Category Archives: Stockade Streetscape

new signs prove curbless bump-outs are just a pretty face

Posted on by
Reply

IMG_1878

IMG_1881

New signs were installed last week at Union Street intersections in the Stockade (two examples above) to keep vehicles from parking on the fancy brick “bump-outs” constructed more than two months ago. The “No Standing Here To Corner” signs confirm arguments made in our prior posting “our curb-less curb extensions” (July 7, 2020). The post explains why “bump-outs” without curbs fail to achieve the safety goals attributed to the traffic mitigation device called curb-extensions.

Instead, the so-called “bump-outs” of inlaid brick, which were created at the behest of Stockade Association leaders, are at best expensive and ineffective, and at worse likely to cause a false sense of security for pedestrians and others expecting safety improvements on our streets. In a nutshell: Without curbs setting them off from the street, brick bump-outs are not extensions of the sidewalk, they are part of the roadway, where vehicles are likely to park, blocking sight-lines, and over which vehicles are likely to travel, especially when making a tight turn. [see examples in collage below taken Aug. 20, 2020] Moreover, because without curbs they do not reduce the size of the roadway at the intersections, they are unlikely to achieve the other major goal of such traffic mitigation devices: reduction of the speed of vehicles.

    CurbsNeeded2  . . 

The “No Standing Here To Corner” signs installed last week by the City at each of the Stockade bump-outs (click on collage below this paragraph) are a tacit admission that drivers have been, and are likely to continue, parking on the curbless brick bump-outs. Our prior post pointed out that such signs were a lot less expensive and a lot more effective than the fancy brick pavement now adorning the Stockade’s Union Street corners. As installed, the bump-outs do little or nothing to assure the goal of more “daylight” and better visibility at the intersections, as they cannot ensure that vehicles are parked sufficiently far back from the intersection.

HereToCornerSigns

A New York State guideline on traffic calming and safety points out that vehicles can be expected to drive around, and not to park on, actual curb-extensions. When necessary, however, emergency vehicles are capable of driving over a curb to make a turn — far more easily than driving over a parked car that is in the way.

Despite the signs, many persons waiting on those bricks to cross the street, whether on foot, in a wheelchair, or on a bicycle, may not realize that they are waiting in the road, with less protection than if they were back on a sidewalk and behind a curb.

BO-Union-Churchfollow-up (Jan. 14, 2021): (1) No Longer a Pretty Face. Only six months after their installation, I’m afraid that dirt and grime (from tires and snowbanks) have eliminated the “pretty face” aspect of the bump-outs, which had at least pleased neighbors unworried about safety factors. [Photo to right taken Jan. 14, 2021, at Union and S. Church St.] (2) Pandemic Package Delivery: The great increase in vehicles bringing packages to Stockade buildings due to “pandemic” online shopping (including groceries), or fulfilling “take-out orders” from food vendors, has meant that far too often the curbless corner fancy bricks have a delivery vehicle of some sort parked on them while one or more deliveries is being made. With the cars of at-home workers taking up parking spaces normally empty during the day, the “bump-outs” are often the only “available” place to leave a delivery vehicle.

IMG_1902ADDITIONAL COST. In addition to the original high cost of installing the “pink street tattoos” at 12 Stockade corners, the City has now paid to install one or two of the new signs at each “bump-out”.  The signs, of course, only help solve the parking on the bricks issue. They do not narrow the street to calm traffic, nor shorten the crosswalks for pedestrians or prevent tight turns, which properly constructed curb-extensions are meant to do.

Clearly, the signs by themselves will not stop drivers parking too close to the intersections. 

IMG_1905

WHY NO CURBS. The only “explanation” I have received for the lack of curbs came on August 19 from Stockade Association president Susanne Unger. Suzy wrote:

I was given to understand [from City Engineer Chris Wallin] that they had to be flush because the handicapped ramps had already been installed.
 
