Records from the recent paving of State road 117 indicate that our own Bill Care had urged, during the planning meetings for this project, that crosswalks be painted at the intersection of 117 and Pinch Rd. Now, why this was of interest to him was not recorded. But I suspect that it is because it is a dangerous intersection--frought with fatal peril.
However, when the project actually went down, the state said to Care, essentially, the entrance to the Campmeeting, across Pinch, leads to, aaahh, nowhere. So, they can't do the painted crosswalk there.
So, since that rejection, Care has been hell-bent to make a "receiver" end for that painted crosswalk that he wants across Pinch. Let's also admit that it gives his staff something to do for a month or so, as well as an excuse to use his "big toys." With a sidewalk in front of P&W's home, he can now request his coveted painted crosswalk.
Let's now talk about the reality of that scenario.
First, the Borough Council is not acting responsively to its constituents by carrying out this project. The Council has received any number of written and formal complaints about this type of "development" within the Chatuaqua. However, the Borough Council has never acknowledged and incorporated these concerns into their actions. Instead, they just do things like this project on the sly. FOr example, in the Sept. Borough Council meeting, they tabled this sidewalk project, essentially until P&W die. [That's a paraphrase of Care's comments, but I have it available on dvd for your review, if you would like to see for yourself.]
Second, you and your neighbor's elected this council, and, well, they can do what ever they want in this regard. As long as they spend less than ten thousand a pop, there basically isn't much to keep them in check.
Third, as with MANY other MGB commitments, this project serves noresident or property owner in MGB. It starts across the street in the Campmeeting, runs across a private citizen's property, and ends in, well, a road. It does not connect with another sidewalk, a park, a bench, nothing pedestrian or ped-like. Further, it does nothing to address the reasons WHY that intersection may be dangerous. And, whats more interesting, is that the residents that have really driven home the reason why that intersection is dangerous, have been ostracized and targeted for police harassment--all under the authoritative umbrella of authority from Care and the Council.
Fourth, the Chautauqua Board has adopted a "no more tree cutting" resolution, which applies to this project. Or, is supposed to apply---but is not really being enforced.
In the next couple of days I will post the video of the council tabling this project, and pictures of how it leads to nowhere. In the meantime, we are grieving the loss of a family friend-Toby. However, if anyone feels like it, I have the name of an attorney who is adept at filing Sunshine Act violations and will also file an injunction on this matter. I will gladly share it with you at your request.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
We enjoy walking from our home in the "Chautauqua" to see our friends who live in the "Campmeeting", and our friends enjoy the same walk to visit us. The true weak link in this pedestrian path of travel is definatly when we have to walk on the berm of Rte 117 and cross the interesection with Pinch Road. And this level of concern increases tenfold for one of our friends who has physical mobility problems due to age and disabilty. Standing on the berm, waiting for traffic to stop or clear at this intersection, is not safe.
I will welcome this sidewalk link, with the full hope that it is constructed properly by taking into the considerations of proper design for handicap use.
If the sidewalk is constructed within the dedicated right-of-way boundaries of RTE 117, then it is well within the law. Whether or not this was accomplished in a "kosher" manor, following all of the defined guidelines, may not be such the big issue when it is compared to the barrier of the existing condition.
Sometimes the sacrifice of individuals may trully be a benifit to others.
In an effort to strip out the emotions, I asked a pedestrian planner for some comments on the new sidewalk idea. Here are the comments: I believe the intersection feels unsafe for many reasons including the speed of motorized vehicles, the slope of the path from the Post Office to the Bridge into the Campmeeting, and the poorly defined intersection. Currently the intersection has 5 points of entry plus the parking at the pizza shop and the area in front of the news boxes. There is also, to a lesser extent, the parking on the campmeeting side of 117.
If they exist, I have not seen any drawings that clarify how the sidewalk will be installed and how (or if) it will be handicapped accessible. Given the conditions present it would seem unlikely that the sidewalk and crosswalk will meet the requirement of 1:20 slope and 1:50 cross slope. These ratios mean for every 20 inch or 50 inches of distance the slope is not more than 1 inch. It also does not seem as though a level surface exists at the base of the bridge to allow someone to safely orient themselves to the new sidewalk.
