See Post #508, from January 9, 2020 and earlier, on splitting the vote and political suicide. My numbers were a little off. But not much.
I live on one of the many “save the swales” streets in Vienna. It has sloped grass-filled ditches (swales) instead of sidewalks. I believe this was a fairly common cost-saving move back in the 1950s, which is why you find this layout in some of the older neighborhoods in Vienna.
This is not only picturesque as all get-out (compared to concrete sidewalks), but is also modestly more environmentally friendly than standard curb and gutters. The swales and culverts slow down the rainwater runoff.
This also makes it a pain to walk anywhere. Basically, you have to walk in the road, particularly on the spots where there is literally no ground or no level ground to walk on. And if that’s not bad enough, one portion of the pavement has been in terrible shape for years.
The oddball thing about it was that, as road surfaces go, it wasn’t in bad shape to drive over. There were no deep potholes, just a whole bunch of small shallow holes. Just enough to twist an ankle on.
But as a sidewalk, it really stank. And if weren’t for the fact that we have to use the road surface as our sidewalk, the condition of the pavement would hardly be worth mentioning. But, as it stands, I’ve taken a couple of falls in the past few months by stepping into those potholes while walking at night.
Which brings me to the point of this post. A few days ago the Town of Vienna Department of Public Works filled and smoothed over the key section of broken asphalt. I finally walked past that this morning on my way to Madison High School. This little bit of pothole filling is a vast improvement for pedestrians trying to get from my neighborhood to Maple Avenue.
I certainly complained about it enough when it was in poor shape. I figured it was only fair to say “thanks” now that it has been fixed.
Source: Google maps.
The point of this post is pretty simple: The cost of installing new concrete sidewalks various enormously. And the cost of the sidewalk itself — i.e., the 5′-wide ribbon of concrete — is the least of it. The bulk of the cost is in everything else that has to be done — curb, gutter, curb cuts, ramps, and, most importantly, drainage including storm sewers.
To make this point, I identified four sidewalk projects in the Town of Vienna, and estimated cost per linear foot. (Detail given below. This is a “sample of convenience”, being the first four projects I ran across.) The costs were $100, $150, $445, and $666 per linear foot of sidewalk. Presumably, if I’d looked at a larger sample of projects, I would have seen even more variation.
In the Town of Vienna, a) there’s really no meaningful “typical” cost for putting in sidewalks and b) in any given situation, the cost might be a lot more than you’d think.
The high costs of sidewalks — and the fact that literally “the sidewalk” is typically the smallest part of the cost — has some important implications for a couple of items that I’ve mentioned recently.
Robinson bequest for sidewalks. At the last Transportation Safety Commission (TSC) meeting, I found out that the Robinson estate bequest for sidewalks in the Town of Vienna was being interpreted as literally that: payment for the concrete sidewalk, period (Post #518). Depending on the project, then, the Town would have to pay for everything else to make that sidewalk possible. That’s certainly going to tilt the use of those funds toward simple projects where (e.g.) there is already curb and gutter in place, with no need for extensive modifications for site drainage.
Sidewalks versus road closure for the neighborhoods behind Sunrise/444 Maple West. At the last Town Council meeting, citizens offered some things the Town could do to address pedestrian safety and traffic in the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed Sunrise facility (Post #517). Among those was the idea of putting in sidewalks on (among other) Glen Avenue. But Councilman Potter suggested that simply closing Wade Hampton at Glen would be a less costly solution. And based on these per-foot costs, that seems like a plausible statement. Based on those four costs per foot, 1400′ of sidewalk for Glen Avenue (pictured above) might cost anywhere from $140,000 to more than $900,000.
Google Earth view of the Giant Food shopping center parking lot. Maple Avenue is at the top of the image.
When I was first introduced to MAC zoning, I assumed that, somewhere, somebody had done some hard analysis of how MAC was supposed to work. Much later, I came to realize that often was not true. Much of the analysis never went much beyond using current urban-planning phrases, combined with the hope that somehow those things would happen here. There really wasn’t any analysis of how, exactly, that would work on Maple Avenue.
I could list a few, but if you read this blog, you can fill those in on your own by now. If you want to see one, look at Post #302, on “destination shopping”. The last graphic in the post is a stark contrast between actually creating a true destination shopping district (in this case, the Mosaic District), and just saying those words about Maple Avenue.
In this post, I’m going to drill down into two related concepts: “Park once, shop many” and “mixed use trip reduction”. These are routinely touted as advantages of mixed-use development. My point is that if you actually look at the details, on Maple Avenue, you quickly realize that there’s not much there, there. Quantitatively, the impact of these factors, on Maple, is apt to be quite small. Continue reading Post #459: Park once, shop many and mixed-use trip reduction.
This will be my final post, for now, on the Chick-fil-A-car-wash.
Recap: The big surprise with the Chick-fil-A-car-wash is that the large transformers for the underground utilities sit in front of the building, adjacent to the exit for the drive-through, nine feet from the curb, directly next to the sidewalk.
At this point, I’m pretty sure that this is an oversight. In other words, it’s not that key Town officials and staff were aware of and actively approved this. It’s far more likely that it just slipped through the cracks, and got lost amid all the other details that had to be checked as part of the zoning and permitting processed. If they’d noticed it, they’d have had them put the transformers in an underground vault. Nobody intended to have this spoil the “MAC streetscape” at this location.
