Fed-up citizens paint own crosswalks, City removes them. (1 Viewer)

[mattdaddy]

Citizens ask for crosswalks. City says it doesn't have the money. Citizens paint crosswalks. City pays to have them removed which costs roughly the same amount as it would have to paint them in the first place. Awesomeness. Have we become Idiocracy yet?

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/fed-citizens-paint-crosswalks-city-removes-video/#axzz3131KBcjO

 

[SacramentoBob]

6 user(s) are reading this topic3 members, 1 guests, 2 anonymous users

• SacramentoBob*, Ron Swanson, DiStefano, Ted Lange as your Bartender

Perfect.

 

[Amused to Death]

As idiotic as you make it sound, citizens can't just go around painting their own pavement markings wherever they feel its needed.

 

[Abraham]

As idiotic as you make it sound, citizens can't just go around painting their own pavement markings wherever they feel its needed.

Says who?

 

[Amused to Death]

As idiotic as you make it sound, citizens can't just go around painting their own pavement markings wherever they feel its needed.

Says who?

There's more to putting out crosswalks than just painting some lines on the pavement. Can I put a stop sign where I want one? Or build a speed bump in front of my house?

Believe it or not, a lot goes in to signing and striping a roadway. As the article mentions, there are sight distance requirements and probably signage requirements that go into the planning of a crosswalk.

 

[Sand]

So $1000 to get out a sandblaster and remove these? That's about an hour's work.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As idiotic as you make it sound, citizens can't just go around painting their own pavement markings wherever they feel its needed.

I don't know about that.

In New Orleans after Katrina people painted and put up their own street signs because the government wasn't nearly up to it. Some are still around.

 

[Amused to Death]

As idiotic as you make it sound, citizens can't just go around painting their own pavement markings wherever they feel its needed.

I don't know about that.

In New Orleans after Katrina people painted and put up their own street signs because the government wasn't nearly up to it. Some are still around.

I don't think that represents a typical case of citizens being fed up with local government. I'm sure there were some liberties taken after Katrina in the interest of getting some order restored.

 

[mattdaddy]

As idiotic as you make it sound, citizens can't just go around painting their own pavement markings wherever they feel its needed.

I don't know about that.

In New Orleans after Katrina people painted and put up their own street signs because the government wasn't nearly up to it. Some are still around.

That's crazy. People living in a community taking care of themselves. How did they know how to do that?

 

[jon_mx]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok anyone know anything about Tacoma politics?

Why wouldn't the city just paint the damn crosswalk?

 

[Abraham]

As idiotic as you make it sound, citizens can't just go around painting their own pavement markings wherever they feel its needed.

Says who?

There's more to putting out crosswalks than just painting some lines on the pavement. Can I put a stop sign where I want one? Or build a speed bump in front of my house?

Believe it or not, a lot goes in to signing and striping a roadway. As the article mentions, there are sight distance requirements and probably signage requirements that go into the planning of a crosswalk.

Uh, ok.

 

[Freelove]

Ok anyone know anything about Tacoma politics?

Why wouldn't the city just paint the damn crosswalk?

Hard to tell from the article. Strange to think we didn't get all sides of the story from the folks at the Libertarian Republic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok anyone know anything about Tacoma politics?

Why wouldn't the city just paint the damn crosswalk?

Hard to tell from the article. Strange to think we didn't get all sides of the story from the folks at the Libertarian Republic.

Ha well I guess you're right. But can we think of a good reason why the city would not put in a crosswalk as requested?

I have a friend here in NO who can't get a street light fixed (and yes it's a problem his house has been broken into and the city has a crime problem).

He calls the councilwoman and writes her; as of February she tells him the city is out of money. It's been going on since Nov./Dec. How does the city run out of money for street repairs. Apparently he can pay the city $40 and supposedly they will show up specially for him, but he objects because he already pays taxes. He has taken to tweeting the mayor about it.

ETA - it's different if we're talking just one dispute over one crosswalk or these things are springing up all over the place.

 

[Freelove]

The city has now responded:





Crosswalks may seem no more than simple stripes, but determining where they go takes more consideration than citizens may think. A recent rash of unofficial crosswalk markings have City of Tacoma staff asking residents to find better ways to channel their desire for pedestrian enhancements.






“We understand and empathize with our citizens’ desire for more pedestrian facilities, but this form of vandalism is not acceptable and can quickly become a significant resource drain and safety hazard. The City will pursue legal action against those engaged in this kind of illegal activity,” said City Manager T.C. Broadnax.




