Aah, the age-old quandary – do we need more expensive public infrastructure – or not?

The liberals and progressives think 'If we can envision it – we should build it!'

Conservatives and curmudgeons ask, 'Why, and who's going to pay for it?'

So expensive bike trails are built – to be used by a tiny minority of bikers. Sidewalks are built [beautiful healthy trees sacrificed of course] so city workers can draw overtime. Then there is more miles of pathway and sidewalk to be maintained, and plowed in the winter.

And then the inevitable lawsuit – when somebody trips on a crack...

So who says sidewalks are urgently needed? Somebody with a vested interest?

Iron Mike, that 'bike' trail is actually used by runners and walkers as well as bicyclists. It promotes good health. I see many families on that trail as well.

I like the bike trail, think it is a great addition to our town even tho I rarely use it. However, the problem it poses to oncoming traffic, not able to see accurately if a walker or biker is about to cross the road is treacherous in my mind, especially at the intersection of Rt. 110 and Fletcher Street. Someone just didn't plan that one accurately.

As for sidewalks, I think they are a necessary evil for kids who are walkers to school but I also feel there is a better answer than just cutting down age-old, beautiful trees. Where are the preservationist greenies in this? Seems to me that a better way could/should be implemented.

Count me in as a regular on the Freeman trail, and I'm one of those cranky conservatives. The way I see it, things like bike trails and sidewalks ultimately add to property values as they help make Chelmsford a more attractive town to live in.

I would to see sidewalks on the other side of Richardson Rd. We have three main schools there and that road is to dangerous and cars go speeding.

I've never understood why we don't have more walkable neighborhoods around schools, especially in the North Chelmsford area. Kids who live in a neighborhood that has them attending Harrington, then McCarthy, then the high school, theoretically live within walking distance of all three, but there's no practical way for them to walk without encountering roads without sidewalks (Richardson), large roads with high speeds and no traffic calming features (north rd, princeton, middlesex), and side streets with no sidewalks.

I agree with Tim if you expect the students to walk to school then there should be sidewalks.Kids need some exercise away from computer. Is not the responsibility of the sidewalk's abutters to keep it clear of snow? Some cities and towns give out fines. Lately, the dog walkers are using the bike path for daily duty. There were many beautiful trees, shrubs, wildflowers, etc. destroyed in the construction of the bike path. Is it true that new residential developments must have sidewalks?