Pedestrian Improvements At Utah Place & Gustine Ave
I recently noticed some pedestrian improvements at Utah Place & Gustine Ave. Â To note the changes we need to look at a similar intersection, Utah Place & Spring Ave:
Scroll up and look at the aerial again, the ramps on west side of Gustine crossing Utah point into the center of the intersection, not at the crosswalk. Â These new improvements are a step in the right direction, but not without flaws.
– Steve Patterson
Please perform some research of the cost of these decorative crosswalks (which is stamped asphalt, not pavers). Whenever you realize that this is a special interest expenditure that costs on the order of $14-$18 per square foot, it becomes a blatant waste of taxpayer money. This City has deteriorating infrastructure and, as you point out herein, a lot of ADA problems and all that the REPRESENTATIVES want to do is decorate the areas immediate to their cronies. I'm tired of it. The government is here to provide the basic framework for private success and that's it. If someone wants a decorative crosswalk/fancy lights/landscaped medians, they can fund it themselves as the CITY CANNOT AFFORD IT and as a taxpayer and citizen I DON'T WANT IT EITHER.
“The government is here to provide the basic framework for private success and that's it.”
According to you.
Then, to YOU, Adam, what's the government's role? To beautify areas of special interest while letting areas that are in dire need of basic maintenance/upgrades rot? That's what you've indicated.
“Then, to YOU, Adam, what's the government's role?”
Oh, I don't know… to protect my basic freedoms in case a hateful or uneducated majority wants to teach me a lesson in “morality”, for example.
“That's what you've indicated.”
That's quite an interpretation. What ACTUALLY happened, is that I disagreed with you that the government's ONLY role is to provide a framework for private success. I believe the government also exists to protect its citizens from the damaging private “successes” of others, among other things, and in this case to provide for pedestrian safety.
IF your assertions are true that this is a case of special interests (for which you've offered not a shred of evidence), then I agree with you that there are other parts of the city in greater need.
Private success indicates that all legal citizens will be protected against any and all wrongdoing, as outlined in the United States Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and Amendments.
I am fearful of disclosing too much information about me personally, but I can assure you that the decorative crosswalks contained within this specific blog were installed using taxpayer funds under direction of the ward's alderman [audit the Board of Public Service's Citywide Sidewalk Contract for confirmation and specifics]. The simple fact remains that a decorative crosswalk treatment is selective and does not represent taxpayer fund conservation that is desperately needed in these economic times, let alone any other economic time.
Thanks for clarifying. Granted these are difficult economic times and taxes should not be spent frivolously. But you add “… let alone any other economic time.” In your opinion then, it is NEVER alright for taxes to be used for anything but the cheapest, most bare-bones public projects – even in a healthy economy when funds don't necessarily need to be conserved?
I don't like rolling across stamped concrete or pavers. The project could have been done for less money and still accomplished the same goals.
Agree – whether it's textured concrete or hand-laid concrete pavers, “different” paving materials at crosswalks rarely wear well, and end up being paved over within a decade. Better to add more curb ramps (in areas without them) and/or educate and penalize inattentive drivers. You've hit on one of my pet peeves with local government – it's much easier to find funding for new projects than it is to spend an equal amount on maintenance and repair/replacement.
Too many politicians simply don't get it – putting band-aids on the problem – a gateway here, an improved crosswalk there, while the rest is left to rot – is not a substitute for better, consistent maintenance everywhere. Unfortuntely, the reasons are simple, it's harder to have a photo op when there is no ribbon cutting!
The ramps, the pedestrian refuge and crosswalk designation are the most important elements. Paint is cheap, a good painted “zebra” crosswalk would have sufficed.
I think the bricks help remind drivers that they're not just driving over any old pavement, but that they've entered the portion of the street they must share with others–pedestrians. I don't have a problem with it.
The only “problem” here is that the money spent on different/unique paving could have been spent at another intersection for an additional set of curb ramps and refuge areas – more bang for the buck. The unfortunate reality (besides lack of durability) is that drivers who aren't paying attention won't be helped much by adding texture – if they can't don't see/react to a white-on-black standard crosswalk, adding brick red to the mix won't do much.
There are places that have flashing lights embedded in their crosswalks, or have flags available for pedestrians to wave as they cross, yet they still have problems with drivers “not seeing”. About the only effective way to improve pedestrian safety is to change the culture (see California), and that will require intense enforcement of existing laws, to scare drivers into paying attention . . .
The “brick” is rough; you definitely feel it going over it on some streets.
Thanks for clarifying. Granted these are difficult economic times and taxes should not be spent frivolously. But you add “… let alone any other economic time.” In your opinion then, it is NEVER alright for taxes to be used for anything but the cheapest, most bare-bones public projects – even in a healthy economy when funds don't necessarily need to be conserved?
Thanks so much for a wonderfully educational post.