What Good is a City No One Can Walk In?

I like what you’re saying.

One question about sidewalks, though:
My elderly neighbor was cited (I guess after a complaint), and told to fix a problem with “his” sidewalk that wasn’t anything like the damage this picture shows. That was caused by a bad choice of street tree many years ago, and is one of my favorite things about walking in an older neighborhood.
Those huge old street trees (BTW I’m not eighty just yet).

His was a slight difference in height between one section and another, the kind only skateboarders pre-urethane have a problem with. He patched it, but they made him do it again until it the slope was just right.

My point is…isn’t it the homeowner’s sidewalk after it’s built?

As it stands, sidewalks on private property such as a residence are the responsibility of the property owner, except in certain exceptions (diagram here: http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/stuse_faq.htm#gen1 ). Presently in Seattle, specifically west Seattle, there are a number of abandoned properties that would be incredibly difficult to hold people accountable. This leaves blocks with areas of broken sidewalk in front of homes that do not convey the safest feelings.

I didn’t see a picture of Mike McGinn next to Obama during his visit this week. Why is that? What does that say about Seattle’s Mayor and his ability to represent the interests of the city? It makes me sick.

Most sidewalks were paid for by the property owner and they remain responsible for repair. In the past LIDs were used.

The sidewalk in front of a house is not on private property rather street right-of-way – controlled by the city, maintained by the property owner.

Are you suggesting repairing existing residential sidewalks in West Seattle before installing the promised (1958) sidewalks north of 85th?

Whoa, there… slow down, Seattle! Mayor “Mickey” McGinn already has an issue this year. ‘Sidewalks” sounds like a great second year single issue, if the pot holes are finished being striped as bike path. He needs to finish fucking up the tunnel before you unleash him on the sidewalks…

As an avid jogger, I regularly run in the street up on Capitol Hill when possible, thanks to the jagged mess that are so many sidewalks in our urban areas.

That said, we do have finite resources, and where should our priorities lie during the current economic state? I vote more bike lanes, and especially buffered bike lanes, and once the city has more income, sidewalk repair and installation (North end) should definitely be a priority.

I know this was addressed to Dorsol (who has the most interesting name in town), but just wanted to say that I love the neighborhoods with no sidewalks, too.
There is something about them that says “established and comfortable”.

Please, fight for that Brady Bunch look if that’s what you want. I think you should be as bland as everyone else if you want, but you just might lose something in the bargain.

Thanks. I guess he died doing his civic duty.

“I was elected as a Precinct Committee Officer for the 34th District Democrats, which includes Vashon Island, neighborhoods south of Seattle, and my neighborhood — West Seattle.”

That do make you sound like a yokel.
How do you respond to Morning, and to North Seattle? Not like you’re running for mayor or anything.

Отлично написано. А главное хорошо разжевано.

just to throw a little gasoline on the fire…

when we lived abroad, we lived in a fussgaenger zone (pedestrian zone, mostly car free)
this was one of the most vibrant places i’ve ever lived: lots of public transit, bike friendly (even w/ cobblestones/rail lines) uber-pedestrian friendly.

streets were originally intended for people, not cars. jaywalking didn’t exist til ‘car clubs’ said fuck you to the city and its inhabitants.

woonerven are great, and we’d love to see a number of them in seattle. anyone care to start a pro-transit, pro-city, pro-pedestrian lobby for taking back the streets?

“No one can walk in” this city? Really? You sure about that?

Cause I walk around the city all the time without any problems, and I see plenty of other people putting one foot in front of the other just like me without incident.

If you are waiting for the city to smooth out the sidewalks or add more crosswalks before you dare venture out for a stroll, then you probably need the kind of help the city can’t provide.

I’m not trying to suggest that at all. What I am saying is that raising the CPT just for the Seawall is irresponsible with potential revenue sources being so far between right now. This is especially true when this revenue can be used to start whittling away on necessary bike and pedestrian needs like safety repairs and sidewalks promised 60 years ago.

The guy down the block that has to drive his wheelchair down the middle of the road just doesn’t look like he is enjoying the look as much as you do.

