springfield.

by Bossi on Nov 10, 2011 11:45 am • link • report

These shopping centers (almost always with a Target, PetSmart, some chain bookstore you haven't heard of, all on top of a hill) are pretty common. I've noticed, at least in Pennsylvania, that there are frequently sidewalks that run about 20 feet beyond the intersections, then stop. And I never see anyone use them.

by Tim on Nov 10, 2011 11:50 am • link • report

This is why China is winning.

by nativedc on Nov 10, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report

Is it possible that there is a plan to put in a sidewalk at the base of the hill, at some point in the future? Maybe there is not, but you can't tell from the picture. In the NoVa beltway hot lanes project, the new bridges over the beltway all have sidewalks - some of which currently dont connect to anything - but eventually will when the connecting streets are rebuilt.

Would it really be wiser to give an exemption from ADA in case like this? It would be great if there were complete streets from the get go, but I dont know you can blame the engineers for that, if the client wasnt interested.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 10, 2011 12:02 pm • link • report

While I agree that there should be a sidewalk if this crossing was required, it doesn't have to be a handicap accessible one. It is unrealistic to make all sidewalks and entrances handicap accessible. Where are the regulations requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street?

by Cassie on Nov 10, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report

Good post!

I've often wondered how many people are now on crutches or in wheelchairs because they tripped on those raised bumps in crosswalk entrances intended for the seeing impaired ...

by Lance on Nov 10, 2011 12:08 pm • link • report

All I can say is "wtf were the designers thinking?"

Are we supposed to just accept that some places aren't meant for walking and act accordingly?

by ceefer66 on Nov 10, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report

@AWalker - I wondered about a future sidewalk, but if one was actually built, the existing retaining wall would have to be removed and rebuilt.

And same deal with the much larger retaining wall fronting the Target in the second photo on Kunstler's site. It wasn't set back far enough from the curb to allow construction of a sidewalk.

by Frank IBC on Nov 10, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report

"@AWalker - I wondered about a future sidewalk, but if one was actually built, the existing retaining wall would have to be removed and rebuilt. "

not if you narrow the street ;) I don't expect thats the case - just questioning how much one can gather from the photo alone.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 10, 2011 12:20 pm • link • report

Also, I was wrong in my comment of 11:09 am, I didn't see the link to Google street view and assumed that the photo at the top and the second photo on Kunstler's site were two sides of the same crosswalk. So they actually are in the public right of way.

by Frank IBC on Nov 10, 2011 12:23 pm • link • report

For what it's worth, many urban jurisdictions now require that new developments install sidewalk along the full length of their street frontage. ...But clearly Laureldale hasn't gotten on board, yet.

by Bossi on Nov 10, 2011 12:28 pm • link • report

One of my peeves I've seen around DC is bollards at the bottom of steps. And the width of the steps is so narrow that even if a humvee could scale the height of the steps, it would not fit through the channel (or cutout, whatever its called).

by Bill Cook on Nov 10, 2011 12:32 pm • link • report

@Cassie: While I agree that there should be a sidewalk if this crossing was required, it doesn't have to be a handicap accessible one. It is unrealistic to make all sidewalks and entrances handicap accessible.

Because people with disabilities should only get to be able to go some places, not all places?

by Miriam on Nov 10, 2011 1:30 pm • link • report

This is clearly not accidental, blindly following rules without commonsense. It's bloodymindedness: we're required to put a handicapped accessible crosswalk there; fine, that's exactly what we'll do.

by jim on Nov 10, 2011 1:35 pm • link • report

@jim +1

by Tina on Nov 10, 2011 1:51 pm • link • report

Let me add that the slope extending to the curb isn't accidental either. It was graded that way to the design of the same guy (or woman) who designed the crosswalk. It was graded that way so as to maximize the number of parking spaces at the same level as the store, so that it would be fractionally easier for shoppers to wheel their carts full of merchandise from the store to their cars (and fractionally easier for store employees to retrieve carts from the parking lot. There were alternatives -- terraced parking, for example -- which would have allowed pedestrian access.

by jim on Nov 10, 2011 1:58 pm • link • report

Before blaming the engineers or designers for perceived curb ramp failings, I encourage you to try to interpret and understand the federal guidelines for accessibility in rights-of-way. While well intentioned, it is difficult to implement in the best of conditions. Trying to figure out what should be done in less-than-ideal conditions is nightmarish.

Ramps not connected to sidewalks do serve a purpose. The problem witht the first photo (ramp to retaining wall) is not that a ramp was placed there. The crosswalk should not be in that location because there is nowhere for a pedstrian to go once the street is crossed. If the crosswalk is there, however, the ramps must be there at both ends as well. In this case it gives someone who made the mistake of crossing there a place to wait out of traffic before crossing back to where they started.

If a crosswalk is marked it is required to have a curb ramp at either end, regardless of the existence of a sidewalk leading to the intersecton. Pedestrians, people with strollers, and even some wheelchairs can traverse non-paved ground adjacent to a street. The curb ramp lets them change grade between the sidewalk and the street without having to step off the curb.

In some states (Virginia in particular), crosswalks legally exist at all street intersections, even if they are not marked. There is much debate about whether curb ramps are required at unmarked, legal crosswalks, especially when there is not an accessible sidewalk leading to the intersection. There is a case to be made for both sides of the issue.

The Target development is much more of a planning failure than an engineering failure. If there is no requirement to build sidewalks, or to design a building to address the street rather than a parking lot, or to accommodate pedestrians in anything more than is legally required, then the engineers can't design to make up those failings.

by an engineer on Nov 10, 2011 2:25 pm • link • report

The problem witht the first photo (ramp to retaining wall) is not that a ramp was placed there. The crosswalk should not be in that location because there is nowhere for a pedstrian to go once the street is crossed.

