Of course, access could also be improved if the sidewalks were continued to Armstrong Road and connected to those on Forest Avenue.

Obviously, the same dangers for a wheelchair on a steep slope exist on the street itself in those places where there are no sidewalks.

Thus I’d be surprised if ADA rules would not allow sidewalks on any street in Northfield, even those on steep hills.

What is not clear in the info I accessed is how this pertains to public sidewalks. I am assuming that since it is a federal mandate, then local municipalities are subject to it.

As Bill rightly points out, though, none of these issues apply to Poplar St. The right of way is already there, and the slope is very mild.

However, that complication makes the S. Poplar disconnection that you reference all the more irritating. Poplar already has sidewalks on the 400 block, and it’s a much milder climb than the other three.

I will note that in similar situations on City streets, a sidewalk connection has been maintained. N. Linden Street has one block of street missing — adjacent to Emmaus Church — but still has sidewalks. A similar solution was done on the freshly disconnected W. 1st Street.

Sean, a tremendous post. You helped me to realize that there are no sidewalks connecting the northwest part of town to the Hwy 19 corridor from Odd Fellows lane all the way to Hwy 3. That’s three streets without sidewalks, including Orchard and Plum Sts. And when Poplar St. was disconnected from Hwy 19, a path should have been installed between the new cul de sac and the sidewalk on Hwy 19. It’s an example of how even recently we have failed to accommodate all modes of transport.

The other day I was biking up Odd Fellows and noticed a woman in a motorized chair going down the street. She was probably a Three Links resident. If this community wants to truly serve its growing number of retirees, it had better get sidewalks on that street.

David, I’m skeptical that Woodley St. sidewalks would cost millions, esp. where the topography is flat and the right of way is already owned by a public entitity.

I’ve been doing volunteer research and writing on complete streets for the Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition, and I’ve concluded that sidewalks and other “CS” features make financial sense. I just published a blog post with data on the costs of physical inactivity and obesity, taken from a scholarly book on exercise science and sports medicine. About 10 percent of health care costs are directly attributable to physical inactivity and obesity. That’s a conservative estimate that doesn’t count the indirect costs to individuals, employers, and governments from lost worker productivity, etc. (or other costs of an auto-dependent society: higher gas prices, wars in oil-rich regions, inefficient land use, etc.) The health care costs alone are billions and billions of dollars on a national scale, millions on a local scale.

See also the fact sheets published by the National Complete Streets Coalition.

True fiscal conservatism means returning to a more traditional city design, with sidewalks, multi-use zoning, and higher densities. This will save our society money in the long run. It’s for that reason that the National Business Group on Health supports sidewalks, paths, and similar facilities to help keep us healthy. Here’s an excerpt from one of their publications on obesity:

Two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, and the prevalence of obesity in children has tripled since 1980. Obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. The cost of obesity to private employers is conservatively estimated at $13B per year.¹ Obesity and overweight are responsible for an estimated 27% of annual trend in medical premiums paid by private employers.²

David, I hope you and the Chamber will take advantage of the resources offered by this group. They are helping businesses to keep health care costs down and employees healthy.

…a “Walkers’ Paradise”.

So, I guess that means that downtown Northfield is a good place to live, work and play.

That doesn’t mean it’s safe, but it does indicate that there’s more going on. A large part of the problem with South Division, I think, actually relates to sidewalks. There are shared-use paths until the Middle School, but they’re set way too far back from the road and totally out of sight of drivers. Though they’re good for ped/bike safety, they’re totally useless for traffic calming. The lack of any pedestrian crossing south of Jefferson Parkway also contributes to this.

Also, if cost were the only issue, let’s note that even with streets, there are other things to cut first. We pay to pave space for on-street parking when it’s used very little in newer neighborhoods. We pay for the luxury of the width two-way streets when one-way would suffice. We pay, again, for curb and gutter in areas that the density doesn’t require it. These are all things I would cut before sidewalks.

We had a Chamber forum this morning. I am hearing some of the same arguments from the elected officials. Money does matter. It is the single most important part of any government project, as it is of all of our consumer spending. For example, there is a headlong rush to build a bike trail without any regard for the costs. Other projects like the Safety Center and the library seem to be on similar paths.

Would you prefer that we build sidewalks every place in town and not have money for a Safety Center or a library expansion?

Given current economic times, it is almost impossible to justify putting sidewalks in existing areas that don’t have them.

I’m not sure if you’re referring to sidewalks as their own project or sidewalks being installed (new or replacement) as part of a larger infrastructure project. In fact, the West First Street project does include sidewalk in a few blocks that did not previously have coverage (as did the East Fifth project a few years ago, as Rob references). The “economic times” are only marginally relevant. Sidewalks are not a luxury; if necessary, the whole project should be put on hold rather than allowing it to be done poorly by serving only cars.

If you’re referring to sidewalks as their own project, again, it has little to do with the “economic times.” People are always reluctant to put in sidewalks on their own project. While proper sidewalk coverage may not be realistic for Eveleth, County 1, and S. Highway 3, some retrofit is in order before the roads undergo larger reconstruction. A shared-use path in the ditch is not ideal, but it’s relatively low cost and better than nothing.

Rob — an excellent post, and it also raises the issue of overall street and community design. You can have a network of dead-end culs de sac totally covered with sidewalks, but they’re not particularly useful if they don’t provide efficient pedestrian movement. Only a grid or modified grid does this well.

My first preference would be to have the schools work with the City to identify where sidewalks are most needed for children who are walking. Almost eveyone else has a choice about walking and where they want to walk.