Hey, there! Log in / Register
Citizen complaint of the day: Installing a handicap ramp is kind of pointless when you also narrow the sidewalk
By adamg on Mon, 08/12/2013 - 1:30pm
A vexed citizen complains about recent work on Salem Street in the North End:
ADA violating new lamppost placement - this lamppost was installed a couple weeks ago as part of the Salem St. upgrade, which included ADA compliant ramps. What's the point of getting on a sidewalk if then a person can't get through? A narrower base (as on some other streets) or shifting this light a few feet either direction would solve this. This stroller is only 24.5 inches wide. Min width at any point for wheelchair is 32 inches.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Matthew and Mark - comments?
Matthew and Mark - comments?
Forget the bike/pedestrian/car brigade...
I, for one, am against lampposts. My forefathers did not die in the war so that you yuppies and libruls can go around illuminating shit. God did not intend such a thing.
Are you joking??
Are you joking??
You know I started to write
You know I started to write the same thing in response to eeka yesterday but thought better of it. I guess I'm not the only one that doesn't either get the joke or the humor of her joke.
eeka isn't usually spiteful so I am probably misinterpreting her joke.
Cars have headlights
Cars already have bright headlights. If they got rid of the sidewalks and street posts there would be more room for cars to illuminate the street. Plus, the handicapped could be dropped off in front of where they were going without having to push themselves down a sidewalk which shouldn't be there.
Uh, okay
The city routinely places obstacles in sidewalks which are obnoxious, and the clearance standard is far too small.
However, there's a much better solution for the North End. This part of the city is blessed with properly narrow, urban streets. These streets were created at a time when people had the freedom to walk as they pleased in the public realm. There was no expectation that pedestrians would be ghettoized onto the sidewalks. The sidewalks were simply the paved frontage zone for the residences and storefronts on the street.
The simple answer then is to officially restore that freedom of the streets as open space. We seem to like to call it the "shared streets" concept nowadays. Whatever it is called: designate the streets a mixed vehicle and pedestrian way, and then redesign the curbs appropriately. There's already several examples of this in Boston and Cambridge.
Unofficially, it is already the case: when I take walks through the North End (such as this past Saturday) I spend most of my time in the street, and I am joined by many other walkers in passing. When a driver in a car wants to get by, we interact as human beings making way for each other: not as rivals, but as equals.
The current style of curbs
The current style of curbs and sidewalks have been prevalent since at least the 1850s.
I spent part of the day yesterday on Long Wharf. The shared zone in front of the Marriott was unpleasant and dangerous for me as a pedestrian and cyclist. And it looked really stressful for the car and bus drivers to have to fight through a crowd.
These streets are traditional
Right: they predate both the ADA and the automobile. The curbs and sidewalks are the frontage zone of the buildings. Although they probably did not use such awkward terms as "frontage zone" back then.
The North End streets were created with the expectation that they would be shared by people walking, children playing, and by horses, with or without carriages. (We're better off without the horses, IMO)
Even today, despite decades of anti-pedestrian propaganda, people routinely walk in the streets of the North End, because it simply makes the most sense. Automobile traffic levels are very low, and slow-moving for the most part. It's not unpleasant or dangerous at all. It's natural.
I'm fine with people walking
I'm fine with people walking in the streets when it makes sense, and preserving and planning for such places.
But I don't like the idea of removing all the curbs and the distinction between street and sidewalk, and making it one big friendly ambiguous share zone. I find such places to be very unpleasant to walk *or* drive.
Pedestrians have become the problem
I can agree with you in theory, but the problem is in the execution. If people would walk on the sidewalks and only use the street when they needed to get around an obstacle, this could work. Unfortunately most of the tourists have NO IDEA what it's like to live here and show zero respect to the drivers. They will casually stroll three or four wide in the middle of the road when the sidewalk is clear on both sides, then they act indignant when you pull up behind them as if you are wrong for making them move. I swear sometimes I wish a pedestrian would get rammed by a car while walking in the road just to reinforce the notion that cars can be dangerous. Too many people have zero fear of cars.
I think you missed my point entirely
The streets are for people.
