The Pedestrian Zone - not without its hazards.

I happened to bring my camera with me to the downtown mall this week to download a few photos at the library for my last blog entry and decided to walk on Sixth Street NE from East Market Street to the mall. A welding contractor (for the city I suppose) removed the bollards so that he could drive onto the mall and work near the Discovery Museum. The bollards were placed on the only sidewalk on that block creating the first major pedestrian obstacle I encountered as I was just entering the mall next to City Hall. If this is our pedestrian zone this is not an acceptable practice for contractors to use. What are these contractors thinking? Maybe they need a reminder that pedestrian spaces need to be clear of obstacles. Perhaps some notice needs to be included in permits to work on the mall so pedestrians don't have to contend with lazy and dangerous behavior on the part of contractors.

As I walked just two blocks further down the mall I encountered the Fourth Street East mall crossing being used as a loading/unloading zone. There are such zones available on the side streets and when I took this photo there were open loading zones. Again, this delivery person decided that there is no problem blocking the entire length of the crossing with the truck, trailer and ramp making pedestrian traffic have to avoid this fifty foot or so obstacle on the pedestrian mall.

So, in about three minutes I encountered two major pedestrian obstacles as I walked from Sixth Street East to Fourth Street East. Is this a rare occasion? I think not. As a frequent pedestrian on the downtown mall I find obstacles like these on a regular basis. This is not the only truck that uses the mall crossing as a loading zone. I routinely encounter Brinks trucks making money deliveries at local banks, building supply trucks unloading construction materials, and JAUNT buses, taxicabs, even private vehicles idling in the crossing for extended periods. I find it is more likely than not that there will be unnecessary obstacles to pedestrian traffic on the mall and the number of obstacles seems to be increasing. Perhaps there are occasional interactions between the police and flagrant violators, but I haven't seen any. If contractors and delivery vehicle drivers believe this is a reasonable and risk free behavior I believe pedestrians will find obstacles at an increasing rate.

Council has been alerted to these sorts of behaviors, but I believe some identifiable action may be necessary to encourage better behavior from pedestrian area violators. Perhaps more interaction with violators (warnings or tickets) are needed to get the message to those who ignore the pedestrian area regulations. Without any action by city officials, I believe the downtown area being a safe pedestrian area is in jeopardy.

Next time you walk on the mall, count how many unsafe and unnecessary obstacles you encounter. Perhaps with the rebricking of the mall, the city can actively work to make the mall a better and safer pedestrian zone.

Should the new downtown mall brick be placed in mortar or sand? Or is it best to repair the current bricks?

The most recent public discussion about how the bricks on the Charlottesville downtown mall should be repaired or replaced brought out a standing room only crowd at the city design space. The MMM consultants promoted the idea of replacing all of the bricks with new brick and placing them in sand rather than using mortar as the original bricks were installed. Apparently, MMM has determined that placing the bricks in sand is the current standard installation technique around the country. But, if we look at the recent brick and stone installed in sand at in the crosswalk at East High Street and Fourth Street NE, there is obvious damage to both bricks and stone due to automobile traffic.


This is already the second installation of these bricks. The first installation had significant settlement of the bricks and stone, and many of the brick and stone elements were chipped. But, the two photos of this crossing taken on July 5, 2008 show similar damage (but no further settlement). The stone pieces are loose and the sand between the stones and the bricks is no longer in the joints. Is this what we will see on the two vehicle crossings of the mall?



Another problem with the sand joints is evident in the sidewalk bricks by the Albemarle County Sheriff Office. The bricks have only been in place for a few months in the entrance to the Sally Port (where prisoners are loaded and unloaded behind the just installed steel gates), but the sand joints have lost most of the sand. And, in the sidewalk section near Jackson Park on East High Street, crab grass is growing in the joints.

I am curious what the difference in installation would be between these installations and that to be done for the hundreds of thousands of bricks proposed for the downtown mall. My guess is that there will be a significant maintenance requirement to keep the sand joints in good order. Is the sand installation better or worse than the mortar installation? I can't tell. The mortar installation on the mall lasted over 25 years with not much routine maintenance. Can sand installation really do better than that? Clearly the vehicle crossings won't do well if the installation is similar to the 'improved' installation at the pedestrian crossing at East High Street and Fourth Street NE.



