Sidewalks everywhere!
 

I went to a local park today and noticed an unpaved path is now paved as a sidewalk. I think this is part of a larger trend to make these areas accessible for wheelchairs, but it detracts from the character of the area to have a paved sidewalk instead of an unpaved path. It leads me to wonder if there aren't other accessibility solutions besides paving unpaved paths.

1) Could wheelchairs be developed so they are better for rolling over unpaved paths, e.g. by having better tread and suspension?

2) Could there be some agreement to have unpaved paths as well as paved paths so that a significant amount of unpaved walking paths can be left unpaved? As I said, I'd rather not exclude people in wheelchairs but if there's no way to improve wheelchairs so they can go on unpaved paths, I'd still like to have as many unpaved paths as possible.

Am I just being greedy and selfish? Certainly there are many times I happily walk on sidewalks, and I am glad they are kept level for comfortable low-speed bike riding and wheelchair use; but I also walk quite happily on unpaved paths, so I would hate to see them all paved in the name of universal access or otherwise.

Scott Woods is a scenic area of Lansing forested with huge beech trees and containing a couple small lakes. I often enjoyed riding on the rough dirt trails on my mountain bike. About 10 years ago, they put an extension of the Rivertrail through there and while they were at it, they paved most of the other paths as well. They also fenced off one of the little lakes to make a dog park. I used to sit there, usually alone, but also became friends with a kid who fished there.

I was actually quite angry at the time. I really missed the solitude as many more people came in once the trails were paved. I even lost touch with my little fisher friend.

Like you, I felt a little guilty about my anger. I also felt like I was becoming one of those reactionaries who get cranky about any progress that opens up "my" little part of the world to more people. But I still miss the way Scott Woods was before they paved the trails.

I have to admit that some good came of it. I see people in wheelchairs on the trails, as well as the elderly and a lot more little kids. And I don't have to ride a mountain bike to go through there any more. My guess is that a lot of carfree people use these trails because they connect the city to an adjoining park that has a beach, sledding hill, and many more recreation activities.

Here in my area we have more paved then unpaved paths. Most of the paved paths become very difficult to ride during winter time, that's why the average cyclists just puts their bikes away into storage during winter. I've ridden them during winter many times and it takes a tremendous amount of effort to pass through them, often requiring getting off the bike and walking..... The problem with unpaved paths in my area which are made from crushed stone and gravel is that they become a big mess after winter snow/ice melt. They require some serious maintenance throughout the year, I have also seen heavy rains and flooding wash away and cause damage to parts of these unpaved trails. They would not be easily passable on a bicycle if the city didn't maintain them.

Paved sidewalks are easier to use ... generally smoother, less uneven, less muddy, easier to plow after a snowfall ...

If paved sidewalks encourage more people to walk or use them in other ways (wheelchairs, scooters, small children on bicycles, etc.), then I'm all for them! :)


Around here, there are a variety of options. You can choose to walk on paved sidewalks/footpaths around the urban areas ... or you can choose to walk one of the unpaved trails.

http://www.greaterhobarttrails.com.au/
http://tastrails.com/
http://www.tassietrails.org/
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=1315
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/indeX.aspX?base=409
https://www.railtrails.org.au/trail-...tions/tasmania

Sidewalks are not hiking trails. If you want to go hiking then take a vacation and visit an Appalachian Trail or something. Sidewalks are build for pedestrians and are meant to be used for transportation and as such should be as easy to use as possible. So all users can benefit from it and get from point A to point B without any hassles.

Around here, the multi-user trails and bike lanes are plowed by the city, usually before even some of the streets are cleared.

But sidewalks are cleared by the property owners. If even one owner per block doesn't shovel their sidewalk, travel can become impossible for some pedestrians.

I also see the good in making certain parks and historical sites more accessible, but I mentioned the idea of more all-terrain wheelchairs to preserve the natural and historical atmosphere of certain cites.


