Using bump-outs and planters, City Engineer Katy Gehler argued during the meeting, would allow plenty of room on the sidewalks for pedestrians. Because there is a significant stone layer just below the topsoil underneath Fourth Street, Gehler added, planting trees in the ground would require an excavation that could damage nearby building foundations.

Despite Gehler’s concerns, the council chose the in-ground tree plantings. The bump-outs, several councilors said, didn’t fit with the downtown aesthetic and could present a visibility problem for motorists.

Betsey, my point was not about any individual gov’t official’s degree of public engagement. Rather, that there are systemic forces that tend to discourage it.

It’s most noticeable when people are running for office. Their level of public communication is generally way up because they know it’ll help them get elected. Blogs and public forums/meetings are popular when one is a candidate. Once elected, those commonly fall by the wayside, because the newly elected don’t see how that kind of communication can help them govern more effectively. They often fail to see how the same tool (eg, a blog, a neighborhood meeting) that they used during a campaign can be used very differently when in office.

Time constraints are another systemic factor. When one is running for office, you make time to campaign because if you don’t, you’re done. But once your elected, you don’t continue that level of public engagement because you have to get stuff done and the price to be paid for NOT engaging with public is minor or at least delayed way into the future.

Not always, of course. You continue to blog, as does Rep. David Bly and Sen. Kevin Dahle.

Who IS the ‘inside’?

On the other hand, I do think that part of the citizen engagement job of a Council person is to try to describe some of the gray areas surrounding issues (which is why I still blog even when I don’t want to).
.-= (Betsey Buckheit is a blogger. See a recent post titled Land development code update) =-.

Once you’re on the ‘inside’ as either a staff person or elected/appointed, then there’s a natural need to communicate/engage more with fellow insiders in order to get stuff done. Citizen engagement can become burdensome, time consuming, irritating etc especially if citizens are seen as having a single-issue focus, or a simplistic view, not aware of the complexities/shades of gray.

The town I worked in , as a city employee, insisted upon a public service based attitude for the employees, i.e., without the citizens who came together to form a town, there would be no need for those city employee jobs; therefore totally a public service position.

Do you think that is a pervasive attitude? or is it more adversarial here?

But that presumes I’d retain my civic engagement values, of course!

Journalism schools are just starting to change what they teach to reflect the social media landscape.

I would expect that programs in Public Affairs or City Management or Urban Policy, etc will do the same.

But from their (staff’s) perspective, how would you like to work in a community that is so involved that someone will question ANY decision?

Well, I personally think that’s a great community to work in but that’s because I believe staff’s agenda should be to give the citizens what they want for their community, while functioning within Best Management Practices.

So many times the ‘rules’ will say “whenever possible” or some such qualifier, but that gets left out of the message.

She doesn’t provide links to anything (sigh… another limitation of how the City produces the Friday Memo). 

The US Access Board has a Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee site with a page titled Revised Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way.

R301.3 Width

R301.3.1 Continuous Width. The minimum continuous and unobstructed clear width of a pedestrian access route shall be 1.2 m (4.0 ft), exclusive of the width of the curb.

Advisory R301.3.1 Continuous Width. The pedestrian access route provides a minimum accessible route of passage within a sidewalk or other walkway that may not comprise the full width of the pedestrian circulation route, particularly in urban areas. Industry-recommended sidewalk widths can be found in ‘Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities’, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, July 2004 (www.aashto.org). The minimum width must be maintained without obstruction.

Where a pedestrian access route turns or changes direction, it should accommodate the continuous passage of a wheelchair or scooter. As with street or highway design for vehicles, additional maneuvering width or length may be needed at recesses and alcoves, doorways and entrances, and along curved or angled routings, particularly where the grade exceeds 5%. Individual segments of pedestrian access routes should have a minimum straight length of 1.2 m (4.0 ft).

Street furniture, including fixed or movable elements such as newspaper and sales racks, cafe seating and tables, bus shelters, vender carts, sidewalk sculptures, and bicycle racks, shall not reduce the required width of the pedestrian access route.

Provisions for protruding objects apply across the entire width of the pedestrian circulation path, not just the pedestrian access route.