There are many replies to that faulty reasoning.
  • First, of course, is that those corners and intersections were under construction (and re-construction) all year and part of the planning should have been an efficient incorporation of the access ramps into the bump-outs.
  • Next, our City engineers surely know how to design and install curb-extension access ramps, having done so all over town, including locations where prior access ramps were already in place but were re-designed.
  • In the name of handicap access and safety — and surely reducing expenses — the City left in place ramps that deposit those in a wheelchair or similar device on bricks that offer no buffer from traffic, as they are fully part of the roadway, and are not edged with curbs. 
  • And, of course, we need to ask what the Stockade Association leaders did when told the bump-outs would not have the curbs needed to perform adequately. Shouldn’t they have asked for the project to be postponed in order to find a better solution?

I’m still hoping that someone on City Council and/or in the media will take enough interest in these issues to find out the cost of the useless bump-outs, and the added No-Standing to Corner signs, and discover how the decision was made to leave out curbs, and later not to fix the bump-outs to bring them up to the definition of a curb-extension. 

The Stockade Streetscape Plan, which was the source and instigation for installing bump-outs on Union Street, told us that “bump-outs, if designed properly, will be one of the most effective means of providing pedestrian safety.” (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Streetscape Plan asserts often that “The City will not approve a bump-out that cannot be designed for both safety and function.” That promise was not kept. 

our curb-less curb extensions

Posted on by
Reply

View Post

John Coluccio & curb

Intro: It’s been a month since I wrote Schenectady Signal Control Superintendent John Coluccio, asking whether the new Stockade “bump-outs” will protect pedestrians despite having no curbs. A week later, I again wrote Mr. Coluccio, cc’ing City Commissioner of Services Paul LaFond and Stockade Association leaders, among others, asking if there are any Rules of the Road concerning whether or when vehicles may drive over or park on such bump-outs. Because I have received no reply from the City, and no substantive response from the Stockade Association, I’ve had to do my own research and draw my own conclusions. Below are my findings.

. . share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/curblessbumpouts

 

ORIGINAL POSTING [updates at bottom of page]

With NO CURBS or SIGNS to PREVENT PARKING on the bump-outs, the Stockade versions are significantly less likely to provide the hoped-for improvement in visibility of and by pedestrians, and may give a false sense of safety (especially to children). Although the bricks are prettier than asphalt, without curbs around the bump-outs, they are still part of the roadway for use by vehicles.

WITHOUT CURBS, Union Street is not actually narrowed in the Stockade, and vehicles (including bicycles) are likely to drive over them, especially when a larger vehicle is making a turn into a street where another vehicle is stopped.

  • hazardsignThe safety goal of having a shorter crosswalk to traverse with the bump-out is compromised when a pedestrian or wheelchair occupant is waiting for traffic on a curbless bump-out, as curbs offer an element of safety to those waiting to cross, and also require vehicles to make a wider turn. To the extent that a real curb-extension prevents parking close to the crosswalk or intersection, they allow drivers to see waiting pedestrians. That benefit is lost if vehicles are parked on a curbless bump-out. Curbs let all know that the “bump-out” is part of the sidewalk, not part of the roadway.

.

  • CURB-EXTENSIONS are Traffic Calming Devices that attempt to slow down traffic and increase visibility by narrowing the roadway, shortening the crossing distance for pedestrians, and preventing vehicles from limiting sight-lines by parking too close to the intersection. By definition, Curb-Extensions, and their “bump-out” subset at intersections, extend the curbline and sidewalk, using curbs (or other “vertical elements”, such as bollards, or  planters), to delineate an extension of the sidewalk and corresponding narrowing of the roadway and thus to guide traffic and protect pedestrians.
  • Bump-outs at other Schenectady locations all have curbs — with, of course, handicap access ramps. See, for example at Upper Union St and Dean Street, and along the Proctor’s Block, and the block of S. Church Street between State and Liberty.
  • As shown in the collage immediately below, the only illustration of a bump-out in the Stockade Streetscape Plan shows a prominent curb. Furthermore, the City’s experiment last year, at an intersection near City Hall, with analogous curbless painted pedestrian safety zones (which were a lot less expensive), added temporary bollards to help make the space safer (see Gazette article, Sept. 22, 2019).