So it was "planners" who placed the crosswalk? No one called a meeting before the think was bulit to say, "There's a problem..."? No one talks to each other?

by Tina on Nov 10, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report

Why doesn't the Department of Transportation or whatever agency in these jurisdictions that handles these type of things hire some disabled people and let the point out all the problems or have them as sidewalk, transit etc testers

by kk on Nov 10, 2011 7:01 pm • link • report

I'll be quick to say that ADA does contribute significantly toward the cost of projects involving pedestrian infrastructure. However, its finanicial implications aside, ADA is a well-intentioned law and I believe that disabled users have as much right to pedestrian infrastructure as any able-bodied user.

So anywhere we provide pedestrian infrastructure: we do have an obligation and duty to provide for its users regardless of physical impairment. That instead leaves the question of where do we provide pedestrian infrastructure in the first place?

My fiscal conservative side looks at sidewalks out in the middle of nowhere and wonders if building those was really the best use of resources to serve perhaps 1 or 2 people in a day; resources that could've instead gone toward improving infrastructure that could serve hundreds or thousands per day. Though to be fair: I look at roads and highways and wonder that same thing.

Is it the public's interest to pay for infrastructure that serve a very identifiable, select, narrow, and small group of users? Or should those users be obligated to support their own infrastructure such that public resources can instead be allocated to areas with a large group of diverse users with different needs, uses, and origins? And the tricky question: where does the line get drawn to define what's too-small or a big-enough grouping?

by Bossi on Nov 10, 2011 7:11 pm • link • report

Union labor FTW

by TGEOA on Nov 10, 2011 10:47 pm • link • report

@TGEOA: This has nothing to do with construction workers (unionized or not), who only built what they were asked to build. The highway planners who designed these crosswalks are not "labor".

[Sentence removed for violating the comment policy.]

by Frank IBC on Nov 11, 2011 8:07 am • link • report

Excellent example and post. Thank you for the effort.

by Geof Gee on Nov 11, 2011 9:15 am • link • report

Montg Co has required median strip on Wisc Ave in ChCh (south of Bradley Blvd.) to have accessible ramps for the blind yet there is no sidewalk there!

by RWeiss on Nov 11, 2011 9:36 am • link • report

Specifically, on the east side of Wisconsin Avenue, along the property of Chevy Chase Country Club.

@Moderator: Sorry about that. :(

by Frank IBC on Nov 11, 2011 12:35 pm • link • report

Great post, thank you so much, Matt. And I appreciate kk's comment, too- when knowledgeable people with disAbilities are employed as leaders and members of teams that plan and manage State and municipal facilities projects; then, I'm guessing that public safety and access will be overseen as a vital practical matter-- not merely rhetoric.

So, is wasteful, deficient infrastructure oversight a national problem? here's another story about how impediments are routinely constructed in Somerville, MA- which just received the inaugural "Let's Move! Cities and Towns" award from Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, U.S. Dept. of HHS:

http://tiny.cc/mdkj9

by eila on Nov 11, 2011 2:32 pm • link • report

"Because people with disabilities should only get to be able to go some places, not all places?"

It doesn't do you much good to set up a handicapped accessible ramp with a slope of 1" per 12" if you're on an incredibly steep hill with a slope of 1" per 3". I think she was also addressing the fact that handicap ramps were added here, but sidewalks were not. If you have to prioritize which you do first, adding sidewalks first will make the area usable for most people. Adding handicap ramps first doesn't make the area usable for anyone. A ramp into grass is absurd.

by Brian White on Nov 11, 2011 4:18 pm • link • report

"So anywhere we provide pedestrian infrastructure: we do have an obligation and duty to provide for its users regardless of physical impairment. "

But there was no pedestrian infrastructure here. If you scroll around on the map there is no sidewalk connected to the ramp. There are no sidewalks on any of the roads intersecting there.

by Brian White on Nov 11, 2011 4:22 pm • link • report

While it couldn't service the property above it, is there any possibility that this was intended to be used for a future bus stop?

by Craig on Nov 13, 2011 3:44 am • link • report

@Craig - check out the Google street view link just below the picture. The crosswalks are located at right-turn islands. Doesn't seem like a good place for a bus stop, but there are a lot of other things wrong with the design, so who knows.

by Frank IBC on Nov 13, 2011 11:08 pm • link • report

Great post. A slightly different version of this issues occurs here in suburban neighborhoods. In some of the transitional areas in Fairfax County new development must include either a sidewalk or asphalt trail. As many of the properties in between that were built before the current standards have no pedestrian access, you have neighborhoods or homes with paths to nowhere and ugly orange and white warning boards on either side. Some of these places have no potential for future development on either side and if they did, the path would go from nowhere to nowhere. It's right up there with my dislike of the overabundance of storm water management ponds (or mosquito breeding ponds).

by xtr657 on Nov 15, 2011 7:52 am • link • report

This intersection was built from scratch along with the shopping center, so everything you see in the photo could have been done differently with little or no additional cost. The ramps are ok, the problem was leaving out the sidewalks. There is a similar intersection a block farther north (it's a huge shopping center) where there are no retaining walls, but the crosswalks end in shrubbery and landscaping for the shopping center parking lot.

Who made the mistake?
1) The developer, for having a standard design that excludes pedestrian facilities.
2) The planning board, for approving a site plan without provisions for pedestrians.
3) PennDOT, for allowing the intersection and road to be rebuilt without adjacent sidewalks.
4) The guys in the field, for not asking, "do you really mean for us to build it this way?"

by John Z Wetmore on Dec 11, 2011 10:02 am • link • report