4 ms·
So what is that 4 ft wide for two way pedestrian traffic? That's kinda sad. #sidewalkshame
by iterationx 12y ago
So what is that 4 ft wide for two way pedestrian traffic? That's kinda sad. #sidewalkshame
- CalRobert 12y agoWhat's wrong exactly? It looks like it's split about 50/50 for bikes and walkers.
- iterationx 12y agoThey make a bridge without cars and they only give the pedestrians 4 ft for 2 ways? That's preposterous. What's wrong is that it isn't wide enough. Maybe I can get an upvote by someone from Europe where they have bridges that are wide and pleasant to walk across.
- CalRobert 12y agoFor what it's worth I live in Europe (though I am from the states originally), and I don't see what's the matter here really. Space looks to be reoughly evenly distributed between cyclists and walkers. Of course, most of the bridge is used by rail, but I imagine that was a design constraint. I'd love it if the bridge were wider, of course, but even so this seems a lot better than the usual treatment cyclists and walkers get.
- dalke 12y agoAgreed. Here's the bike and pedestrian part of one of the main bridges for Gothenburg, Sweden: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:G%C3%B6ta_%C3%A4lvbron#/media/File:Cykelsti_Goeteborg_2009_ubt.jpeg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:G%C3%B6ta_%C3%A4l... . The US one seems wider.
- abhorrence 12y agoIt carries both the streetcar and light rail. Also there is another section of bike and pedestrian lanes on the other side of the bridge.
- blacksmith_tb 12y agoIn Portland we're also in the process of replacing another bridge which as a single sidewalk less than 2ft wide directly adjacent to traffic, no barriers. It's dangerous and awkward to try and move past another person on foot on it, and near-suicidal to try and cycle across. So I will be happy to have 4ft for biking and walking, really.
- iterationx 12y agoYou are happy because the new bridge isn't "dangerous and awkward", but I maintain your standards are too low.