There are hiking/jogging trails around here where they put down gravel, probably because of drainage issues. That gravel is hard to walk on, though I think it will be buried under a layer of sedement/soil/leaves after a few years and be soft to walk on again.

I'm all for them along roads. I'm for some of them in parks. Where I'm not for them as much is in natural/historical areas where they detract from the atmosphere. All-terrain wheelchairs could be a solution.

It's nice to have both. However, instead of paving sidewalks through existing parks, why not convert some developed parcels into new parks and use the existing pavement as a foundation for paved walkways while breaking up other areas of the pavement to plant trees and greenery?

I appreciate sidewalks on some paths but lament them in others. There are roads where it irritates me that the sidewalk ends, especially when I am using the sidewalk to bike on because I'm too tired to ride fast on a busy traffic lane without a paved shoulder. But there are also many times where I think it would be nicer to have a spongier surface to walk on, i.e. unpaved ground.

Runners used to get shin-splints from running on pavement and running next to the sidewalk or road on the grass was recommended as a solution.

I don't know if you were aware but heavy duty electric wheelchairs cost about $4,000.00 USD. If you wanted to have suspension and off road capabilities, it would bring the price close to $6,000.00 USD.

Keep in mind that most people who use electric wheelchairs are usually unemployed.

No. I don't think either greedy or selfish are words that would describe your feelings. And... beside that.. I don't think you understand government spending and budgets.

Management positions are typically rated in difficulty and importance by budgets. Managing a department, division, unit,.... whatever... with a large budget means considerably more than a low-budget management position. The manager (despite the meaning of the word) of a multi-million dollar annual budget will almost always make more than the manager of a small budget.

On-going long-term construction projects... like miles of sidewalks, shelters, restrooms, artificial lakes and so-forth can add real value (and greatly increased salaries) for the government employee manager/budget controller. All parks continue to grow (although not always or at all times). More paved areas will continue to cover all parks everywhere (although not always or at all times).

Looking at some of the All terrain wheel chairs $8000.00 to $14000.00 isn't beyond believable. I haven't a clue as to how much a tracked Wheel chair is. And I thought all ADA compliant trails had to be paved?

From my experience, spending on things like sidewalks and paths is somewhat complicated.

The shire will have a budget for minimal new work and for maintenance. If there is going to be any more work than that, the shire needs to get grants. A good portion of infrastructure work comes from grants.

These grants often have restrictions. The path or sidewalk has to be paved. The path or sidewalk must not be paved. The path or sidewalk must be this wide ... or that narrow. The path or sidewalk can go here, but not there. Some of the restrictions are quite understandable ... other restrictions are rather odd. But if you want the grant, you comply.

But before you go crazy and get all sorts of grants, you've also got to look at your workforce and how much work they can handle. A $10,000 grant might be OK because it means that 1 block of sidewalk might be built. The workforce can handle that with all the other work they've got on the schedule. But if you apply for a $100,000 grant ... are you actually going to be able to complete the work within the time limit on the grant? And can you hire extra help? Some grants will allow you to use some of the grant money to hire extra help ... some absolutely refuse to let one cent of the grant be spent on labour. You've got to check that and weigh up the pros and cons.

In the midst of all this, you're doing community consultations. Does the community want a sidewalk or path and if so, what sort? So before you rush out and get a grant, you've got to find these things out ... but you also don't want to get the hopes of the community up. If you have community consultations and everyone wants a great paved path ... can you get a grant for that? What if you can't and you have to break it to the community that the money is not available.

That's just a very basic example there of a few elements that go into building a sidewalk or path. There are lots of other factors as well.

We might sit here and think ... "it would be great if" or "why don't they" or whatever. But actually working in that area was a very eye-opening experience for me. It's just not that simple.


I encourage anyone who wants more cycling/walking infrastructure in their local areas to get involved and find out what's involved.

