Footpaths and desire lines

I always find it amazing that as planners and urban designers we are often responsible for the growth and management of places that house thousands or tens-of-thousands of people, and yet the issues which cause us the most grief are the detailed design issues - issues which shouldn't be issues where competing interests are seen as more important than common sense. One which has irked me for a while is footpaths, and the way they are designed in Perth's surburbia. Here's an example:

Note what happens when footpaths meet other streets - they bend away. Here's a perfect example, made even worse when you realise that the western side of the street is linear parkland:

Compare this to the way footpaths were dealt with in the 1950s and 1960s:

Joondanna

What would possess today's designers (the consulting engineers and the local government engineers who sign off on the designs) to configure their footpaths like obstacle courses? Certainly not Liveable Neighbourhoods, Western Australia's policy on subdivsion. Of the 18 or so provisions relating to footpaths and intersections, only one considers both; it says:

"On wider streets, pavements should be narrowed by kerb extensions at intersections to keep pedestrian crossing distances to a minimum and control turning vehicle speeds, while allowing for safe passage by cyclists."

This provision is almost redundant, given new streets are designed for minimal carriageway widths. And it certainly doesn't explain the footpath deviations. So why are the footpaths deviated? The answer lies with the engineers who design these subdivisions, and their perceptions of safety. Some answers I have been able to obtain include:

• as pedestrian crossing distances are minimised by placing the crossing point outside of the intersection, crossing is safer because of the lesser distance to cross,
• drivers approaching the intersection can see pedestrians clearer if they are not in the intersection, and
• (my favourite) the rear sweep of trucks turning the corner will RUN OVER AND KILL pedestrians waiting to cross at the intersection!

There are no guidelines or standards that support the engineers' perspective, but rather their training which supports minimising vehicle v pedestrian conflicts. Their solutions do not take into account how these detours affect pedestrians. Planners will tell you that such designs discourage people from making trips by foot, and able-bodied people will ignore the detour and cross in a straight line. It is also inconsistent with design guidelines for crime prevention, which encourage pedestrian routes with clear sightlines (not possible if the footpath deviates up every side street).

As neither the planning requirements nor engineering standards and guidelines address the matter, discussions can only happen at the ideology level, and when neither party can present a strong enough argument to sway the other party, the party with the approval powers wins out. In Perth, this is the local government engineer who approves the subdivisional works.

It does not have to be like this. The Scottish Government's Designing Streets requires designers to take into account pedestrian desire lines:

I think its about time that Western Australia pays attention to common sense design and puts an end to designs that punish pedestrians.

Sabbatical

After being caught up in life and other things for a while now, I've just started to get back into urban design. Has anyone else noticed that most planning blogs are based in North America? There's a few good ones like Old Urbanist and A Town Square, and strangely enough quite a few sites about railroads! But not many about Perth, who's input is limited to the satirical The Worst of Perth and an architecture blog. I think it's time to revisit urban design and planning in Perth!

Part of this is motivated by the state government's review of the Residential Design Codes, which amount to status quo with few useful improvements and retention of the poorly worded provisions. That, on top of the state government's current instructions to subdivide at all costs, means that despite all the rhetoric Perth will not be changing much in the short term.

Time permitting, I will hopefully be able to write about pointless front setbacks, narrow streets, density, trams, porches, apartments, and any other topic that crosses my mind.

But not railroads.