I'm a big fan of sidewalks. I enjoy walking and want to others to be safe while doing so. There's no doubt that walking in the street is dangerous. And I think people whose shrubbery grows way over the sidewalk are incredibly inconsiderate.

However, I live on a street in Arlington with a sidewalk down one side (mine) and not on the other. People walking their dogs of course use the sidewalk. And sometimes we find dog droppings in our yard. Or I'll see someone letting their dog walk way up into our yard (which is rude).

It's at those times that I envy our neighbors across the street, who don't have a sidewalk.

I think every street should have sidewalks. No one wants to be hit by a car or come close to hitting someone else. At the same time, dog walkers should be more courteous and not let their dogs walk up into people's yards. And homeowners should trim their bushes.

by JB on Apr 7, 2009 4:47 pm  

Why shouldn't the public "parking" be used for sidewalks just because homeowners have planted there? Sure, try to preserve the plants or given them time to transplant, but it's "public" property. If they get exclusive use of it, deed it to them and tax them on it.

FWIW, at least some of these "gaps" aren't really. Not to take away from most of it, but at least two streets I'm quite familiar with could probably not tolerate a sidewalk on both sides because they're on the edge of a steep hill. Installing a sidewalk would require cutting into the hillside several feet, likely creating a landslide (and there are no houses on that side anyway).

by ah on Apr 7, 2009 4:53 pm  

I think GGW has introduced an error in the quote--which is confusing the issue a great deal:

" Currently, homeowners have landscaped and sometimes planted flowers in the "public park(ing)" area beside each street."

I don't think the original poster meant "public parking" but in fact "public park." He's talking about the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street.

Given that, I think it's common sense to make reasonable efforts not to disturb volunteer public beautification--e.g., nice plantings on this strip of land.

I do think putting the sidewalks in the street and narrowing the street is a great idea. It benefits the public while not infringing on private property rights--a win-win.

by JB on Apr 7, 2009 5:00 pm  

JB: That's not part of a quote from any resident. I put "public park(ing)" in quotes not as a quotation but to mention a term of art.

Actually, the term is "public parking". It was given this name before "parking" meant "place to put your vehicle" but rather "area used to make place feel more like a park". The goal was to use some of the wide rights of way of the L'Enfant Plan to "park", i.e. make more park-like, the streets.

Unfortunately, many people mistake the term "public parking" to mean that it was actually originally intended for parking of vehicles. I've been calling it "public park(ing)" for that reason. If we were naming the space today, we'd call it something like "public park strips" instead of "parking".

by David Alpert on Apr 7, 2009 5:04 pm  

@JB -- except that there's no sidewalk for these plantings to be "between". "Public parking" extends from the property line to the street/curb. A sidewalk may be placed there. Homeowners may plant there (on either side of the sidewalk, if one exists), with some restrictions. But all of it is public parking, and therefore public property, through which the city may place a sidewalk.

by ah on Apr 7, 2009 5:04 pm  

Some of the streets referenced in Chevy Chase lead to the trails in Rock Creek Park. These certainly should have sidewalks associated with them. That some of the residents are fighting this is absurd, and certainly should not be left to their, or their ANC to oppose.

I think narrowing some of the roads to include sidewalks and residential parking is a fine solution.

by William on Apr 7, 2009 5:14 pm  

"I don't think the original poster meant "public parking" but in fact "public park." He's talking about the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street."

In Minneapolis (MN), we call this the "boulevard". IIRC, it's also the responsibility of the property owner to maintain, but it's still considered public property.

by Froggie on Apr 7, 2009 5:27 pm  

Questions of principle aside, if you check out Hawthorne you will find mostly low-traffic streets where cars drive sedately because of the hills, curves, and short blocks. Sidewalks aren't so very important on such streets. Actually a sidewalk on the main drag, Chestnut Street, would be a good addition, but with both sides of the issue totally illogically framing it as a whole-neighborhood or nothing deal, progress might come slowly.

An irony is that the street that REALLY needs a sidewalk is Wise Road, which connects Hawthorne to the nearby Silver Spring metro station. Unfortunately it's not a city road, it's a Park Service road.

by Turnip on Apr 7, 2009 5:41 pm  

It boggles the mind to think that people see sidewalks as a negative. Seriously, someone explain.

by цarьchitect on Apr 7, 2009 5:45 pm  

At the pedestrian safety meeting at Murch last month, Mary Cheh said that DC law requires a sidewalk on at least one side of every street. If that's the case (and I don't have any reason to doubt her), I don't think neighborhoods or ANCs have any role here and the funds that are currently being directed toward filling potholes (I seem to get emails from DDOT every day about potholapalozza) ought to be directed toward building sidewalks.

