While walking through the West End today I reflected on the fact that that whenever a sidewalk meets a street or a laneway, the sidewalk dips down to meet the level of the road. Why can't the road rise to meet the level of the sidewalk? That would make it easier for people with mobility problems or parents with strollers to navigate. It would also force vehicle drivers to slow down or -- failing that -- to at least subconsciously recognize that other people, employing other modes of transportation, exist.
I did a search on the internet but found little discussion of this idea, except for Portland, Oregon, which is actively pursuing this alternative. Raised crossings, Portland estimates, cost only about $2000 U.S. each.. There are many sites devoted to sidewalk construction, but all of them assume that whenever a sidewalk and a road intersect, the sidewalk will have to slope down to meet the roadway. Even the U.S. Federal Highway Administration's thoughtful Bicycle and Pedestrian Program website makes this assumption.
Currently, it's difficult for someone in a wheelchair or on a scooter, or someone pushing a stroller, to navigate through our streets. At many corners there are no cutaways, or, if there are, they are only on one side of the corner, forcing the person in the wheelchair or pushing the stroller to take an even more hazardous path to the sidewalk on the other side (where, again, the cutaway may be on the wrong side of the corner).
There is hope though. A Vancouver City engineer told a recent meeting of the West End Residents Association that when sidewalks are rebuilt in the future they will stay at grade whenever they meet laneways, instead of sloping down to meet the laneways. This will be safer for pedestrians, as many drivers in laneways do not come to a stop before the sidewalk as is required by law. Considering the limited visibility for drivers at the intersection of sidewalks and laneways, this is a very unsafe condition. Confronting a built-up sidewalk will at least force drivers to slow down and perhaps make them more considerate and careful.
And while we're reconsidering the sidewalk-road interface, why not reconsider the notion of traffic synchronization? Currently, in Vancouver, traffic lights are synchronized so that drivers observing the speed limit will, under normal circumstances, encounter synchronized lights (i.e, if the light is green at one intersection when they approach it, the light will be green at the next intersection, providing they are driving the speed limit). What this means, however, is that the lights are not synchronized for pedestrians. While walking in downtown Vancouver I have observed that there is always a wait at every intersection. Why not increase the amount of time given for pedestrians to cross instead of forcing them to endure uncomfortable and frustrating waits at every corner? Considering the convenience of the pedestrian might encouragte more people to walk rather than drive.
We have made progress, nevertheless. As the U.S FHA site mentioned above notes:
For most of the second half of the 20th Century, the transportation, traffic engineering and highway professions in the United States were synonymous. They shared a singular purpose: building a transportation system that promoted the safety, convenience and comfort of motor vehicles. The post-war boom in car and home ownership, the growth of suburban America, the challenge of completing the Interstate System, and the continued availability of cheap gasoline all fueled the development of a transportation infrastructure focused almost exclusively on the private motor car and commercial truck.Initially, there were few constraints on the traffic engineer and highway designer. Starting at the centerline, highways were developed according to the number of motor vehicle travel lanes that were needed well into the future, as well as providing space for breakdowns. Beyond that, facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, environmental mitigation, accessibility, community preservation, and aesthetics were at best an afterthought, often simply overlooked, and, at worst, rejected as unnecessary, costly, and regressive. Many States passed laws preventing the use of State gas tax funds on anything other than motor vehicle lanes and facilities. The resulting highway environment discourages bicycling and walking and has made the two modes more dangerous. Further, the ability of pedestrians with disabilities to travel independently and safely has been compromised, especially for those with vision impairments.
This has changed in the United States, where Congress mandated the Department of Transportation to intergrate pedestrian and bicycle traffic into the transportation system. And the City of Vancouver in its Downtown Transportation Plan notes that the mmost popular mode of transportation downtown is by foot and puts pedestrian traffic as its number one priority. (See the City's 2001-2002 Pedestrian Study for some interesting statistics on pedestrian traffic.)
So there is hope. But we have to keep pushing in order to turn words into reality. Too many traffic engineers still see their mission as keeping vehicular traffic moving smoothly. In this respect, we lag behind the Europeans. Many European cities have whole streets and neighbourhoods blocked off to motor vehicles. In Vancouver, the closest we come is Granville Mall, which is restricted to taxis and buses. We still have a long way to go.
Posted by wetcoast at July 20, 2003 02:27 PM