Crosswalk markings create visual emphasis for drivers and guide pedestrians to the best crossing locations. Therefore, poorly located crosswalks lead to safety concerns and the City will continue to act swiftly to remove unofficial markings.




Before creating any new crosswalk, City staff use standards from the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to help determine when conditions are favorable. Considerations include: pedestrian and traffic volumes, street width, traffic speed, sight distance, collision history, traffic control devices and ADA accessibility.


http://www.exit133.com/articles/view/the-city-responds-to-guerrilla-crosswalks#.U2uKBvmUQmE

 

[Amused to Death]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The city has now responded:


Crosswalks may seem no more than simple stripes, but determining where they go takes more consideration than citizens may think. A recent rash of unofficial crosswalk markings have City of Tacoma staff asking residents to find better ways to channel their desire for pedestrian enhancements.




“We understand and empathize with our citizens’ desire for more pedestrian facilities, but this form of vandalism is not acceptable and can quickly become a significant resource drain and safety hazard. The City will pursue legal action against those engaged in this kind of illegal activity,” said City Manager T.C. Broadnax.


Crosswalk markings create visual emphasis for drivers and guide pedestrians to the best crossing locations. Therefore, poorly located crosswalks lead to safety concerns and the City will continue to act swiftly to remove unofficial markings.


Before creating any new crosswalk, City staff use standards from the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to help determine when conditions are favorable. Considerations include: pedestrian and traffic volumes, street width, traffic speed, sight distance, collision history, traffic control devices and ADA accessibility.

http://www.exit133.com/articles/view/the-city-responds-to-guerrilla-crosswalks#.U2uKBvmUQmE

People should look at that picture, it's way different than the first one.

You know what's funny about this is that what Libertarians are defending here is rogue liberals/progressives.

You've got local bands apparently who are out there regulating where the state/city won't.

Yeah I'd be pretty pssed if I started seeing fake crosswalks and bike lanes and stop signs where they shouldn't be. I agree it's a problem.

 

[NCCommish]

Crosswalks do have regulations involved. And wasn't Tacoma voted one of the most walkable cities in America within the last few years?

 

[mattdaddy]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

 

[Amused to Death]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Do you like living in Tacoma?

 

[Snoopy]

Reminds me of this Seinfeld episode where Kramer repaints the lane lines: http://seinfeld-episodes.com/the-pothole/

 

[Lutherman2112]

Year old story.

Here's another story, with more pics. One crosswalked was stripped with white and pink paint.

Tacoma crosswalk vigilantes tell all

 

[mattdaddy]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

 

[Slapdash]

Is that Seattle?

 

[Fennis]

As idiotic as you make it sound, citizens can't just go around painting their own pavement markings wherever they feel its needed.

that why I speed up when I see those idiotic bright yellow-kid shaped "slow kids at play" signs someone puts up in the street.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

So every person living in a community should take any matter that they see a need for into their own hands?

what is your definition of "random people"?

I see no need for the "No Turn on Red" sign near my house. A few people I know agree on it. We are planning to remove it later this evening.

 

[Josie Maran]

I'm painting my own crosswalks right now.

 

[mattdaddy]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

So every person living in a community should take any matter that they see a need for into their own hands?

what is your definition of "random people"?

I see no need for the "No Turn on Red" sign near my house. A few people I know agree on it. We are planning to remove it later this evening.

So a city should just ignore it's citizen's valid concerns and threaten to bring legal action against them when they've had enough?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

So every person living in a community should take any matter that they see a need for into their own hands?

what is your definition of "random people"?

I see no need for the "No Turn on Red" sign near my house. A few people I know agree on it. We are planning to remove it later this evening.

So a city should just ignore it's citizen's valid concerns and threaten to bring legal action against them when they've had enough?

It sounds like these citizens really did a hell of a job.

“They’re different colors, some of them were circles, they weren’t really a crosswalk,” said Kingsolver.

So, no, I do not think that random citizens should try to regulate public safety.

Please tell me what other means these citizens took in order to get this taken care of prior to this action?

The articles say that the citizens asked for crosswalks and were turned away and then decided to take this action. We have no idea what reasons they received or if they even understood why it could not be done the way they wanted it.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So the city HARD DELETED it?

 

[Parrothead]

when someone makes me angry, I paint a 'Tow Away Zone' in their driveway

 

[TobiasFunke]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

So every person living in a community should take any matter that they see a need for into their own hands?

what is your definition of "random people"?

