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:
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:
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.