When I had kids and started walking them around in a stroller, you learn really quickly where the sidewalks with ramps are, and you (and your toddler who likes to help!) come to appreciate the buttons that open doors automatically.
I run as well, and it's not fun to trip on uneven sidewalks. Sometimes at night I'd rather run on the road where I can count on a more even surface and no branches hitting me in the face. I think I'm more inclined to shovel my sidewalk in the winter because I don't like running on compressed snow that melted in the sun and refroze overnight.
So...yeah! Fix this stuff for disabled people, and other people get to benefit. Sidewalks are for everyone.
That's why here in Germany we have a separate term for that: "barrierefrei", which means "free of barriers". It is the politically correct variant of the other popular word "behindertengerecht" which merely means "suitable for disabled people".
Many people here think that "barrierefrei" is just about political correctness for its own sake. But the term "barrierefrei" emphases a completely different way of thinking about this issue: It is about removing barriers for everyone, with disabled people being the most important target group, but by far not the only one.
I see PC as a way to spread and to communicate empathy: Using words and phrases that don't paint a false picture of reality (and don't trigger prejudices) is IMHO a good start to get to talk with people more openly.
Of course, PC only works if you are doing it on your own, not if you impose it on the people you are trying to convince.
The flaw in the politically correct approach is often that it fails to empathize with those who don't yet empathize. And often resorts to shaming when it is unable to create the empathy needed to create action.
That's not really a criticism of political correctness, that's a criticism of one of the ways political correctness can be enforced.
But it's a bit weird to equate empathy for a condition beyond one's control with empathy for people who don't choose to use empathetic language.
I've been in a few classes or workshops where the instructors have taught people how to correct insensitive speech. It's something that can be done well.
I hope I did so in my first comment (criticism are welcome in case I failed): I introduced the term "barrierefrei" and explained why I prefer that term over the other popular alternative.
Personal anecdote: I was playing a game in college with some other students. One was periodically bragging about some particular sexual exploit in a roundabout way. I think he was looking for validation, but when he didn't get it, he tried again. I said something along the lines of, "That comment isn't acceptable and if you keep saying things like that I'm not going to play with you." It was definitely confrontational, it drew a line in the sand, and I didn't hear him say inappropriate comments for the months that we played together.
Half the struggle here is just deciding that someone else's behavior isn't acceptable and that you want to do something about it.
I am unsure if 'political correctness' was ever used non-ironically. It certainly hasn't been so for a very long time. Usually it is used as an attack.
Yes, it seems the most common use of "politically correct" is by people who are mad that others expect them to ponder how others might react to their words. The horror.
I suppose there is some chance that they are being slightly more sophisticated and making the argument that the expectations are strictly performative. But I doubt it.
The classic example of political correctness is the term "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas".
The use of political correct terms makes people mad because it contains within it an implication that they are being rude, and often the person coming up with these euphemisms has not the faintest idea whether the existing term was offensive or not!
Are there any real people that care about "Merry Christmas", or is "Happy Holidays" just milquetoast corporate speak chosen out of a preference for blandness?
If you live in a monoculture, I guess it doesn't matter.
But as an atheist of Jewish descent, what do I say to my co-workers, who are from Turkey, India, Korea and China? Of those who I know to follow a religion, none are Christian. It would feel outright silly to say "Merry Christmas".
(For comparison, try saying "Happy Hanukkah" to your non-Jewish friends as a non-Jewish person when the season comes, and see if it makes much sense to you).
It wouldn't bother me at all. Where I live, I get "Merry Christmas"-ed all the time.
On the other hand, different people are rubbed the wrong way by many different things. I do try to avoid going out of my way to avoid offending people, by, say, assuming they're Christians. And on the other, other hand, I'm fine with offending people who want to go out of their way to be offended.
I guess my usage of PC is then to be interpreted double-ironically:
I know that the term "barrierefrei" is PC, and I know that quite a lot of people will hate it for that reason alone. I use it nevertheless, because I think that PC terminology is actually a good thing (to be used, not to be enforced), and that "barrierefrei" is an especially well-chosen term.
PC-ness tells you nothing about the idea itself, but solely things about how the person responding to it sees it.
The most "anti-PC" people in the US have their own jargon and codewords and "safe spaces" with all the same restrictions, just turned on their heads. For instance, there are very few places you could go where people would tell you to your face that black lives don't matter, but a much larger set of places where it wouldn't be "PC" to wear a Black Lives Matter shirt.
Except when people lack empathy, they call it political correctness. My problem is I have not found a good way to teach empathy to someone who is lacking it, repeating someone elses story doesn't work and its hard to get other people sometimes to actively experience the same things that I have (even if its just listening to a story on the radio).
In children, reading fiction is supposed to be one thing that helps empathy.
There's also something called 'decompression therapy' that supposedly helped youths with psychopathy become less psychopathic.
The theory as I understand it goes like this: Everyone has a 'sphere of empathy', they empathize with those inside it but not outside. To a psychopath that boundary is their own skin, to a vegetarian it includes all animals, to a pescatarian all land animals... you get the idea. What makes people's sphere of empathy expand is feeling safe and empathized with, it allows them to risk the vulnerability of empathizing with someone who might betray them. But it's like voluntarily relaxing a muscle - the process is slow, and while the right pressure can help the problem point relax, too much pressure will make it tense up more.
When I was young, a long time ago, the term "politically correct" wasn't in use, except as the recorded reason Stalin gave when he sent people to be executed or imprisoned, namely that they were "politically incorrect." So I'm dubious about equating PC and empathy.
My recollection is that the first instances where I saw the term "politically correct" widely used, it was unironic and self-applied, in singles ads. This was in Seattle in the late 80s.
The issue with PC-culture is that it goes way, way beyond treating people fairly - I've never seen the ironic usage of political correctness applied to situation where it just required people to simply be treated fairly, the term is used when there's something ridiculous done to protect the appearance of treating people fairly or to prevent the risk that someone might get offended because of some interpretation (which has nothing to do with treating them fairly).
e.g. ESPN pulling veteran announcer Robert Lee off a University of Virginia football game because his name is too close to Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general is an example of political correctness in action, and that has nothing to do with treating people fairly (certainly the announcer wasn't treated fairly in this through no fault of his own), but to prevent the risk that someone might get offended;
Censoring Huckleberry Finn (for having the n-word in it, despite being a great anti-racist novel of the time) done at some institutions was another example of political correctness - again, there's nothing in the act about treating people fairly, it's simply a fight against "taboo" words or thought, and that is pretty Stalinist in some aspects.
> ESPN pulling veteran announcer Robert Lee off a University of Virginia football game because his name is too close to Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general is an example of political correctness in action, and that has nothing to do with treating people fairly (certainly the announcer wasn't treated fairly in this through no fault of his own), but to prevent the risk that someone might get offended;
Pretty sure that the announcer himself asked to be moved to another game.
There seem to be two different phenomena that are both called PC - they might be glibly described as preoccupied with victims and preoccupied with persecutors. If you're not a member of a group associated with victimhood, it's a good bet you've only ever interacted with the latter, but the former are actually motivated primarily by empathy.
> Fix this stuff for disabled people, and other people get to benefit. Sidewalks are for everyone.
This is something that bears repeating. Accessibility means making things accessible for everyone, not just people with disabilities. It's much easier to push a heavy dolly up a ramp, than it is to pull it up lips, steps, etc. Self opening doors are a god send when carrying packages.
I cannot agree with this more. I'm an able-bodied man who exercises at least five days a week. I definitely don't need any of this stuff, right? I have no problems stepping up curbs, taking even many flights of stairs, etc.
Until I broke my ankle in a bicycle accident last year. Then I became acutely aware of how poor some of the infrastructure is around me. The closest subway station to me doesn't have an elevator, for example, and the one nearest work only has a single elevator at one end of the platform that is often out of service. I supported accessibility standards in theory before this, but now that I've seen how they play out in practice, I strongly and emphatically support them. Empathy is hugely important.
I am also so goddamn thankful that there is the requirement to have sturdy handrails alongside all flights of stairs, and that this requirement is strictly enforced (thank the ADA or building codes or whatever is responsible). With these handrails, an otherwise able-bodied person on crutches can handle staircases relatively easily. Without them, stairs are death traps, especially going down. I would have been mostly confined to my apartment without the existence of these handrails. Fortunately, they exist everywhere, so I was able to tackle the stairs at my apartment, at the subway station, at work, and in the entrances to buses.
I became very aware of which subway stops have elevators after my elderly father came to visit us, and had to walk down the two long flights of stairs to the subway platform. (Luckily, there's one - one! - escalator that goes to the main mezzanine from the lower level, but if you're on the middle level, it's the staircase for you again.)
Another "temporary disability" that most people don't think of is carrying a baby. Suddenly, doors that can be operated one-handed (or even better, hands-free) are wonderful when you're trying to get your kid someplace where you can change that blow-out.
Yeah, the stations I was mentioning don't have escalators either. Few in NYC do. Contrast with the DC Metro system, which is much more recent and has escalators in almost all stations. Still not good for wheelchair users, but much better for people on crutches.
We used to live at Parkside in Brooklyn, and one night my wife and I carried a guy in a wheelchair up the stairs.
He had no idea how to check which stations were handicap-accessible and which weren't, and when we showed him, it turns out he would have to go halfway further into Brooklyn, then get on a bus just to undo the journey above-ground. At something like 1 or 2am, too.
He just sort of deflated when he realized the journey ahead of him, so we just offered to lug him up the stairs, and did. Good thing he wasn't there alone.
The DC metro has elevator access throughout the whole system as well. Judging by the frequent announcements I hear, there is almost always at least one or two elevators out, but they operate shuttles to take people with wheelchairs to the nearest station with working elevators when there is a outage.
