6 ms·

>It's not in an area that is particularly walkable, and it doesn't connect any establishments that obviously need to be connected. So why was it built? As a de

by ginko 3y ago

>It's not in an area that is particularly walkable, and it doesn't connect any establishments that obviously need to be connected. So why was it built? As a dedicated pedestrian I find it baffling why you people would even be wondering about this. You have to provide ways to cross highways as pedestrian, otherwise you just cut off huge parts of land. I generally find the American approach to road planning where you have buildings and neighborhoods that can only be accessed by vehicle startling. What are you supposed to do if you don't have a car?

f1shy 3y ago
Live in a city where no car is needed, I suppose.
BlandDuck 3y ago
I know it is popular to assume that americans are crazy and ignorant, but part of the puzzle is that there were plenty of other ways to cross the highway. There are two other bridges just a few hundred feet away (a foot being about one-third of a meter): "Why would you build a pedestrian bridge to an empty field?! That makes even less sense. Yes there is a neighborhood south of the field, but if you are in that neighborhood surely you could just use the sidewalk on one of those other two bridges a few hundred feet to the east or west."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- potatolicious 3y ago
  ... Have you ever walked over a freeway on the "sidewalk" that's provided? I actually found that part of the quote amusing/revealing. As a frequent pedestrian who didn't own a car for many years, but yet navigated many a suburban area, I would vastly prefer the independent footbridge over a narrow 5' wide strip while 4,000 lb boxes whipped past me at 50mph. I've done it, and I can tell you besides being a hair-raising experience, one of the few thoughts that goes through your head in that moment is "I am meant to be less than those people in the cars in every way" > "I know it is popular to assume that americans are crazy and ignorant" On the contrary, I don't think this infrastructure is crazy or ignorant at all, but it is pretty emblematic of the way America defines class. Pedestrians/people who don't own cars are nearly subhuman, barely given any consideration at all in the best cases, and actively campaigned against at worst. The way the road infrastructure is for pedestrians isn't crazy, it's entirely rational under a value system where they have no value.
_dain_ 3y ago
+1 "it's not walkable, so let's not build any walking infrastructure" is there anything more perfectly self-defeating?
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  I agree with your point. And this bridge was built a long time ago when prices were different - but a bridge like that would probably costs >$1M today. If you're trying to improve the walkability of an area - building a pedestrian bridge over a highway that hardly any pedestrian will ever use is probably not the best use of funding.
  - unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
    Millions for cars but not one cent for pedestrians. Nice.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
      It's about allocating funds. If you have $1M to spend for pedestrians. You should use that on things pedestrians will use. Not on a pedestrian bridge no one will use.
      - unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
        People did and apparently do use the bridge. Lots of them, according to the article. In any event, the bridge was a mitigation of the degredation of a walkable neighborhood that the Federal government was lavishly funding. People wouldn't use the bridge if the Federal highway didn't exist, so ... the result of your logic is build neither? Of course not, you prefer people to be in their cars, probably electric ones, failing entirely to see failed mitigation after failed mitigation of the original misstep which was to build the highway in the first place.
  - baq 3y ago
    Don’t want cars someplace? Don’t build roads there. Don’t want pedestrians somewhere? Don’t build sidewalks and footpaths there. The way infrastructure is designed has tremendous implications on demand of modes of transportation. Of course nobody will walk anywhere if it’s unreasonable to walk anywhere. The problem is walkability is so bad people don’t even stop to think if they need to take a car. The just do and drive 800 ft down the road to visit neighbors. Insane.
gipp 3y ago
I'm about as strident an advocate for better walkability in America as you'll find, but this is still a silly post. The OP is not about the question of why one would build pedestrian bridges in general, but why this particular one exists in this particular spot, when it is clearly of no value to anyone and has no obvious rhyme or reason to its positioning, having no connection to any other pedestrian infrastructure. Which you know perfectly well if you read any of the post. As far as your latter paragraph goes... Read any other comment thread vaguely related to this topic, I suppose. That exact conversation is had on this site at least weekly.
- unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