    • When a comment was left online complaining about hitting a bump-out with a tire when turning onto Jefferson St. near Morrette’s, the response does not reassure the commenter that there will be no curbs to hit, but instead notes that getting used to the new arrangement will make the intersection safer for pedestrians.
  • The Stockade Streetscape Plan itself has virtually no discussion of bump-outs, only statements that they are important for safety and desired by Stockade Residents. There is a Traffic Calming Map showing proposed locations. In the Plan Appendices, however, responses to resident comments concerning bump-outs, are instructive although eerily repetitive. [Screenshots of the three relevant pages can be found at the bottom of this posting.]
    • The Glossary (Appendix A), gives this definition: “Bump-out. A visual and physical narrowing of the roadway where the sidewalk is extended to shorten the crossing width for pedestrians. Also known as curb extension or bulb-out.” Of course, without a vertical element such as curbing, there is no physical narrowing.
    • In addition, Appendix F states that “bump-outs, if designed properly, will be one of the most effective means of providing pedestrian safety.” (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Streetscape Plan asserts often that “The City will not approve a bump-out that cannot be designed for both safety and function.”
    • TEST STUDY? When a resident at a public meeting on the Streetscape suggested that a “test study be done,” the Plan commenter replied (at 86), “This may happen prior to permanent installation of bump-outs, similar to the “test” at the Liberty and Jay Street intersection.” There was no such test study, but merely a complete installation of all proposed “bump-outs”.
  • New York State and Federal design guidelines for curb extensions make clear that they do not mix well with storm drains, and must be located with them in mind. Nonetheless, most of the Stockade bump-outs incorporate existing storms drains. Since the City and Stockade Association have not revealed their design strategy to us, the most likely conclusion is that there are no curbs because curbs would block water from reaching the storm drains and working around them is just too expensive.
  • The failure to design the Stockade bump-outs around the existing storm drains, or to slightly relocate the existing storm drains to accommodate the bump-outs, is especially surprising, given the fact that the blocks in question underwent so much excavation, refilling, and resurfacing over the past year.
  • At p. 85 of Appendix F, the Stockade Streetscape Plan correctly notes:
“The proposed design concepts and considerations have generally accounted for the needs of all users, but the details must be confirmed through the design and engineering process”
.
  • That statement raises the question: Was SA in the Design Loop? Did the City ever inform the Stockade Association Board about the problem of storm drainage and the use of curbs, or visa-versa? At the very least, the subject should have been addressed earlier this year when City Council approved the Stockade Streetscape Plan and basically incorporated it into the City Zoning Code.
  • When did SA leaders know we were getting curbless bump-outs that were in effect not bump-outs or curb-extensions at all, and were less likely to achieve their safety or traffic calming goals? If SA was surprised when the first one went in without curbs, why did they not ask for the process to immediately stop? The SA president lives on that stretch of Union Street.

CONCLUSIONS

These are Not Curb-Extensions. The Stockade does not have bump-outs/curb-extensions at its Union Street intersections. It has very expensive brick designs installed at those corners, with no comparable expectation of driver compliance with the goal of less speed when going through the intersection or making turns, nor of parking further back from the intersections and crosswalks than has become traditional in the neighborhood, to enhance pedestrian safety through “daylighting“.

COSTS. Even without hand-laid brick, bump-outs are not cheap. The Federal Highway Administration pedestrian safety guide states that: “Curb extensions cost from $2,000 to $20,000 per corner, depending on design and site conditions. Drainage is usually the most significant determinant of costs. If the curb extension area is large and special pavement and street furnishings and planting are included, costs would also be higher.”