No kidding. I'm a large person with a weightlifting hobby - so about as able bodied as a person can get - but after a frustrating experience of moving into a very poorly designed apartment building, I've started seeking out impediment-free spaces.
There's just so much unnecessary bologna, pointless stairs, poorly placed ramps, etc. are all functionally the equivalent of traffic and poorly timed traffic lights: they're taxes we pay with time and frustration because some designer made poor decisions.
If we're collectively paying for something, we're the boss and we have the gold so we make the rules. That means open source code, functional designs, and comprehensive cost-effective management.
It's important to remember that you're only temporarily able bodied.
Sure you're able bodied today. But if you're lucky enough to live to an old age, your body won't be what it was. And you could be hit by a car tomorrow and paralyzed.
This is such a classic example that the phenomenon of features designed for disabled people being useful for non-disabled people (for example, closed captions on TV) has 's name: the curb cut effect.
Funny thing is that in the suburban town adjacent to my city, the GOP platform for town supervisor (like a mayor) includes “fighting back” against mandatory sidewalks.
I don't know that town's situation but I don't think we should be reflexively against it.
It might be appropriate for them and the community. We don't need sidewalks connecting farms, and maybe if the neighborhood wasn't built with walkability / accessiblity in mind, people who need walkability / accessiblity don't live there and it'd be burdensome and wasteful to make it more accessible than anyone demands it to be.
It doesn't seem that unreasonable -- people don't like to be told what to do and a small town might have more pressing issues than sidewalks which, if we're being honest about typical suburbia, that almost no one uses. I think even the staunchest conservatives would argue that a robust network of sidewalks would be nice to have -- I think the issue is making it mandatory.
I think it's weird to make sidewalks your hill to die on but without context it seems like it could be a reasonable policy decision.
From another direction, how does "mandatory sidewalks" make medium density apartments more viable in that locale? Is it by putting the onus/cost on the city/taxes to develop the sidewalks, thereby acting as a subsidy for the apartment developer?
I don't follow this terribly closely, as its not my town. My understanding is that there's an overall focus on walkable infrastructure that is accessible to services and transit on foot. Some folks are unhappy with that.
There's a lot of dynamics at play. People who own property don't like the mandates because they potentially impact the value of the subdivided value (the builder makes the sidewalks, the municipality maintains them), many people don't want more people & school enrollment because that drives taxes, and old people are afraid of people who ride the bus for various reasons.
Most of us are arguing that it should be the city's responsibility to take care of the sidewalks, but beyond that, I don't see it any different than maintaining any other part of your house.
small government and self-reliance are pretty standard republican platform item. criticize that if you like - I know I sure do - but it's hardly inconsistent or surprising.
Cutting public infrastructure like sidewalks prevents self-reliance — it’s saying that anyone who isn’t able-bodied and affluent enough to afford a car doesn’t belong in the community. If, instead, you provide things like accessibility, public transit, etc. millions of people can actually contribute to society rather than being dependent on charity.
> When I had kids and started walking them around in a stroller, you learn really quickly where the sidewalks with ramps are
Yes. The first time we took our daughter on a subway trip in the city, and had to take many escalators to get from street to platform, back to street, was a real eye opener.
Mother nature does not want sidewalks to exist. A smooth, even surface is not something that exists naturally, it requires us to constantly evaluate, design, and repair. You can fix a sidewalk one year, then winter happens and the ground up-heaves and shifts the concrete, and it'll be another 5 years before you can circle back to do maintenance. Or someone plants a tree in their yard and over time the roots grow under the pavement. And as you already identified, you can't depend on people to maintain the sidewalks in front of their property.
We will never have perfect sidewalks, it's a noble goal, but it's pie-in-the-sky thinking to want perfect sidewalks. Instead, we should be building better accessibility devices, ones that can navigate tough terrain. Why are the wheels on mobility devices so damn small? Can they be made to be swappable so you can put on the outdoor wheels when you're travelling, and indoor ones when you want something smooth and quiet?
> We will never have perfect sidewalks, it's a noble goal, but it's pie-in-the-sky thinking to want perfect sidewalks.
We'll never have perfect anything. But I think you're being more than a bit defeatist here. I'm in the US Northeast and the sidewalk in my house was installed in 2008. Still basically flawless today. As homeowners, we accept that we need a new roof every 25 years because the consequences are real and tangible to us. I have to think that sidewalks are just part of the cost of living in a walkable community, even if we don't walk that much.
A few communities down, they require sidewalk maintenance for residents if the pavers are uneven at all. It's a very affluent borough, but you'll see people grind down the edges of the sidewalk that stick up in order to meet the code. So you can maintain without replacing.
And besides, we don't have this logic for roads. I mean, SUVs can handle anything, so why bother with all of this even pavement with good drainage?
>Instead, we should be building better accessibility devices, ones that can navigate tough terrain.
You're being downvoted for the first paragraph, but I think your second paragraph is sensible. My running stroller is way better at handling broken sidewalks than the scissor stroller with tiny wheels that fits great in a small trunk and works well at the mall. Strollers aren't super expensive (at least not $30k like that wheelchair) so I can have more than one and use the best one for my situation.
We see concept robots that can handle rough terrain. Wouldn't it be great if that got integrated into wheelchairs somehow?
>It's a very affluent borough, but you'll see people grind down the edges of the sidewalk that stick up in order to meet the code. So you can maintain without replacing.
That's kind of why I'm being defeatist. You just need a ton of money to keep sidewalks in good order. And you need the people that live in the area to care enough to report the issues.
>You're being downvoted for the first paragraph, but I think your second paragraph is sensible.
Yeah, I was really trying to setup the second paragraph to be impactful, but I don't think people got that far.
Damage to rigid pavements occurs more often in climate zones that experience multiple freeze-thaw cycles at the ground surface during a single winter. Many of the populated places in Canada freeze one or two times at the onset of winter, then stay frozen until the thaw, with maybe one more freeze after that.
Southeast Ontario, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. will re-freeze near the surface dozens of times every winter, and each time, more pavement damage is possible. Halite and other ice-melting chemicals can exacerbate the problem by making the ice in or under different parts of the pavement freeze at different temperatures.
You don't even need to do it properly the first time. You can seal pavements (and the underlying soil) against moisture infiltration at any time. Dropping a layer of asphalt on top is a common way to do this after the initial construction. Many places in the US simply do not bother, because that would cost a lot more up front, and then there would be fewer maintenance contracts to hand out. There's always the possibility that no one will ever complain, and the problem can be ignored forever--that's money that never needs to be budgeted.
If you build a proper foundation for a sidewalk, and then seal it against moisture, it will stay smooth and level for hundreds of freeze-thaw cycles, barring some natural disaster that would let the water underneath it. But if you're only mayor for two years, and the sidewalks last 30, nobody is going to come back to you 20 years after you leave office and pat you on the back for your wise sidewalk decisions. It is more likely that there will be some crisis right before the election and the money that could have solved it already went into great sidewalks. Or even worse, if you're a subdivision developer, you're out of there a year after the last lot gets sold, long before anyone notices how many corners you cut on the sidewalks.
All of this comes back to the prevailing attitudes in the US about who should be responsible for community infrastructure. We often expect private entities to build it, and public entities to maintain it. This screws up all the incentives. The reality is that subdivision developers probably should not exist. The municipality should be performing that function, instead of annexing every ad-hoc, ex-farmland housing development that springs up on the borders. That's how you get straight streets that connect at both ends, and good sidewalks that go everywhere that cars can. And then you can fire the zoning board, because when you build all the streets, you can control all the lot sizes and business parking requirements directly.
Not sure why it all has to be paved, using tiles or bricks works fine here.
We do have some problems with ZOAB-based paved roads if the freeze/thaw cycles are too high, but any big problems are repaired in two or three days, and all roads are maintained and replaced relatively quickly anyway, so it's not a big deal.
It's strange to see the broken roads and patchwork in the US. Every time I visit I wonder why there is no majority that agrees on fixing it. Short term "it works now" is such a bad idea...
That definitely would not work in Atlanta. They don't have the freeze-thaw problems there, but using tiles or bricks is a horrible idea, for two reasons: weeds and ants.
When weed seeds fall into a crack and germinate, the roots dig down into the sandy substrate looking for soil. If you prepare the foundation correctly, the weeds die before establishing a viable foothold. So then you have a choice. Pull the weed out, and the crack widens and a little bit more of the substrate is disturbed, or let it stay there and decay, leaving some nutrients. Either way, they next weed seed that lands there will have a much easier time of it. No matter what you do, decaying organic matter will eventually filter down under the sidewalk surface, and something will be able to grow in it. Temperate evergreen pines and magnolias drop leaves all the time--not just in autumn--so you would have to sweep them off daily.
Ants just love making huge excavations one grain of sand at a time. If you build a brick sidewalk, and do not continually spray it with ant-killing insecticides, you will eventually experience a big section of it collapsing into swarming ants, possibly without any obvious prior indications that ants were digging under the sidewalk.
> You just need to make them properly the first time and keep people from...
Surely you see the comedy in that statement? I don't think anything happens right the first time. And preventing people from doing anything is pretty tough as well!
> I don't think anything happens right the first time.
This is irrationally pessimistic.
Nothing is perfect, but there is a huge, meaningful difference between slightly flawed and completely flawed. It doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to be good enough.
Many things _can_ be done decently well the first time. Often times it just takes a small cultural mindset shift, and some minor improvements to the approach.
Did you read the entire article? The main problems the woman are having are with lack of curb cuts, lack of sidewalks, and obstructions in the sidewalk, even on new construction. This has nothing to do with "nature wearing things down" and everything to do with them simply not being built correctly.