One of the most egregious sidewalk omissions is on Military Road -- this is the only crosstown road from the west side of the park to the east, and it's practically impossible to walk because there are no sidewalks and it's built like a highway at exactly the point you need a sidewalk. (The park if, of course, a much nicer walk, but if the city is going to build streets, it should either build sidewalks along them or close the street to car traffic and turn the street into a sidewalk.)

by Eileen on Apr 7, 2009 5:52 pm  

tsarchitecht, I had the same response.

Eileen, you are so right about Military as it crosses the park. I once got lost on my bike and ended up riding on Military near Oregon. It was awful. One of my peeves: the roads that lead into RCP all lack sidewalk/bike lanes just like Military. Is Military a NPS road as it crosses RCP? Is that why? B/c there are sidewalks at each end, by Chevy Chase on the west and Brightwood on the east.

by Bianchi on Apr 7, 2009 6:14 pm  

The map is a little incorrect. I have walked many times to Nationals Park from Capitol South Metro station and many of the "red" streets on the map in that area now have sidewalks, and if they don't, they will soon as part of the "Capitol Riverfront" revitalization.

by KFS on Apr 7, 2009 6:30 pm  

@tsarchitect -- If there's very little traffic and relatively wide streets with decent visibility, do we really need to pave an additional 6 foot patch of earth? I don't quarrel with the need for sidewalks, especially in a city, but I grew up in a suburban area where there really was no need--you walked at the side of the road or on the edge of the grass. It meant an additional 10 feet of nature instead of concrete.

@KFS--note that the map is a couple years old.

by ah on Apr 7, 2009 7:50 pm  

I don't have sidewalks but would love them... on the other side of the road tho. Why? Well, for one, cutting into the right-of0way (which I concede is city land) would result in a deep cut and the addition of retaining walls on every house on my block. It's not just about my plantings or street trees, but about the cost (to me?) of installing a retaining wall.

Across the street is a Park Service Park and the road is too wide, too fast. So, when they come this way, I dearly pray they will consider putting in a sidewalk, into the roadway, along the park side of the street. It'd give better access to the park for walkers, slow the street, everything.

Except this big fear: Can the city put a sidewalk along Park Service land? Maybe that's part of the Military Road issue? How do all the different gov't jurisdictions muddle where they can install sidewalks? If so, then eventually I will end up losing a lot of year, gaining a fussy retaining wall that I'm not eager to pay for or maintain and the sidewalk will be on the less useful side fo the street.

by Sophiagrrl on Apr 7, 2009 9:09 pm  

Isn't this issue just a proxy issue for people to complain about roads that are too fast?

On a low traffic road, sidewalks or non-sidewalk is really a non issue.

Also, always sidewalks were more about kids than seniors but maybe that's just my perspective.

by charlie on Apr 7, 2009 9:39 pm  

Dear lord, the NIMBYs are opposing SIDEWALKS now? I'm sorry, but this is perhaps the most absurd thing I've heard yet. Sidewalks are most important for seniors, yes, but more importantly children. If you really want to win this debate, you can frame it like the NIMBYs do: "But what about the children?!?!?!"

Honestly though, sidewalks are a necessity for any city street. The absence of sidewalks are an embarrassment, frankly, and should be remedied as quickly as possible as a priority.

by SG on Apr 7, 2009 9:56 pm  

NIMBYs opposed sidewalks in Cleveland Park a few years ago to spite a nursery school, so ya, it happens.

by William on Apr 7, 2009 10:49 pm  

Jane Jacobs was in favor of local community organizing, and obviously the local community has spoken against sidewalks.

Or maybe our enlightened benevolent elites know better than the people who actually live in the communities. Bob Moses definitely took that approach. I guess he's found friends in the pro-sidewalk camp.

Community planning + local involvement = Jacobs

Centralized planning + subjugating the will of the locals= Moses.

And I had always thought Jane Jacobs was right in her approach. I guess not.

by MPC on Apr 7, 2009 10:55 pm  

Forgoing what she said about planning (which I'll leave to others) and sticking to the bits I remember enough to summarize...

Jacobs was a strong advocate of the city "district", and spoke at length about how it should be an intermediary between the local citizens and the overall city government - small enough to be in touch with a wide variety of the former and large enough to stand up to the latter. She pegged the ideal district size as 30,000 to 200,000, depending on city size. She said that around a thousand people per district are naturally inclined to stand up, become knowledgeable, and participate in the process, and in a group of this size there are is enough competence, intelligence, debate, and willingness to do the work to make good decisions on behalf of the community's interests.