It is my feeling that the sidewalk might actually make the intersection more dangerous for the following reasons: the sidewalk will add 2 additional entry points into the intersection, vehicles stopping on Pinch road will need to stop further from the intersection and will likely inch through the crosswalk until they can see the intersection, and the speed of vehicles on 117 through this intersection might increase. I conjecture that the speed will increase because the intersection will likely appear larger than it currently does and in the execution of traffic calming, reducing the visual field likely will reduce speed and increasing the visual field likely will increase speed.
Although not design oriented, it is my understanding from the Borough meetings that for the project to occur, a portion of property must be taken from the landowner. It is also my understanding that the project was tabled due to significant funding issues that must be resolved due to the EIT issues. It is a fact that the Borough proceeded after the tabling of the project and topped the Christmas tree and installed another tree further up the hill.
I also want to add my 2 cents as a walker. We have 2 crosswalks already that are competely ignored and in my opinion create a hazard because a walker who enters the crosswalk believing the vehicles will stop is utterly wrong - the cars do not stop or even slow down for the crosswalks. This new crosswalk will provide just another expectation of something that is not going to happen. Vehicles will not honor the cross walk, and in the process, someone will likely get hurt. I think an effort to truly understand how to make the intersection feel safer would be a better use of effort than further exacerbating the existing condition.
I learned a lot from this previous post. Thank you to the writer from all of us.
What about a bridge? That could be built in a safe level manner and at a height that would allow people to safely cross without interacting with the traffic. I admit I love bridges and that does not solve the looming issue of land seizure. Perhaps the owners could charge a small toll ;)
There you go--thinking outside the box. Be careful about that sort of activity around here...
I looked at this area & saw where the telephone pole was on the corner land--isn't that where public land begins so this walkway would not be on the owner's property? I still do not get the 'bridge to nowhere' because it would go to the Camp Meeting entrance & to Princeton. So it would go somewhere! And it actually does look safer to me--think of baby strollers, walkers, canes, kids walking their bikes, people walking kids & dogs. They'd have some space between their wider berth & the road. :>)
The "to nowhere" based on the requirement that the DOT originally asserted: that a painted crosswalk starting at the campmeeting crosswalk has to cross pinch road and connect with another "sidewalk". Like the campmeeting sidewalk, the proposed sidewalk leads to no other pedestrian type route on the end that is in the Chautauqua. It just extends what comes from the campmeeting and feeds pedestrians into a very busy "intersection" in which cars are entering, exiting, changing directions, crossing lanes, etc. Don't forget that the chautauqua end of this sidewalk actually leads to three different "lanes" of vehicle traffic: one where cars are coming up and down Princeton, where cars are turning from/on to "chautauqua drive or stopping/accelerating from the post office entrance, and where cars are either traveling on 117 or travelling parallel to 117 as they use the mail box in front of the post office on 117. This is a very busy area--but busy with car traffic. So, that is what I mean by "to nowhere"--its a reference to the proposed sidewalk leading to no formal pedestrian route in the Chautauqua, which is the same criteria that PennDOT applied to refuse to paint a crosswalk across pinch.
In terms of the taking of private property, that is the situation as described by Bill Care. Apparently, his plans for this sidewalk require some portion of the front of P&W's property. But, because no drawing has been made available for this project, and because Care is the guy in charge of this project, we can only go by Care's assertions, which have been confirmed by the discussions occurring at the Boro council meetings.
Further, the slopes on site will require more intense excavating than is being publically acknowledged in order for the project to be done within ADA compliance. To my knowledge, there has been no public discussion of this element of the project.
Sure a short sidewalk there may provide a brief "sanctuary", but will it really provide for safe crossing across pinch road? Its highly debatable, and there are experts out there on this issue that can provide many more answers and guidance that will be more practical than just this seemingly uninformed approach.PennDOT hiway guys are not these experts--their focus is to get cars from one place to another. The real knowledge comes from pedestrian planners, traffic calming/safety experts, etc.--and PennDOT may have these people on staff. But they are not their Highway guys. You don't go the apple orchard looking for oranges...
The real issue is not that nothing should be done to make that intersection safer. The real issue is that we ought to be making a more concerted effort to get feedback from professionals as to how to make the intersection safer, and act on that. We do a lot of "wingin'" it around here.
Walking across the crosswalks where they are painted is probably the safest way around that corner.
I still think a telephone pole on a property means that this is where the owner's property line ends but you are correct: I am not a pedestrian planner. At least I now understand the sidewalk to nowhere idea! And I have the book Where the Sidewalk Ends.:>) Thanks.
Post a Comment