A reader sent in these photos from the new Friendship Street bridge over Route 95.
Thanks RIDOT.
Update 12/01: Our reader sends in a possible fix for this signage:
Reader Submission: RIDOT’s idea of a sidewalk
11 responses to Reader Submission: RIDOT’s idea of a sidewalk
Trackbacks and Pingbacks:
-
-
November 30, 2010
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cassi, Cassi, Sarah Goodyear, Cycleboredom, Streetsblog Network and others. Streetsblog Network said: This is good for a laugh: RIDOT's idea of a sidewalk http://bit.ly/i6qIh3 good catch @gcpvd [...]
Is that even legal? Are they supposed to be accessible, as in passable by a wheelchair? The city makes us shovel a 3 foot path in the winter, which makes me assume there should always be at least 3 feet of sidewalk available. It doesn’t look like that exists on that corner in the pic.
I just don’t get it. Why build a nice new sidewalk only to block it? Couldn’t they have gotten rid of 2 of those poles and combined them all on a single pole? I mean, they’re all in the same freakin’ direction!
It reminds me of when the city put in new poles on Admiral Street for the stop lights for the fire station. It’s this enormous pole right smack in the middle of the sidewalk. They could have easily strung the light from the wires above.
This is so frustrating, makes me want to scream!
Thank you for your comment regarding wheelchairs, that was my first thought as well. I don’t know the specifics of ADA, but I would think someone could file suit against DOT for a violation of it.
It is another example of how far RIDOTs thinking still has to come. There were several community meetings last year, and someone brought this issue up; putting crap in the sidewalks. The person asked, since we are building streets from scratch, can’t we keep signs, and traffic light control boxes and such out of the center of the sidewalks. RIDOTs response was, “they have to go somewhere.” I said, well why not in the middle of the street? You have no problem blocking pedestrian access with this type of clutter, why not block vehicle access with it instead. I was being facetious (kind of) but that went right over the RIDOT representatives head.
And then they went and built this.
How in the world is that ADA compliant?! If we can’t plant trees on sidewalks because it would make the sidewalk too narrow LEGALLY, how is it that this is ok?
The sidewalk is within compliance with ADA standards. The specification calls for 36″ minimum clearance at the narrowest point. The narrowest point of the sidewalk through this area is 43.5″
YAY! 43.5″!
Please sir, could I have some more?
Really? There’s 43 inches between the sign post and the railing? someone go out there and measure it. I know that i might not be very good with maths and measurements what with being brought up thinking that
*_______________________________________*
is 8 inches but come on!
We should rename “RIDOT” “RIDAT”: RI Department of Automobile Transportation. We are lucky there is even a crosswalk at this intersection. One of those signs should say “Good Luck”.
That does NOT look like 36″ at all! I really want to measure it now.
Speaking of RIDOT and sidewalks, has anyone seen the completed Rte 403 Relocation Project pedestrian accommodations along Frenchtown Road in East Greenwich? There are NONE. This was all new construction and yet there are no sidewalks, no crosswalks, nothing but a small shoulder and a small sidewalk on the bridge portion of Frenchtown Road only. How, in this day and age, did nobody ever think of this?