Bill Would Permit Segway Use in Forest Park

Last Friday Ald. Lyda Krewson (D-28th) introduced Board Bill 449 which would allow, with restrictions enforced through a permit process, the use of a Segway in Forest Park. Currently the Segway is legally allowed to use the street, along with cars, trucks, bicycles and scooters. They are also allowed, per state law, to use sidewalks and bike paths:

Defined–requirements for operation.

307.205. 1. For the purposes of sections 307.205 to 307.211, “electric personal assistive mobility device” (EPAMD) shall mean a self-balancing, two nontandem wheeled device, designed to transport only one person, with an electric propulsion system with an average power of seven hundred fifty watts (one horsepower), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a propulsion system while ridden by an operator who weighs one hundred seventy pounds, is less than twenty miles per hour.

2. An electric personal assistive mobility device may be operated upon a street, highway, sidewalk, and bicycle path. Every person operating such a device shall be granted all of the rights and be subject to all of the duties applicable to a pedestrian pursuant to chapter 304, RSMo.

3. Persons under sixteen years of age shall not operate an electric personal assistive mobility device, except for an operator with a mobility-related disability.

4. An electric personal assistive mobility device shall be operated only on roadways with a speed limit of forty-five miles per hour or less. This shall not prohibit the use of such device when crossing roadways with speed limits in excess of forty-five miles per hour.

5. A city or town shall have the authority to impose additional regulations on the operation of an electric personal assistive mobility device within its city or town limits.

The last section above does allow cities to place restrictions. In the City of St. Louis it has been interpreted by the City Counselor’s office that the Segway is a vehicle and is not allowed to use sidewalks and/or bike paths. The current applicable definition comes from ordinance 65138 which was signed by the Mayor in January 2001 — before the introduction of the Segway:

For purposes of this ordinance a “motorized scooter” shall mean any two-wheeled device that has handlebars, is designed to be stood upon by the operator, and is powered by a motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion at a speed of not more than 25 miles per hour.

The above ordinance was originally targeted to those motorized skateboards that were popular at the time — hence the ‘stand upon part’ of the definition. The city cites the following as reasons for a Segway being a vehicle and thus banned from use on sidewalks:

Every person operating a motorized scooter shall have all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of any other vehicle as established by ordinance, including, but not limited to, ordinances concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, except those provisions which, by their very nature, can have no application.

Well, OK, but what about this section from the same ordinance:

A person operating a motorized scooter is not subject to the provisions of this code relating to registration, and license plate requirements, and, for those purposes, a motorized scooter is not a motor vehicle.

If we stroll over to the “revised code” for the city and look at the Chapter 17.16 Miscellaneous Traffic Rules we can see all sorts of, well, miscellaneous rules. These include rules on many topics such as crossing fire hoses, boarding in motion, transporting animals, and allowing police officers to ride bicycles on any sidewalk in the city. The city considers the Segway a vehicle and references the following as reasons why it is banned on all sidewalks:

17.16.040 Driving upon sidewalk or bicycle/ pedestrian right-of-way.

A. No person shall drive any vehicle upon a sidewalk except upon a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway.

B. No person shall drive any vehicle upon any bicycle/pedestrian right-of-way. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to persons driving emergency vehicles or maintenance vehicles, persons who drive upon any bicycle/pedestrian right-of-way as a means of ingress or egress to a place of business or a residence or persons crossing any bicycle/pedestrian right-of-way at a point designated by Grace Hill Americorp as river access crossing site. (Ord. 64952 § 2, 2000: prior: Ord. 57831 § 1 (part), 1979: 1960 C. § 827.040.)

So is the Segway a “vehicle” or not? The state of Missouri considers a bicycle a vehicle as well with the operator is subject to the same rights and rules as a motor vehicle operator but we don’t ban bicycles from operating on bike paths.

So Ald. Krewson’s bill is not looking to examine the bigger issue from a city-wide perspective. BB#449 is geared only at Forest Park and mainly at institutions within Forest Park. Basically the Science Center owns (16) Segways they like to use for groups to show how they work — you know, the science behind them. Legally they should be permitted to use them on roadways in Forest Park but it seems they want to use them on sidewalks and paths. This bill, if passed in its current form, would permit the Director of Parks to formulate rules, an application process and issue permits to those seeking to use a Segway in Forest Park.  To receive a permit you’d need to own the Segway.  Institutions in Forest Park, such as the Science Center, could allow others to use their Segways after the person signed a waiver form.  Anyone riding a Segway in the park would need to wear a prominent plackard — making them look even dorkier.

So all this brings up several questions.  First, does the current laws on the books limit the use of Segways or not?   If yes, do we keep it as is or do we consider where and how we’d like to permit Segways on sidewalks/paths.  For example, besides Forest Park perhaps on the North Riverfront Trail?  If the current laws do not ban the use of Segways on sidewalks/paths, do we want to limit their use.  At nearly $6,000 a pop it is pretty rare to see one out and about except for tour groups.