Some of the mentioned sidewalks are one hundred years old, and are thoroughly decayed as a result. I bet if every road you had to drive on was in that condition then you'd be upset about it and would demand repairs, rather than just throwing up your hands at the inevitability of entropy. Maybe you want to go live out in primitive conditions in the jungle somewhere, but the rest of us want civilization. Your logic applies equally to roads as it does to sidewalks, so should we just give up on them as well?
> Your logic applies equally to roads as it does to sidewalks, so should we just give up on them as well?
No, but I wouldn't drive a low-riding sports car if I lived in an area with crappy roads. I'd buy a pickup truck with good suspension and large knobby tires.
The problem is that accessibility devices don't have the option of "good suspension and large knobby tires".
Every problem that woman experiences is because her wheelchair is not built for the environment she operates in. We need better wheelchairs. Yelling at local state government to fix sidewalks will not work. There are millions of miles of sidewalks to fix and hundreds of thousands of people responsible for them. You can't change that quickly. But you can build a better wheelchair.
> There are millions of miles of sidewalks to fix and hundreds of thousands of people responsible for them.
Again, I don't think you read the article. The sidewalks are in the best condition in cities like Boston, where they are the responsibility of the city. Cities are already responsible for constructing and maintaining roads; is it really so crazy that they do the same for the sidewalks that are built adjacent to roads? In what way does it make sense having hundreds of thousands of individual owners of patches of sidewalk 20 m long? You're throwing away all economies of scale there.
Good sidewalks benefit everyone. I've almost injured myself from tripping over a particularly uneven patch of sidewalk, and many people have actually injured themselves. The elderly and the blind who walk won't benefit from better wheelchairs, but they certainly will benefit from better, flatter sidewalks. Everyone benefits.
I read your comment to see why you were down voted. The first paragraph is fine. Although, as an Italian, I beg to differ. The Romans were quite capable of building roads that are walkable 2000 years later. Not all. But it is 2000 years.
Then I read the second one. Wow. You've internalized the "have bad infrastructure and get an SUV" mentality. We're not paving the world. We're paving a small part of our environment where people live. Yes strollers have stupid wheels. But having good infrastructure in a small area means I don't need a techno-distopian robot walking me everywhere.
Interesting that we reacted to his comment so differently.
There aren't always perfect solutions to problems. Sometimes futurologists are found waiting for the perfect, inexhaustible source of energy to power the world, but the practical consensus is that our renewable world be a mix of solar, wind, hydro, and some sort of more-advanced atom-splitting. Find multiple angles to chip away at the problem until you get where you want to go.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say "let's try to get all sidewalk cracks under an inch" and then say "let's get wheelchairs that can handle an inch-high crack", as an arbitrary example.
I mean, if we want to talk about unintended benefits - my most mobile stroller was purchased as a running stroller to be used on a rail-to-trail, then I found out it could handle bad sidewalks pretty well. Isn't that the same argument as my top-level post, just from the opposite side?
Even more so, why do we expect the state to pay for roads, which are only for drivers, but not to pay for sidewalks, which are for everyone? Sidewalks are just roads for people who aren't driving cars at the moment.
Logically, if the state were going to cover the costs of one of them, it'd be sidewalks, since they can be used by all taxpayers. You could have road users pay tolls to pay for the roads, and people who don't drive could simply opt out.
Mother nature also seems to want lots of us to die from smallpox and polio. Sometimes(1) you've just got to tell Mother Nature to take a hike and human it up.
(1) Not always and usually in moderation, but definitely sometimes.
You can have it, but only if your country is built on the idea of making sure that shared systems (like infrastructure) is maintained and checked, always and forever, and no corners are cut because someone wants to get rich quick.
In our country, our roads, bike roads and sidewalks all have to adhere to the same base set of rules, everywhere. They all have to be there, be maintained and it's not optional. If you have a sidewalk in front of your house and you want to clean/maintain/service it, that's great, but the country will check it, clean it, maintain it. We have sidewalk-streetcleaners about once a month, driving to every sidewalk and if any structural damage or loss of markings is seen, it's noted and fixed during the next maintenance round.
Regarding ramps (as outlined in the article), there is a guarantee that you will always have a clear path between two points, with no hard barriers. So no fences in the wrong place, ramps always facing ramps on the other side of the street, all with the same inclination. No hard edges, everything is rounded off ever so slightly (reduces wear/tripping/hooking dirt), and it's against the law to block any of it.
Properly installed concrete or properly installed sidewalks? Unless you're pouring footings below the frost line, a slab sidewalk will heave in freezing climates.
"Mother nature" also wants you dead and your component atoms spread across the planet. Are you going to get with the program or keep going for as long as you can?
Whew, never thought a comment about wanting better wheelchairs would attract so much vitrol. You want me dead because I posted a thought about sidewalks and wheelchairs on a message board?
I don't want you dead. I don't know you and on general principle would like you to lead a very long life. Mother nature, though, she's after your hide!
While I understand her frustration with the lack of sidewalk ramps, the article went on to describe other places her wheelchair cannot go - like small lips in doorways, or small branches.
Pavement cracks. It should be fixed, but that takes time and money. And able-bodied pedestrians are unlikely to report minor cracks. Shouldn't a $30,000 wheelchair be capable of traversing commonly encountered impediments? Cracks in pavement, small branches, doorway thresholds? The article states her wheelchair cannot. That seems like a major design flaw to me.
There's lots of different types of chairs, some that can handle things like broken sidewalks.
https://www.gogrit.us/freedomchair/ is one example I found. The lady in the article said she was paralyzed from the chest down, which might make some of these more "rugged" chairs difficult. Your core does a lot of the balancing required with moving over non-level surfaces.
I've always wanted to see a comparison of the costs of improved sidewalk infrastructure versus better wheelchairs. Intuitively, the problem of building a wheelchair that can smoothly traverse a curb seems tremendously cheaper then installing and maintaining sidewalk ramps everywhere.
That ignores that those ramps are used by more than just people in wheelchairs. Folks with children in strollers, elderly with walkers, people with suitcases, ...
My wife broke her ankle this summer and we spent 2 months with her rolling around with a knee scooter, it was interesting to see the number of sidewalks without ramps is larger issue then I expected.
It doesn't seem like it should be a huge expense to add one in the grand scheme of things and seems way more flexible than adapting everyone with varying needs with some sort of device. Also, given this isn't a new problem it seems like it might be possible that building wheelchairs that can go up stairs and be practical might not be as simple of a project as many here seem to believe.
It doesn't ignore those things, it just recognizes that they are small secondary effects. We would never consider building ramps everywhere for strollers or suitcases because the benefits are just obviously not worth the cost. Walkers are fine to consider, but in my non-representative experience, folks who use walkers who can't handle a curb rarely use a walker outside; they use the walker indoors and a wheelchair outside.
Yes the world is a disorganized, bumpy, and unwelcoming place for folks using wheelchairs (or scooters), but the question is how to ameliorate that problem economically. "Not huge in the grand scheme of things" does not help us decide which strategy is better, and is an attitude that fails to address the huge invisible drag induced by thousands of individually modest requirements.
Going up multiple stairs is a completely different problem. It's naively quite plausible that it's maximally efficient to modify wheelchairs so they go over curbs while still putting ramps and elevators in public buildings wherever there are multiple stairs.
One day you will be old and less physically capable than you are now, and maybe then you will change your tune. It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people.
Also, I'm a physically able-bodied person who exercises most days. Even I have almost been injured from tripping and falling over uneven surfaces in sidewalks while walking or running. I don't understand why you think it's so unreasonable to demand that sidewalks be built and kept in good working condition. It costs a totally insignificant fraction of overall tax revenue, way less than we spend on roads and mass transit, for instance.
Ignoring a cost-benefit analysis and attacking the motivations of people who don't agree with you is a good way to ensure no constructive discussion takes place.
Reducing the ability of people to participate in society at all to a cost-benefit analysis is even less constructive, and does nothing more than to dehumanize the less able bodied.
You didn't perform a cost-benefit analysis though. You simply asserted that it is "obviously so" that spending money on infrastructure isn't worthwhile.
Here's some counter-evidence: It doesn't cost anything more to include proper curb cuts and such when the sidewalk is first built. The stadium infrastructure in the linked article post-dates ADA legislation requiring such, and yet was simply not built properly.
You're committing the logical fallacy of referencing a logical fallacy without actually refuting the content of what's been said. I suppose that'd make it ad hominem? Non sequitur? Red herring? Etc.? Please engage with what I've actually said.
Do you really not see the problem with a fully able-bodied person saying that we shouldn't bother making any concessions to less able-bodied people by asserting that "it's obviously not worth the cost", without providing any evidence of such? To me, it is obviously worth the cost to build proper sidewalks, as everyone uses and benefits from them.
I wasn't taking a stance on the question of sidewalks, and I wasn't attempting to engage with most of your comment. I was pointing out that you were committing Bulverism. Bulverism is bad independent of anything else in your comment.
We have a question: "is it cost-effective to build better sidewalks?" You think the answer is obviously yes. Jess does not think the answer is obviously yes. The thing to do here is to try to work out why the two of you disagree.
The thing not to do is to accuse Jess of being unable to put himself in others' shoes. That's Bulverism, and it's shit. You can't just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally deficient. Apart from being factually inaccurate, and unconvincing to anyone who isn't already convinced, it's a massive failure of empathy.
I'm not interested in having a meta-conversation about logical fallacies that may or may not be in use in the actual conversation at hand. It's just a big derailment.
I'm not seeing a shred of fallacy in their argument. They said that one day, the other person will likely be in that same position that they dismiss now. And, given everything we know about aging, that's not far off.
"It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said.
Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)
Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less.
Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)
""It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said."
Completely wrong. As I said, we are not robots. We do not operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic.
"Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)"
In what way?
"Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less."