I absolutely agree. Good infra is vital to many people who want to be carfree/carlight, as well as people with special mobility needs. But I also agree with what the OP seemed to be saying, that in some places there actually seems to be too much infrastructure, like paved bike trails in a nice wild or semi-wild area.

Doesn't medicaid/medicare pay for these mobility devices? Paving off-road trails also costs a lot. Plus there are many off-road trails that wheelchair users could gain access to if they had off-road capabilities. For this reason alone, I think it would make more sense to fund off-road wheelchairs than paving unpaved pedestrian trails. Sidewalks ruin the natural character of unpaved hiking/historical areas.

I see pavement as useful for having MUPs and paved bike trails/highways so people can go long distances at a reasonable speed. Once you arrive at a hiking path or other walkable, unpaved destination, it's better to leave those areas unpaved.

Yes, this is a pertinent point. It is frustrating how much policy is produced in the interest of creating jobs and driving up pay by driving up expenses unnecessarily. There is little thought about how spending and doing more and more elaborate projects ruins the resources targeted for (re)development. It's a twisted irony to use words like 'conservation' and 'restoration' to justify destroying natural and historical land fixtures and replacing them with new construction in various forms.

Some construction projects are vital and beneficial but less is typically more and people who don't understand that just waste and destroy things to do more in order to make more money for themselves and the economy.

Ultimately, whatever we do or don't do as a community of grant-funders and contractors/workers for that grant money is democratically negotiable to the extent that everyone involved is willing to listen to each other and give serious consideration to differing perspectives.

Yep. And sooner... or later it all comes to a head as well.

I ride the MUP's and truly do enjoy them. But as I see them expand and grow I know their annual budget must also be doing the same. Sooner or later... the MUP's network will be considered too expensive and sections will be closed and/or shut-off. This is the natural progression of government projects.

I want to see the needs of people restricted to a wheelchair taken seriously. Extending their access beyond the utilitarian is good. People need access to greenspace etc.

On a selfish note, I've observed a huge increase in wheelchair ramps in my lifetime. They weren't put there for bicycles mind you. But we all benefit don't we?:thumb:

I don't know about that. I don't see very many roads or, or any government projects, that have been abandoned. The state capitol near my house is still in use after 130 some years. Hell, there are roads in Italy that are still being used that the Romans built 2,000 years ago. I think roads (or trails) are mostly abandoned only when the people move away from the region for whatever reason.

Anyway, we have a very extensive network of MUPs in my state. Studies have shown that they get good use, attract tourists to a region, and increase property values of adjacent homes and businesses. I guess a lot of people consider them a good investment, even if they never actually use them.

Yes, and same for curb cuts and "pedestrian" overpasses over busy highways.

Strange that more people don't see the simply logic of how waste/destruction-generated revenues are inherently unsustainable. Still, I think they are "coming to a head," all the time, only we've come to accept so many forms of degeneracy and destruction in our societies as just normal that we don't stop to think about how intentional forms of waste/destruction help beget others that may be less intentional.

The main struggle against MUP's and bike/pedestrian reforms in general comes from the view that driving infrastructure is a necessity and driving must be the ubiquitous form of transportation. Within that paradigm, all forms of infrastructure not for driving are extras that could be cut to save money. Driving infrastructure is viewed as essential and thus immune from cuts, which effectively secures it as a form of waste/destruction that begets further waste/destruction in the form of economic problems that cause governments to perpetually seek to cut other 'extras' like bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

In short, the driving infrastructure is wasteful/destructive, and that's why it can sustain an economy that affords MUP's for everyone to bike and walk everywhere. What needs to happen is for some automotive waste/destruction to be cut back and to replace the mobility lost with greater non-motorized mobility. Many people are afraid of this because they don't recognize the failure of the automotive paradigm. After all, the degenerative culture we have now is tolerated as an inevitability as long as we don't question the paradigm.

Yes, I've always thought about that, ever since GW Bush signed in the bill to build so many wheelchair ramps, which I didn't realize at first would benefit cyclists as well.