Some may care about the aesthetics of it, but I don’t. I look at this for what it is. It’s a grotesquely oversized fast-food joint on an urban arterial highway. It’s across the street from a gas station and a 7-11, which, in case you’ve never noticed, has a dumpster right next next to the sidewalk. In that setting, a couple of electrical boxes out front is not hugely out-of-place. (Shoot, in that setting, electrical boxes practically count as decoration). I realize the Town has higher aspirations, but it’s not as if these unexpected electrical boxes/transformers are some huge eyesore relative to what’s across the street.
In a nutshell, in terms of aesthetics, I’d say that this Chick-fil-A-car-wash achieves something I would have thought impossible: It makes McDonald’s look great. Side-by-side, next to the Chick-fil-A-car-wash, McDonald’s comes across as petite, unobtrusive and downright stylish.
Instead, I’m just concerned about the bike/pedestrian safety issue that the Town’s oversight has created. As I believe I have shown in the just-prior post, this is now the worst driveway in town for pedestrian visibility, beating out the driveway next to the Vienna Mattress Firm (aka the former Sleepy’s).
The new driveway at the Chick-fil-A is a worse than the Vienna Mattress Firm/Sleepy’s exit for several reasons.
Since the Town played a part in creating this new (potential) hazard, my feeling is that, if the Town’s experts see this as the hazard that I believe it is, the Town should do what it can, before the Chick-fil-A opens, to mitigate it.
First, I don’t think it’s feasible to get those transformers moved. Legally, I’m pretty sure the Town can’t require it. And I’m also sure it would be hugely expensive to do that, at this point. I think they are there to stay.
Second, the Town could put in signs and a convex mirror to make drivers and pedestrians/bikers aware of the hazard. Seems like that’s a fairly minimal ask. But, if done properly, would make that intersection even less appealing. Why? Ideally, the convex mirror showing the view of the sidewalk would be in the driver’s field of vision as they look at oncoming traffic, i.e., it would have to be placed at the curb, to the right of the driveway (as viewed when facing the building). So you’d be adding a large stand-alone mirror, on a pole, in front of the building.
Third, given that this the 21st century, the Town could use a more active technology, such as putting in a pedestrian sensor and warning light. The light would come on when pedestrians or bicyclists were approaching from the blind side of that driveway. Obviously that’s a more expensive and extensive undertaking.
Finally, the Town could go back and correct the original sin here. My understanding is that, originally, Chick-fil-A wanted the drive-through lane to exit across the front of the building, back to the access road that runs in front of McDonald’s. Basically, to let drive-through customers leave that property the way every other customer does. But the Town wanted/needed to claim the brick “plaza” in front of the building as open/gathering space. Roadways can’t count as open space. Hence the separate exit for the drive-through lane, and a pedestrian “plaza” in front.
I’ll note a couple of things. First, I don’t think people are going to use that “plaza” because it’s too close to the 123 traffic to be pleasant. So IMHO it’s there purely for looks. And it’ll look the same whether people drive over it or not. Second, the developers went ahead and put in protective bollards in front of the store front, as if to protect pedestrians from cars driving on that front “plaza”. So it’s already set up to be a driveway.
In theory, then, the Town could tell Chick-fil-A that it could go back to its original plan, if it wanted to. That would solve this issue for good, with some additional construction costs. They’d close the separate drive-through exit where the transformers are, brick over that portion of the drive-through driveway, and have cars exit by crossing the front of the building, driving over what is now the brick “plaza”.
Anyway, at this point, I’m done. I have no skin in the game. I’m not going to shop there, my kids have graduated from Madison, and I have no reason to use that sidewalk. I’m not a pedestrian safety expert, so it’s possible that I have made a mountain out of a molehill. But I do bike and walk Maple all the time, and, in my considered opinion, this drive-through exit will take the prize as the worst entrance onto Maple. At the minimum, I think it’s well worth having the Town have its own experts assess the situation, and, if the experts agree that this is a problem, do what they can to address the situation before Chick-fil-A opens.
I think this is now the single most visually-obstructed entrance onto Maple Avenue, by a slight margin. I’ll present details on that below. All things considered, I think the Town ought to consider adding a few safety measures proactively. Detail follows.
Note: My original posting exaggerated the difference between the Chick-fil-A exit and another visually obstructed entrance on Maple. This post is more nearly correct, based on more careful measurement.
Here’s one for the “why do I have to be the one to point this out” category. Remember MAC zoning’s promise of broad sidewalks, and a vibrant pedestrian walkable blah blah blah? Big selling point for MAC, right? Continue reading Post #421: Walk around them, our grandchildren shall.
This post looks superficially at what I consider to be some of the least-useful or most-puzzling suggestions in the Town’s multimodal transportation study. My discussion of the big-picture issues for that study is in Post #359. You can download the presentation summarizing the study here, from the Town’s website (.pdf).
What follows is not a systematic assessment. It’s just a collection of the items I found most puzzling or most unlikely at the time. Or the ones that just blithely assumed that (e.g.) existing parking and buildings could be eliminated. So these show the proposal and my immediate response.
Spoiler alert: No matter how sincere this seems to be, it’s actually sarcasm.
Suppose you have to design a new pedestrian-friendly retail area from scratch. Continue reading Post #303: Big Yellow Taxi