Comments

1





That

Sign

Violates

WA RCWs

2
@1 cite please.
3
@2

1510.17 Work Zone Pedestrian Accommodation

While Title II of the ADA requires that a public entity maintain its pedestrian facilities in operable working condition, including maintenance of their accessibility features, construction and maintenance activities often temporarily disrupt these facilities.

When this occurs, provide access and mobility for pedestrians through and around work zones (see Exhibit 1510-31). Address this in the temporary traffic control plans if the project occurs in a location accessible to pedestrians. The designer must determine pedestrian needs in the proposed work zone during the public input process and through field visits.

Detailed guidance on work zone pedestrian accommodation can be found in the WSDOT Field Guide for Accessible Public Rights of Way, the MUTCD, and Chapter 1010.
Some work zone considerations include:

• Separate pedestrians from conflicts with work zone equipment and operations.

• Separate pedestrians from traffic moving through or around the work zone.

• Provide pedestrians with alternate routes that have accessible and convenient travel paths that duplicate, as closely as feasible, the characteristics of the existing pedestrian facilities.


http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/man…
4
If I had a nickel for every random, dubious Seattle sidewalk closure I've ever run into, I'd be able to buy up all the land in South Lake Union and turn it into a giant construction zone theme park.

Oh wait.
5
Fitter, happier, more productive...
6
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ce8l…

@3: OK so what? I don't see how that sign violates anything there.
7
@3, that's not the RCW.

It also doesn't preclude temporary sidewalk closures during construction. Indeed, it specifically calls for advance notification of sidewalk closures, which suggests that WSDOT knows and accepts that sidewalk closures are going to happen.

The accommodation of sidewalk closures is clearly satisfied in these regulations by having a route around them -- cross on the other side, for instance. Indeed, the regulations for Temporary Traffic Control in the full MUTCD, which is linked in your document, specify in excruciating detail how sidewalk closures must be arranged, right down to the spacing between warning signs and so on.

Now, I agree that that sucks as a solution. I'm against sidewalk closures generally, temporary or permanent. But your assertion that they're a violation of the RCW is baloney. They are a matter for city control, not state, and the city doesn't seem to care.
8
ACA is federal, not state
9
Is this a Seattle insider thing? I don't understand 1) the edit (can have nice things...???), 2) what "No T no shade" means, and 3) why this was even posted.
10
Um, yeah. What @9 said.
11
@8, your stupidity knows no bounds.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.