Greater Greater Washington

Public Spaces


Council approves sidewalk bill with a few amendments

The DC Council passed on first reading the Priority Sidewalk Assurance Act to require installation of sidewalks on at least one side of any street being reconstructed.


Missing sidewalk in NW DC. Photo by Wayan Vota on Flickr.

Councilmember Phil Mendelson (at-large) introduced four amendments to the current bill.

The bill requires DDOT to provide notice to neighbors and the ANC, provide an opportunity for comment, and explain the construction schedule. Mendelson's amendment increases the notice period from 30 to 60 days, including 30 days for comment and 30 before.

In general, DDOT should develop a standardized process for comment on decisions, like sidewalks, bike lanes, tree prunings, intersection changes, and more. The absence of such a process is leaving a hole for the Council to legislate one, which isn't ideal but is appropriate in this case.

DDOT raised some concerns that at times, a construction project might suddenly find itself with some funds left over for a sidewalk, and they might have a short window to add one to a project that didn't need one (such as the second side of a street that already has a sidewalk on one side). On second reading, the Council might consider adding a provision waiving the notice requirement if the ANC has already passed a resolution asking for a sidewalk.

Many neighborhoods, especially in Wards 5, 7, and 8, lack sidewalks on many streets and are eager for them. Those ANCs could potentially move themselves up in the queue by preemptively requesting sidewalks if the process in those cases were shorter.

Still, sometimes when DDOT suddenly has funds and adds a piece to an existing project it creates chaos. Recently DDOT unexpectedly reconstructed the existing sidewalk on the 1600 block of Corcoran St, NW. Neighbors appreciated the repairs, but had wanted some tree boxes removed, wanted consideration of widening the narrow sidewalk, and knew DDOT was going to tear part of it up again for the 17th Street streetscape project, now under construction. Some process for public involvement, even a very brief one in that case, could have improved the situation.

Mendelson also clarified that ANC "great weight" applies to sidewalks (though that doesn't trump the law's requirement to actually install a sidewalk), recommends (but doesn't require) designing the sidewalk to preserve the health of existing trees, and gives DDOT an exemption if sidewalk construction requires damaging parkland or purchasing an easement.

Councilmember Muriel Bowser worried that this last amendment would push the sidewalk onto the side of the street with houses when one side has a park. As Marion Barry noted, however, residents on that block ought not to have to cross the street to walk down the street. Also, Twitter user srfrjulie also pointed out that a sidewalk adjacent to parkland, at least with current DC and NPS practice, is less likely to get shoveled.

Mary Cheh, the bill's author, added an amendment to recommend, but not require, "pervious surface" for new sidewalks, which would allow stormwater to seep through and reduce the amount running into streets and sewers.

Bowser ultimately voted against the bill saying that while she supports sidewalks, "the whole landscape of our city does not need to change." Of course, this would not change the "whole landscape," only a few streets, and often residents are not united about their opinion of sidewalks. But the sidewalk opponents in Ward 4 tend to be particularly wealthy and politically influential, as we saw when Mayor Fenty intervened against sidewalks in North Portal Estates.

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

I took that photo over on Colorado Avenue NW in Crestwood where there are several blocks without sidewalks. I prefer to run on the grass, reclaiming where the sidewalks should be, when I encounter missing ones like here.

We should have sidewalks on every street and I'm disappointed that Bowser - my rep - voted against the bill

by Wayan on Jun 1, 2010 8:39 pm • linkreport

What a waste of taxpayer money ... making them 'mandatory'. If a neighborhood wants a sidewalk, they can ask for one. If they don't want one, why should we be forcing one on them ... We're sounding more and more like the Soviet Union of old. And we know where that brought the people living under those dictatorship conditions. We have an elite who think they know what is best for the rest of us. That's sad.

by Lance on Jun 2, 2010 8:34 am • linkreport

If I am trying to go somewhere and hit a place where there is a sidewalk gap, and the reason for the gap is selfish homeowners, then yes, this is a case where they should be mandatory.

It isn't elitism on the part of those who want sidewalks, it is selfishness and elitism on the part of those who are fighting them.

Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to be in the street with cars?

by William on Jun 2, 2010 8:46 am • linkreport

@William the reason for the gap is selfish homeowners.

And THAT is the source for this warped line of reasoning. "Selfish homeowners"? How about maybe that it just isn't needed? Maybe it's a street that has so low foot traffic that no one is ever going to use the sidewalk. Maybe it's a street with such low vehicular traffic that there's no good reason why you can't be sharing the road with traffic. Except for urban areas, you know sharing the road is the gold standard ... And no, not all parts of the District are urban.

I like what Bowser had to say about "the whole landscape of our city does not need to change."

Your statement 'selfish homeowner' is so telling as to what is behind this law and those who pushed it through. It has nothing to do with safety ... just like the bag tax had nothing to do with cleaning the Anacostia. It's all about people with a chip on their shoulder thinking they know what is best for everyone in every circumstance because they can't see past their own self-important noses.

by Lance on Jun 2, 2010 8:55 am • linkreport

We have an elite who think they know what is best for the rest of us.

Yes, they're called the Council of 100 on the Federal City.

by cminus on Jun 2, 2010 9:05 am • linkreport

Are we talking about private land, here? I am assuming that we are not (perhaps I am wrong). I see nothing wrong with (district-wide) public decision-making over what to with public land.

I really don't get the anti-sidewalk constituency - they strike me as people sho simply don't want people anywhere near their houses (even if on public land).

Sidewalks are public access ways that help people (esp. those without cars) get from one neighborhood to another. Public transportation in the simplest sense (and walking is less frustrating than taking Metro, in my opinion).

Anyways, it has passed, and I am happy about it.

@cminus- Great line. I imagine that they are all Freemasons as well...

by ed on Jun 2, 2010 2:49 pm • linkreport

I live on a quiet street in DC with no sidewalks. I have 4 little kids, and taking a walk or bike ride around the block (not to mention to school) is a harrowing experience. It only takes one car going too fast. Sidewalks have been an incredibly divisive topic in my neighborhood (Hawthorne), and all of our public officials (Bowser, Fenty, even Gray) have taken the side of the antis. Highly disappointing.

DDOT is installing sidewalks on Western Ave. NW between Chestnut St. and Oregon Ave., which is wonderful! I am disappointed, though, that the sidewalk is very narrow. There are some places where they carved around large trees, so that the sidewalk doesn't appear to be more than 2 feet wide. Someone in a wheelchair or walking with a stroller is NOT going to fit through. I agree that there need to be some standards regarding the construction of sidewalks, and maintaining a reasonable width needs to be one of them. Western Ave. is an extremely wide street, I don't understand why the sidewalks couldn't have been widened another foot or even two.

by Katie on Sep 7, 2010 1:53 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or