Do what less? Speak in things that aren't programming statements?
"Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)"
I very much do believe they lack empathy. And quite frankly, I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.
I said like four different things (not incompatible/persuasive/Bulverism/should not have been said), and I'm quite sure you don't disagree with all of them, but I'm not sure what you do disagree with.
I certainly do not think that people are robots who operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. That is not even close to a thing that I think, and I think I can vaguely see how you got that impression, but it's just wrong. I'm sorry, I sometimes trigger that impression in people, I know this but I'm not very good at avoiding it.
> In what way?
In what way would I like to be called out? "This is Bulverism" would be fine.
> Do what less?
In this specific case, Bulverism. At other times, other kinds of speech too, like slurs, gibberish, factually untrue statements. (This is not an exhaustive list.)
> I very much do believe they lack empathy.
Well, uh. Okay. Tangents upon tangents, but - do you think that because that's the only possible explanation you can think of, for why he said what he said? Or some other reason?
I note that your stated beliefs about my internal experiences do not match my actual experience of my internal experiences. Does that make you less confident in your beliefs about Jess' internal experiences?
> I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.
Again, not even close to what I'm pushing for. (For example, "it should not have been said" is not a pure factual statement.) Also, I'm not sure what problem you're referring to.
In regards to sidewalks, is that true? Serious question. I've been to several European countries, but never gave a second though to sidewalks, which leads me to believe they weren't noticeably better or worse. With all the older city centers, I would imagine there are some pretty bumpy and uneven road and sidewalk surfaces?
Old cities in Europe can be well maintained, but I don't know the US well enough to make a comparison. The age is no problem, though presumably it makes some repairs more costly.
Sometimes the street is paved with cobblestones, but missing stones are still replaced. I doubt any street in any city has been untouched for centuries, since at points it will have been dug up to lay sewers, water pipes and power cables. The difference with America, is that it's more likely the street was put back the way it was after the pipes were laid.
I think you're glossing over a ton of complexity with your "less random" comparison, because Lund is 2x the population density of Princeton. Given that sidewalks are highly linked to population density, they're probably not a good comparison.
Princeton is also a special case because it's a community that has a lot of fights about trees. Cutting down trees is heavily regulated there, you literally have to apply for a permit to cut down a tree (though I believe there are exemptions for emergencies), and the township and community are committed to the aesthetic of shaded roadways throughout. That almost universally (basically everywhere but right downtown, and even a fair amount there) means planting trees between the sidewalk and the curb, which in turn leads to increased damage to sidewalks from tree roots, so maintaining sidewalks becomes more expensive. It also means that sometimes you have to decide between having a flat sidewalk and doing enough damage that winter might kill a tree that's been growing for 30+ years. Those are things that are important to a lot of people living in town.
I've lived next door to Princeton off and on for 20 of the last 30 years, hence the unnecessary knowledge of their social emphasis on trees. I think it's nice. I haven't seen any complaints about disabled access at the township level, and nothing came up in a quick google search.
As someone who lives in New Jersey in an area that often doesn't have sidewalks (Watchung Mountains) at all, you've reminded me of a related issue, which is that adding sidewalks can be exorbitantly expensive and impractical.
Most of our roads are old colonial paths. They are twisty, high speed (these are main roads people use to get places), and cut into the hillsides in places. There's no curbing, no shoulder and no storm drains.
The roads are lined with big old trees, utility poles are a foot or two off the side of the road, bridges are barely wide enough for two cars, fences and even houses are sometimes right up on the edges of these roads.
----------
They looked into putting in sidewalks on one of those roads at one point. It was going to cost millions of dollars and embroil them in lawsuits forever.
Huge numbers of old-growth trees would have to come down, multiple bridges would have to be built (or the road ones would need to be rebuilt wider), the drainage ditch would have to get replaced with curbing and storm drains, a couple people with old houses that closely abut the road would no longer be able to use their driveways (which are currently just long enough to fit cars and not be in the road)....and on and on.
Not surprisingly, the idea was dropped and never brought up again.
A town with a median income ~20% below the national median, mostly because it's got a huge population of non-taxpaying resident college students. Yes, they pay tuition, but that is all spent on Rutgers' campus and doesn't make it out into town proper. Similar issues are common around large campuses in NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, etc.
You seem like you're fishing about until you find a decent parallel, rather than actually having a decent one as a result of well researched comparisons.
But more importantly, is the random production of poor sidewalks ever going to be convincing? If your point is "Western Europe does it better," it seems like the appropriate evidence would be statistical in nature, and if you don't have it random examples aren't actually a convincing alternative.
I'm not sure that even given your selection criteria I could do so, but if I did your methodology is still fundamentally flawed. There is very little reason to continue attempting to prove an argument if you know the outcome is fictional because the method of proving it is flawed.
People with suitcases, prams and walkers can easily get up kerbs. Wheelchairs are a totally different matter, mainly because of the weight they have to carry (it would probably help the woman in this article if she lost some weight).
It should definitely be possible to make a wheelchair that can go up a single step. Especially for $30k.
> it would probably help the woman in this article if she lost some weight
You know how awful this sounds, right? I'm not sure you meant it the way it sounds. Please clarify. Do you mean that by reducing the physical weight of her body you think the sidewalks would somehow be easier for her wheelchair to navigate? Hopefully not because that's absurd.
> It should definitely be possible to make a wheelchair that can go up a single step. Especially for $30k.
It's not like there is no innovation in this area (see the "tank chair" for a good example). But there are many obstacles, of many kinds, here. Of course.
This is not just your comment: All through this thread people who haven't thought the issue through in detail seem to be waving their hands at the real problem (environment is not suitable for all users) and proposing these ad hoc solutions as though nobody has thought of them before.
Until we can all float around in hoverchairs, we need the damn sidewalks to be functional. I have no problem thinking outside the box but at some point you have to come back to reality
> Do you mean that by reducing the physical weight of her body you think the sidewalks would somehow be easier for her wheelchair to navigate?
Yes of course. For uneven pavements and similar. It's simple physics. It sounds like it would need a redesign of the wheelchair to go up full kerbs, but it would definitely be easier to design that wheelchair if the weight limit was 100kg rather than 150kg.
Weight gain is kind of part of the disability if you have a mobility problem, or, you know, actual paralysis. This is a ridiculous transfer of responsibility from those who design and maintain the environment, to those who experience disabilities caused by the failures of that environment's design and maintenance. I want to be polite but also clearly express how angry this idea makes me. Also I disagree on how much the physics of a power chair would be affected by this. Yes, maybe it would be marginally easier if heavier wheelchair users were less heavy... In fact, it would be even better if they could walk. That's about as practical an idea.
We cannot control the person's physical size or abilities. We can broaden the range of humans for whom we design things by doing better work. That's all we can do. That's what we should do.
> People with suitcases, prams and walkers can easily get up kerbs.
This is far from true. Curbs are a huge issue for people who aren't totally able-bodied. You've really never seen a frail elderly person who is walking with the assistance of a cane or a walker struggle mightily with a curb? Not even your own grandparents or other aging relatives?
"It is often difficult or impossible for a person using a wheelchair, scooter, walker, or other mobility device to cross a street if the sidewalk on either side of the street ends without a curb ramp. It is also dangerous. If curb ramps are not provided, these individuals are forced to make a difficult choice. They can either stay at home and not go to their chosen destination, or they can risk their personal safety by using their wheelchairs, scooters, or walkers to travel alongside cars and other vehicles in the streets. This is a choice that people with disabilities should not be required to make."
While I think the management in charge of the stadium sidewalks failing to cut the curbs goes beyond negligence, My thought process for much of the article was "why didn't the husband just roll her over the curb".
That is because I was envisioning a standard wheelchair with large wheels designed to be propelled by the user as well as a helper. YouTube is full of wheelchair curb hopping (and more) instructional videos. I had visions of picking my ~100LB wife up over a big stair/whatever.
Anyway, I'm going to basically agree with you, and say that it appears that motorized wheelchair manufactures are partially to blame here. That wheelchair is more like a motorized bed than what I would consider a wheelchair.
So whats the excuse (regulation cant be all of it)? Particularly now that battery technology has gotten to the point where the battery packs to move a person around for 10-15 minutes (see electric scooters) are just a few lbs, and materials technology allow us to build mechanically stable structures which are also super lightweight. Without going into questionable tech, i'm sure I could build a large wheel segway style device with a low center of gravity seat that could just drive over most curbs. Probably could even do it for less than $30k... We wouldn't even be talking about cracked/broken sidewalks at that point. In fact, I was having a similar conversation with a friend the other day about certain SF style devices probably being in reach for locomotion today.
Yeah, the "rascal" kind of mobility scooter is designed more for suburban use; being mounted on the back of a car or van, and designed to travel in public places where they are used sparsely; supermarkets, etc. They simply aren't designed for a lot of urban travel, and it's a bit unrealistic to expect all sidewalks to be able to handle a three hundred pound bed on casters essentially.
Intuitively, one might think that fixing wheelchairs is cheaper than fixing sidewalks - but if the numbers in the article are typical, that may not necessarily be the case.
According to the article, "Chicago [...] spent $140 million in five years repairing sidewalks and pedestrian rights of way". The cost of the author's wheelchair is $30 thousand. If we assume this cost is typical, fixing sidewalks would have been cheaper than replacing 5000 wheelchairs with new all-terrain models - and would have benefits for residents and visitors without wheelchairs too.
> A standard, manual wheelchair costs an average of $500, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation . A chair meant for everyday use costs between $1,000 and $2,000 depending upon the features of the chair, which can include an individualized seat, various types of wheels and a lightweight frame.
Not to mention those fixes last decades. How long does a wheelchair last, especially an electric one? Better to improve infrastructure than vehicles. Imagine if we gave up on road maintenance and told everyone to just buy a jeep wrangler.
