Monte Vista street pedestrians... (Howe, Celeste: apartment, law, bus)

[LittleTPot]

My son and I take walks in Monte Vista every day, and I unfortunately have to walk on the street quite a bit. The sidewalks in Monte Vista end abruptly at the street rather than sloping down to street level, and it's true that many of the sidewalks are in serious need of repairs. Since I'm usually pulling him in a wagon or pushing him the stroller, it's a lot easier for me just to walk on the street. Bouncing up and down the sidewalk at every intersection is pretty tortuous for my son, but I admit that I don't feel very safe walking on the street.

[sapphire]

Originally Posted by manthechange

lame excuses...get back on the sidewalks.

You've posted a picture of yourself biking on the sidewalks at Trinity, no? Crazy hellion. Stay in the bike lane and we'll stay on the sidewalk!

And don't get your bike shorts in a knot. (tongue smack) iiiiiiiiiii/just playing!

[NeedCoffee]

Meh...
The intentions of city planners don't mean much to me if they can't execute their plans as intended. Discontinuous sidewalks and other obstructions contribute to making it a necessity to walk in the street at least 25% of the time.

Perhaps for my personal safety I should make an effort to get back on the sidewalk for the other 75%, but if I'm taking my life into my hands 25% of the time, what's another 75%?

BTW, here's the other sidewalk thread.

[scuba steve]

Too many giant brick mailboxes in the way of the sidewalks in my neighborhood... but I'm on the bike most of the time anyway. I wish there were some kind of initiative to get sidewalks built around the things.

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by manthechange

Sure - roads are for vehicles (Vans, Trucks, Cars, Motorcycles, Bicycles) sidewalks are for pedestrians. I believe that is the way every city planner in the history of city planning intended it to be. For your own safety, and for the safety of others, please use sidewalks.

Actually, that's not true (the part about what "every city planner" intended). I live in MV, and I totally agree with you that things should be different, but the majority of planners are trained in suburban-style planning, where the foremost consideration is for the automobile. Pedestrians are an afterthought (if they're thought of at all).

Most post WWII subdivisions, and even some older neighborhoods (Olmos Park & Terrell Hills, for example) suffer from at least one of the following conditions:

1. Sidewalks are non-existant. They weren't built because planners figured the automobile would make walking obsolete.

2. Sidewalks do not offer any meaningful protection for pedestrians anyway. This is really a problem in new subdivisions, where sidewalks are almost always built adjacent to streets that are too wide ("collectors" or "major thoroughfares") without any sort of barriers between the pedestrian and traffic (examples are street trees between the curb and the sidewalk, parallel-parked cars along the road, and narrower streets that impede automobile speed). Seriously - have you ever seen how fast people drive along a street that's 40', 50', or even 60' wide?

3. Sidewalks are so frequently interrupted by driveways, cars parked in driveways, or sections of sidewalk that were either never build or removed that it's literally impossible to traverse long distances (especially with a stroller, but also in rainy weather or at night). This, of course, is the problem in MV.

I sometimes walk the the grocery (the HEB at Olmos). It's simply not possible to stay on sidewalks going north on Howard or Belknap from Mulberry to Hildebrand. I can think of three sections within one block of my home where there are interruptions in the sidewalk.

It's not a behavior issue - it's an issue of substandard infrastructure and a lack of enforcement of cars blocking pedestrian rights-of-way. Even in a beautiful, walkable neighborhood like MV, we remained more concerned with making cars happy than humans.

[manthechange]

Originally Posted by dvlpr

Actually, that's not true (the part about what "every city planner" intended). I live in MV, and I totally agree with you that things should be different, but the majority of planners are trained in suburban-style planning, where the foremost consideration is for the automobile. Pedestrians are an afterthought (if they're thought of at all).

Most post WWII subdivisions, and even some older neighborhoods (Olmos Park & Terrell Hills, for example) suffer from at least one of the following conditions:

1. Sidewalks are non-existant. They weren't built because planners figured the automobile would make walking obsolete.

2. Sidewalks do not offer any meaningful protection for pedestrians anyway. This is really a problem in new subdivisions, where sidewalks are almost always built adjacent to streets that are too wide ("collectors" or "major thoroughfares") without any sort of barriers between the pedestrian and traffic (examples are street trees between the curb and the sidewalk, parallel-parked cars along the road, and narrower streets that impede automobile speed). Seriously - have you ever seen how fast people drive along a street that's 40', 50', or even 60' wide?

3. Sidewalks are so frequently interrupted by driveways, cars parked in driveways, or sections of sidewalk that were either never build or removed that it's literally impossible to traverse long distances (especially with a stroller, but also in rainy weather or at night). This, of course, is the problem in MV.

I sometimes walk the the grocery (the HEB at Olmos). It's simply not possible to stay on sidewalks going north on Howard or Belknap from Mulberry to Hildebrand. I can think of three sections within one block of my home where there are interruptions in the sidewalk.

It's not a behavior issue - it's an issue of substandard infrastructure and a lack of enforcement of cars blocking pedestrian rights-of-way. Even in a beautiful, walkable neighborhood like MV, we remained more concerned with making cars happy than humans.

Ah, developer, how I look forward to your posts. Good points, you've answered my question. I guess poor infrastructure, not humans, is to blame. However, that will never ease my disdain when passing a family of four taking up the entire oncoming lane and forcing me into traffic - next to an (empty) sidewalk.

oh, and Sapphire, those (extra wide) sidewalks at Trinity are for both bikes and pedestrians - just ask the Campus Security officers who ride on them every day. (Palin wink)

[sapphire]

Back at ya', toots.

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by manthechange

Ah, developer, how I look forward to your posts. Good points, you've answered my question. I guess poor infrastructure, not humans, is to blame. However, that will never ease my disdain when passing a family of four taking up the entire oncoming lane and forcing me into traffic - next to an (empty) sidewalk.

oh, and Sapphire, those (extra wide) sidewalks at Trinity are for both bikes and pedestrians - just ask the Campus Security officers who ride on them every day. (Palin wink)

Flattery will get you everywhere......my big ego must be fed....

[CelesteDF]

Originally Posted by manthechange

Ah, developer, how I look forward to your posts.

Originally Posted by dvlpr

Flattery will get you everywhere......my big ego must be fed....

Ah, how I love our happy little family of inside-the-loopers. And btw, MTC - just be glad you HAVE sidewalks. Us po' folk down in Tobin Hill (affectionately known as "The Slums of Monte Vista") hardly have sidewalks, let alone drainage. My street will have sidewalks for 4 houses, then no sidewalk for a block, then all of a sudden 3 houses will have sidewalks again. Hit and miss. And yes, I walk in the street down here, too... but at least I keep my bike in the bike lane.

[luckygreeniii]

We don't live in Monte Vista but with the several trash companies here, there are trash cans out on the sidewalk three days a week. Impossible to get around trash cans w/ a stroller so we do walk on the street most of the time.