R301.3.2 Width at Passing Spaces. Walkways in pedestrian access routes that are less than 1.5 m (5.0 ft) in clear width shall provide passing spaces at intervals of 61 m (200 ft) maximum. Pedestrian access routes at passing spaces shall be 1.5 m (5.0 ft) wide for a distance of 1.5m (5.0 ft).

I don’t see anything there that indicates how in-ground trees on 4th St. would be a problem.

Also on that page:

Question: A city is rebuilding a sidewalk along Main Street. The distance between the edge of the right-of-way and the existing road does not provide sufficient room for a 4-foot-wide pedestrian access route. Does the municipality have to acquire more right-of-way on private property or narrow the roadway to provide the necessary space?

Answer: No, these guidelines do not require the municipality to obtain right-of-way or to narrow roadways. A municipality may decide to do either for other reasons (for instance, the roadway may be narrowed as a larger traffic calming effort or as part of a larger project in the roadway).

MNDOT adopted an Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan last week and it says on page 14:

Finally, in 2009, as a part of the development of Mn/DOT’s Transition Plan, Mn/DOT Issued Technical Memorandum 10-02-TR-01 Adoption of Public Rights of way Accessibility Guidance to Mn/DOT staff, cities and counties. The memo makes Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) the primary guidance for accessible facility design on Mn/DOT projects.  Mn/DOT is currently beginning the integration of PROWAG into the Road Design Manual and other technical guidance.

Lastly, I don’t understand Katy’s quote “as interpreted by federal ADA staff, ‘the standards would recommend 5 foot sidewalks, but if that is not possible, they may go down to 4-feet with 5-foot passing zones at frequent intervals.’” The sidewalk on 4th St. is 8.5-9.5 feet.

In light of the interpretation of the ADA guidelines of a citizen at the Tuesday council meeting a few points of clarification can be made regarding the industries’ interpretation and implementation of these standards.

The US Access Board drafted and updates the ADA Guidelines. The board generally does not have enforcement authority so the guidelines remain as such until an agency adopts them as standards. Title II, subpart A, of the ADA covers State and local government. Rulemaking authority and enforcement are the responsibility of the Department of Justice (DOJ). However, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has been designated to implement compliance procedures relating to transportation, including those for highways, streets, and traffic management. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Civil Rights oversees the DOT mandate in these areas.

If a covered entity alters an existing facility or part of a facility, the altered area must be accessible to and usable by people who have disabilities to the maximum extent feasible. Alterations must follow the ADA Standards for Accessible Design unless compliance is technically infeasible. Where the nature of an existing facility makes it virtually impossible to comply with all of the accessibility standards applicable to planned alterations, any altered features of the facility that can be made accessible must be made accessible.

Generally speaking the ADA standards address two areas, new construction and reconstruction. The standards leave “outs” for built environments where it is not feasible to meet the standards. For example, the slope of 4th Street between Division and Washington is greater than allowed by ADA. However, it is not feasible to reduce the grade to the required level, so the standard does not have to be followed. The use of these “outs” can be gray. For example, it is a requirement to bring pedestrian ramps into compliance with detectable warning areas if an alteration is completed. The courts determined that a mill and overlay on a street would trigger updates to the ramps even though the ramp itself was not part of the project.

There are different areas of standards that the ADA publishes. The Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) governs improvements in the Right-of-way. PROWAG has gone through a revision in the last few years with significant input from all stakeholder groups. This document has been adopted at the state level and is expected to be adopted prior to the end of construction of 4th Street. As interpreted by federal ADA staff, “the standards would recommend 5 foot sidewalks, but if that is not possible, they may go down to 4-feet with 5-foot passing zones at frequent intervals.”

Who was the dissenting vote?

In the left-hand column, referencing “Compliance with ADA requirements and other general design guidelines”, there’s a passing mention of ADA standards. (As I noted in my comment #15 above, accessibility standards specifically applicable to public sidewalks have not yet been developed.)

The staff summary goes on to say that Option 1 (with the in-ground trees) “does not meet the ITE minimum design guidelines for sidewalk width in a Central Business District.” The ITE guidelines are not binding, and some experts say they aren’t even particularly good. But the way the table is laid out, one could understandably draw the conclusion that Option 1 doesn’t meet ADA requirements. This is false.