One time, a few years ago, I crossed the street heading to the Chicago Art Institute and a group on Segways had blocked the entire corner on the sidewalk — making it difficult for me as a pedestrian to get through.  Like my scooter, I have no issues with someone locking up a Segway to a bike rack on the public sidewalk, but I have to wonder about mixing Segway users with walkers, joggers, rollerbladers, and cyclists on paths in Forest Park.  This seemingly non-issue gets complicated pretty quickly.  For more information on the Segway see Wiki and Segway.com.

Sidewalk Terminates in Stone & Brick Wall

When I was back in Oklahoma City last summer I visited a new subdivision. I was happy to see that they had sidewalks although they didn’t lead out to the main street. Of course, the main street doesn’t have sidewalks either.

Inside the subdivision some of the homes were in a regular section while others were in a special gated area. But, walking from one section to the other presents issues:

Yes, the sidewalk was poured right up the wall dividing the sections. From the other side:

Crazy huh?  Those on the other side of the street do get a pedestrian gate.

The sidewalk does lead out of the subdivision toward the main road.  Of course, it stops well short of the main street.  And, despite the road network being all new construction, they couldn’t manage to place the utilities in the path of the sidewalk.  Amazingly bad planning.

Crosswalk Leads Directly Into Curb & Light Standard, Missing Ramps

Getting around the city is a challenge for those using mobility devices (wheelchairs, mobility scooters), pushing strollers or pulling luggage. Sure, everywhere you look you do see ramps. So what is the problem, you ask?

Well, ramp placement plays a role in their ultimate usability and sadly placement has been given little thought throughout the city. Of course, it is worse out in the suburbs where sidewalks are a luxury.

Above is looking East across 18th Street at the signalized entry to Union Station (behind me) and across to another parking lot — I like how they managed to center the crosswalk lines with the curb on the other side — perfectly centered between two ramps! Pedestrians headed West from the new multi-modal center (Greyhound & Amtrak services) are directed up a new ramp which takes them out to the above intersection. Those heading South along 18th (toward Ameren/Lafayette Sq) must cross this crosswalk as the viaduct only has sidewalks on the West edge. Those coming and going from Union Station also cross this intersection.

Interesting, the ramp for the corner where I am standing aligns perfectly with the center of the painted stripes yet on the opposite side it runs into a curb and signal post. Brilliant!

When I took the above image a couple of weeks ago the signals here and at the new ramp just a few hundred feet to the South had been placed on yellow flash for 18th and red flash if you were leaving on of the parking lots. For pedestrians, this means no pedestrian signal to indicate when it is OK to attempt to cross the street.

And, as you might expect, the ramps on the other side are a mess of wrong slopes and cross angles. Controlling a wheelchair to keep from having the right ramp spill you out in the street would be a challenge. This situation should not be acceptable given that pedestrians from this new facility are headed this direction.

UPDATE 1/9/08 @ 9am – The new multi-modal center is expected to open in late April.

Washington Ave; New ADA Ramp Creates Trip Hazard

Pedestrians walking down Washington Ave heading to Joe Edwards’ new blowing bowling alley, Flamingo Bowl, should be mindful of a trip hazard created by a neighboring property.

Heading East on Washington toward the new bowling alley we see the wonderfully remodeled former Days Inn, now residential apartments. It has been great seeing the transformation of this structure. They even filled in the former automobile drive to the courtyard space — now that is real progress for pedestrians. But the ramp you see ahead presents an issue.

The landing juts out from the narrower ramp. Yes, it is a minor thing but generally big things are not trip hazards. Small things, in particular those that blend with the sidewalk, cause people to fall. In general, the ramp and landing are created the same width so you don’t have this little protrusion at th bottom.
Presumably the city would share in any injury claims as they approved the design and installation of this ramp in the public right of way.

Two Years After Wheelchair Bound Resident Killed by SUV, Sidewalks Still Not Passable

Yesterday a jury found the city responsible in the death of a woman who was using her wheelchair in the street when she was struck by an SUV. Elizabeth Bansen had wheeled the three blocks to the Mobil station east of her apartment to get a sandwich. The Mobil was and is the closest place to get food in the area.

From the Post-Dispatch in November 2005:

Federal law makes wheelchair access a civil right. St. Louis has responded aggressively in the past decade by putting curb ramps at 90 percent of the city’s intersections at a cost of $7.5 million, said city streets director Jim Suelmann.

Despite these efforts, certain areas — such as Bansen’s midtown neighborhood — fall through the cracks. Sidewalks are the responsibility of property owners, Suelmann said. The city offers to pay for half of a sidewalk repair if a property owner asks for help or if there is a complaint about the condition of the sidewalk, he said.

From Today’s paper:

Thomas McDonnell, an attorney for the city, had argued that the sidewalk on the south side of Delmar Boulevard was passable, and that in two years of living nearby, Bansen had never complained about its condition.