I see no need for the "No Turn on Red" sign near my house. A few people I know agree on it. We are planning to remove it later this evening.

So a city should just ignore it's citizen's valid concerns and threaten to bring legal action against them when they've had enough?

A city should not ignore its citizens valid concerns. But that does not justify this action.

Governments are always going to get some things right and some things wrong. That's the way it goes. But EVERY extralegal action taken by fed-up citizens is wrong. Every single one. I don't care how justified some people may think they are in one particular case.

 

[Freelove]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

So every person living in a community should take any matter that they see a need for into their own hands?

what is your definition of "random people"?

I see no need for the "No Turn on Red" sign near my house. A few people I know agree on it. We are planning to remove it later this evening.

So a city should just ignore it's citizen's valid concerns and threaten to bring legal action against them when they've had enough?

A city should not ignore its citizens valid concerns. But that does not justify this action.

Governments are always going to get some things right and some things wrong. That's the way it goes. But EVERY extralegal action taken by fed-up citizens is wrong. Every single one. I don't care how justified some people may think they are in one particular case.

So suck it, Schindler!

 

[TobiasFunke]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

So every person living in a community should take any matter that they see a need for into their own hands?

what is your definition of "random people"?

I see no need for the "No Turn on Red" sign near my house. A few people I know agree on it. We are planning to remove it later this evening.

So a city should just ignore it's citizen's valid concerns and threaten to bring legal action against them when they've had enough?

A city should not ignore its citizens valid concerns. But that does not justify this action.

Governments are always going to get some things right and some things wrong. That's the way it goes. But EVERY extralegal action taken by fed-up citizens is wrong. Every single one. I don't care how justified some people may think they are in one particular case.

So suck it, Schindler!

My favorite post of the week.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

So when someone crossing this new crosswalk gets hit by a car and killed, how much do you think the city would get sued for?

They are vandals.

 

[CBusAlex]

So a city should just ignore it's citizen's valid concerns and threaten to bring legal action against them when they've had enough?

A city should not ignore its citizens valid concerns. But that does not justify this action.

Governments are always going to get some things right and some things wrong. That's the way it goes. But EVERY extralegal action taken by fed-up citizens is wrong. Every single one. I don't care how justified some people may think they are in one particular case.

And if the citizens have more valid concerns than the city can address at once, it's perfectly reasonable for the city to prioritize them and ignore the less urgent ones.

 

[Amused to Death]

So a city should just ignore it's citizen's valid concerns and threaten to bring legal action against them when they've had enough?

A city should not ignore its citizens valid concerns. But that does not justify this action.

Governments are always going to get some things right and some things wrong. That's the way it goes. But EVERY extralegal action taken by fed-up citizens is wrong. Every single one. I don't care how justified some people may think they are in one particular case.

And if the citizens have more valid concerns than the city can address at once, it's perfectly reasonable for the city to prioritize them and ignore the less urgent ones.

Local & state transportation funding has been woefully inadequate for decades nationwide. Funds have been grossly mis-managed (by Dems and GOP alike). With economic times such as they are, you'd think investing in the infrastructure would be a priority. In certain states & towns, bike lanes and crosswalks are the least of their worries. Upgrade utilities, fix bridges, widen roads to increase capacity.

 

[Lutherman2112]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

So every person living in a community should take any matter that they see a need for into their own hands?

what is your definition of "random people"?

I see no need for the "No Turn on Red" sign near my house. A few people I know agree on it. We are planning to remove it later this evening.

So a city should just ignore it's citizen's valid concerns and threaten to bring legal action against them when they've had enough?

Once again, this story is a year old. Have you taken the time to see if the city is still ignoring its citizen's concerns?

City of Tacoma Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Project

 

[kface]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Yeah, the city could put additional safety measures in place. But random people doing what they deem necessary isn't right either. Sounds like the city/town may need to do a pedestrian safety study. Or maybe they already did and some people don't like the results. Like I mentioned, if a crosswalk is necessary at an intersection, there are many implications. Sidewalk design, signal design, new signage....its not just random lines. So I suspect the cost for the evaluation & implementation would be significantly higher than someone with a paint roller putting lines on pavement.

As for the cost to remove, it may be excessive (up to $1000 per) but it is necessary to remove them. The city is liable for any injuries or accidents that are caused by the markings.

Well if they live in the community and see the need for them I wouldn't call them random people or vandals for that matter. It's not like I showed up with a spray paint can in Tacoma and started painting on the roads. That should answer Larry's question.