Were curbs abandoned by City designers due to the extra cost of working around water drainage problems? If so, were responsible officials and neighborhood representatives told that safety goals were being greatly compromised? [see Follow-Up immediately below]

Wallin-ChangeOrderRequest FOLLOW-UP (October 12, 2022): It wasn’t until last month that I discovered that the City Engineer, Chris Wallin, asked the City Council in April 2020 for a $200,000 Change Order specifically to add the Union Streeet Stockade bumpouts to a prior contract for repaving Union Street.  [click on the image to the right to see Mr. Wallin’s presentation to the Council asking for the Change Order.] Mr. Wallin told the Council that the change would implement as much as possible of the Stockade Streetscape Plan within the prior pavng contract. Without explanation, Mr. Wallin said that “flush pedestrian refuge areas” would be installed, that would have a “narrowing effect” on the road “corridor”. Mr. Wallin did not explain that:

  • the Stockade Streetscape Plan contemplated only real bumpouts, that is, actual curb extensions with curbs, with no mention or depiction of the CIty putting in bricks that are flush with the road; thus, the Change Order would not implement the Stockade Streetscape Plan recommendation for curb-extensions to achieve traffic calming. Instead, it sabotages the goal of enhancing pedestrian safety, at a price of $200,000.
  • that a pavement design installed with no vertical element delineating it from the roadway, cannot be considered to be a “pedestrain refuge,” where pedestrians can stand off the roadway while crossing the street. Flush bricks are merely part of the roadway.

No Rules of the Road. No wonder neither the City nor SA Board has given us Rules of the Road for curbless bump-outs. “Curbless bump-outs” is an oxymoron. They are non-existent creatures unknown to motor vehicle departments and roadway design teams. Therefore, to salvage at least a bit of the original neighborhood safety goals, signage and education are needed explaining that the bump-outs may not be parked on or driven over.

IMHO:

Very Expensive and Hard to Maintain. The inlaid brick designs are: 1] Not historically correct in a neighborhood that had cobblestones, not brick, streets; 2] Too similar to bricks used nearby for crosswalks (i.e., entering the Stockade at Erie Blvd. and at State and So. Ferry St.) that are meant to be driven over, and have been shown to quickly loose their aesthetic appeal; 3] Known to be difficult and expensive to maintain, especially under winter conditions, and thus given up by other cities.

BAD DEAL for the STOCKADE: For the past few years, Stockade Association leaders have been pulling their punches or acting like cheerleaders when dealing with City Hall. Some observers have felt their goal in not rocking the boat was to achieve acceptance and payment for the Streetscape Plan, especially the bump-outs and other traffic calming measures. If that was their goal, too much was given away in Association effectiveness and self-esteem given the bumpy results.

There must be a lot of lessons to be learned here. And, there should be accountability for the poor results.

=======

follow-up (August 19, 2020): No one at City Hall nor on the Stockade Association Board has yet replied to my questions about the rationale and efficacy of curbless bumpouts. I took the two photos in this collage on August 15, 2020, and added some editorial comments.

CurbsNeeded

IMG_1881 additional follow-up (September 9, 2020): The City has erected “No Standing Here to Corner” signs to compensate in part for the lack of curbs. As I have pointed out, such signs are a lot less expensive and a lot more effective for improving sightlines that are curbless extensions. Of course, drivers are still parking on the “bump-outs”. See https://tinyurl.com/HereToCorner

hazardsignSAD FOLLOW-UP NOTE (October 3, 2021): I had hoped the Stockade curblessness was an embarrassing error (caused by poor scheduling and an unwillingess to redo handicap access ramps) that would never be repeated. Sadly, neither my cogent arguments below nor commonsense prevailed. The City has finalized a state-funded downtown pedestrian safety plan that continues so-called bump-outs on a dozen corners that are totally without vertical elements like curbs or bollards to set them off from the roadway. See “Troublesome pedestrian safety plan was finalized in July“.

