HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/5/2023 Item PC, Schmidt
Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Public Comment -- Anholm ADA disaccommodations
Attachments:council anholm ADA issues pdf.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council, Please see the attached which is a short intro to some serious ADA stuff the city's getting wrong as part of
the Anholm project.
1
Re: Anholm project and ADA Disaccommodations
Sept. 2, 2023
Dear City Council,
I have been watching construction of the highly propagandized “ADA improvements” in Anholm
with great interest, as they were about the only conceivably positive thing this project offers us
residents.
In my professional opinion they’re a costly misadventure:
• Replacing functional existing corner ramps rather than building ramps on as many as possible
of the 31 Broad/Chorro/Lincoln-West corners lacking ramps;
• A puerile collection of really bad one-off ramp designs probably pulled from some “textbook”
that make walking unpleasant, uncomfortable, confusing, high-stress, unsafe, and foot-soaking
in rainy weather;
• Making previously safe crossings newly dangerous for the old, frail, disabled.
But, hey, we’re just privileged affluent old white people, so what’s a bit of our blood smeared
on the pavement in the name of progress? As we’ve been told by the city, making us less safe is
“a tradeoff worth making.”
I am particularly concerned about instances where a pre-existing disability accommodation has
been rebuilt to be less accommodating and less safe than it was before. This seems wrong by
any calculus, but particularly wrong under the clear thrust of ADA design guidelines which
presume that in doing any public right of way project a city will improve accommodations, not
diminish them.
Exhibit A in this diminished accommodation category is the mid-block pedestrian crossing of
Ramona linking the Village, home to about 200 largely frail seniors, and the neighborhood
shopping center. Mid-block crosswalks are notoriously dangerous. At this location, native speed
was in the neighborhood of 35 mph – fast and dangerous for pedestrians of any age, deadly for
seniors. Decades ago, out of concern and compassion for the mobility comfort and safety of our
seniors the city did the right thing and built a raised crosswalk (which acts as a speed hump thus
automatically slowing traffic) with flashers. Raised mid-block crosswalks are arguably the safest
basis for a safe mid-block design. This at-sidewalk-level crossing has been a proven safety
success that boosts the safety and confidence of frail users and encourages their mobility,
eliminates dangerous trip-and-fall up and down sidewalk/curb/crosswalk movements, and
keeps feet dry. It also automatically slows traffic. When you, this council, approved Anholm bid
documents, they clearly stated the raised crossing would remain (and be rebuilt) as part of the
finished project.1
1 Here, FYI, is a screen shot of the instruction on the plan page where the Ramona raised crossing is shown. And,
for the record, this is the ONLY speed table anyplace in Anholm. It says what it says, and any citizen or council
member looking at this page to become informed about the city’s plans would have seen it, as I did. Staff has
Watching construction, however, it became clear to me the city was permanently removing the
raised crosswalk. When I verified this, I asked that the raised crossing be restored, which would
cost little right now2 compared to how money’s being wasted elsewhere on this $7.4 million
project. In response I got intellectually flatulent rationalizations for why the new incredibly
worse and less safe crossing was the finest possible of improvements – you know, like the
emperor’s new clothes. So, if this is the ultimate outcome, you can expect to see – and be
responsible for -- blood smeared on Ramona.
To make matters worse, the only other crossing connecting residents of the Village (and others
in the neighborhood) to shopping is at the Broad/Ramona corner, which was previously a safe
straight-ahead corner-to-corner ramp-to-ramp crossing, but has been redesigned with a ramp
facing diagonally into the intersection, dumping users directly into the traffic lanes of both
Broad and Ramona, with it being ambiguous to drivers where they’re headed, then forcing
ramp users to change direction to get to where they decide to go. This idiotically unsafe “ADA
improvement,” dangerous to all, is completely unusable for a blind person. There is no excuse
for such bad engineering design – every corner downtown has what would be a correct bi-
directional ramp design suitable for this intersection, as do several corners on Chorro in
Anholm. The city knows how to do this right, so how and why has it got this so wrong?
Then, a half block from the Village, at Murray/Broad, we find monster dangerousness. Instead
of simply crossing Murray with two 20-foot hops to the median (staff says it can’t be done, but
it’s obvious to me it can be done), the new solution is flood-prone ramps3 a considerable
distance from the corner on Broad (that eliminate 3 desperately needed parking spaces we’d
been told would stay) which force ramp users to step from flooded sidewalks into flooded
gutters, then walk in the street, exposed to vehicular traffic, for about 130 feet – more than
the width of Foothill Blvd. – through storm water and dodging a huge sloping storm drain
that’s right in their path, with swirling storm water headed for it. How does this sort of stuff
help the disabled? How can anyone seriously argue sticking frail pedestrians in a busy street for
such a distance, and under such conditions, is safe – or decent? How does a blind person figure
out this route? How does any frail or unsteady person keep a footing while walking through
rapidly moving storm flow? This is going through the motions of ADA compliance without
concocted a story about why it doesn’t mean what it says, and why doing the opposite of what it says is OK, but
the story’s flapdoodle, and properly ignored. Oh, and since you’re not professionals, I should tell you that in
professional practice anything explicitly stated this way on a plan – a “call out” -- takes precedence. This is what
you approved, in all caps, no less:
2 A speed table, the technical term for this raised crosswalk, costs about $13,000 according to the city. For that
small amount you’d get something much safer and kinder than what’s being done. You’d also build some good will.
3 These ramps depress the entire sidewalk to gutter level, which is below street level, so it floods in even a light
rain. Here’s how that affects ordinary pedestrians: I live a block and a half from the neighborhood market.