I hope MMM and the city will make sure they consider if the problems shown in these photos will occur on the mall, too. Maybe repairing and replacing the mortar in the existing bricks is the best solution after all.

Caveat Pedes - "Let the Pedestrian Beware"

I just got to read the background material relating to my previous posting concerning making the East Fourth Street mall crossing permanent. After a public hearing on whether or not the mall crossing was consistent with the comprehensive plan at a recent Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Commission work session (where the public is not invited to participate) where the following recommendations to the city council were developed.

---

Planning Commission Recommendations to council on mall crossing issue

1. That the additional mall crossing be at 4th Street, East.
2. That the directional flow remain unchanged.
3. That the section of 4th Street between Water and Garrett Street be reopened as two-way and that new signage be placed there to insure safety and that in twelve months Council evaluate to determine if its changing to two-way has resulted in significant increase in cut-through traffic through the adjacent neighborhood and on the Mall.
4. That the Council be urged to reconsider its decision to close the 4th Street crossing during Pavilion events.
5. That increased efforts by law enforcement should be made to reduce stopping, parking and standing in the crossing and that the redesign should include spaces for drop-off.
6. That the final design come back to the Commission for comment.
7. Elimination of the two-hour parking spaces nearest the mall – consider eliminating all to avoid congestion – replace with a drop off area if recommended by the pending parking study.
8. Include better signage to direct traffic to the alley perpendicular to 4th and 5th Streets when 4th Street is closed at the mall.
9. Provide better design, striping, and signals at crossing to alert pedestrians and vehicles to the crossing.
   

---

To my surprise, the budget impact has changed dramatically - from an estimate of approximately $1 Million in construction cost to make the crossing suitable for vehicular traffic in prior council material to the following budget impact statement.

Budget Impact: There will be some impact on the budget to redo the bricks in this area and make other signage improvements. However, until there is a commitment to do major side street improvements in this area, there are no budget impacts anticipated other than those that can be absorbed through the mall improvements project.

Perhaps we have seen the trend of trying to flex road funds to benefit pedestrian and bicycle project development flipped to using pedestrian mall improvement funds to support automobile crossing construction that introduces rather than mitigates pedestrian safety issues.

Given that many people have been involved for several years in developing a rational set of facts and options concerning vehicular traffic options in the vicinity of the downtown mall, I believe we should have an opportunity to be part of this discussion through an informed public participation processs to understand what is actually being proposed here and to provide input.

One of the alternative solutions to facilitating vehicular circulation around the mall and to parking structures (that could possibly eliminate the mall crossing) was improved signage. Signage is now being proposed, at $1 Million, but it looks like the city is promoting both the mall crossing and signage. Where is the logic in this? And how is it that the mall crossing is now viewed as not having a significant cost associated with it? What are the facts here? Does anyone know? Or will the facts only cause confusion in this project decision process? So many questions remain.

I am not sure we as members of the public will be able even to comment on the proposed resolution at council on April 7 in that this may be considered an issue for which a public hearing has already been held. But, all of the proposed details of the resolution were developed without public participation after the joint council/planning commission public hearing on this issue.

Interestingly, the proposed resolution is all about vehicle traffic - not pedestrians. The only part of this resolution that addresses pedestrian issues is that pedestrians will be alerted to the vehicles using the pedestrian mall. So it is Caveat Pedes - let the pedestrian beware!

