4 ms·
There were fascinating protests against footbridges when first created in London, as the people felt they were losing their priority against the car. I copied o
by justincormack 3y ago
There were fascinating protests against footbridges when first created in London, as the people felt they were losing their priority against the car. I copied out these notes from the book Leadville about the history of the A40 and the building of the first footbridge here https://www.flickr.com/photos/justincormack/256217251 https://www.flickr.com/photos/justincormack/256217251
The Bridge of Fools, the first footbridge over a road in Britain
In 1938 the inhabitants started to protest about the rising death toll on Western Avenue, the "Avenue of Speed and Death". They petitioned the Ministry of Transport to impose a speed limit of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour. The ministry said that would be an "ingenious provision" to save lives, but it would be against "the whole object of constructing a road free from congested traffic".
On 21 July 1938 the protestors filed across Western Avenue from the Approach, and then back, causing a huge tailback. The next day the Ministry arranged to build two bridges, one here and one by Gipsy Corner, much to the disgust of the protestors, who thought it would encourage cars to drive faster and to force pedestrians off more roads onto bridges and subways. A week later a thousand people demonstrated again for "their right to cross on the level".
In September the hastily erected bridge was complete, and five hundred people demonstrated against it again. The bridge became a tourist attraction and it was "quite usual to see people from other districts coming to look at it".
In October torchlight processions were held on the road every evening for a week, with a dog with a red light attached to it and four bearers carrying a coffin, and placards saying "We want crossings not coffins".
The war brought and end to the protests, and for a few years the traffic.
from Leadville: A Biography of the A40 by Edward Platt
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoSounds like the kind of hypocrisy you'd hear from "urbanists" today: Complain about pedestrian deaths, then complain about a thing that prevents them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bombcar 3y agoIt’s amusing how nobody complains about pedestrian infrastructure over and under trains.
- growse 3y agoIsn't that because most people understand that trains don't drive on sight? Railways are for trains, roads are for people.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago[flagged]
- defrost 3y agoWho were they for then? Recall the context, please: the first footbridge over a road in Britain a country with a network of roads 2,000+ years old. And who were those roads for? Armies to march on. You know, armies of people.
- bombcar 3y agoEveryone forgets the horse and its carts and carriages.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoGreat. Stick to the ancient roads while you're walking, and you should be fine.
- defrost 3y agoIf you're not comfortable with an answer to a question that you posed then perhaps you need to be more careful with your ill thought rhetoricals.
- avianlyric 3y agoRoads existed long before the motor vehicle did, the Romans were famous for them. And last I checked most people use roads to transport themselves, their not domain of empty cars driving themselves around. In the civilised world, which the UK is part of, pedestrian have unlimited right of way and priority on all roads, except highways. Motor vehicles are guests, it just seems that drivers believe wrapping themselves in tons of metal gives them the right to bully and brutalise other road users with impunity.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago[flagged]
- avianlyric 3y agoWhy should pedestrians be forced to clamber over bridges for the convenience of drivers? Drivers are the one with huge mechanical advantage, make them go up and down, don’t force the local pedestrians who live in the to take huge detour, just so drivers from out of town can save 30 seconds.
- ensignavenger 3y agoThose are good points, but the simple argument to the contrary is a matter of cost. It costs a whole lot less to build a foot bridge over a road than to build a road bridge over a foot path.
- avianlyric 3y agoYes cost is the obvious elephant in the room. But ultimately all these things come down to priorities. Do we prioritise building human scale environments that are welcoming and pleasant to people, or do bulldoze that for car scale places that are hostile and unpleasant for people, unless they’re wrapped in tons of metal? Turning all of spaces in car centric spaces also has cost, it’s just less obvious. Many time building that car bridge is cheaper for a government, if it helps keep people out of cars, and removes the huge number of negative externalities that car ownership brings.
- account42 3y agoThe cost of building the structure is hardly the only cost involved. Either solution means a cost or benefit to the two different groups that you can't just ignore away.
- JambalayaJim 3y agoBridges are still very real obstacles to people in wheelchairs, bikes, with strollers or shopping carts, or just mobility impaired in general.
- IIsi50MHz 3y agoTrue generally, although many Tokyo pedestrian bridges have narrow ramp space reserved adjacent to the steps so that people with bicycles can walk them up to or down from bridge level with considerably less difficulty than if only steps were provided. The remaining cases are not addressed in these designs, though.
- Reason077 3y agoThe speed limit was indeed reduced, in 2020, to 30 mph on the elevated eastern section of the A40 (Westway), but remains 40 mph on the Western Avenue part.