That's on top of making life easier for seniors with walkers, parents with strollers, kids riding bikes on sidewalks, etc. I mean you have to build a curb eventually, might as well slope it down when it intersects with a sidewalk. Its not a radical idea and those Chicago curbs would have been replaced eventually with the new ADA standards, its just that federal money made it happen sooner.
I always wonder when the topic of accessibility comes up why many here on HN jump to it's cheaper to adapt the person than the environment (it also feels like a bandaid solution a bit). As you've just shown with your example I don't think this assumption is obvious and probably deserves more time and study to demonstrate one way or another.
Not necessarily. There is no reason that the government couldn't choose to pay for advanced wheelchairs for those that need it. Just like the government could pay to fix the sidewalks instead of offloading the cost onto homeowners who already can't afford much. Certainly one needs to be done, the parent was just curious of what the comparative costs and benefits were.
> There is no reason that the government couldn't choose to pay for advanced wheelchairs for those that need it
And how many electoral cycles do you think it'd take for that program to be canceled, given the 'American disease' of not wanting tax dollars spent on 'other people'?
The problem is, even if you create a massively improved wheelchair (as several startups have done) you'll get absolutely destroyed by certification; and even if you get passed that hurdle, you'll have to sell it via medical supply merchants which often have monopolistic contracts for wheelchairs...
My point is, if it was just as simple as producing a better wheelchair and selling it, it would have happened already. This is like hearing aids all over again, and why most certified "medical device" hearing aids you can get on medicare are over ten years behind the technology curve (or more) and cost more than an iPhone X.
Something in this article really jumped out at me:
"...plus only 16.9 percent of Atlanta households have no vehicle..."
Really? "Only" 16.9%? If I told a product manager that "only" 17% of people use iOS 9, so we don't need to support it, I'd get laughed out of the meeting.
Sure, but if your product manager had a long history of systematic racism, and iOS 9 was only used by minorities and the poor, he might tell you to focus your efforts on the nicer parts of town... err, different operating systems.
They still unironically call MARTA (the public transit in Atlanta) "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta". They also won't be connecting the new Braves stadium to MARTA because they don't want "a certain type of person".
EDIT:
Wanted to add that race plays a role in what income you receive.
An identical resume with the first name changed from Tyrone to Brad receives three times as many callbacks. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf
First point: Why is it bad when I (allegedly) turn Americans against each other based on race, while perfectly fine for you to do so based on income?
Second point: the reason why many low-income people also tend to be minorities isn't because we live in an unlikely universe where coin flips keep coming up heads - it's due to a diligent effort on the parts of many people to basically keep black people down in the gutter. It's disingenuous to say "oh, it's not about race, it's just about income" in this situation.
That 16.9% tend to be poor and black, and therefore don't matter. Racism is still alive and well in the greater Atlanta area.
Hence why the new Braves stadium isn't getting Marta. Cobb County views Marta as "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta", and previously both voted down public transit and made a 10 foot wide city on the border called "Chattahoochee Plantation" to protect against the perceived encroachment.
i'm also kind of surprised it's as high as 16.9%. Not having a vehicle in Atlanta is horrible unless the stars really align with your work/life situation.
It's worse than that. Even in the households with vehicles, there will be members who are unable to use them due to age or disability. So at the very least they will be dependent on another family member for basic getting-around-town capabilities. Together with households that are too poor to afford a vehicle, about 31% of the US population doesn't have access to a car. (Note that is inclusive of non-driving children -- but IMHO they should be able to use the city, too.)
This is why public transport and good urban design are so frigging important. Imagine if some other demographic of this size were forced to be dependent on others for going shopping, going to the doctor's, etc. It would be an outrage, because, in truth, it is a outrage.
As someone that elected to get rid of their vehicle, and lives in a pedestrian friendly city, when I go to the suburbs to visit friends it can be tough. There are many areas where the choice is walking on the side of the road, in dangerous proximity to cars, or walking in a ditch or through trees. If any area is within a mile of a train or bus station it should easily be walkable, but many are not. Crossing streets can mean running through traffic of mile long detours.
Many city and the suburbs at Large in the United States have a failure of urban planning and people friendly travel at a disastrous level. The reasons for this are multi tiered, but this is something that should be fixed.
It's not so much a failure of urban planning as a difference in priorities. It's something that you think should be fixed because you're used to a different environment and have different priorities. Suburbs weren't designed for being walkable. I hate that this article "targets" the millenials like it does, but I do like the write-up about the change of priorities that has taken place [0].
This is a HUGE problem here in the south. I moved from Arizona to Georgia in 2012 and the two things I noticed immediately are: There are hardly any sidewalks outside of the city (and people routinely are forced to walk on the side of the road), there are almost NO lit highways. Even major interstate highways that go through the heart of Atlanta aren't lit! Both of these strike me as enormous lawsuits waiting to happen.
I'm in Austin and there's a weird thing with sidewalks here. They're pretty common, but occasionally you'll run into a situation where one side of the street has sidewalks, and the other side doesn't. Then they'll frequently alternate. So if you needed to use the sidewalk and didn't want to walk on the street, you'll have to cross the street multiple times. It doesn't make any sense at all.
Not sure which county you are in, but here in Georgia in the metro area where I live side walks are mandatory in new subdivisions and they all are accessible from street level and if not there then from each driveway they pass through. we also get sidewalks in with a certain range of all schools and that is done if the road is repaved or changed.
there are still a lot of opportunities for more but even the silver comet trail is mostly accessible from where I have used it (that is a very long and convoluted trail system built upon old rail lines).
I hate this so much. Bike lanes that re-appear on the 'wrong' side of a traffic lane, magically, on the other side of an intersection. Sidewalks that end for no reason and begin in others. It's this terrible patchwork where nobody's responsible for anything to actually HAPPEN and we just hope and occasionally enforce the regulations on NEW construction.
So someone builds a new apartment complex and BAM, they're forced to pay for a sidewalk, which I'd be fine with, except there are no sidewalks anywhere else, so it's just a waste for everyone.
Lighting up large sections of highway causes massive light pollution (which not only is ugly, but is detrimental to nature) along with high energy consumption and maintenance costs for not all that much in safety benefit. I'm generally skeptical of the value of doing so for a long highway rather than just at interchanges/the like.
Small and midsized US cities desperately need a small (or large) urban planning revolution. Cars are considered the "default" too often, especially in cities under half a million in population. It's these cities in particular that need to have an increased focus on pedestrian and assisted walking infrastructure.
I keep telling this to anyone who'll listen. I have cousins living in a small affluent US city, and every member of that family has their own car. To me as a European, that's mind boggling. At the same time, I've tried to make it in that town without a car before and while you can mostly get by with a decent bicycle, trying to walk anywhere is pointless. Everything is designed with cars front and center. Parking everywhere, "small" roads are four lanes, sidewalks just randomly stop in the middle of nowhere, leaving you with the option of backtracking, venturing out in the road, or – if you're lucky – cross lawns to get to where you're going. More often than not, the side of the road is your only option if you want to keep going.
Crossing streets is easy if you're fit and a reasonably fast walker, but the lights are timed to be quite fast, leaving those less able bodied or slower to simply be stranded in the middle (usually there's a stop) meaning a single crossing turns into two. Fortunately, drivers in this area seem to be fairly friendly to pedestrians, and will yield to people crossing the street.
One of my cousins came to stay with me for a few months this summer, and this is when she truly got what I've been saying for years I think. She got by mostly with her own two feet, wherever she was going. When she needed to travel further, I got her a travellers card. I'm not sure she even knows where to find a bus stop in her home town. (Neither would I.)
When people think of "urban planning" their minds often jump immediately to large-scale infrastructure changes or totally designed cities built from the ground up, but it's exactly these sorts of little things that are actually the most important.
Yielding to pedestrians, like you said, is an element of infrastructure, and it's cheap as hell to change attitudes about it.
Parking is absurd. Planning codes have mandated numbers of parking spaces for businesses, so if you want to develop land your only option is to turn it into a strip mall. LA is an asphalt hellscape precisely because of this, parking requirements have made it so there is over 4.2 square meters of asphalt PER PERSON, just for parking alone.
I only own a bike but live with a partner who has a car and I know it would be difficult to go completely without in my city (~300,000 pop.) I, like many people my age, am planning on moving to a larger more urban city that will have more public transportation and bike infrastructure, but I recognize that this isn't really the answer. Comparatively poor American millennials and gen-Z's that continue condensing populations into urban centers leaves even less incentive for long term change in mid-sized towns.
> Yielding to pedestrians, like you said, is an element of infrastructure, and it's cheap as hell to change attitudes about it.
I suppose it's an attitude that is cheap to maintain, if it is already common. But I don't know how to change into that system in a place that does not have it already. Teach it in driving schools and wait for old drivers to die?
> Teach it in driving schools and wait for old drivers to die?
Or pass and enforce laws about yielding to pedestrians. The difference between Oregon (with some of the most pedestrian friendly laws that are actually enforced) and California (where I've watched cop cars slowly roll through crowded crosswalks) is pretty marked.
The US could really use a complete leveling like what Europe got from the world wars. Being able to redesign everything from scratch with modern sensibilities would be great.
This is hilarious to me because usually what pro-car apologists say is that the reason European cities are more walking-friendly is because they're so old and have pre-car street grids.
Which isn't entirely wrong, but the fact that American cities are hostile to walking was still a collective choice on our parts, the advent of the car didn't mean that we had to explicitly favor them at all times, that was something we decided to do.
"Anybody who travels back and forth across the Atlantic has to be impressed with the differences between European cities and ours, which make it appear as if World War Two actually took place in Detroit and Washington rather than Berlin and Rotterdam."