If ADA compliance is really in question, I would hope that the Council would request the necessary legal opinion from the City Attorney rather than relying on the understanding of City staff on this matter.

1. On the two-page PDF I referenced above (pages 56-57 in the packet), there’s a section for Option 1 on in-ground trees called:

Compliance with ADA requirements and other general design guidelines

Based on ADA standards a five foot Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) should be used. If this standard is not achievable, the PAR can be pinched to four feet with five feet passing zones at frequent intervals.

See my comment 11 above. Where does the ADA say this in its section titled Chapter 4: Accessible Routes; section 403 Walking Surfaces? It just says there has to be 3 ft of clearance and if less than 5 ft, passing zones have to be provided every 200 ft.

2. Gehler then quotes from the Institute for Transportation Engineering (ITE) design guideline manual, Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities (my link; the manual was published in 1998):

The width of a sidewalk should depend on where it is installed and the anticipated usage. The following are suggested minimum specifications for the width of a sidewalk to be installed. When determining the appropriate sidewalk width, it is important to consider that the effective sidewalk width for pedestrian movement in most urban environments is reduced by parking meter, planter, mail boxes, light poles, signs and other street furniture. The minimum widths shown below are exclusive of these effective width-reducing appurtenances.

1. Central business district: Wide enough to meet desired level of service according to the methods in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. The minimum width should be 8 feet.

2. Commercial/Industrial area outside of the Central Business District: Minimum 5-feet wide with 2-foot planting strip or 7-feet wide with no planting strip. However, wider planting strips of 4 or 5 feet are recommended when possible.

Gehler then writes:

Option 1 will comply with the minimum ADA standards with the use of an ADA compliant surface over the planter boxes. Option 1 does not meet the ITE minimum design guidelines for sidewalk width in a Central Business District.

I don’t get it. The ITE text that she quotes simply states the minimum width of a sidewalk in a central business district should be 8 feet. The 4th St. sidewalk is  8.5 – 9.5 feet. 

Or am I missing something? 

Page 53:

Page 54:

Page 55:

Page 56-57 (PDF):

This week staff has been working through development of revised streetscape options for the council to consider at the April 6, 2010 Council Meeting. Also this week, staff received comments from the MnDOT State Aid Review and addressed the minor revisions. An addendum will be prepared and released next week once direction on the streetscape options is obtained. Staff will also be pushing back the bid date to allow contractors adequate time to develop their bids based on the addendum. The change in bid date is not anticipated to effect bid prices. Contractors have been indicating that work is in demand and the market will continue to be very competitive. Due to the change of bid date, the bids will be brought to council on May 4th.

ITEM: Items related to the reconstruction of 4th Street and adjacent blocks

A. Consider Streetscape Options

ACTION REQUESTED:

Proposed Motion For Consideration: ____________Motion ___________Second

The City Council of the City of Northfield hereby directs staff to move forward with Streetscape Option____ from Division Street to Washington Street in completing the design for 2009

Improvement Project No. 005 – 4th Street Reconstruction.

Option 1 – Use the following elements in the Streetscape:

A. Stone gate, railing, trees and landscaping at Grastvedt Lane.

B. In-ground planters with small or ornamental type trees and a pervious, ADA compliant surface. The planters include rock excavation, engineered soils, and an irrigation system to maintain the health of the trees.

Option 2 – Use the following elements in the Streetscape:

A. Stone gate, railing, trees and landscaping at Grastvedt Lane.

B. Mid-block (alley) full bump-out with trees requiring a reduction in two parking spaces.

C. At-grade bump-outs with planters at the intersections. The planters include a watering system, engineered soils, and will be moved for snow removal.

SUMMARY

The City Council is being asked determine what streetscape option should be used in the reconstruction of 4th Street from Division Street to Washington Street. This item was brought to the Council for direction to staff at the March 2, 2010 meeting. The council asked staff to incorporate trees into the design of the block with a strong preference to have the trees be located in-ground along the sidewalk. Staff has prepared an option based on the Council’s direction. However, staff has concerns regarding whether the intended aesthetic can be achieved with this option. Staff has prepared this option along with comparing and contrasting it to the original option developed with the Streetscape Task Force.