Having ditches where those bland sidewalks would be, blighting an otherwise beautiful neighborhood, is part of the charm of these Publicola columns.

The funny thing is that removing crosswalks is a good thing. Crosswalks give pedestrians a sense of safety. No crosswalk (even though, as we all know, all intersections are technically crosswalks, from the corner of the curb to ten feet up the street) = more likely to look for cars before crossing the street. That’s a good thing.

I’m in.
How’s about we call it PubliCola?

Why did you come back here? You should have stayed where you liked it so much.

Most people over 80 stop walking as much as they did when they were younger. This happens everywhere — not just in Seattle. Has nothing to do with sidewalks. Many elderly people just can’t — and don’t want to — walk as much as when they were younger. Blaming that on sidewalks or lack of crosswalks is rather stupid.

Most people over 80 stop walking as much as they did when they were younger. This happens everywhere — not just in Seattle. Has nothing to do with sidewalks. Many elderly people just can’t — and don’t want to — walk as much as when they were younger. Blaming that on sidewalks or lack of crosswalks is rather stupid.

Most people over 80 stop walking as much as they did when they were younger. This happens everywhere — not just in Seattle. Has nothing to do with sidewalks. Many elderly people just can’t — and don’t want to — walk as much as when they were younger. Blaming that on sidewalks or lack of crosswalks is rather stupid.

Most people over 80 stop walking as much as they did when they were younger. This happens everywhere — not just in Seattle. Has nothing to do with sidewalks. Many elderly people just can’t — and don’t want to — walk as much as when they were younger. Blaming that on sidewalks or lack of crosswalks is rather stupid.

go look on the mcginn for mayor facebook page

ack! mayor mike mcginn facebook page

ack! mayor mike mcginn facebook page

the typical response to anyone saying anywhere else, does anything better.

it’s so dogpatchy. hey y’all ain’t from around heayah is you?

Interestingly enough I have those things in reverse order, sidewalks in the north end where they were promised when the area was annexed in the late 1950′s, then you can paint stripes on otherwise functional roads.

I’ll go as far to say that I will not vote for another “plan” for another part of this city that has a “maybe in the future” line of bullshit attached to it.

Today I drove by my family’s past home in Federal Way, and still no sidewalks. Bet they would shoot the some-bitch that tried to install them.

You, and others, are just trying to stir up anti-anything.

And you used to be good at it. What’s up, Master B?
I miss you.

Thank you, Dorsol. That was a good post.

The bizarre anti-crosswalk, anti-sidewalk comments here are even more reactionary and conservative than usual for Publicola.

are you denying that more vulnerable populations are in greater need of sidewalks? the risk of serious injury from a fall increases greatly with age. in countries with higher life expectancies than ours, older adults are far more active into their eighties.

As someone who waits 2-3 minutes every morning to cross the street on the way to work at an unmarked crosswalk, to wait to run through a gap in a parade of single-driver cars, I strongly disagree with you.

On another note, the new crosswalk and island (“curb bulb”) at Olive Way & Boylston is the best thing that’s happened for mobility and safety in that part of Capitol Hill in years.

I’m not anti-crosswalk, I’m just referring to studies on the issue.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/03.cfm#toc110157066

While I usually don’t care for Grover, and sometimes care for kurisu, I must say that there is a serious BS factor in the sidewalk debate.
Grover is being honest.

Using sidewalks, or potholes, or any other petty thing to win office is sad.
D.P. must have something deeper than that to choose this life.

What is it? What drives you?

Dorsol – you want to be in charge, I’ve got some advice for you once you get there and here it is: figure out how to make the replacement/installation of sidewalks cheaper. Way back in 2002 Mayor Nickels (remember him, he wanted more sidewalks too), claimed that 1 city block of sidewalks costs one million dollars.

Now, the price tag surely has gone up a bit since 2002. And, it’s totally absurd.

You say that we are going to be $7.8 million short this year and as a result, “we could see bike and pedestrian infrastructure pushed back years, even decades.” The way I see it, if the City doesn’t change the cost of infrastructure improvements that is a measly 7.8 blocks of sidewalks that won’t get built. That hardly seems like a huge impact to me.

