Most “Pedestrian Infrastructure” Is Really Car Infrastructure

[dubu]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

looks like tombstones. No thanks.

well you must not know what its like living in the us, in canada i agree its ugly if it was there. for times like this it would be nice.

[MolsonExport]

living in the us? huh? Do you mean, the U.S.?

What are you smoking? Your posts are very rarely coherent.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

living in the us? huh? Do you mean, the U.S.?

What are you smoking? Your posts are very rarely coherent.

im saying there is a lot of things happening in the u...s... so it doesnt matter what looks are in a city.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by badrunner

This must be a Florida thing. Why would they make you walk half a mile just to cross the street? I'm jaywalking.

ADA requirements, wheelchair accessibility. Basically stairs are not allowed and an elevator would be overkill. Plus they probably wanted to make it bike friendly.

You need long gently sloping walkways. This one in Miami was at least able to keep it along the path so there is no walking out of your way:
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.6941...7i16384!8i8192

This one connecting the University of Miami with off campus housing accross a busy road went with a more direct approach but they splurged on elevators to make it ADA compliant.
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7151...7i16384!8i8192

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by dave8721

This one connecting the University of Miami with off campus housing accross a busy road went with a more direct approach but they splurged on elevators to make it ADA compliant.
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7151...7i16384!8i8192

At first I thought "oh that makes sense, it goes to an elevated train station."

But actually, no, you have to go down then right back up

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

At first I thought "oh that makes sense, it goes to an elevated train station."

But actually, no, you have to go down then right back up

Yes there's several of those at metrorail stations, and another being built and they all have you go up, down then back up again to get to the trains (thats 3 separate elevators btw for ADA compliance).

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by badrunner

This must be a Florida thing. Why would they make you walk half a mile just to cross the street? I'm jaywalking.

ADA Compliance?

[Crawford]

Why would these be for ADA compliance? The Orlando crossing is perfectly fine for wheelchair bound persons. A bridge is much more difficult/expensive to make ADA compliant than a crosswalk.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would these be for ADA compliance? The Orlando crossing is perfectly fine for wheelchair bound persons. A bridge is much more difficult/expensive to make ADA compliant than a crosswalk.

My guess is because of the width of the road and the fact those cars are going 50 MPH. It's stressful enough for an able bodied person to cross those streets, let alone somebody in a wheelchair.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

My guess is because of the width of the road and the fact those cars are going 50 MPH. It's stressful enough for an able bodied person to cross those streets, let alone somebody in a wheelchair.

OK, but then you narrow the road and lower the speed limits. Or you just install those pedestrian islands. But cars are king in the U.S.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Not in this case, really. It's a waste of money that could be better spent on places that already have inherent walkability.

I think the idea that some places don't have any "inherent walkability" is what leads to such pedestrian bridges being constructed in the first place. Walkability is about distance, nothing more or less.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This kind of argument frustrates me.

First, any kind of accommodation to the pedestrian in an American suburb is a HUGE improvement over the status quo.

Second, every case is different. Sometimes you need a pedestrian bridge to solve an unavoidable conflict and ensure both motorists and pedestrians can move safely and smoothly through an area. Is this trail underpass in Chicago "really a piece of car infrastructure"? If this were a flat crossing, the high numbers of people using the trail would have to cross a busy street, probably with a signalized crosswalk. Inevitably you'd have a lot of jaywalking and eventually a collision leading to injury or death. In this case the underpass ADDS convenience to the pedestrian by ensuring an uninterrupted and low-stress trip through the area.

There's a reason people like walking down the High Line - it allows them to experience the city without having to constantly worry about crossing streets and scanning traffic. No matter how much traffic calming you put in, you can't completely eliminate this psychological burden on the pedestrian unless you take cars out of the equation with bridges or underpasses.