I like that argument, if you don’t complain to the city your heirs shouldn’t have a claim for negligence. And sorry McDonnell, the sidewalk between the store and her former home is not passable today. Clearly the city is not sure on this point, also from today’s paper:

The city’s director of streets, Todd Waelterman, said Wednesday afternoon that he was not sure whether the sidewalk had been fixed. “I can only tell you the truth: I do not know.”

But [City Attorney Patti] Hageman said she understood it had been fixed.

Well, it ain’t fixed! Is it better than it was when Bansen was struck and killed? Yes. But is it passable? No.

As we learned from Barden v. Sacramento, courts have ruled that sidewalks are part of the ADA and basic service cities provide to citizens (source and legal brief from the Dept of Justice). The city must now pay the parents of Elizabeth Bansen $250,000 — a nice sum of money but nothing compared to a love one.

I wanted to check out the conditions myself.

This morning I started at the Mobil store and walked both sides of Delmar from Jefferson to the apartment three blocks to the west where Bansen resided until she was killed. I was wearing gloves as I took the pictures so you’ll see a couple of fingers in a few pictures, sorry about that.

Above: Starting at the Mobil store we see from the sidewalk that the car wash exit comes between the public sidewalk and the front door of the store. Pedestrians must go to the auto exit to go around this obstacle. The orange cone in the above is in the middle of the no parking area adjacent to an accessible parking place, likely to keep people from parking and blocking the ADA ramp.

I cross Delmar and headed Westbound toward her apartment. Above is looking back at the Mobil, Jefferson is to the right our of view.

So here we are on the South side of Delmar facing West. To the right, out of view is the Mobil station. To the left and behind me is 2600 Delmar, the offices of general contractor EM Harris. Their sidewalk is new as part of their recent renovation of the building. Immediately to my left is a vintage car dealership, also a new addition to the street. The sidewalk here is fairly new. Just ahead, past the tree, you can see part of it is not finished yet.
It was in this general area, I believe, that she was struck. A streetlight was said to be out at the time, presumably this one.

Further up we see broken sidewalk in front of offices of the state Department of Natural Resources. This is next door to the Scott Joplin House museum operated by the state.

This may look fairly passable but to someone using a manual chair with small front wheels, going through here is a good way to get stuck.

Again, sorry about the glove blockage. Anyway, after crossing Beaumont St we can see recently installed sidewalks, so new street trees have not yet been planted. The adjacent land is owned by the state which may have paid to have their sidewalks done.

Then we run into a problem, a very old and un-passable sidewalk. The owner of the vacant land to the left is N & G Ventures, LC (aka Paul McKee). This land was purchased about six months prior to the accident. Not surprising, the falling down building on the corner is owned by the city’s LRA (Land Reutilization Authority).

Looking back where we had just been, we can see that at that corner there is no curb ramp.

Bansen’s apartment was here, on the North side of Delmar. This accessible unit is located not on the front sidewalk but off the back. Given the either incomplete sidewalks or those with steps, I’m uncertain how she would have gotten out to Delmar.

Heading back Eastbound now toward the Mobil, the sidewalk in front of the apartments where she lived are fine.

Getting back to Leffingwell Ave, however, and we are again faced with a curb rather than a ramp. This would force anyone in a wheelchair to use the street instead.

Besides the broken sidewalk in front of the existing business on the street, much of the sidewalk area on this block is completely impassable to a person in a wheelchair. It does, however, have a new curb cut at the corner.

Looking back West after crossing over Beaumont, we can see the new sidewalk adjacent to state owned land. This stretch of Delmar is in the 6th ward where Kacie Triplett was just elected earlier this year.

This city doesn’t know how to construct environments for pedestrians. Subsidized new construction is being built lacking any means for pedestrians. Drive-thru places are popping up throughout the city and region while pedestrian access is ignored.

One of my next steps will be to request a copy of the city’s latest ADA Transition Plan, to see how they plan to more. Will it continue to be hit or miss — installing the corner ramps to sidewalks that are not passable? We already have places like Loughborough Commons where it was suggested the partial lack of sidewalks along Grand as a reason to blight the area only to have the developer remove all the sidewalks along the East side of Grand — even though the West side of Grand is also not compliant by not having curb ramps. That was why I spotted a guy riding his mobility scooter in the street last May (see post).

Despite millions, make that billions, being spent around this region on various projects we are seeing the quality of life for the pedestrian continue to decline overall. Sidewalks are basic service of cities — one we need to demand. Aldermen need to stop funding pet projects in their wards so that we can get some real money to connect real places together.  For example, one block North of here along MLK we see new sidewalks and curbs from Jefferson to Grand.  Looks pretty good, especially from an SUV windshield.  However, in all that distance is has one crosswalk — yes, one!!!  It was designed to look pretty but not actually function well for citizens attempting to use the sidewalks.   See prior post on this MLK streetscape fiasco here.

At some point we must begin to build our public rights of way for those using means other than the private car to get from place to place.  It doesn’t mean at the exclusion of motorists, just not at the exclusion of pedestrians.