My point: time to think about both sides of the equation — how we get the money and how we spend it. Not just the first part.

Nice urban myth but it’s been researched repeatedly and no one can find any documentation to support the idea that anything was promised during that annexation.

It doesn’t matter whether it is an urban myth or not. For a city that espouses being “pedestrian” friendly to not have sidewalks everywhere they are wanted is an embarassment.

This is absolutely false. Crosswalks signal to a driver to look for pedestrians. They are among the least expensive pedestrian safety improvement we can make.

I believe the backlog is 7-8 BILLION… and, yes, SDOT is talking about taking decades – not years – to get caught up. It’s not as easy as going out and pouring some concrete somewhere.

The bulk of the cost comes from a requirement to engineer and construct new drainage before the sidewalks are added. A million is absurd, but we’ve seen even asphalt sidewalks cost as much as $500,000/block face due to utility costs.

In north Seattle, lack of sidewalks is usually accompanied by storm drainage via a ditch or culvert. Changing that to underground piping is the big expense, and for reasons nobody has ever explained to me SPU doesn’t pick up that portion of sidewalk expense.

We actually do have a big opportunity here. The State is forcing us to redo the combined sewer systems in our city to improve water quality. Where most of this work is being done is where we need the sidewalks. This time, SPU has to pay for the drainage so the incremental cost of adding sidewalks is a fraction of the usual cost.

If McGinn was paying any sort of attention, he’d be all over this as the solution to finally afford sidewalks in north and SE Seattle.

We don’t need or want sidewalks everywhere.
We can get around.

We might need sidewalks around schools, though.
And anywhere that is supposed be walkable for kids.

But unless you, David, are a crip (or a blood) your prob isn’t lack of sidewalks. It’s lack of drive.
You wouldn’t get out of your car if it caught on fire.

The ability to walk around safely is not a “petty thing”, but rather an essential part of human health. Obesity levels are influenced heavily by the built environment. In places where walking is safer/more enjoyable people do it more and are healthier as a result.

LOL! When I lived on the Hill I used to run early morning so I could run in the street before the traffic started up. The sidewalks up around 15-18th Ave East are totally screwed up.

But I am shocked no one has mentioned the horrid condition of B-G Trail around UW. The trail needs a major repaving job.

I know this was addressed to Dorsol (who has the most interesting name in town), but just wanted to say that I love the neighborhoods with no sidewalks, too. There is something about them that says “established and comfortable”.. -Barleywine

I’d say they certainly don’t look established, but perhaps we should let the people that live there decide by offering them some significant matching funds for at least the sidewalk portion with the drainage upgrades paid for by the city. Much of our system was done with LIDs.

The link Dorsol provided explains how streets and sidewalks were provided and how they are maintained. The property owners built the streets on their own property on which the city has an easement for right-of-way and the city maintains the street improvement to the level built. The property owner is responsible for sidewalk upkeep.

As a side note, property owners have provided the bulk of street parking by paving their property at their expense.

Crosswalks pose a real dilemma. National statistics may show that crosswalks give a false sense of security, but a segment of drivers believe they only have to stop at crosswalks and flip you off if you try to cross without a crosswalk. I like the flags, the flashing lights at street level, full stop lights for pedestrians and much more public education.

It must also be said that Seattle is usually at the very top for pedestrian safety in the country. Seattle drivers also at the top for stopping for pedestrians.

A report “Framework for Seattle’s Pedestrian Safety & Awareness” is instructive but I can’t find it online right now.

sounds like they are building job security more than infrastructure.

In Portland there are many communities without sidewalks – or even paved roads as a way to reduce and control storm water runoff and to control traffic speed. The pedestrian safety issue is an important one – perhaps Washington state law should be toughened to give pedestrians additional protections (like in Oregon). Sen. Adam Kline might be in a position to help protect bicyclists and pedestrians. Perhaps the Dept. of Licensing driving test can be changed to give greater attention to pedestrian safety (through additional questions or weighting to pedestrian safety questions).