RESOLUTION (Proposed)

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville requested the Planning Commission to: (1) review the issue of an additional vehicular crossing of the Downtown Mall; (2) determine whether an additional vehicular crossing is consistent with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan; (3) provide guidance on whether the crossing should be at 4th Street or 5th Street; and (4) recommend the direction of traffic flow; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met on March 11, 2008 and made recommendations to City Council with respect to such issues; now, therefore

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Charlottesville that:

1. An additional vehicular crossing is permanently established at 4th Street, East betweenMarket Street and Water Street.
2. The southbound directional flow of 4th Street, East shall remain unchanged.
3. The section of 4th Street between Water Street and Garrett Street shall be re-opened as twoway and new signage placed there to ensure safety. In twelve months Council will review this decision to determine if changing the direction to two-way has resulted in a significant increase in traffic through the adjacent neighborhood and on the Mall.
4. Increased efforts by law enforcement will be made to reduce stopping, standing, and parking in the 4th Street crossing.
5. The final physical design of the 4th Street crossing will be presented to the Planning Commission for comment.
6. Improved signage will be installed to direct traffic to the alley running perpendicular to 4th and 5th Streets when 4th Street is closed at the mall.
7. Enhanced striping, signage and/or signals will be installed at the 4th Street crossing to alert pedestrians and vehicles to the change in traffic pattern.
   

Will City Council Ignore Study Results and Opt to Make Second Mall Crossing Permanent?

I got my email containing the April 7, 2007 city council agenda from the city. I was surprised to find the following item included:

7. RESOLUTION* Permanent Vehicular Crossing of Downtown Mall at 4^th Street
(1^st of 1 reading)

Having followed this project since the beginning, I am surprised that council is poised to simply approve this as a permanent crossing. I immediately sent the following email to Mr. Craig Brown, the City Attorney with copies to all of the city council members expressing my concern about the project and the process. I agree that reasonable people can disagree on issues of this type, but when virtually no compelling data has been generated through the actual transportation studies supporting this project (theoretically a basis for making a decision) - and the near $1 Million price tag for making this crossing into a permanent vehicle crossing I wonder how we got to this point. I guess the power of special interests can still trump field data and analytical findings that show degraded rather than improved performance in studies to date.

Of course my thoughts on this issue are based on my experience and information generated by the city and their consultants. But shouldn't there be some identifiable benefits to our community presented prior to making decisions of this type that impact our city in such significant ways and at a significant cost?

---

Sent to Mr. Craig Brown, City Attorney with copies to all city councilors on April 2, 2008

It is my understanding that City Council never determined that a permanent mall crossing was consistent with the Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan. Isn't that supposed to be determined before Council actually even considers which crossing (if any) should be a vehicular crossing? I thought council's next action would be to consider Planning Commission input on consistency with comp plan as a separate action - to then allow the public a fair opportunity to present their concerns about the issue.

Is it legitimate or even desirable to simply act now without following what appeared to be the process previously described by your asst. City Attorney when this issue was last discussed at council?

I am alarmed at the level of traffic using the temporary East Fourth St. mall crossing. The volume of traffic crossing and using the mall as a loading/unloading spot and stopping for long periods of time is ever increasing. I have not done any actual counts on that street, but it appears to me that the mall crossing (E. Fourth St. between Market St. and Water St.) may be among the most heavily travelled block in the North Downtown area. What was promoted as a convenience for visitors in getting to near downtown parking has become a major travel route and a major disruption and potential hazzard to mall pedestrians.

The last actual data collected for the crossing indicated that the original goals of the project (promote parking access, improve business sales, etc) showed results directly opposite of what the crossing was to provide. Without any new information, and based on my own frequent crossing of this area as a pedestrian, I can only conclude that this project demonstrates no truly credible benefits toward meeting the goals outlined for the project.

Is this a model of public policy making the city can be proud of? As a pedestrian and motorist in Charlottesville and resident of the North Downtown neighborhood I see absolutely no compelling data supporting making this crossing permanent. In fact, based on the negative outcomes of the performance measures reported, I see no compelling reason to even continue the temporary crossing. I am also curious to learn on what basis the city believes this crossing is even consistent with our comprehensive plan and the major goal of reducing vehicular traffic in the city and promoting pedestrian travel and enhancing pedestrian safety.

This is a project that appears to be running primarily on inertia and political influence from special interest groups in the city contrary to the stated goals, objectives, and stated review process for determining if a mall crossing is at all in the public interest.

Please let me know what the basis for having this action as listed on the council agenda prior to consideration of consistency with the comprehensive plan.

Sincerely, Peter Kleeman

---

Photo: From online posting of Dec. 11, 2007 article in the HooK