You should be able to walk, the most basic of transportation modes, along any public right-of-way, for any reason: it's healty, you don't own a car, you like it. It is obvious the owner of the North Seattle home pictured doesn't want sidewalks. He has installed boulders right up to the curb, giving you the choice of getting run over by a car, or spraining your ankle attempting to navigate his purposefully hazardous "attractive landscaping". Maybe I'll check the yellow pages for a good personal-injury attorney, then take a walk down his street...

Proving, once again, that you can overanalyze anything.

I live north of 85th and have no sidewalks. You take your life in your hands walking on our street. I want the sidewalks we were promised when we were annexed by the city. If we could at least get sidewalks on one side, it would help immensely. With the public schools going to neighborhood schools, more kids are walking to school and need sidewalks!

One way to do what Vldez suggests is traffic calming well beyond what Seattle can imagine...streets where cars are moving so slowly that we don't need to create separate realms for people and drivers. The streets space is shared.

Take a look at the concept and actuality of woonerf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf

In fact we have something like it with Pike Place but it's inconceivable that north Seattle could even discuss expanding such an advanced idea.

The irony of an uber-density advocate writing about the harms of sidewalks makes for a rather humorous morning. Who needs a comics page! So much for creating pedestrian friendly and walkable communities.

If Roger did his homework before he wrote, he would know that the lack of sidewalks is a major problem in terms of stormwater control. The current situation in sidewalkless Seattle is the rain runs in open culverts or along street edges. This causes significant erosion, so the stormwater picks up considerable silting particulate.

The silt and reduced ability to handle stormwater is a larger detriment to salmon species than sidewalks could ever be. WA DOR agrees, which is why Seattle's top tier stormwater permit is in danger until Seattle starts to separate its currently combined sewer system. With sidewalks, you get modern stormwater handling systems with the currently non-existant ability to separate stormwater from sewage. Less erosion results in less silt covering and suffocating spawning beds. Oh, and if you have more people walking that's less CO2 and lower VMT -- which the report notes is minor on its own but significant when combined with transit.

Imagine that... giving people some place to walk other than the middle of the road makes them more likely to take transit. Here and I thought it was only really tall (concrete filled, impervious surfaced) buildings that convinced people to take transit

In sum, sidewalks are better for our in-city endangered species, improve our greenhouse gas emissions, and (when combined with transit) reduce VMT. So much for the "sidewalks are evil" theory.

By the way... As someone with significant experience in community issues in the north end, I can tell you the three most common requests from neighbors are sidewalks, sidewalks, and (let me check my notes) sidewalks. While it is true some homeowners might not want a sidewalk in front of their house, they are the tiny minority here in Rural Seattle.

But, what do I know? I'm just a rural north Seattleite living on my not-paved-but-chipsealed (hot tar sprinkled with gravel http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/chipseal.htm) street, just a short piece away from theh 2-foot deep stormwater erosion channels in front of the newer apartment complex where DPD didn't require the developer to install sidewalks so I can't walk to my transit stop (next to a salmon-producing stream) without walking in the middle of the road.

But, what do I know? I'm just a rural north Seattleite living on my not-paved-but-chipsealed (hot tar sprinkled with gravel http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/chipseal.htm) street, just a short piece away from theh 2-foot deep stormwater erosion channels in front of the newer apartment complex where DPD didn't require the developer to install sidewalks so I can't walk to my transit stop (next to a salmon-producing stream) without walking in the middle of the road.

— ddmiller

Spot on! Rural Seattle is where I live too and I take my car to the bus stop rather than walk.

Valdez writes: "the city has more than 2,000 miles of sidewalk. After it rains, water hits all that pavement and it starts rolling around, picking up the petroleum drippings from cars, pesticides from lawn care products, and a legion of other things that end up harming fish and other creatures trying to survive in urban creeks and streams. Ultimately, all that water winds up in the Puget Sound, where the Partnership for Puget Sound says at least two species of salmon are threatened with extinction because of stormwater runoff."

If that is true and is a matter of concern, perhaps the City should be thinking of eliminating a much greater contributor to the problem: the thousands of miles of city roadways.