Again, can you cite anything to that effect? I pwned on the cite. Done and done.

You wish has been granted. It’s called Streets for All. http://www.streetsforallseattle.org/

Cheers!

Boo. I had hoped that bringing Dorsol on to write during Dan’s absence would bring some topical diversity to Publicola– perhaps something about human services?

Publicola is going stale. It needs someone whose vision does not begin and end inside the city limits of Seattle, and whose appreciation of urban design and desire to moderate car culture does not crowd out just about every other issue (like, say, the war or the recession).

I take my car to the Soos Creek trail and walk there for miles.

Very pleasant.

I get two more, watch for my next topic

It’s not an urban myth so much as it is a promise that is well-remembered by those who were around at the time, and that the City was careful not to put in writing so it could actually be held to it.

I ride a few thousand miles a year on a bike. My business was purposefully created to be virtual, so my commute is about 30 feet by foot. The only year in the past 10 where I’ve driven over 5,000 miles is when I’ve taken a vehicle road trip or when my Dad was sick in the hospital.

And, if you’d bothered to read, I said “sidewalks everywhere where they are wanted” and not sidewalks everywhere.

Sigh… OK, here we go…

Let’s assume the methodology is not flawed and take the citation’s conclusions at face value:

For two lane roads, crosswalks are not more dangerous. They are not less dangerous, but more crosswalks = more pedestrian traffic and that’s stated citywide goal.

For multi-lane roads with average daily vehicle traffic (ADT) of < 12,000, crosswalks are not more dangerous.

For multi-lane roads with ADT > 12,000 and < 15,000 there was no statistically significant difference, but a trend towards increased danger from marked crosswalks UNLESS there was a raised center median. The takeaway is not that pedestrian improvements are unwise, it is that sometimes more is needed than just a crosswalk.

For multi-lane roads > 15,000, crosswalks are more dangerous. Raised medians limit the danger, but don’t eliminate it.

Please note, this study excluded “controlled” intersections that had stop signs, stoplights, active pedestrian signals, or meaningful passive pedestrian signage. Other data shows adding any of these strategies makes crosswalks safer.

Now to this study’s flaws:

1. Comparing intersections with crosswalks to intersections without holds an inherent bias. Municipalities tend to place crosswalks where prior accidents or close calls have happened. The results of these data can also be explained by the fact they very likley compared pre-identified dangerous intersections to non-dangerous intersections.

2. The entire difference in pedestrian accidents across the study can be explained by accidents in multiple threat situations. (See PDF page 51, document page 41 for a good graphic.) The highlights the fact the study has narrow applicability (i.e. only in high ADT, no other controls).

3. The methodology of choosing control intersections is suspect. If the study intersection was N/S, for example, the control intersection was often the same intersection but the E/W. Authors concluded these were comparable since they were the same intersection, but this is a dangerous assumption.

I do thank you for bringing this one to my attention. I had not read it and it is much better than the JAMA one SDOT usually throws in neighborhood advocates’ faces (which is so flawed it should be withdrawn). They did a better job of trying to control for variables than is typical. And while their math assumptions also have some problem in their data expansion assumptions and far too much fitting was done for my taste, the conclusions embedded in the text can be useful.

I understand your point, but shifting the cost to SPU doesn’t decrease costs it just makes different parties pay in different ways. My point is that we need to think more creatively than continuing to do what we do now. Different, less costly solutions should be aggressively pursued IMO.

If $500,000 for an asphalt sidewalk doesn’t alarm people into thinking differently about this problem I don’t know what will.

I’m not going to address your criticism of Publicola. Josh or Erica can respond to that… As for Dorsol’s piece, you might note that he is writing in the absence of Dan (so why not start with an urban design issue?) and he’s a declared candidate for a city-elected position.

If you want to read Dorsol’s thoughts on wider-ranging topics, stop by Northwest Progressive Institute’s blog and look for his entries over there.

You say, “It’s not as easy as going out and pouring some concrete somewhere.”

I say, there are ways to do this better-faster-smarter-cheaper. I don’t believe that we should constrain ourselves to current practices if we really want to solve this problem, unless of course we don’t want to solve the problem.