=======

PUBLIC COMMENTS and REPLIES re BUMBPOUTS: from Stockade Streetscape Plan, Appendix F, Final Public Workshop – April 22, 2019 Meeting Comments & Online Comments:

comments on the Stockade Streetscape Plan (with updates)

Posted on by
1

deskdude The Stockade Association’s Infrastructure Committee has put in a lot of work on the Stockade Comprehensive Streetscape Plan – “Streetscape Vision Project“, and I thank all of the members and officers for their efforts. Their accumulation of information on appropriate materials and tree replacements seems quite thorough and gives helpful guidance as we move forward. I offer the thoughts below constructively, and with the knowledge that reasonable minds can differ on goals and strategies, and the hope that differences will be heard (on all sides) with an open mind and without rancor. As always, these are merely “my opinions”, based on my own aesthetic values and experiences, and offered to get others thinking.

No matter whether you agree with my opinions and comments or not, I hope you will let the Association Streetscape Committee know your views. You can share this posting using this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/StreetscapeComments

  • Click: For a copy of the 55-page Streetscape Plan, [update: click for the Final Plan] and for the 80-page draft Appendices [or the Final Appendices]
  • The Stockade Association [“SA”] asks that comments be submitted by today May 4, 2019, on the Planning4Spaces Survey page. The form is not really a survey, but simply asks “Do you have any comments or questions about the Comprehensive Streetscape Plan?”
  • I apologize for putting up these comments on the last day, and hope that Streetscape Committee chair Suzy Unger will accept you comments even if they are slightly late.

red check follow-up (Dec. 23, 2019): There is a public hearing regarding Adoption of the Final Stockade Streetscape Plan at the Schenectady City Council meeting of December 23, 2019, at 7 PM.  Click this link for a copy of the one-page comments submitted by David Giacalone for the Public Hearing.

NOTE: Correction: As stated in the follow-up in the Public Art section below, there is an error in my Comments to City Council. While the use of Street Art is still proposed, the recommendation in the Final Draft of the Streetscape Plan that utility boxes be painted has been removed (as requested in this webpost).

The Literal VISION of the Stockade

When focusing on our Stockade streetscape, I believe is is especially important to reduce Visual Pollution in our lovely neighborhood. That might be especially important at a time when our society is trying to reduce distracted driving and walking, but it is surely a campaign for the ages.  Therefore, I believe that the Stockade Streetscape Plan [“the Plan”] should be explicitly trying to reduce or limit as much as possible, and not support, increased visual clutter, obstructions, and distractions.

DSCF4619 PUBLIC ART.

First, then, I disagree with the recommendation that “Functional features in the street environment, such as sound abatement, retaining walls, and utility boxes can provide opportunities for public art,” no matter who is providing the art or reviewing it.  [click here to see the page in the Plan on Public Art.] Despite the good intentions and talents of the Schenectady Art Society, and no matter how much street scenes in other parts of Schenectady may need to be perked up, our Stockade streetscape does not need and will not be enhanced by covering “empty” spaces with splashes of color and public artistry, such as the painted signal box to the right, which is at the SW corner of S. Church and State Streets, and the one below at the SE corner of Erie Boulevard and State Street.

DSCF4624

IMG_0491 Utility and signal boxes are bland for a reason – to be inconspicuous. Drivers and pedestrians (as opposed to casual strollers?) can do without additional distractions, especially at intersections. Click here for examples of SAS public art on utility boxes. It should not matter that the “art” is fun, cute, colorful, or “nice”. The question is whether the Stockade Historic District will be enhanced, and its appearance preserved, by the additional visual display. We might also wonder about needless controversy over a design that might be in place (and possibly deteriorating) for a very long time on your block.

PlanFinal-StreetArtFollow-up (Dec. 23, 2019): Although the Final Streetscape Plan continues to propose the use of Street Art in the Stockade (at 27; see screen shot of the page to the Left), the recommendation that utility boxes be painted has been removed. See Final Appendices, Appendix F, last Comment and Reply, p. 88). The removal of one of the most worrisome recommendations in the Draft Plan is much appreciated.