You, the driver, are being too demanding. You do not own the streets. Be more patient.
People just don't respect one another
Its a general problem. Pedestrians don't respect drivers when drivers have the right of way, and much less often drivers don't respect pedestrians when they have the right of way. Many cyclists disrespect both, while some don't.
The North End is a special case. Many pedestrians seem to think all the streets are closed to traffic on weekends, when only some blocks are. Space for streets and sidewalks are too narrow. Sidewalks are too narrow to meet the pedestrian traffic demands, so walkers spill into the road. Yes, it would help if they walked in pairs instead of 4 wide, but, many are not thinking of anyone else but themselves. Blame bad parenting.
Rather than acquire hood ornaments, just work your way slowly through crowds with an occasional light tap on the horn to make pedestrians aware of your presence in the road.
Hmm... In this case, I
Hmm... In this case, I definitely like your thinking. Though my understanding of the North End is incomplete, I believe this is a quiet, residential street (and most street with this narrow sidewalk and definitely in the North End). Any car would be going slow and on either the first or last few feet of its trip. In other words, there is no need to segregate traffic, nor any good from it. Quite a waste that they apparently invested money renewing such a useless curb than removing it.
Now, I await Mark's thoughts. I was not impressed when you took a truck crash or the Fenway concert as backing examples for implementing the advocated points as it would not prevent those cases (and have its costs). How does the philosophy fits here?
OK, I'll bite
First the positive! The lamp location illuminates the building entrance for the convenience and safety of residents. Muggers and rapists won't be hidden in the dark doorway!
I see two immediate problems in the photo. The most obvious one is the placement of the $4,000 pedestrian scale lamp. Its as dumb as planting trees directly under power lines on Nonantum Road 2-3 years ago and having to replant them.
Is the contractor at fault? More likely the city! The bottom step to the building is almost certainly on city property and likely was not on drawings in the bid going out to contractors. So, if not on the drawings, its the City's fault for placing the light location there after not taking a careful site walk through, though the contractor should have talked to them about the problem. There should be a revocable consent on file for the step on the sidewalk that designers should have noted in drawings, else, the step is there illegally.
Tear up the step on City property? That's bad because then the rise to step up to the building is much higher and way out of code. Don't dare touch it or face a paperwork inspectional nightmare.
Lights on the sides of buildings is a good idea. Does the public pay money to put lights on the sides of private property? Is wiring sufficiently protected from the public and/or electricity theft?
I'm going to side with Matthew on appropriate use for these narrow side streets - pedestrians, Vespa riders, and low volume, low speed cars. No motor homes. Walking in the street is natural, much as with narrow streets in Europe because cars and mopeds are often parked with two wheels up on the sidewalk.
As an aside, on the subject of baby carriages, 32" of unimpeded width usually isn't enough. Arlington Selectmen recently approved a sidewalk seating plan that had 4' of passable width. All it takes is one parent with just a single-wide baby carriage at a table to constrict the sidewalk and block it for wheelchairs and Hover-rounds.
When I read "illegal step" I
When I read "illegal step" I was worried for a sec that your proposal would veer into tearing into things. That's what you tend to project when you bash a profitable train and cite lane reduction when Beyonce being stuck in traffic. And that's not the best balance to accommodating urban needs as argued in the past.
I'm glad you also take the same view as Matthew, at least in this case.
I'm pretty sure ADA requires
I'm pretty sure ADA requires a 4 foot sidewalk, not including the granite / asphalt curb
Pretty sure ADA requires "reasonable accomodations"
ADA isn't a building code per se. Four-foot sidewalks are probably not reasonable in the North End.
Still, that wouldn't excuse this lamp post, which doesn't seem particularly reasonable...
Fed and AASHTO Guidelines on sidewalks
are easily searched for. ADA ramps are challenging to retro-fit. Making a 4 degree slope on ramps make them long, and there is little room to work with on those sidewalks.
Narrow streets and sidewalks
Narrow streets and sidewalks are precisely why there is a tradition in North End of using wall-mounted luminaries at times instead of lamposts. If the ADA has effectively made sidewalks too narrow for lampposts, more luminaries should be used, preferably following the same look as is already present.