I have a lot of American family and I think a lot of them don't think it's actually true that you can build a city where you don't need a car. They've heard it, but assume it must be for novelty's sake and for REAL trips you drive, of course, because who could carry groceries? It's really hard to convince someone otherwise if they know no different.
I actually understand why: from chatting with my US coworkers whenever they visit us, I found something that I find fascinating: grocery shopping is something that only happens at most once a week, usually less often. Because supermarkets are far away from offices and residential areas they only buy groceries very infrequently (compared to me, who does it maybe 4-5 times a week). It makes sense given the urban planning: you get to the office by car and go home by car, so grocery shopping isn't an opportunity that presents itself frequently. Compare it to me: I'll bicycle or take the metro every day and my route (and everyone's really) passes by more supermakets than I can easily count.
It's more than a matter of habit or novelty, you can't get people to change unless you offer them an environment where that change is beneficial to them.
I'm a single person and I don't go to the grocery store very frequently, and can still easily carry a week's worth of food back to my apartment using a backpack. If you're willing to use a cart (and a lot of people do use them for shopping) you can bring back even more.
I think the problem starts looming when you're trying to buy food for many people once a week. You either need all of those people to come with you to help bring back the food, a motorized vehicle, or a cargo bicycle.
To be honest, I cheat a little bit - after having a kid I started getting groceries delivered.
Regardless, though, I think a lot of my family (obviously a small sample size) just don't really think it's possible. They're so used to everything being a barren asphalt landscape that it just isn't possible to conceive of a practical place where you don't need to drive. I don't even blame them; I lived in it for 30 years and had a hard time imagining anything different myself (though when I did experience it, I desperately wanted to live in it and worked hard to make it happen).
Getting groceries delivered isn't cheating at all. It's paying extra money to save time, which is often worth it for highly-compensated people. Additionally, if that is one of the main reasons you'd need to own a car, and getting groceries delivered allows you to not own a car (or to own fewer cars), then it ends up being a cost savings to you and better for the environment.
> which is often worth it for highly-compensated people
You don't even have to be highly compensated for it to be well worthwhile. Where I live (in NZ) it costs less than 6USD to have groceries delivered. There are other major advantages other than the time and fuel savings. For example, if some non-perishable item is on special (say tinned tomatoes), you don't hesitate to buy a couple of dozen tins because, hey - you don't have to lug them about!
Fair enough. Here Instacart costs a good deal more than that, but there are also cheaper alternatives. I will admit I've never used any of these services so I don't know what the prices look like, but if it's only costing you USD 6 to get groceries delivered but it's saving you a bunch of time and hassle, then it sounds like it'd be worth it for most people.
"Fortunately, drivers in this area seem to be fairly friendly to pedestrians, and will yield to people crossing the street."
That's part of the infrastructure too. Unfortunately it's a part that is easily lost. I went to university in a city that had that culture -- 25 years later that culture is gone as a resource boom pulled in a significant number of newcomers.
The house I grew up, in a rural area, there's a small restaurant we would frequently get food from less than 2,000 ft away. We would have to drive to pick up because it was unsafe to walk there. Busy two lane road with drainage ditches on both sides of the road.
Also, not having a car meant you didn't go anywhere. When my grandmothers stopped driving, they stayed cooped in the house all day (except for one, now deceased, that tended to her small garden).
Many cities in the US formerly had light rail systems, but these were purchased and dismantled by companies involved in the automotive industry[0]. These companies also created a "car culture" which may rival Sam Colt's creation of "gun culture" in its deleterious effects on society. The younger generations seem to be rejecting this culture, so perhaps in some few decades we may have a culture where the political will exists to improve public transportation. I'm not going to hold my breath.
As an aside, Brasilia probably holds a special place in pedestrian hell.
Nowhere in this article does in mention that it is city in a forest (we bill ourselves as "Tree City USA"), nor that we encourage people to plant trees right by the sidewalks for shade and decoration. You need a permit to cut down a tree of any size (five inches in diameter IIRC) and those permits are often denied if the tree is healthy. Not that that applies in the central business district, but still.
It's a tradeoff, like everything else. When taking the trees into account, Atlanta's sidewalks are about as well maintained as the rest of Atlanta's infrastructure
Also based on that list, the 27% average seems to be artificially high by giving equal weight to cities of all size given how the largest US cities are all well below 20%.
PS: every time I visit Europe I often wonder that there are so many wheelchairs. In Eastern Europe you may go around capital city center for weeks without seeing one. It is that bad, even in 2017.
I always thought that these ramps are not for one-person climbing (that should be obvious by simply looking at it). Supposedly, someone has to hold a chair from behind. Otoh, I can't remember that I've seen these were actually used, and in the winter such tracks are dangerous place even for able people. In our '90 childhood's winters we used these as sort of extreme attractions.
Even though your wheelchair ramps are shitty, you are still, in a way, ahead of America because you at least made an effort to build those ramps, whereas America mostly doesn't have them at all.
Watch the video and see how many times a disabled person not wearing full protective gear would have been wounded or killed by the ramp and you'll probably change your mind.
I am not defending the quality of those ramps, but in some cases, a ramp can be useful so that an assisting people could move a person in a wheelchair up the stairs, even if the ramp is not usable for a person in a wheelchair alone with no assistance.
This isn't surprising when you consider that SV developed primarily during the era of car-focused city planning. In that sense, it's not terribly different than any other post-WWII US suburban area.
There are recent efforts in SV by people and groups[1] who advocate for more pedestrian and bike friendly development, but that is happening on the margins in an area whose development pattern has been established and hence is difficult to change.
While Michigan (esp. Detroit) is exceptional in many respects this kind of legislation whereby neglected infrastructure is no longer a liability for the state is likely to spread.
I live on a small farm in the middle-of-nowhere NC. (20min to even a gas station) I'm currently working with our local zoning dept. to get approval to use my barn in a home-occupation. Even though I'm far away, will have zero employees, and no customers on the property - I'm STILL being forced to spend close to $3K to retrofit for ADA compliance.
Life is not fair. Trying to sue and regulate this country into everyone's idea of "fairness" will bankrupt us and destroy any concept of freedom we still have left.
You may have no plans to ever invite the public into a commercially-zoned facility, and in that case, making it wheelchair-accessible might make no sense.
But if you suddenly had to up and move, and sell the space, well, it's still zoned commercial, and presumably someone's running a business out of it, and they might have an employee in a wheelchair.
Commercial spaces have different requirements than residential spaces. It's not just a matter of stamping a form. It's also not surprising that it'd take some extra construction to bring a formerly residential space up to code.
AND, I get that you'd like to defer the actual cost of rezoning onto someone else, but, well, someone's got to actually pay to turn the residential space into commercial...and you're the one who wants to do it and will presumably benefit now from doing so.
$3k to make it accessible to people without two working legs seems pretty reasonable.
It is not zoned commercial. That would cost me tens-of-thousands of dollars. This is forced ADA compliance for a residential space being used in a home-based business.
Work to change the law for your residential home based business then, or fundraise. Like we disabled people have to do, to defend our rights to be in society, shop, work, and use transit while disabled -- and like so many other wheelchair users I know have to do just to get the wheels to get out of their own house. Sorry about your barn, but you seem oddly out to mess with fundamental access for other people because you need to do $3K worth of renovation, and that seems odd to me.
Your situation is quite different than recently constructed sidewalks being unsafe to navigate by people with disabilities or the elderly, and lacking such basic features as curb cuts. Don't be so black and white.
If the city had done a better job of complying with the existing accessibility laws in the first place then she never would have had to resorting to a lawsuit. Hell, if people had done a better job in the first place those laws would not have been necessary at all, and you wouldn't be affected.
I'm sympathetic to your situation, it seems kinda messed up.
I think you are exaggerating the issue though.
Ideally, an intelligent and flexible application of the ADA rules could be envisioned.
(Ideally we would prioritize research into regeneration and fix the real problem.)
One of my friends was born quadriplegic and literally cannot live without help. He can't go to the bathroom without help. He can't pick his nose. Traveling around Seattle with him made me realize the fact that accessibility makes us a worthwhile civilization. We care, and spend to show it.
Consider: If you spend ten thousand dollars on accessibility for your barn, and no one ever uses it, that's a good thing.
I see your point and I do consider myself very fortunate to not have to deal with a life-altering disability on a daily basis, but the problem is - "flexible" and "intelligent" just do not apply when it comes to most govt. regulation.
As for "flexible" and "intelligent" govt. regulation., I'll admit I chuckled when I typed that in. We'll be regrowing limbs long before that, I'll wager.
I'm not sure how to remedy the situation until then. It sucks that you have this extra burden just to use your own barn.
The problem is that business owners are now required to follow these statutes and pay money even if the labor is 100% a guaranteed waste. Having people perform labor that isn't needed and use resources like concrete just to appease the government is a bad thing.
If no one benefits, then it is a complete waste. If I get paid to write code that never gets used, and it takes me a week, it's a waste of hundreds of dollars of labor. The parent thread pointed out that no disabled person would ever use the upgrade as the property was privately held by non disabled persons, so he's required to pay for no reason. That's nonsense.
edit: Are you retrofitted your entire house to be fully ADA compliant? If not, why should the parent be required to?
Houses are not commercial establishments, and as such are not covered under the ADA. That's the short answer. The parent is creating a commercial establishment.
You don't seem to understand the difference between zoning and use because your link proves my exact point.
A place zoned residential can fall under ADA compliance if the use is commercial. Exactly as that link states. So the first part of your statement "Houses are not commercial establishments" is correct for zoning classification, but you fail on the second half "as such are not covered under the ADA." - a residence operating as a business can be under ADA.
My comment "A residential structure can still be required to be ADA compliant dependent on use." - is 100% correct based on the very evidence you supplied.