Previously I could walk there in the rain without walking through water, ending with the raised crosswalk on
Ramona. With the new depressed sidewalks now in place, my feet will get soaked at three different locations on
the flooded sidewalk and again crossing Ramona at vehicular level rather than on a raised crossing. This is not the
advertised low stress pleasurable pedestrian experience the Anholm propaganda promised!
achieving anything of value. Safety and utility are part of proper ADA compliance. This type of
“solution” is an insult to the ADA’s purpose of providing disability equality.4
(Photo next page)
4 The ADA is a 1990 civil rights law to provide equal opportunity and access to all with disabilities, who today still
remain subject to prejudice, disdain, bigotry, misunderstanding, and grudging second class accommodation from
mainstream society – even in SLO. ADA disability is broadly defined. My concern here is limited to a very small slice
of disability accommodation required of the city: mobility equality for the disabled in the pedestrian public right of
way. The Anholm project illustrates the low quality effort this self-described “welcoming” city applies to fulfilling
the ADA’s promise. I find it shocking, for example, that the city eliminates previous good accommodations and
replaces them with inferior new versions yet has the chutzpah to claim that’s ok, that “progress” is being made. I
find it shocking also that when the city knew there were 31 Anholm corners needing corner ramps it chose to fix so
few of them, then used its propaganda machine to spread the falsehood that this project was manna for disability
access. It seems the staff making disability decisions 1, lack proper training; 2, lack empathy and understanding,
thinking all bodies are as agile as their own; 3, lack decency (i.e., things like even thinking it’s ok to expect disabled
residents to park 1,000 feet from their homes); 4, lack experience and technical knowledge sufficient to
understand that an accommodation design ok in one location may be unworkable in another (example: use of
depressed sidewalk ramps in places where they flood with storm water); 5, lack informed oversight and
supervision; and 6, have an attitude best described as the arrogance of power, so they’re unwilling to listen and
learn and also resistant to both input and critique. But the council is complicit too. Not only does the council fail to
expect a higher level of ADA compliant performance from staff, council members themselves hold bigoted,
uninformed opinions that hinder the ADA process. For examples, 1, council discussion of on-street parking has
been factually inaccurate, mean, and hurtful, and 2, the council has adopted policies that preference bicycles
(which have no civil rights) over the disabled (whose civil rights the council is charged to protect). As a result, even
when the city “tries” to be accommodating, it often hits a foul ball, not the home run it will later claim.
The disability crossing of Murray (the intersecting street on left) begins from a ramp some distance behind the
photographer and requires walking in Broad Street nearly to the parked car. This is one of four storm drains users
of this disability route must contend with. Note how the street slopes down to the sloped and slippery storm grate,
which means that to get firm footing on fairly level pavement the pedestrian must go further to the right, into the
traffic lane, to find more level ground. In broad daylight and dry weather this is a dangerous crossing. Imagine
what it’s like when the intersection, which is at the low point on Broad, fills with storm water or sewage overflow
(Yes! That is an issue we live with too.). Imagine a blind person trying to figure it out. Imagine this with speeding
cars and trucks whose drivers consider the street a freeway on-off ramp. Imagine it with texting drivers. Imagine
using this route in the dark. This “ADA solution” is nuts.
There are many similarly “going through the motions” “ADA ramp” designs in the Anholm
project that disenable rather than enable those for whom ADA Title II says cities must provide
mobility equality – on Ramona, Broad and Chorro. And there are many that make life harder for
all pedestrians. At the moment I’d have to say my fave for plain weird multi-dimensional
endangerment is the northwest corner of Chorro/Center, where a multi-level convoluted
designed-to-injure sidewalk has been created as a “solution” for a disability crossing at the
corner. A clever feature, beyond the multi-level trip and fall, is that the long, depressed corner
ramp appears to be lower than the adjacent storm drain inlet, meaning it will fill with swirling
water, mud and debris whenever there’s rain. As hard as that is for the disabled, it also means
everyone trying to be a pedestrian will get soaked feet while having to maintain balance on a
slickly-dangerous surface. For the old and disabled maintaining balance, and not falling, is a life
and death challenge. Clearly designers of this, and the many other made-to-flood Anholm “ADA
improvements,” are clueless about what life’s like for the “beneficiaries” of these designs.
Chorro/Center. Build-out of the promised “low-stress” walking environment of Anholm project propaganda. This
two-level sidewalk with unexpected drop-offs on two sides is so clearly a hazard one marvels at its existence. This
photo was just after construction. Subsequently, perhaps after complaints or falls, several orange construction
cones appeared along its edges. Now the drop-off edges are painted red. How’s that work at night? Several other
“improvements” along Chorro have similar features.
Soaked feet instead of dry feet is one of the main “improvements” the city is providing for all
pedestrians with its Anholm ADA schemes – at the Village crossing, along Ramona, at multiple
points along Broad and Chorro. And mud-covered ramps too. This is very good stuff.
This communication is not intended to be about ADA implementation problems that plague this
city beyond the Anholm project, but I do think it worth mentioning that lack of thought about
what’s being done to the old and disabled seems widespread and characteristic in the city’s
actions. The new “gateless” parking garage scheme is a clear affront to the ADA, and the city
has been quite mean to the disabled and frail elsewhere – like cutting off the spot where such
persons were dropped off at the Presbyterian church with the Marsh Street bikeway – like
Anholm, apparently with no consultation. It seems that when it comes to the ADA, this city
simply doesn’t get it.
The city needs to learn how to “get it.” It also needs, at the very least, to immediately fix the
Ramona crossing by restoring the raised speed table that provided safe crossing there for
decades, and to redo the Broad/Ramona southwest corner to restore the safe corner-to-corner
direct pedestrian route that has been removed.
Richard Schmidt