That's a great idea. Is the
That's a great idea.
Is the Boston DPW set up to install new building-mounted street lights?
Yes.
They have them on Stanhope St.
I noticed them for the first time this past Friday night.
Ah Stanhope - the Loft was legendary
How that street has changed since the days when I would go after hours to the Loft for the best house music in town - the techno on the third floor usually wasn't nearly as good, however. Various nights at different times had their own name. I even had a G-Spot membership card for going with woman friends. Thank God there was never a fire. It would be a death trap with the tiny stairway and big crowds.
The Loft
I remember the Loft from the late 70s, when it operated as an after hours gay bar, illegally selling alcohol. The way they got around this was by trying to frame it as a "private event". There were large signs that said something like "free refreshments--tipping STRONGLY suggested". Of course, they would never hand you a drink until you had "tipped" them first. The hilarious thing was that all this was going on directly across the street from Boston Police headquarters, which was located there at the time. There was no way they didn't know about this place.
Luminaries is much more
Luminaries is much more efficient use of space. The lamppost is taking absurd amount of space to light up the street. One question though, how does luminaries handle building property? I presume not every property owner would trust/want wiring and lighting mounts to the building.
The city can use its eminent
The city can use its eminent domain power to allow itself to affix luminaries as it sees fit. It would have to pay the property owner for the value of the taking, but it probably wouldn't be much, and the minimal effect of luminaries on the buildings can be shown from existing examples. It would be desirable for the wiring conduits (if external) to be painted to blend in to the wall.
Or the City can dispense with
the excessively large and expensive ornamental street light fixtures and use much narrower metal poles, which will provide the necessary sidewalk clearance. Color galvanize the poles black, and they'll fit into the environment perfectly fine.
No idea what you're arguing about
Comments are too long, didn't read, but I agree with the original complainer - many streets in the North End (and, on Beacon Hill, and in the South End) are too narrow. It's not just baby carriages, it's wheelchairs, people with canes, etc., who suffer from narrow sidewalks as well as uneven brick.
Colonial Bostonians didn't walk brick-laid streets - they walked on dirt, so there's not necessarily an historic precedent to having narrow brick sidewalks.
In many places, trees are to blame. There's little likelihood that trees would be cut down. I wouldn't want that, either.
So, the streets will have to become narrower.
Maybe remove that granite thing on the left
The city marks the case closed, with this note:
This is such a useless answer
This is such a useless answer from the city- they are doing how much work on this street, but they won't move a streetlight they just installed which makes this sidewalk impassable? The 'granite of some sort' is a step for safe egress of a building. The thing to note is that the city created this condition when they installed a super wide-based light on a narrow sidewalk. It seems likely that the light was not previously there because someone used common sense and chose not to create a pinch point.
Now, instead of the right thing - moving the light 3 feet or to the next appropriate interval- they did the lazy thing and placed it in a location it clearly does not work. Sure a stroller can just get out to the street, but It is doubtful a wheelchair user, or even a granny with a walker (there is elderly housing within 50 yards) can do so safely.
Failing score to the city for not resolving this.
Yet another useless answer on
Yet another useless answer on Citizens Connect. I reported the bumpy as he** bike lanes on Mass Ave between Comm Ave and the Harvard Bridge and they marked it Case Resolved the same day. I was like "wow that was quick" and of course when I was back over there they hadn't done anything at all. Then I re-reported it and someone from DPW called me and said "we couldn't patch it because the pothole patching would just make it worse, but it's on a list to be repaved in the next two years; and when they mark an issue as resolved often it has been forwarded to another department for further action." How freaking hard is it for the Citizens Connect people to just tell me what they did?! If they put it on a list or if it was on a list to be repaved, just tell me that, preferably with an estimate of when it will be repaved. Don't just mark it Resolved and then leave me guessing!
See, I was correct
The City never looked closely at the location, didn't have the step on any drawings, used the existing wiring/mount location, didn't plan or budget moving the lamp, and the contractor did exactly what plans called for.