Sidewalks also provide a good place for bicycles to travel safely and not clog up motor vehicle traffic. Why not? It works at Greenlake. In most parts of Seattle, you hardly ever see a pedestrian on the sidewalk. Let the bicyclists use them.

And those silly bicycles painted on the roadways at a cost to taxpayers of how much? $100, $200, $250 each? Add 'em up. What a waste.

I no longer live in Seattle- but when I did - I was stuck in an area without sidewalks - and I felt like walking was something of a suicide mission- while I survived those missions- I had many a close call- trying to get hither and yon.........they are necessary if you are a walker

I, too, live in NE Seattle and there are no neighborhood sidewalks here in my neighborhood. After decades of this, I think we are just used to it. However, it does not come without hazards. Obviously, cars and people (dogs, strollers, children, etc) do not mix well, and not all motorists choose to slow down or to swing out away from pedestrians. A major complaint I have is that many neighbors choose to park cars in the street thinking of it as a parking lane! Why, I don't understand, and that poses an even greater hazard to travel. Therefore, I think sidewalks and/or paved, raised walking paths (such as the one shown in the photo) are better for safety all around. At least there is a designated, visible area set aside for pedestrians. Bikes should not use sidewalks.

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that additional sidewalks lead to more water pollution. It's clear that additional impervious surface increases the runoff volume. However, if already impervious area (paving) or semi-pervious area (graveled shoulder) is converted to sidewalk, that doesn't necessarily create a large added volume. The lack of sidewalks does not necessarily imply a lack of storm drains, so pollutants such as pavement oil or landscape chemicals may already be entering the system, regardless of sidewalk installation. Areas most likely to be affected would be those with no existing storm drains (where installation is included with sidewalks) and the pavement area is currently greenspace.

Lastly, I don't even recommend buying a home, much less landscaping the frontage, without knowing exactly where the property line meets public right of way. Sometimes folks have a rude awakening when they find a good chunk of their front yard is going to be eaten up- often along with significant landscape investments- by a frontage improvement project.

Have you read the study? See this conclusion: "Parking cost had the
strongest associations with both VMT and CO2. An increase in parking charges from approximately $0.28 per hour to $1.19 per hour (50th to 75th percentile), resulted in a 11.5 percent decrease in VMT and a 9.9 percent decrease in CO2." So much more simple changes in policy are much more effective in reducing vehicle miles traveled and CO2 emissions than sidewalks.

Snohomish County reports 25 tons of untreated dog poop are dropped on their ground every day. This is the equivalent sewage of a city of 40,000. Untreated. In the streams. Down to the Sound. Rather than sidewalks, maybe Roger and other really smart environmentalist-types ought to work to outlaw dog ownership in the Puget Sound basin. Here's the link:

http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Public_Works/Divisions/SWM/Services/Water_Pollution/Pet_Waste.htm

BTW... Cheers to the new Managing Editor for restoring my ability to comment on CC.

And Jeers to the intellectual coward who can't withstand diversity.

@ddmiller, bravo. If that doesn't get an editor's star then you've been robbed.
@Dana, second that about the way cars park along the street. On NE 15th, the city just blacktopped a few blocks of walkway that have immediately become parking strips.
Perhaps the boardwalks uncovered from the Link dig can be returned to active service in the north end.

"verdant growth of local plants"

Mom used to call those plants "weeds". Dad called them Blackberries and either way they had to go.

Sidewalks are nice, but there are plenty of places where they have been installed and are essentially abandoned because they are along incredibly busy streets. I'm not so sure that more sidewalks everywhere just because is the best use of the money. However, if a the neighborhood petitions for them, then you could justify their installation.

...."Neighborhoods should demand investment in walkability, whether that’s sidewalks or something even better."

OK, I'll bite, what is it?

...."One way to do what (sic) Vldez suggests is traffic calming well beyond what Seattle can imagine...streets where cars are moving so slowly that we don't need to create separate realms for people and drivers...,but it's inconceivable that north Seattle could even discuss expanding such an advanced idea."

On the other hand, the Surface Alaska Way group has yet to even win over Sucher.

.... "WA DOR agrees, which is why Seattle's top tier stormwater permit is in danger until Seattle starts to separate its currently combined sewer system. With sidewalks, you get modern stormwater handling systems with the currently non-existant ability to separate stormwater from sewage."

