Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
We drive around the city regularly, not paying attention to details. Last Sunday, I drove to Riverside South to meet a friend. Around 10 years ago, Limebank Road was converted from a very narrow country road to a modern Boulevard to accomodate the growing population. What I observed was what other things were built. A lovely MUP was also built on the west side going south from Hunt Club complete with bridges over creeks. There were no bikes and you could see the disuse by the condition of the trail. What was strange is that this was built for several kms and then suddenly ended at Leitrim Road in the middle of the Greenbelt although the Limebank project continued beyond Earl Armstrong. Beyond Leitrim, the MUP becomes a sidewalk (for who?). Was this some sort of cost saving measure, to build part of the route as a MUP and part as a sidewalk? Why bother with a MUP if it doesn't go to where people live? I see a pattern here of building disjointed cycling infrastructure to make cycling not viable even after spending piles of money.
|
Every "modern boulevard" must have a path for pedestrians. The city decided to do a little trick and instead of building a concrete sidewalk, built a cheaper asphalt MUP next to it. They most likely took that money from the cycling budget instead of the general road budget, robbing carless taxpayer once again by spending cycling budget anywhere but where it would've actually been useful.
Bonus points: building a MUP instead of a sidewalk also helps save on winter maintenance because by default you don't have to plow it.
Congrats on getting your "modern boulevard" built at the expense of the cycling budget I guess.
Threaded Mode