So every person living in a community should take any matter that they see a need for into their own hands?

what is your definition of "random people"?

I see no need for the "No Turn on Red" sign near my house. A few people I know agree on it. We are planning to remove it later this evening.

So a city should just ignore it's citizen's valid concerns and threaten to bring legal action against them when they've had enough?

Once again, this story is a year old. Have you taken the time to see if the city is still ignoring its citizen's concerns?

City of Tacoma Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Project

You can't also forget that a city gets 100s of requests per week for these types of speed impeding devices. A city can't build everything residents requests...it's a balance between funding and prioritizing infrastructure projects.

And as someone clearly raised they had to immediately remove the crosswalk because of liability. That would have been a monsterous law suit if something happened.

if the citizens are so concerned, and I have seen this in other municipalties, approach the city, form a group and do things properly. Raise the money in your neighbourhood to have a contractor do the work to city specs, have a public open house to see if most people even want it there.

 

[lod01]

Ok anyone know anything about Tacoma politics?

Why wouldn't the city just paint the damn crosswalk?

Costs too much. What a bunch of idiots.

 

[DrJ]

One issue is I doubt if the crosswalks were ADA compliant.

Looking at the video I'm surprised the intersection doesn't have crosswalks. But there are design standards. As I mentioned you may need advanced warning signs that a crosswalk is ahead. Also, the signals have to allow enough time for people to cross (if its a signalized intersection). There are also requirements about how close a crosswalk can be to a stop bar (4'? 6'?).

I get it. It has to be done correctly to server the purpose it is intended to serve. But the city can find the resources to remove them and bring forth legal actions against the "vandals" but it can't just paint the f'n crosswalks. As Seth Meyers would say. Really?

Actually it can't. They're creating grit and mono-potholes in the process. http://comics.feedtacoma.com/tacomic/tacomic-occupy-vigilante-renegade-rogue-crosswalks/

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And wasn't Tacoma voted one of the most walkable cities in America within the last few years?

People seriously vote on that?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ok anyone know anything about Tacoma politics?

Why wouldn't the city just paint the damn crosswalk?

Costs too much. What a bunch of idiots.

I don't think it's surprising that the budget for crosswalks is more limited than the budget to clean up vandalism. That's why the city can afford to remove crosswalks that it couldn't afford to install.

 

[oso diablo]

why do we need Federal laws regarding crosswalks?

 

[Amused to Death]

why do we need Federal laws regarding crosswalks?

There are federal and state guidelines (design standards) for all traffic control devices. That includes all striping and signing. You'd be surprised at how much design goes into an intersection or striping a road. Google 'mutcd'.

 

[lod01]

Ok anyone know anything about Tacoma politics?

Why wouldn't the city just paint the damn crosswalk?

Costs too much. What a bunch of idiots.

I don't think it's surprising that the budget for crosswalks is more limited than the budget to clean up vandalism. That's why the city can afford to remove crosswalks that it couldn't afford to install.

I thought they said it cost the same to remove them as to add them?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Ok anyone know anything about Tacoma politics?

Why wouldn't the city just paint the damn crosswalk?

Costs too much. What a bunch of idiots.

I don't think it's surprising that the budget for crosswalks is more limited than the budget to clean up vandalism. That's why the city can afford to remove crosswalks that it couldn't afford to install.

I thought they said it cost the same to remove them as to add them?

They did. What MT is saying is there's more money in the "clean up" budget than there is in the "add crosswalk" budget.

 

[oso diablo]

why do we need Federal laws regarding crosswalks?

There are federal and state guidelines (design standards) for all traffic control devices. That includes all striping and signing. You'd be surprised at how much design goes into an intersection or striping a road. Google 'mutcd'.

i'm not doubting that the regs exist; i'm questioning why something like that needs regs at a federal level.

 

[kface]

Ok anyone know anything about Tacoma politics?

Why wouldn't the city just paint the damn crosswalk?

Costs too much. What a bunch of idiots.

I don't think it's surprising that the budget for crosswalks is more limited than the budget to clean up vandalism. That's why the city can afford to remove crosswalks that it couldn't afford to install.

I thought they said it cost the same to remove them as to add them?

Governments operate with money within specific budgets. I suspect they have 20k in pedestrian imporvements for example but 100k in the budget for graffiti removal as part of another completely different department. That money is directed as per council orders and cannont be moved from one budget to the other without council approval. As well, this would be such a huge liability for the city it would have to removed immedialtely. It would almost come from emergency funds because if something was to happen you are talking 100 million $$ lawsuit.