The anti-pedestrian pedestrian feature

Why did I just recently tweet that the Shepherd University pedestrian underpass is pro-car? And does it follow that this is* anti-pedestrian?

Shepherd University will sponsor an open meeting for the community to hear a presentation about the pedestrian underpass planned for Route 480 on Wednesday, August 3 at 7 p.m. in Reynolds Hall.

I’ve been thinking about this problem for a long time but had not expected to see it in the news stream so soon — pity.

Let me just start by noting I am not against all forms of pedestrian underpasses. They have their place and, at least in some iterations, can be clean and safe — and dare I say — pleasant. Perhaps the Shepherd University pedestrian underpass will be a pleasure to use and a great benefit to the university and community. On the other hand, I’ve worked with state road departments. That experience has led me to expect less than stellar results for all manner of road and road related projects.

The design will meet a minimum recommendation for foot-candles in a pedestrian tunnel and engineering standards for cars moving overhead. Will extra care be afforded to the design of this project? Will it move beyond the barest engineering?

State highway departments across the country have a reputation for a laser-like focus on one thing: moving things on roads. Pedestrian movement is a secondary feature which interferes with the movement of traffic. Anyone who has stood at a left-turn signaled intersection waiting for a walk signal can attest to this. The character of Shepherdstown is rooted in the importance afforded the pedestrian — at minimum as an equal partner to vehicle movement, more often dominant.

A tunnel is first defined by what happens overhead

The design of this tunnel to move people faces an uphill battle:

1. Road width: the cross walk it replaces is already in a location that is strike one against the pedestrian. Why? It moves across a three lanes of traffic — in the worst possible way — in the middle of a turn lane. Granted, this is planned as two consecutive turn lanes but let’s be realistic — at least 50% of cars turning left on Shepherd Grade Road are moving into the turn lane which is meant for the Shepherd University entrance. State road planners are assuredly unhappy with this arrangement but until Shepherd closes that entrance to daily traffic (this is in the master plan) it is not going away.
2. Shoulders: three lanes is enough to cross but this is a state highway. State highway design specifications call for minimum shoulder widths. That width is designed for the ever-present worst case scenario — we live with many roads which do not meet that specification but, in the end, if the space is there the state wants it. How long is the tunnel now? — roughly 70 feet long.
3. Grade: I don’t even know where to begin with this one — perhaps the underpass is being slated for a different location than the surface cross walk. Perhaps some advantage can be found to ease the transition from the current grade to a comfortable tunnel height — what that is I can not imagine. Anyone who has dug into the earth in our area knows that digging means rock ledge and every trench not dug helps.
4. Vehicular speed: the first thought might be that this matters not. With pedestrians moving under the road bed, who cares what speed cars move overhead? And while I am not cynical about such things, the local constabulary would enjoy a little windfall — make no mistake: once obstacles are removed from the picture (in this case, pedestrians on a cross walk), speeds go up. That becomes a problem for the intersection of Duke Street (Rt. 480) and High Street, about 450′ away.

Working backwards from these four points:

4. Driving across the bridge into Shepherdstown today, I did note that the shoulders adjacent the exiting cross walk (particularly as on moves to the south) have been cut. In other words, the road is lower than the adjacent grade. Some advantage can be won by raising the road bed then, lessening the depth and length of the tunnel approaches. While this does not yet mean that the road surface will read as a bridge over a pedestrian path, it would be of some benefit.

3. As already noted, roads which lack a shoulder built to state minimums function are already present and function well. In this particular case, generous shoulders exist to the north and none to the south. A sensitive design† will match the shoulder-less condition to the south. What can not be eliminated are sidewalks but accommodation for north-south pedestrian movement is not likely to follow the vehicular path, instead linking (and moving downward) to the tunnel entrances on each side. I am not certain but I imagine this means a more friendly underpass length of 45′.

2.Eliminate that turn lane and we’re down to 30′. But how? Simple. Don’t allow people to turn left. Impossible you say? Let’s work in the realm of the possible. Imagine a traffic circle which not only does away with the left turn but eases the congestion already present at Rt. 480 and Shepherd Grade Road. Take it even further and we might enjoy two much shorter pedestrian underpass, with gently sloping approaches taking advantage of the extended geometry of a traffic circle.

1. A traffic circle also calms traffic. They also are used in a variety of places as a “sign” that the nature of the road is changing. A traffic circle here would send a clear signal that one is going from a rural road (which includes a bridge designed as if it is part of the Interstate Highway System) to the urban landscape of the town. It also gives Shepherd University to include a feature it sorely lacks: the impression of a “front door”.

Sketch for a traffic circle with pedestrian tunnels and center in the spirit of James Turrell

The reference to James Turrell in the caption above comes from my memories being in his landscape pieces that are little more than bowls, particularly at the Liss Ard Garden in Ireland. I’ve not included pedestrian paths nor buildings here. I’m only floating a concept regarding pedestrian movement under Rt. 480, where three tunnels cut under the arcs of the traffic circle, collecting in a bright well in the center. Each spoke would be less than 20′. Truly, now, an underpass. Arcs within and outside of the traffic circle give ample opportunity for architectural expression (e.g., the relocated stone wall at Shepherd Grade Rd.) or signs of campus life/displays. A more daring version might see an increase in the size of the traffic circle to allow enough interior space to be a point to meet with a friend. It’s an odd place for a campus focus — the middle of the road — but in a campus oddly lacking in any notable space-making, it’s a start.

Perhaps much of what I write here is unworkable but I hope I have at least shown that a) pedestrian tunnels need not be horrible and b) that a critical eye really needs to be pour over the proposal throughout the design and construction phases. The Shepherdstown Planning Commission and Historical Landmarks Commission must take a strong position as an advocate for good design here, with an eye not toward architectural detail but to mitigate the impact of this tunnel on the essential urban fabric of Shepherdstown. Vehicles won the battle at the Potomac;  Shepherdstown should not allow another element of suburban infrastructure to press onward.

Notes:

*I tapped out “us” in the Tweet when I meant to tap “is”. That’s what happens when I have The Boy ™ breathing down my neck.

†It is in situations such as road edges where the force of the town needs to be applied. And herein lies a possible weakness in the administration of standards which guard against destroying the unique character of Shepherdstown. We (rightly) focus on the buildings — I might have said something similar in this blog before — but we often neglect the spaces in between.