The Seattle Department of Transportation says it’s stepping up enforcement against developers who block sidewalks, thereby pushing pedestrians into traffic, but the crackdown appears nonexistent.
I posted a photo yesterday of a construction project on East Union Street that put a “sidewalk closed” sign in front of a Honey Bucket, halfway up the block. “We see that as a violation,” says SDoT spokesman Rick Sheridan, who called me after he saw the post. In recent months, he says, street-use inspectors have been focusing on pedestrian access around developments. (They also have a complaint line if a construction site is breaking the rules: (206) 684-5253.) But SDoT should know that its enforcement standards—even when it actually enforces them—are toothless.
Brian de Place, who manages SDoT’s street-use permitting, says the developer on East Union Street should be placing "sidewalk closed" signs at each end of the block so pedestrians cross the street at the intersection. He then clarified the exact location of the site.
So what's the increased enforcement look like? Today the intersection looks the same:

Sheridan says he doesn't have data to show more enforcement since last August, when the city auditor reported that more must be done to protect walkers, cyclists, and disabled people around construction sites.
In response to the audit, Sheridan says SDoT is drafting a proposal to increase pedestrian mobility, due by June. The proposal will identify high-priority downtown streets and would require developers to maintain walkways at all block-long construction sites. But people are already supposed to cross the street to avoid any construction project, so all construction projects are, in effect, block-long closures to pedestrians. Realistically, the goal should be getting pedestrians around construction projects without crossing the street.
SDoT is being willfully naïve about human behavior. People don’t cross the street to avoid construction projects. They walk in the street, as we have documented here and here, and SDoT knows it. When speaking to Sheridan and de Place, I asked if our city, like several other cities, could require most developers to barricade pedestrian lanes in the parking lane. “I don’t know if in all instances that pedestrian flow needs to be facilitated on [the same] side of the street,” says Sheridan. Agreed, not in all instances, but in the overwhelming majority of cases there’s no reason not to. For example, at a site on East Pike Street today, there's plenty of room in the parking lane for a barricaded pedestrian pathway:

“We need to balance the needs of the all users. Can we take away the parking lane? I can’t speak to this site,” said de Place.
Comments (24) RSS