BANNERS
.
StockadeBannerBlue In 2011, I wrote and illustrated with photos that the Stockade had acquired “an embarrassment of banners,” when 31 nicely-designed brown banners were hung from telephone poles and lampposts on Union Street and South Church Streets in the Stockade. The first batch of banners were apparently deteriorated enough to require their replacement last year with similar blue banner, like the one on the left, which hangs on Union Street. The banners have increased in number, with additional blocks covered. As I said in 2011, they are too much of a good thing, even if someone else paid for them. The many arguments that I made in the 2011 posting seem just as valid today.  For example:
.
It does indeed make sense to have a welcome banner at the various entryways to the Historic District, aimed at both intentional visitors to the district, and accidental or inadvertent visitors or through-farers.  But, it’s rather difficult for me to fathom why anyone would want these banners on virtually every lamppost of our high-traffic blocks once you’ve entered the Stockade. . .  .
.

Unlike many other business and mixed-used sections of the City, Union Street in the Stockade is not a barren or blighted Schenectady streetscape that needs colorful or fluttering banners to improve its appearance, distract the eye, or provide faux festivity; nor is Church Street.

It comes down to aesthetics.   . . . putting up so many banners just seems like overkill — much too much of a good thing; and it sets an undesirable precedent for the creation and acceptance of visual clutter, and for the spending of money just because it’s available and offered to the Stockade.

To my eye, an overabundance of banners — a plethora of pennants — clearly distracts from the appearance of our community.

When looking east up Union Street from the corner of Ferry and Union, it is possible to
see a dozen of the blue Stockade District banners (when the leaves are down). Here are images of those banners taken May 2, 2019, with the banners numbered; click on a photo for a larger version:
Union St blue banners . . Union Street blue banners . . Union-Ferry-vieweastJPG
  • Also, to further diminish the image and brand of our Historic District, the blue banners are flying on two of the least attractive blocks in the neighborhood (S. College and S. Ferry from State St. to Liberty St.), which are NOT a part of the Stockade District:
S.Ferry banners  . . S. College banners
.
The Streetscape Plan and SA should, therefore, ask that DSIC remove the Stockade banners that are not actually serving a useful informational purpose at an entryway corner of the actual Stockade. Even 8 years after their first appearance, and with increased memory problems, I for one do not need to be reminded a dozen (or even four) times on one block that I am in the Stockade Historic District.
.
WIRES
.
wires - Cucumber at Wash Av No Stockade Streetscape Plan should be complete without a protest, and a strategy, concerning the increased density and ugliness of the utility wires that plague our skyward vision. That is especially true, because the wires have been rapidly descending lower and lower, creating an excuse to further cut back (amputate and mutilate) our trees. I think a lot of my neighbors have stopped looking up when on foot and in vehicles here in the Stockade, and all around our City. 
When preparing photos of the recent crop of Stockade cherry blossoms for sharing online and with email, I found myself close-cropping virtually every image to minimize seeing the mess of wires. For example, here is the actual and the cropped version of a cherry blossom scene just north of Union Street on N. Ferry:
.
IMG_0425-001 . . IMG_0425-002
.
What can we do about the utility wires?  A brain-storming session among neighbors and our governmental leaders could surely come up with a longer or better list, but here are a few suggestions:
  • State that it is the Policy of the Stockade Association to actively work with local and state authorities and utility companies to improve the visual impact of utility wires, with better-planned and revamped arrangement, and perhaps use of technological advances that reduce the number of wires needed for any block or intersection.
    • Explore funding that might be used to raise wires rather than destroy the beauty of especially attractive street trees.
  • Meet with City and State elected representatives to seek action that curtails the visual pollution caused by utility wires.
  • Include in any weighing of whether or not to save a particular large street tree, or parts thereof, its role in helping to block the view of utility wires. The removal of street trees often leaves quite a shock due to the unveiling of Wire Terror.
  • As this is a citywide problem, other neighborhood associations and civic groups should be encouraged to join in efforts to remove or reduce utility wire blight.

Continue reading →