Are there 50-100,000 people living in Hawthorne?

by Squalish on Apr 7, 2009 11:31 pm  

It's all contextual. You can throw out any arbitrary figures on ideal sizes, but at the end, they're all arbitrary.

A community group has spoken, and you guys want the centralized government to overrule the local community group. Maybe sidewalks are nice, I don't know, but regardless, you guys are definitely supporting centralized planning over community control.

It's such a shame too because I always thought Jane Jacobs had so much to offer to city design. It's too bad you guys have adopted the M.O. of Bob Moses.

by MPC on Apr 8, 2009 1:08 am  

@ah - have you ever tried pushing a stroller along the grass, or would the road be the better option?

by batgirl on Apr 8, 2009 7:28 am  

MPC, you're seriously comparing a sidewalk along a public street to Robert Moses's highways? Really? You're comparing 4 feet of concrete on already public right of way to Moses bulldozing and displacing thousands of people?

First of all, 'the community' has not spoken. I suggest you re-read the original post. There are people both for and against the sidewalks.

This is not about centralized planning at all, it's about a minimum standard of public access.

by Alex B. on Apr 8, 2009 9:05 am  

mpc, I think it's jumping the gun to say "obviously the local community has spoken against sidewalks" when then post repeates two listserve notes as examples; one for, one against and states "some opponents have posted lawn signs". The correct conclusion therefore is that some in the community want the sidewalks, some do not. That's all we know.

by Bianchi on Apr 8, 2009 9:05 am  

If a group of neighbors can stop sidewalks from being built, does that mean I can rally my neighbors to shut down the streets to cars? Those newfangled automobiles seem like a nuisance.

by DAJ on Apr 8, 2009 9:06 am  

To Alex B's and Bianchi's points, emails on the neighborhood listserv ran about 75% in favor of sidewalks. Of course, that's not necessarily a representative sample of residents, but no less representative than the set of residents who put up lawn signs or who speak at ANC meetings.

by David Alpert on Apr 8, 2009 9:08 am  

It boggles the mind to think that people see sidewalks as a negative. Seriously, someone explain.

I can explain. When you or I see a well-populated area with no sidewalks, we take in the whole picture. A lot of people do a little heuristic shortcut and think, "No sidewalks! Just like in the countryside!" and never even stop to think that it's not the lack of sidewalks that makes them fond of the countryside.

by tom veil on Apr 8, 2009 9:17 am  

Seriously, I am with William and tsarchitect. One of the most interesting facets of life in NoVa is the mystery guessing game "where will sidewalks begin and end" (if we are lucky enough to have them)? Also, the related phenomenon of bikers and joggers in my neighborhood who refuse to use *either* the sidewalk *or* the bike lane, and instead walk/run/bike against traffic in the automotive space. Because who knows where the sidewalk ends? It's a serious safety issue, folks. If I were on that listserv, I'd say, "Put them in there and get over it."

by ajw93 on Apr 8, 2009 9:29 am  

Yes, the map is definitely outdated: 19th Street SE between Potomac Avenue and Independence Avenue has sidewalks on both sides of the the street. (I walk on them every day.) Potomac Avenue SE between 17th and 19th Streets also has sidewalks on both sides of the street. (I live on the 1700 block of Potomac.)

by rg on Apr 8, 2009 9:39 am  

MPC, come now, you can (and have) done better then that. If you're going to use Ms Jacobs as the crux of your argument then you're going to have to with the fact that she said that the "district" in which she said community orginizations come from should be at a certain size. Ignoring that because it's inconvient makes for a weaker argument; if you disagree with it then by all means, do disagree with it so that we can debate the merits of it. Getting rid of the size that Ms Jacobs accounted for, without offering an alternative way to gague a "community" leads to the extreme where I could have a "community association" consisting of myself and the members of my family, if taken to an illogical extreme.