Now there is something Crosscut could spend a little of that grant money researching! For years, Bellevue was touted as the wave of the future, having licked the stormwater problem by avoiding curbs and sidewalks. Lately, I read something that does not jive with that so called fact, which of course disputes the so called fact touted above. I will be interested in comparing Lisa's work on Friday with the excellent reporting being done by Laura Funkhouser:
http://www.stormh2o.com/july-august-2007/adaption-climate-change.aspx

@NickBob -- Thanks for the thumbs up. It might have been too snarky for the gold star. I tend to get that way when I read poorly-researched articles.

This is about as good an example of the Ableism of the alternative transportation movement as I can imagine. Nobody ever gets old or has their mobility limited in these utopias. News for you: some of us do, and some of you will, too! Guess we're all going to be banished to the benighted places that aren't worth redeveloping.

@hereica- you are mistaken if you think that sidewalks don't provide value and utility for the weak or infirm. The reverse is true, as those who are able to take benefit from even short walks are in a better position to do so if they aren't forced to do so on streets where drivers attention isn't always what it should be. Especially if they are also no longer in a position to afford a car and have become reliant on transit. Those who can't or don't walk will still have the streets available to them as they do now, because reports to the contrary, cars are still the overwhelming winners in this so called war.

Do any of you have any idea what sidewalks cost? If so, do any of you have any idea of what financial situation the City is in? Connect those two dots. If you want sidewalks, take up a neighborhood collection; otherwise, just complain quietly.

Having just now read Lisa—a distinction still needs to be made explicit (for all the rest of us) regarding alternative stormwater management: are we talking about sidewalks or curbs or both?

There are disconnects here.

Where sidewalks exist, they are regarded as public, so the city better maintain them 'cause we pay taxes! Where they don't exist but are desired, they are regarded as private (in the words of this article, a 'status symbol'), so pay for them yourselves ya complainers.

Now sidewalks are also being looked to as a way to address the stormwater problem. Except adding this dimension means already-pricey sidewalks will now require special eco-expertise to plan and construct -- further driving up the cost, and making completing the sidewalk network less likely.

I'm going to predict that the next few years will follow the usual Seattle Pattern: there will be a study. A Cutting Edge Pilot Project will be designed, which will test some Amazing New Approach to great fanfare. Then a new mayor and city council will be voted in, and the pilot project will be filed away in a City Hall broom closet -- brought out only when City Hall needs to brag about how Cutting Edge we are (see also 'SEA Streets').

The barrier is that for some reason Seattle refuses to change the way sidewalks are funded. Despite so many obvious public purposes -- not least of which that they are in public rights of way -- sidewalk construction is still treated as though it only benefits private property.

@ ddmiller
"my not-paved-but-chipsealed (hot tar sprinkled with gravel http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/chipseal.htm) street"

And that tar contains petroleum, which pollutes stormwater (see also 'Part Of The Problem').

Oh, I want to put in a word for a traffic calming strategy that sidewalkless neighborhoods ought to have in their toolbox: it's legal to parallel park your cars on the pavement. Try to get everyone on your street, esp. if it is not an arterial, to park with at least 2 wheels in the street. This narrows the amount of room available and forces drivers to slow down, which is better for walkers.

Unfortunately, DG, parking your car on the street means it's likely to get sideswiped by drivers who simply continue on their way, especially on my street which is used to avoid Lake City Way and its interminable stoplights.

Sarah90 -- I used to live in Cedar Park and we had to put in speed bumps because we couldn't get sidewalks. Just walking the block to the park was a scary experience for our daughters. Sidewalks are a basic amenity of a city.

I totally agree with ddmiller. And no, David, I don't think you were too snarky for a Gold Star. I don't know anyone who thinks sidewalks are bad. Well, I guess I now know one person who does.

Is this guy for real? Good grief.

Jordan, I live on the street with the speed bumps down from the park, and when I'm home during the day I enjoy listening to the cars smacking their various under-organs on the bump nearest me. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to slow them down. Several blocks to the south which has speed bumps also, the bumps have been almost leveled, very professionally. The traffic circle on that street doesn't slow anyone down either. I don't know what would.