Maybe because the war and the recession are not things we can control

Hurry, please.

A full-on Kent trail! So pleasant! So Intense!!

It would be more alarming if you weren’t blatantly mis-representing the source of the cost RIGHT after a good explanation of why it’s so expensive…

I walk all the time – in the ‘hood, to/from downtown, with the kids to the park, etc. But I live in the CD and don’t walk to Fremont, Ballard, Seward Park, and other points.

So there are two issues – the safety and ease of walking around one’s neighborhood, and the the issue of reducing the dependence on a car in this city.

In some neighborhoods beautiful (and arguably necessary to the health of people and the planet) street trees have tree roots that have been paved over and naturally want to find water. As the city builds out we are reducing permeable surfaces and competing with the natural function of growing trees.

The problem of tree roots lifting and cracking sidewalks may be solved by the McGinn administration who seem to want to ease the ability for property owners remove trees. Ironically it is also proposing credits for developers who plant trees in the planting strip (rather than on the property since we are increasing lot coverage potentials) which will in the future lift and crack more sidewalks, but we need to because we are trying to increase the tree canopy in the city.

We are trying to encourage more walking, but because we do not yet have good transit between our Urban Village neighborhoods, we still are forcing people to use autos which makes our arterials unsafe.

We have SDOT roads projects that continue to lay asphalt or concrete with endless center turn lanes rather than including crosswalks and raised center medians. And SDOT seems to prioritize moving traffic rather than pedestrians around schools and shopping districts.

Of course we are continuing to add population into neighborhoods while ignoring the transit demands this places on roads and buses (see every large project’s DNS from DPD). And while the Urban Village Transit Network planned over a decade ago may be having the dust blown off, it is a long way from being completed.

What is missing from all of this talk is a coherent comprehensive way to deal with all of these competing goals of density, moving people around easily and safely, and minimizing our impact on the environment. And as Dorsol points out, how to fund it all.

To the latter, personally, I’d like to see the parking tax doubled. And the head tax for downtown commuters should be reinstated at a marked increase (start with $100 per auto commuter). That $25/person/year is any burden to a business downtown is a joke. They would spend more on donuts per employee in a year I’d wager.

And we should be looking to reduce auto speeds throughout the city and our beloved Copenhagen has. http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagens-car-free-streets-and-slow-speed-zones/.

As far as a comprehensive approach to solving these problems, maybe one Dorsol’s next post will address these.

and South Seattle. There is more to South Seattle than just the SE portion.

maybe if less money was spent on friggin studies than actually fixing something there’d be more money in the pot to actually fix something.

How much money is pissed away annually by the State and City to study the obvious? Too much “studying” and not enough “doing” IMO.

Maybe if MacGinn walked more we get the sidewalks fixed instead of stealing so much of our streets.

Your problems with methodology are noted. However, when multiple studies by companies and government organizations basically come to the same conclusion, it’s difficult for me to believe they’re wrong based solely on anecdotal “evidence”.

I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps there is a study out there that shows crosswalks are, in fact, safer. But, I don’t believe there are.

I’m not blatantly misrepresenting anyone. David’s explanation of why it costs so much in the existing paradigm was a good one.

Nonetheless, I’ll clarify: “If $500,000 for one block of asphalt sidewalk and underground drainage piping doesn’t alarm people into thinking differently about this problem I don’t know what will.”

Sidewalks, like underground electrical utilties, are one of those things that sounds nice, but sends people running away when they see the cost.

It used to be, back in the 1970′s or thereabouts, that neighborhoods could easily create LID’s whereby they would tax themselves for improvements. (We did that just on our block to get our alley paved). Sometime in the 80′s, I believe, there was a lawsuit that required a supermajority to create a LID, and you can never get those – the cheapskates and big thinker group together to make sure nothing ever happens.

As for sidewalks on the north end, that’s just something old people say at neighborhood barbecues to get the young people riled up and pay attention to them. Besides, If you tried to lay sidewalks those neighborhoods, and people started to see how much of their lawns are actually city right-of-way, all hell would break loose. That’s why we will never, ever see a meaningful expansion of sidewalks in residential neighborhoods.