Just trying to see what ideas you've got rolling around in your head.

by Art on Apr 8, 2009 9:39 am  

GGW covered the DDOT Transportation hearing (Seniors testify about vital pedestrian needs (Feb 23, 2009)http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1724). There is a growing need for Pedestrian focused advocacy across the region. If anyone out there is interested working on Pedestrian Issues, please shoot me an email (phil.lepanto@anc.dc.gov). We are specifically looking for representatives from Wards 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 as well as forming regionwide connections with folks in Virginia and Maryland)

by Phil Lepanto on Apr 8, 2009 10:10 am  

Part of the function of a minimum district size is explicitly to weigh the needs of the overall community against the vocal disagreement of a few NIMBY-like opinions. I'm not sure there's a better example than sidewalks and roads - if we allowed individual property owners to determine what transportation went on in front of their property (not even on it), no transportation would take place.

by Squalish on Apr 8, 2009 10:37 am  

sidewalks are not really a very good tool because it induces cars to speed and cars easily jump curbs (happens all the time, especially with SUVs, trucks, etc.) - a better one is bollards placed on the paved survace to divide areas where cars are allowed or not allowed. This actually prevents cars from jumping into pedestrian areas accidentally, and does not induce the same kind of "get out of the road, ped/biker..." or "stay on the sidewalk" mentality that induces drivers to speed in the presence of sidewalks. Also bollards are a lot cheaper to build and repair than a sidewalk, and road pavement is just as good to walk on as concrete. Actually we should prob. be using concrete roads in the city anyway as they last a lot longer especially under heavy loads like buses and trucks. What's even better than concrete it regular bricks. Bricks last 100 years and slow down the cars to a speed that won't kill pedestrians. How about repaving the whole area with bricks and putting in bollards or ped. areas? The area will be pretty and highly walkable, much fewer accidents, and you won't need to repave for 100 years.

by lee watkins on Apr 8, 2009 10:40 am  

I was surprised to discover a dead-end sidewalk, right in Dupont Circle at 23rd & N: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvjantzen/3422915586/

by Michael on Apr 8, 2009 10:41 am  

Lee watkins - I'm with you, I think flexible bollards + asphalt may be a friendlier, lower-form-factor approach to bike lanes and sidewalks than curbs, concrete panels and paint, at least in suburban areas. I'd like to see it more often, and I'm interested in any studies on the pros/cons.

by Squalish on Apr 8, 2009 10:49 am  

That's an especially irritating one, Michael. The first time I walked down that street, I didn't know the sidewalk dead-ended half-way down the street. And then cars fly down the road, so good luck crossing.

by lou on Apr 8, 2009 10:51 am  

Happily, they've been replacing the old sidewalk on Otis St NE, and installing new sidewalk on the side of the road presently without. They're also replacing the intersection ramps. I walk this route daily with a stroller and am glad to see the holes in the sidewalk network filled.

As has been pointed out, grass fails as a sidewalk alternative for strollers and wheelchairs, especially if it's wet. Heck, I don't like to walk on wet grass even if I'm not pushing a stroller.

I do know there's some interesting work done about having all travelers--pedestrians, cyclists, motorists--share the same space, but this has to be done more thoughtfully than simply building an ordinary road without sidewalks. There have to be very strong visual cues that the space belongs to everyone.

by thm on Apr 8, 2009 12:18 pm  

I was surprised to discover a dead-end sidewalk, right in Dupont Circle at 23rd & N:

by Michael on Apr 8, 2009 10:41 am

To discourage pedestrians there? Or to encourage them to use the other side of the street where there is a sidewalk. That three lane road (one or two lanes when parking on it is allowed) is a virtual raceway and can be scary for pedestrians. It's one of those weird no man land type places. Students trod home from school that way, anyway. When you get to the end of the sidewalkless part, at the throughway with the stop sign, maybe it's private property (that corner house).? Not sure. And they figure, eh, there's a sidewalk on the other side. Which there is.

by Jazzy on Apr 8, 2009 6:22 pm  

Except, Jazzy, the sidewalk doesn't end where you can safely cross the road. You head down the sidewalk and a third of the way down the block it ends and you're stuck. I learned that the hard way.

by lou on Apr 8, 2009 7:03 pm  

You're right.

Today's mystery. Who will solve it?

by Jazzy on Apr 8, 2009 7:15 pm  

This reminds me when People were and still are getting killed by cars in Potomac Park while they were running or simpy taking a walk, on MacArtur Blvd., and there were citizens that were against lighting up the road, due to the cosmetic's they wanted to be maintain. Now here we have a person getting hit by a car, and the reaction is the same, HOW VAIN ARE WE AS CITIZENS?

It is a crying shame that people can't see the safety hazard here, over something as minor as a sidewalk. I hope they put in the sidewalks, due to all the handicapped people that have been forced to push their wheelchairs in the street, or the older couples that walk in the street with their walking canes and are threaten with being hit and killed.

I hope the Handicap Organizations file suit against DC government for allowing such small minded (VAIN) people to gripe over something that would save lives.

by Concerned Disabled Senior Citizens Supporter on Jul 23, 2009 12:20 pm