  The post buried the lede that the pedestrian bridge was at the end of a long avenue that was cut off by an Interstate. It continued the avenue for pedestrians. While I enjoyed the shoe-leather reflected by the piece, I disagree with the central assumption that reconnecting neighborhood roads cut by Interstates should be an exception rather than a rule. In my city several areas are oddly isolated from one another due to highways that were a cohesive community fabric before. It's always an insult to the local neighborhood to seal places off and I'm saddened conventional wisdom today would require a special exception to heal the cut.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    To plow an interstate through a city, first seize some land through imminent domain. Better to seize it from the poor because they can't afford any legal struggle. This effectively splits poor neighborhoods. And that can be used as a tool to move or remove those populations. Combine this with redlining for extra "fun" for anybody black. https://www.history.com/news/interstate-highway-system-infrastructure-construction-segregation https://www.history.com/news/interstate-highway-system-infra...
    - imchillyb 3y ago
      > And that was by design, she noted. Policymakers and planners saw highway construction as a convenient way to raze neighborhoods considered undesirable or blighted. With absolutely no citation, quote, or reference, these types of statements are pure propaganda. That propaganda is found right at the top of this piece, so we can know exactly what to expect from that supposed journalist. Garbage. No facts, just hate.
dtgriscom 3y ago
Didn't read the article, eh?
bombcar 3y ago
The article states litter collects on the end of the bridge. So someone is using it! You find many of these structures where freeways were cut through in the 60s and 70s because cutting walkability was considered a serious issue. Even if only used ten times a day that’s still 3,650 trips a year. Things like this bridge should be encouraged! Cars can drive around “the long way” - but pedestrians sent more than a hundred yards out of their way are seriously discouraged.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  > article states litter collects on the end of the bridge. So someone is using it! Or litter that would blow onto the interstate if a bit further away instead gets stuck as it can't climb stairs.
tylervigen 3y ago
Oh I agree! I didn't spell it out in the article (I am the author), but I am a huge advocate of walkability. But if you gave me $1M and asked me to make this area more walkable, I still wouldn't build a bridge there. It's just so terribly unwalkable that that project would not even make my list. I would start with some sidewalks to get folks off the roads. Funny story: the original residents of Richfield push back against building sidewalks, because they thought NOT having sidewalks would make them more distinguishable from Minneapolis as a suburb. That is bonkers to me.
- speed_spread 3y ago
  Typical 1950's thinking. Like mass transit, sidewalks are for poor people who can't afford a car. It's an early form of transhumanism. Car + Driver, Man + Machine.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
> As a dedicated pedestrian I find it baffling why you people would even be wondering about this. Full agree, so the stance of the Grainger guys made me chuckle: We hate this bridge, cos we hate Taco Bell and it accumulates litter. (:
quickthrowman 3y ago
This pedestrian bridge is 2 blocks east of the Nicollet Ave bridge over 494 and about 5 blocks west of the Portland Ave bridge over 494. Both Nicollet and Portland Ave have sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. The bridges are old and not particularly pedestrian friendly, but pedestrians do use them, I’ve walked across the Portland Ave bridge a few times and didn’t find it dangerous or scary. Anyways, this section of 494 is being reconstructed over the next few years, I’m curious whether the pedestrian bridge will survive or not. Here is the physical location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TXfx7smGDDym3V46A?g_st=ic https://maps.app.goo.gl/TXfx7smGDDym3V46A?g_st=ic
- caf 3y ago
  Well I suspect it is now the most famous pedestrian bridge in all of Minnesota, so it would be a shame if it didn't!
nabakin 3y ago
The first part of this comment could only be made by someone who did not read the whole article. Tyler was not saying there was no point to having that bridge. He was saying given how other bridges were placed according to important landmarks, he did not understand why this one was placed in this location seemingly without any important landmarks. You can believe more bridges should exist without needing some sort of important landmark and believe that it is strange this bridge was placed in this location without an important landmark given the other bridges were placed in locations with important landmarks. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Of course it turned out that there was an important landmark (the school/church!) but that was Tyler's thought process.
dang 3y ago
Can you please review the site guidelines and stay within them more carefully? You broke several here, including: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

by ginko 3y ago

f1shy 3y ago

Live in a city where no car is needed, I suppose.