At this point, why dont you just accept that this is a very complex topic and one that just maybe I've spent more time navigating than you.
Right, life is not fair. You want something you fight for it. They fight for their benefit. So you too must fight for yours. You don't like to spend for ADA compliance then fight for it. I don't know how, maybe try find a way to sue them back ?
My employer has had to tear out a handicapped ramp because the it's 1" too narrow, and the grade is slightly out of what the current standard mandates. There's no grandfathering of this from what I've been told. Our building mgmt claims it was in compliance when it was initially built. So now they jack hammered a ton of concrete out, and are re-pouring it. For a company our size, the cost isn't significant, but I can't imagine that it's a useful expenditure compared to the previous ramp. When I had knee surgery and was on crutches for 6 weeks, I used it daily. Not fun at all, but usable.
The idea that because someone is inconvenienced they are somehow not "participating in society" is absurd. It was an unfortunate situation, it is bad the person felt embarrassed for a disability, but the solution is not to force regulation and maintenance costs on everyone - that is a road to bankruptcy.
"The idea that because someone is inconvenienced they are somehow not "participating in society" is absurd."
We're not talking inconvenience. We're talking not able to get around at all. That's not an inconvenience. That's not being able to participate in society at all.
"but the solution is not to force regulation and maintenance costs on everyone - that is a road to bankruptcy."
I completely disagree. If it wasn't for those regulations, no one would do it, and these people would not be able to participate. You may wish to look into why these regulations were enacted in the first place, and it wasn't because of lobbyists looking to make a buck.
I dont know what article you are reading, but the one referenced revolved around a single instance of temporary (albeit dangerous) inconvenience. If she was denied the use of a wheelchair altogether, I might see your point. But as others have stated, 100% access is not realistic given the current technology for disabled people.
Maybe instead of regulation and lawsuits, people that are so worked up over this issue should actually try to invent better tech, instead of expecting the govt to solve all our problems and compensate them whenever we dont meet 100% perfection.
And maybe people like you can accept that there are more people than yourselves in the world, and those people have a right to be in society too.
And no, it is entirely realistic to have 100% access in a city. There is zero reason whatsoever that the sidewalk in the story wasn't usable, other than a complete lack of empathy.
This seems very anecdotal, Atlanta will get its hand slapped and the problem will go away.
In the frozen north where the frost depth is four feet, somehow our sidewalks look new compared to the pictures. Mere simple mismanagement in Atlanta. The sidewalk in front of my house was poured in 1983 per the stamp, and its basically level and even. That's after 34 northern winters. The decayed sidewalks in the article must be over a century old or horribly corruptly installed.
There must be a severe lack of parking or even alleyways. If you want to live the hyper high density urban bug man dream, there will be costs such as no where to park and no ramps from parking to the street to drive wheel chairs upon.
There might be more to the story intentionally not reported so as to slant the coverage; perhaps its a historical district where if there were no ramps in 1830, then installing a ramp in 2017 will get you sued by the historical commission. Again, if you voluntarily live somewhere unsuitable for modern standards of living, there is no reason to feel sorry for a fool, if that is the case.
It looks like the problem is in the process of being corrected. But no, it's not historic, and no, it's not a lack of parking - there are huge parking garages and street parking everywhere. It's about a lack of concern for people not in cars.
Here's the approximate route: https://goo.gl/maps/AXj2Agtfvx92. Compare this aerial photo, showing a previous lack of curb cuts:
(Side note: The 3D cell towers and billboard in Google Maps are awesome.)
But yeah, the intersection of Centennial Olympic Park and MLK Jr was not built with any thought to disabled people taking a wheelchair back to the parking garage, or even to regular walking pedestrians:
I'm pretty sure that's not an intended route for anyone not in a car. I can see how it would be terrifying for someone in a wheelchair; I'd be scared to even ride my bike there. Looks like they were expected to take a different route to the parking garage than exiting Northside avenue and walking around the streets. While that should be possible, they were probably intended to take the skywalk between the dome and the parking garage. Oh wait, that only has stairs:
- The red "Stop" pedestrian sign versus the green light for the the police SUV.
- The person waiting. Even with his face blurred, I see trepidation and concern in his posture.
- The 6" cement curb to the crosswalk
- The moldy construction cone
- The stairs for the pedestrians, no elevators or ramps for wheelchairs
- The bag of trash just laying at the base of the post
- The coils of razor wire above the fence
As a Michigander, I'm familiar with both frost heave and urban decay. But the warm, welcoming, hospitable South doesn't look particularly friendly in that spot. The location of the image: https://goo.gl/maps/RAFyYfWa5Xs
I feel for the author. When I was in college, I ran into a similar issue. I'm not in a wheelchair, but one of my oldest friends from childhood is wheelchair-bound. Every day or two we would go eat lunch or dinner down the street from campus. The main intersection between campus and where all the fast food joints were was a busy, busy intersection with red lights. There were no ramps. To get across the intersection, she would have to go down the street to someone's driveway, wait for a chance to cross, then cross the street with traffic coming in both directions. In the dark, this was absolutely terrifying.
After one particularly harrowing crossing, I insisted that she call the City and ask about what they could do. She just brushed me off, saying that they wouldn't care. I pushed her and pushed her, but she wouldn't do anything.
So I called City Hall the next day, and I said, "Hi, I'm Jemaclus. I'm in a wheelchair and attend the university. There's no wheelchair ramp at the intersection of 1st and Main, so I have to go down the street and cross from someone's driveway. Is there anything we can do to fix this?" (Yes, I made a white lie.)
The lady snapped into action immediately. "Don't you worry. I've got this," she said.
The very next day, construction workers were putting in an accessible ramp on the corner, and four days later, my friend and I were able to safely and securely cross the intersection.
I have two hypotheses that are not mutually exclusive about what happened:
1. The City probably has a budget allocated to ADA compliance or infrastructure improvements or something. It's also probably a use-it-or-lose-it situation. If you call and point out something, they're HAPPY to do it, because otherwise they lose the money next year.
2. The City definitely doesn't want to be sued for ADA non-compliance, and they will probably move with all haste toward a reasonable solution. In this case, it was a no-brainer: a wheelchair-accessible ramp at a busy intersection with tons of pedestrians.
I would encourage anyone who runs into these kinds of problems in public areas (the author's problem was actually private property, so...) to actually call the City Hall and politely inform them of the problem, explain how it's dangerous, and ask how "we" can fix it. In all likelihood, they will probably respond immediately and in a positive fashion due to the above reasons. It might not happen overnight like mine did, but eventually they'll want to cover their asses from an ADA lawsuit.
For the record, my backup plan would have been a letter to the editor of the local paper, and then talking to an attorney.
I've successfully done this as well in a smaller town. City Hall engineers sat down with me and looked at accessible routes to school, bus/train station, and the grocery store. They built 7 curb cuts; it cost the city 35K. Every time I saw someone else using those crossings for years afterwards it made me super happy. And, I could take my kid to school without going in the street, in the dark, in the rain... I don't think this works every time but it is definitely worth asking. Another interesting point I found out while going through this process, was that it takes some work for the city to find out who is responsible for particular streets and intersections (It might be a local or state transit agency rather than the city).
Definitely! In this case, my university was in a relatively small town, but I was still flabbergasted at how fast they moved to get things done. I've lived in larger cities and done the same thing, and it generally happens, just not within a few days. I've never been called in to help with the process, though. That sounds cool.
Boston is better about accessibility in general, but it is much worse during the winter. Sidewalk snow and ice removal is left as the responsibility of the abutting property owner. The result is a patchwork of pedestrian connectivity that varies meter-by-meter. Wheelchair users and even fully-able people are often seen walking off of the sidewalk, alongside motor traffic. In theory, the property owners should be kept in line by fines, but enforcement is lacking, and the fines are insignificant relative to the value of property in Boston.
The roads, though? Promptly plowed and salted by the city on a continuous basis.
They just built this nice pedestrian bridge that goes along a 6 lane 45mph road by my place. It's got a nice trail on either side, that completely dead ends and you have to try to walk on a 30 degree incline of grass next to the road, or brave getting hit by cars doing 55mph on a road with no shoulder. There are two ways to get around this large bay and this is one of them. The other way is this bridge: http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles38924.jpg
Was the funding for the pedestrian bridge rolled into the funding for the road bridge? That's happening near here, the federal funding for a bridge project means that there will be a pedestrian accommodation, even though there's no direct connection on either side of the bridge.
In any case, unless funding is secured all at once, it's likely to be the case that there are bridges that don't connect anything and sidewalks and trails that end abruptly. But both represent movement towards a complete path.
Funny how no one in this thread even mentions that sidewalks cost a great deal of money to build.
"How dare cities in southern states refuse to build sidewalks for their residents! Sidewalks are essential to quality of life!"
There is no mention of money. No mention that people in southern cities PREFER lower taxes which means less government services.
For anyone from the New England or Colorado or the West Coast: you have great livable cities with lots of amenities but those come at the cost of higher taxes and more regulations. Southern cities may not share your civic culture.
While sidewalks appear to be a totally unmanageable burden on the budget, somehow it has room for far more expensive roads and other costly auto-related infrastructure.
I don't think it's too much to ask for a little equality here. Not everyone paying taxes drives.
If this was a city where there were wealthy urbanites who didn't drive, you would be right. If only the poor don't drive, then "Not everyone paying taxes drives" is basically a false statement.
I'm not sure every mile in the suburbs needs sidewalks, but it seems like sort of a necessity in any city. The area referenced is smack dab in the middle of downtown Atlanta.
In my town (Denver) ADA lawsuits is practically a competitive sport. Nuisances dont last long because the fine can be more than the remediation cost. And ACLU is a major participant.