Unfortunately, building them and not using them isn't enough. We don't want to end up with the same forms of economic failure cropping up again and again, only with unused MUP's in the background. We need to reform our daily habits so the automotive economy stays at a sustainably modest level while LCF economic activity is able to flourish because their are no bottlenecks for it to do so.

I spent a career in government. You aren't paying attention! The government dismantles billions in structures annually. We often joked... that buildings were always renovated before we tore them down.

Government "best practices" would indicate then.... that it is nearly time to close them down. After all.... you can't get better by relying on what is already working.

Sorry. What I meant to get across.... is because of the MUP's or because of something newer. Sooner or later someone's budget will grow so big.... as to make that person (or the MUP's themselves) a target by other petty, jealous, promotion hungry, government employees (meaning people like everywhere else).

Because government services are NOT profit or customer satisfaction driven........ MUP budgets will be slashed so that the budget can be divided amongst other branches of the same department or funneled into new/other department budgets.

This is how it has always worked. This is how/why governments continue to grow and increase taxes until... they topple under their own weight.

I think you misunderestimate the rationality behind government projects. While I agree that there is a lot of short-sightedness, self-interest, social-interest, etc. interfering with the effectiveness of government projects, probably at least partly due to intentional sabotage internally, there are legitimate, rational ideas and goals behind government projects, and connective MUP networks are rational to the extent they foster the ability of people/businesses to go beyond the automotive paradigm to explore more efficient forms of human-geography.

All you seem to want to do is project a situation in which all LCF infrastructure gains are halted and even destroyed in an effort to re-assert a monopoly for the automotive paradigm, but I think that is a product of some bias you seem to harbor against LCF.

Wow! Then I wasted an entire career with the government... and so did my Dad... and so is my nephew. Or... I actually have decades of useful experience... devoid of hopeful, misplaced, ideals.

Pragmatic is often misunderstood.... and viewed as pessimistic or corrupt. Particularly by those you are emotionally invested. I think that would mean you.

I have lived car-lite for decades. I have always lived greener than most people who profess great belief in green ideologies. Although environmental or other similar movements don't appeal to me as I have traditional religious beliefs that keep me grounded.

I posted what I know to be truth... and could not care less about your ideas of "LCF infrastructure gains halted and even destroyed for a monopoly [for]..... the automotive paradigm". I have no interests or investment in any "automotive paradigm". And I do not see natural progressions and changes as either productive... or destructive.

Bicycles, automobiles, and cities have all been around plenty long enough to be understood. I think the very few projections I've made are all very reasonable.... based on a well known history.

It isn't clear what you're implying here. Are you saying that government is intentionally counter-rational for some reason? And why would you even assume that your experiences in government represent everyone else's as well? Isn't that like saying all corporate life is the same, or all academic life?

Pragmatism can mean so many different things.

Why don't you stop worrying about proving and/or defending your own car-liteness, greenness, or whatever and just discuss things separately from accusing or defending the people who identify with the ideas? Also, will you ever tire of accusing environmentalism of being a religion, and thus presumably arbitrary in your mind.

I am both religious and environmentalist, but they are totally resonant with each other because the essence of religion is that nature is God's work and culture ours. So how could a worshiper of God feel culture is superior to nature unless Satan was their God? We can't discuss religion here because this is not P&R, though, so why bring it up at all, as you have here?

I don't understand how you can say that you don't understand the fundamental difference between constructive and destructive actions if you are religious, but again this is P&R material so better skip it.

They are understood in different ways according to what people prioritize. Prioritizing money and jobs results in one understanding, while prioritizing non-commercial human (cultural) life results in another. Environmental considerations result in yet another way of understanding cities and transportation. I think it is fair to say that some people are better at some forms of understanding than others. And people's POVs develop along different paths, so that's why discussion facilitates progress of all POVs, even if it's just getting a clearer picture of what you're fundamentally against.