Our Mayor gets more exercise walking and biking than most city residents do.

Next–

In the north end, we need to calm traffic in neighborhoods and put sidewalks along arterials. Lake CIty Way, Aurora, 145th, etc. These are highways that need sidewalks so you can get to a bus stop safely. You may think your dismissive attitude is cute but it just shows your ignorance.

Um, do you think that if you are walking by the side of the road and there is no sidewalk then cars run you down? I am not sure how sidewalks make it more safe. Are the cars wandering into pedestrians?

I would think that stoplights being added would make it more safe. Too often in Seattle we expect drivers, bikes and peds to just mix, and when you have major arterials like the ones you mention, nothing helps someone cross the street more safely than a traffic signal.

Whether a ped is standing on black asphalt or white concrete by the side of the road is perhaps a convenience issue, but I don’t see the safety issue. do you have stats? Please share. Peopple pull out the safety card as often as GWB used WMD. And tell me what would you rather have, in crossing Aurora at a given block, a sidewalk or a traffic light?

Absolutely. In terms of the biggest sidewalk deficits, according to SDOTs data it is N and SE Seattle. Most areas in the city, but particularly S Seattle have walkability and safety issues.

MM, we ran out of nesting, so this is reply to yours below.

I admit I have not looked at every journal article on the subject, though thanks to your link I have another dozen to read closely. Every one I’ve looked at has similar methodological flaws. Also, every one I’ve looked at has nuances about where crosswalks are and are not safe similar to those I pointed out above concerning the USDOT report.

There are indeed a couple showing crosswalks are safer, but they tend to not sort out crosswalks+additions in their methodology. They also tend to be in areas where there is dedicated enforcement on yielding and large penalties for not doing so. In my spare time, I’m working to get a picture across several of these studies of where crosswalks are generally agreed as safe or not more dangerous.

Our current problem is too many people read the abstract, scan the pictures, and then make policy without understanding the limitations of the research (much less stopping to think about alternate explanations for the conclusions). This isn’t confined to crosswalks, of course, I see it all the time in biotech. Lies, damned lies, and peer-reviewed research (to pilfer Disraeli’s quote or Twain or whomever else has been credited with it over the years).

Sorry to get your pearls in a clutch, Mikos, but I don’t really see what you are so worked up about. The fact is that the city *never* promised sidewalks, and the people who own property without sidewalks would largely be very upset to have them inflicted upon them.

Sorry if that makes you all tense and nervous. Maybe you should take a nice stroll on the large stretches of Lake City Way, Aurora Avenue, 145th, etc that have sidewalks, with no discernible reduction in traffic.

They’re dealing with decades of underinvestment in sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure. They’re also dealing with drainage requirements that add significant cost to new sidewalk construction.

Bill, if we actually enforce the rules on types of trees planted in the planting strip, and look at some of the more innovative methods to work around the problems of trees trying to put roots there (including but not limited to not just throwing a tree in a hole dug out of 100% clay and wondering why the tree seeks the relatively more disturbed dirt under the sidewalk) we can make the two co-exist. Looking at streetscapes in ways to allow for larger tree pits (not just taking away sidewalk space) will also help. You’re right, though, that we have a whole lot of work to do.

The DoL test needs to be completely revamped and re-envisioned for the 21st century. We also need to go back to teaching mobility education (not just driver ed) in the high schools, as opposed to just having kids pay private instructors before they get their driving license.

Next,
But I do have pearls. So did the guy in the motorized wheel chair I saw going up the middle of 145th today. No sidewalk for him. Perhaps you think that’s the kind of city you want. Not me.

Look Next, the city does promise to provide a safe environment. We pay taxes for that. That may mean sidewalks in some case. I know this is little hard for you but think about it.

So maybe 145th is the Next candidate for bike lanes.

Not likely but sidewalks that are passable by wheelchairs would be a start. There’s not reason a person in a wheelchair should have to travel 15 blocks south to 130th to access a sidewalk over the freeway. It’s a bad deal.