Letter to the Editor: Crosswalks don’t need sidewalks on both sides of road

I am writing to address a common misconception that has repeatedly stalled progress on much-needed pedestrian safety measures in our community: the notion that crosswalks require sidewalks on both sides of the road. This claim is not only incorrect but also detrimental to the safety and convenience of our residents.

In Palm Beach County, there are scenarios where the installation of crosswalks is a no-brainer.

There are several instances where the same community facility, like a pool or beach access, is split across the street. Residents, especially the elderly or those with mobility issues, must cross to utilize these common amenities. The argument that these crosswalks cannot be installed due to the absence of sidewalks on both sides is not supported by engineering guidelines or local codes.

Another common situation is where parking lots are located directly across from community facilities. Here, crosswalks are essential for safe pedestrian access from parking to the facility, yet these projects are often tabled with the same unfounded objection.

Let’s look at the facts:

• ADA Accessibility Guidelines (Section 4.2.4) clarify that crosswalks should connect to accessible routes, not necessarily sidewalks. If there’s no sidewalk on one side, a crosswalk can still connect to a path or another form of pedestrian access leading to a facility.
• The Florida Department of Transportation’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Section 3B.18) emphasizes the installation of crosswalks where pedestrian safety would benefit, without mandating sidewalks on both sides.
• Our local Unified Land Development Code under Article 6, does not require sidewalks on both sides for crosswalk installation, but stresses providing safe, convenient and direct pedestrian access.

These guidelines show that the decision to install crosswalks should be based on engineering judgment, focusing on pedestrian safety and access needs rather than a strict interpretation of sidewalk presence.

Our community deserves to have its pedestrian safety prioritized, especially in clear-cut cases where crosswalks are evidently necessary. I urge the local authorities to reconsider their stance on crosswalk installations and look at each case on its merit, ensuring that safety and accessibility are at the forefront of our community’s planning decisions.

Rafael Pineiro
Palmsea Condominium
South Palm Beach

I appreciate The Coastal Star publishing my recent letter on pedestrian safety along A1A, and I’d like to address a question some may have: “What’s the point of pushing for marked, lit crosswalks if FDOT engineers advise requiring sidewalks on both sides?” The point is clear—lives are at stake, and we can act now with practical, life-saving measures, even as we consider long-term solutions.

The tragic death of our resident on an unmarked crosswalk near A1A shows we’re failing our community. I’ve learned that 5/8 of a mile of A1A, with pedestrian crossing signs at each entrance, already has many natural crosswalks—places people cross regularly to reach the beach, pool, or parking lots. These aren’t marked or lit, but prioritizing them with clear markings and lighting could prevent another tragedy. Instead of a plaque in Town Hall, let’s honor our lost neighbor by naming a marked crosswalk after them—a lasting tribute and a safety upgrade.

I understand the commissioners are working with FDOT engineers, who may be communicating that sidewalks on both sides are required for crosswalks. However, this advice seems to contradict the practices of neighboring towns and existing regulations. A short drive up or down A1A shows that places like Highland Beach, with a similar layout to ours, have multiple marked crosswalks and sidewalks on only one side, yet they ensure pedestrian safety effectively. Engineering guidelines, like ADA Section 4.2.4, the Florida Department of Transportation’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Section 3B.18), and our local Unified Land Development Code, emphasize crosswalks based on safety and access needs, not strict sidewalk symmetry.

I respectfully urge our commissioners to push back on this FDOT advice, advocating for marked, lit crosswalks where people need them most—starting with high-traffic spots like where our resident was lost. Let’s move from study to action, ensuring our community’s safety while honoring our neighbors.

Replies

Rafael Pineiro February 28, 2025 12:54

I appreciate The Coastal Star publishing my recent letter on pedestrian safety along A1A, and I’d like to address a question some may have: “What’s the point of pushing for marked, lit crosswalks if FDOT engineers advise requiring sidewalks on both sides?” The point is clear—lives are at stake, and we can act now with practical, life-saving measures, even as we consider long-term solutions.

The tragic death of our resident on an unmarked crosswalk near A1A shows we’re failing our community. I’ve learned that 5/8 of a mile of A1A, with pedestrian crossing signs at each entrance, already has many natural crosswalks—places people cross regularly to reach the beach, pool, or parking lots. These aren’t marked or lit, but prioritizing them with clear markings and lighting could prevent another tragedy. Instead of a plaque in Town Hall, let’s honor our lost neighbor by naming a marked crosswalk after them—a lasting tribute and a safety upgrade.

I understand the commissioners are working with FDOT engineers, who may be communicating that sidewalks on both sides are required for crosswalks. However, this advice seems to contradict the practices of neighboring towns and existing regulations. A short drive up or down A1A shows that places like Highland Beach, with a similar layout to ours, have multiple marked crosswalks and sidewalks on only one side, yet they ensure pedestrian safety effectively. Engineering guidelines, like ADA Section 4.2.4, the Florida Department of Transportation’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Section 3B.18), and our local Unified Land Development Code, emphasize crosswalks based on safety and access needs, not strict sidewalk symmetry.

I respectfully urge our commissioners to push back on this FDOT advice, advocating for marked, lit crosswalks where people need them most—starting with high-traffic spots like where our resident was lost. Let’s move from study to action, ensuring our community’s safety while honoring our neighbors.
Mary Kate Leming February 27, 2025 8:15

To the gentleman who posted a rational reply to this letter, thank you. Unfortunately, in response to another inappropriate post, I accidently deleted your response. My apologies. Please feel free to post again.

Mary Kate

This reply was deleted.