Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

I agree that having sidewalks is *more* pedestrian friendly than not having them, but if the streets are narrow enough so that cars have no choice but to go slow, then the street can still be pedestrian friendly.

Examples of the latter are abundant in Ashton Heights (Va. Square). But it has a lot of cut-through traffic. Even more safe are the neighborhoods that abut I-66, so that there really is no car traffic other than from people in the neighborhood; you could walk in the middle of those most of the time and not feel imperiled.

I'm generally in favor of sidewalks; in fact, I repeatedly urged the County to put them in on a nearby street whose residents had repeatedly asked for them, to no avail. They didn't even have curbs! (Yet the County still found the money to put in those expensive and ridiculous traffic-calming circles--which in Cherrydale did nothing to slow the cars and in fact made the intersections nearly blind and forced drivers closer to pedestrians.)

But back to topic: Sidewalks are a good thing in general. But let's be fair: There is some lifestyle cost to the homeowner. People who leave their dog crap. The duty to shovel the sidewalk when it snows. Slightly more noise from the foot traffic.

The real issue I think is when you have them on one side but not the other. I used to live on just such a street. It is unfair to arbitrarily put all the burdens of a generally beneficial public easement onto one group of residents.

What's also crazy is that in Arlington, the McMansions that go up have to put in sidewalks--even when there are no other sidewalks at all. But I hate McMansions, so I'm all for making them as onerous and expensive to build as possible.

I think it should be totally up to the homeowners. If they ask for sidewalks, they should get them. I realize that others nearby would use them, but the homeowners have the most invested and the most to lose. Consent of the governed, home rule. To leave it to those outside the neighborhood is lifestyle colonialism.

by JB on Aug 4, 2010 9:14 am • linkreport

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator pagespam