11-20-2018, 09:43 PM
(11-20-2018, 06:25 PM)SammyOES Wrote:(11-20-2018, 05:01 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I believe for the bridge yes...I recall seeing them and thinking...welp there goes yet another missed opportunity for bike infra.
The location of the bridges is such a good spot to add pedestrian/bike access as well - since it would be nice to connect the trail on the one side of the river with the residential area north of it. But I kind of get it in this case, since you'd need to have serious protections for pedestrian/cyclists from the fast moving traffic. But, I also get the argument that we're spending a shit load of money on cars so it seems fair to spend some on non-cars too.
Hang the active transportation routes from the bottom of the bridge. Total separation from motor vehicle traffic (even crazy one-in-a-million collisions), and protected from precipitation to boot.
A trivial additional expenditure, compared to the money being spent providing luxury roads for free to those fortunate enough to be able to afford a motor vehicle.