The idea that individual property owners should be independently responsible for sidewalk maintenance boggles my mind. I had a hell of a time just getting a metal fire door replaced to comply with my HOA... I dread to think how much time and effort it would take to find a contractor who could put in matching paving slabs for an existing sidewalk even if you wanted to.
Canadians would never tolerate sidewalks in such horrible condition. And governments in Canada (municipal, provincial, federal) are used to spending money on the wellbeing of citizens.
Let's face it, the USA is broken and even if Trump does manage to fix it, the repair work will take many years.
I'd say use the road if the sidewalks aren't traversable and it can be done safely. Is it illegal for a wheelchair to use car lanes?
Pissing off motor traffic is probably the fastest way to get the sidewalks fixed.
Even if it is illegal, I can't imagine a judge not throwing out the citation if you show pictures like that.
edit to address the replies: my suggestion was admittedly somewhat tounge-in-cheek and, no, I wouldn't recommend anyone take the risk. Would I do it as performance art? No, because a judge/newspaper/observer would see it as a stunt undermining the whole argument and possibly even harm the cause.
I think you should think about that suggestion for a second. You have 2 ton vehicles barrelling down the road at 30, 40, 50 miles an hour, and you're in a small, unprotected chair that can probably go 5 at best. And if you think drivers will gladly slow down for you, I'd ask you to go talk to your local cyclists club.
If you cross Chestnut St. NW in Washington, DC, from Western Avenue to Oregon Avenue, you will see "No Sidewalks in Hawthorne" signs, but now also "Yes, Sidewalks in Hawthorne". The No signs are older, and the opposition had some odd arguments--sidewalks would lead to more crime. (Who is that is ready for burglary or robbery, but afraid to walk in the street?)
In my own neighborhood there are arguments back and forth. I'd be happy to see sidewalks added where they aren't, but I'd hate to see mature trees damaged.
Reminds me of Andres Duany's presentation to San Diego local government officials[1]. It's very funny and very informative. A highlight for me was when he was discussing an artist's impression of what amounts to an urban wasteland and points out that, yes, that lone pedestrian in the picture is "theoretically possible". Well worth a watch.
In my city (Indianapolis) there's been a moratorium on new street lights for decades, although that's finally changing.
Combining no street lights with crappy (or no) sidewalks is literally deadly. Teenaged girl was killed in a hit and run 100 feet from my front yard a couple of years ago. People in wheelchairs have been hit and killed in other parts of the city.
So many ways to improve, so little political pressure to do it.
The sidewalks in my city are a joke. They're incredibly broken and irregular. The streets have potholes that last for months before filled, if at all. Infrastructure in a lot of cities of the U.S. is so piss poor, and I don't know why it isn't made more a priority in our country.
It's all about cost. There have been several articles on HN discussing the problem. One in particular (I think it was a study done in Michigan) stated the average citizen in that city would need to pay an extra $7K in taxes just to break even for existing infrastructure. (ie.... all new projects are halted)
Have you ever tried to navigate building regulations? They can be a nightmare. Sometimes you have two different sides of govt. telling you to do things completely opposite - and their answer is "well, sir, that is the requirement."
Have you ever been to a sporting event at a major venue that seats 70,000? Roads around such a venue are either jam-packed with traffic that isn't moving, or completely closed by the local authorities to be reserved for emergency traffic. It easily could take 2 hours to bring a car close to a venue after a game, let alone getting back out afterwards.
i don't believe she was at a sporting event. that part of the text, along with her love of dogs, being married, working for Amazon, was all fluff to make you feel a connection with the individual, not a relevant to the situation that happened. also, sporting events that i have been to have had wheel chair access.
its also a little confusing, because they are trying to make their way back to the car, but didn't encounter any problems when leaving it
The article says she was leaving the Georgia Dome. It was likely not a sporting event (new year's eve).
Did you read the article? It was about access to their car, via city sidewalks, after the event at the sporting arena. Your comment about sporting events "having wheelchair access" is not really relevant at all, since it was clearly not about the facility itself.
did you read the comment I am responding to? you must be having a hard time making simple connections:
person a: not sure why the husband didnt just go to the car and pick her up
person b: thats unpossible at sporting arenas! dont you know!
person a: sporting arenas have wheel chair access
Sufficiently capable devices don't yet exist, and are even more expensive.
Also, you're not thinking about this broadly enough. Sidewalks in bad condition or lacking curb cuts affect way more than just people who use wheelchairs. They affect the blind, the elderly, and even just your every day normal person who trips on uneven sidewalk and injures themselves.
Is it really too much to expect of our government that we have sidewalks that are repaired more often than every century, that are flat, and that have curb cuts at appropriate intervals?
All we want is sidewalks that are maintained as well as roads. They do not need to support as much weight (less materials, less wear and tear). Just needs regular grinding/filling.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Im all for access but there will and must be a point where flat/hard surfaces stop. Trails are a thing, so too gravel roads. We cannot pave the planet. Sure, those in wheelchairs should be able to access city parks but if we say thay they must have total access then we hurt the definition of park. I dont want to see a situation where entry is denied to all, a park not created, because the location cannot be made 100% wheelchair friendly. Nor do i want to see green spaces turned into endless sidewalks.
Your comment isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, because at a very minimum we could have accessible sidewalks going everywhere the roads go.
The woman in the article simply wants to be able to go to various buildings in her city. She's not demanding an accessible sidewalk paved deep into the wilderness. So I don't understand where you're coming from in making a slippery slope argument about sidewalk construction.
Really? Sidewalks on every road is a big ask. There are a host of drainage issues that curbs/sidewalks create. It isnt as simple as laying down slabs of concrete. They need a base that is in some ways more demanding than that of the actual road.
I don't own a car. I barely know anyone who does. On the other hand, I do walk places every day.
I can't even begin to describe to you how absurd I find it that you think sidewalks along every non-interstate road shouldn't be mandatory.
When I was younger I lived in a much more suburban area than I do now, and when I stayed late for extracurricular activities in high school (two days a week) I had to take a different bus route home. The closest stop on that route was half a mile away from my house. That's not far at all, and I definitely don't mind walking, however, most of that walk was along a two-lane highway with no sidewalk that routinely had people cruising through at 45+ mph. The county has since thankfully put in some speed cameras to help enforce the 30 mph limit.
Why didn't I deserve a sidewalk for my safety, exactly?
Meanwhile, a typical two-lane undivided road costs about $4 million per mile to construct. So you're not willing to add on a scant 2.6% to the cost of the road construction to also make it available for use by pedestrians?
I'd much rather build 2.6% fewer roads and add sidewalks onto all of the existing ones. Keep in mind that far more than 2.6% of people don't even own cars, yet they do use sidewalks.
The expense argument you're making does a much better job of justifying not building more roads than it does in justifying not building more sidewalks.
That doesn't say anything about the cost of sidewalk relative to the cost of building a road. And that's retail prices, specced out by square footage. When you're building sidewalks at the scale of entire cities it's definitely cheaper.
You need to find a source that shows what the cost to the government is per mile of road versus mile of sidewalk. You can't compare retail prices of sidewalk that would be charged to homeowners to what the government is paying to build a road.
In my opinion, installing bicycle lanes and sidewalk is part of the job of building a new municipal street, in the same way that all modern limited-access highways need to have a breakdown lane on the shoulder and a crossover barrier in the median.
If you can only afford to do it half-assed, maybe instead try harder on fewer linear miles of road.
I think his point is that with less resources we could solve the general case by improving the ability of wheeled things that need to use sidewalks to navigate rougher terrain.
I don't think that was his point, which you can verify by his subsequent reply to my post. To me it looked like he was saying that since we can't make the entire planet 100% accessible (including the wilderness), why should we even bother with the urban cores of our cities? Meanwhile, he overlooked the fact that we've already made many more places accessible by roads than by sidewalks, even though roads are much more expensive and have higher maintenance burdens.
I'd take wide shoulders over sidewalks any day. Wide shoulders increase safety for many more people. People on bikes can use them. Pedestrians can walk on them. People pushing strollers can use them. You can change a tire on them. Drivers can use them to navigate obstructions (like people who cannot promptly take a left turn). Drivers can pull over and re-tie down a tarp that's too loose or change a tire. Snow plows can easily clean them. They're cheaper (than dedicated sidewalks) to build and maintain and don't need curb cuts.
Using banked curbs everywhere is another more useful alternative to normal sidewalks (less useful to some pedestrians but create a larger perceived separation from traffic than a shoulder and impossible to kill a tire while parallel parking)
Edit: At least offer up a counter opinion if you're gonna down-vote.
I take public transit and walk about a mile to work. I bike when I just need to go on a small errand. I drive a fair amount for other stuff.
Sidewalks work in cities where traffic (vehicle and pedestrian) is always high and areas where you have massive amounts of space for them (mostly places built up after WW2). For areas where sidewalks are not practical a wide shoulder is almost as good IMO. Obviously it depends on the nature of the road as well.
I respect that you have that opinion knowing that you don't exclusively drive.
Personally I bike and walk exclusively (do not own a car) and would much prefer separated cycling/walking paths. I get that there is a cost associated with this, but I think the cost is comparatively low to that of even marginal improvements to highway infrastructure.
When I had kids and started walking them around in a stroller, you learn really quickly where the sidewalks with ramps are, and you (and your toddler who likes to help!) come to appreciate the buttons that open doors automatically.
I run as well, and it's not fun to trip on uneven sidewalks. Sometimes at night I'd rather run on the road where I can count on a more even surface and no branches hitting me in the face. I think I'm more inclined to shovel my sidewalk in the winter because I don't like running on compressed snow that melted in the sun and refroze overnight.
So...yeah! Fix this stuff for disabled people, and other people get to benefit. Sidewalks are for everyone.