I think the problem is that cities are spending money on all of these over-engineered so-called "pedestrian-friendly" infrastructure improvements in areas in which they are immediately rendered useless as a result of the nature of the built environment in which they are placed, which will, no-doubt, in the future be used to those opposed to such expenditures as an excuse not to fund those sorts of projects. But you've got to have a built environment suited for pedestrians first! Nobody is going to be walking in a place where there is nothing to walk to. It doesn't matter how nice the sidewalk is.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would these be for ADA compliance? The Orlando crossing is perfectly fine for wheelchair bound persons. A bridge is much more difficult/expensive to make ADA compliant than a crosswalk.

I meant building a bridge structure that can only be accessed by stairs. They make gentle sloping ramps to allow wheelchair users to use them (and easier for bikes). When there is no room for long ramps they put in elevators.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

I think the problem is that cities are spending money on all of these over-engineered so-called "pedestrian-friendly" infrastructure improvements in areas in which they are immediately rendered useless as a result of the nature of the built environment in which they are placed, which will, no-doubt, in the future be used to those opposed to such expenditures as an excuse not to fund those sorts of projects. But you've got to have a built environment suited for pedestrians first! Nobody is going to be walking in a place where there is nothing to walk to. It doesn't matter how nice the sidewalk is.

No, I've seen a lot of arguments against pedestrian bridges even in dense, walkable areas. There's this assumption that traffic calming is ALWAYS the better solution, but that's just not the case.

At the example I posted, there's only one road on/off of Northerly Island and to the planetarium (so that road is busy) and the lakefront trail is massively popular with pedestrians and cyclists. There's a conflict there that you just can't resolve by traffic calming; the underpass was needed.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

OK, but then you narrow the road and lower the speed limits. Or you just install those pedestrian islands. But cars are king in the U.S.

Sure, I didn't build the bridge, just giving my guess as to why it is the way it is.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

ADA Compliance?

Most cities manage to be ADA compliant without the use of pedestrian bridges at intersections. It shouldn't be that complicated. No elevator should ever be involved in crossing the damn street. If pedestrian traffic has to be sequestered to that extent, it means the whole city is not ADA compliant, and should be torn down and rebuilt.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ardecila

No, I've seen a lot of arguments against pedestrian bridges even in dense, walkable areas. There's this assumption that traffic calming is ALWAYS the better solution, but that's just not the case.

At the example I posted, there's only one road on/off of Northerly Island and to the planetarium (so that road is busy) and the lakefront trail is massively popular with pedestrians and cyclists. There's a conflict there that you just can't resolve by traffic calming; the underpass was needed.

I'd be surprised if there was major opposition to bridges and tunnels for urban highways. Lake Shore Drive is a limited access highway. Yeah, for such arterials, bridges and tunnels make sense.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dave8721

I meant building a bridge structure that can only be accessed by stairs. They make gentle sloping ramps to allow wheelchair users to use them (and easier for bikes). When there is no room for long ramps they put in elevators.

They could've sloped the ramp to the overpass without increasing the distance for the pedestrian. I'm sure they also realized that, so the only reason this design makes sense is if it was done to preserve the orientation of the traffic signals for cars, and to allow right hand turns on red.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Most cities manage to be ADA compliant without the use of pedestrian bridges at intersections. It shouldn't be that complicated. No elevator should ever be involved in crossing the damn street. If pedestrian traffic has to be sequestered to that extent, it means the whole city is not ADA compliant, and should be torn down and rebuilt.

Ok? Is there a city in the entire world where the whole city is ADA compliant?

Perhaps a strongly worded letter to the city of Orlando would help.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by ardecila

No, I've seen a lot of arguments against pedestrian bridges even in dense, walkable areas. There's this assumption that traffic calming is ALWAYS the better solution, but that's just not the case.

At the example I posted, there's only one road on/off of Northerly Island and to the planetarium (so that road is busy) and the lakefront trail is massively popular with pedestrians and cyclists. There's a conflict there that you just can't resolve by traffic calming; the underpass was needed.

100% agree. And to use the Japanese example again, they have tons of bridges for pedestrians in their cities. It works.