BlandDuck 3y ago

I know it is popular to assume that americans are crazy and ignorant, but part of the puzzle is that there were plenty of other ways to cross the highway. There are two other bridges just a few hundred feet away (a foot being about one-third of a meter): "Why would you build a pedestrian bridge to an empty field?! That makes even less sense. Yes there is a neighborhood south of the field, but if you are in that neighborhood surely you could just use the sidewalk on one of those other two bridges a few hundred feet to the east or west."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
potatolicious 3y ago
... Have you ever walked over a freeway on the "sidewalk" that's provided? I actually found that part of the quote amusing/revealing. As a frequent pedestrian who didn't own a car for many years, but yet navigated many a suburban area, I would vastly prefer the independent footbridge over a narrow 5' wide strip while 4,000 lb boxes whipped past me at 50mph. I've done it, and I can tell you besides being a hair-raising experience, one of the few thoughts that goes through your head in that moment is "I am meant to be less than those people in the cars in every way" > "I know it is popular to assume that americans are crazy and ignorant" On the contrary, I don't think this infrastructure is crazy or ignorant at all, but it is pretty emblematic of the way America defines class. Pedestrians/people who don't own cars are nearly subhuman, barely given any consideration at all in the best cases, and actively campaigned against at worst. The way the road infrastructure is for pedestrians isn't crazy, it's entirely rational under a value system where they have no value.

_dain_ 3y ago

+1 "it's not walkable, so let's not build any walking infrastructure" is there anything more perfectly self-defeating?

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
I agree with your point. And this bridge was built a long time ago when prices were different - but a bridge like that would probably costs >$1M today. If you're trying to improve the walkability of an area - building a pedestrian bridge over a highway that hardly any pedestrian will ever use is probably not the best use of funding.
- unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
  Millions for cars but not one cent for pedestrians. Nice.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    It's about allocating funds. If you have $1M to spend for pedestrians. You should use that on things pedestrians will use. Not on a pedestrian bridge no one will use.
    - unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
      People did and apparently do use the bridge. Lots of them, according to the article. In any event, the bridge was a mitigation of the degredation of a walkable neighborhood that the Federal government was lavishly funding. People wouldn't use the bridge if the Federal highway didn't exist, so ... the result of your logic is build neither? Of course not, you prefer people to be in their cars, probably electric ones, failing entirely to see failed mitigation after failed mitigation of the original misstep which was to build the highway in the first place.
- baq 3y ago
  Don’t want cars someplace? Don’t build roads there. Don’t want pedestrians somewhere? Don’t build sidewalks and footpaths there. The way infrastructure is designed has tremendous implications on demand of modes of transportation. Of course nobody will walk anywhere if it’s unreasonable to walk anywhere. The problem is walkability is so bad people don’t even stop to think if they need to take a car. The just do and drive 800 ft down the road to visit neighbors. Insane.

gipp 3y ago

I'm about as strident an advocate for better walkability in America as you'll find, but this is still a silly post. The OP is not about the question of why one would build pedestrian bridges in general, but why this particular one exists in this particular spot, when it is clearly of no value to anyone and has no obvious rhyme or reason to its positioning, having no connection to any other pedestrian infrastructure. Which you know perfectly well if you read any of the post. As far as your latter paragraph goes... Read any other comment thread vaguely related to this topic, I suppose. That exact conversation is had on this site at least weekly.

unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
The post buried the lede that the pedestrian bridge was at the end of a long avenue that was cut off by an Interstate. It continued the avenue for pedestrians. While I enjoyed the shoe-leather reflected by the piece, I disagree with the central assumption that reconnecting neighborhood roads cut by Interstates should be an exception rather than a rule. In my city several areas are oddly isolated from one another due to highways that were a cohesive community fabric before. It's always an insult to the local neighborhood to seal places off and I'm saddened conventional wisdom today would require a special exception to heal the cut.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  To plow an interstate through a city, first seize some land through imminent domain. Better to seize it from the poor because they can't afford any legal struggle. This effectively splits poor neighborhoods. And that can be used as a tool to move or remove those populations. Combine this with redlining for extra "fun" for anybody black. https://www.history.com/news/interstate-highway-system-infrastructure-construction-segregation https://www.history.com/news/interstate-highway-system-infra...
  - imchillyb 3y ago
    > And that was by design, she noted. Policymakers and planners saw highway construction as a convenient way to raze neighborhoods considered undesirable or blighted. With absolutely no citation, quote, or reference, these types of statements are pure propaganda. That propaganda is found right at the top of this piece, so we can know exactly what to expect from that supposed journalist. Garbage. No facts, just hate.

dtgriscom 3y ago

Didn't read the article, eh?

bombcar 3y ago

The article states litter collects on the end of the bridge. So someone is using it! You find many of these structures where freeways were cut through in the 60s and 70s because cutting walkability was considered a serious issue. Even if only used ten times a day that’s still 3,650 trips a year. Things like this bridge should be encouraged! Cars can drive around “the long way” - but pedestrians sent more than a hundred yards out of their way are seriously discouraged.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
> article states litter collects on the end of the bridge. So someone is using it! Or litter that would blow onto the interstate if a bit further away instead gets stuck as it can't climb stairs.

tylervigen 3y ago

Oh I agree! I didn't spell it out in the article (I am the author), but I am a huge advocate of walkability. But if you gave me $1M and asked me to make this area more walkable, I still wouldn't build a bridge there. It's just so terribly unwalkable that that project would not even make my list. I would start with some sidewalks to get folks off the roads. Funny story: the original residents of Richfield push back against building sidewalks, because they thought NOT having sidewalks would make them more distinguishable from Minneapolis as a suburb. That is bonkers to me.

speed_spread 3y ago
Typical 1950's thinking. Like mass transit, sidewalks are for poor people who can't afford a car. It's an early form of transhumanism. Car + Driver, Man + Machine.

throwbadubadu 3y ago

> As a dedicated pedestrian I find it baffling why you people would even be wondering about this. Full agree, so the stance of the Grainger guys made me chuckle: We hate this bridge, cos we hate Taco Bell and it accumulates litter. (:

quickthrowman 3y ago

This pedestrian bridge is 2 blocks east of the Nicollet Ave bridge over 494 and about 5 blocks west of the Portland Ave bridge over 494. Both Nicollet and Portland Ave have sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. The bridges are old and not particularly pedestrian friendly, but pedestrians do use them, I’ve walked across the Portland Ave bridge a few times and didn’t find it dangerous or scary. Anyways, this section of 494 is being reconstructed over the next few years, I’m curious whether the pedestrian bridge will survive or not. Here is the physical location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TXfx7smGDDym3V46A?g_st=ic https://maps.app.goo.gl/TXfx7smGDDym3V46A?g_st=ic

caf 3y ago
Well I suspect it is now the most famous pedestrian bridge in all of Minnesota, so it would be a shame if it didn't!

nabakin 3y ago

The first part of this comment could only be made by someone who did not read the whole article. Tyler was not saying there was no point to having that bridge. He was saying given how other bridges were placed according to important landmarks, he did not understand why this one was placed in this location seemingly without any important landmarks. You can believe more bridges should exist without needing some sort of important landmark and believe that it is strange this bridge was placed in this location without an important landmark given the other bridges were placed in locations with important landmarks. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Of course it turned out that there was an important landmark (the school/church!) but that was Tyler's thought process.

dang 3y ago

Can you please review the site guidelines and stay within them more carefully? You broke several here, including: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.