09-11-2023, 03:47 AM
(09-10-2023, 05:15 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(09-10-2023, 03:32 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Unfortunately, our engineers, even the most progressive ones, see pedestrians and cyclists mixing as fine...and to their defence, it is fine in most of the city...because most of the city is a car infested hellhole where there are few peds and fewer cyclists to be found, so they can mix fine...but in a few places, like the trails, they should be separated, but widely and broadly engineers refuse to do it in all but the most extreme examples (next to a petting zoo for example).
I hadn’t heard that the petting zoo related to that, but it makes sense that that would be the one place where they would separate the uses. I’m just grateful they doubled the bridge. Given that the split ends just south of the bridge, an obvious “economy” would have been to skip doubling the bridge. While we’re on this, I think the double-path system should have been continued just a little further to the south as well — essentially until the point where continuing it would have required digging out a lot of the slope next to the Perimeter Institute. Longer term it should continue past the Perimeter all the way to the Clay & Glass.
I mean, I generally agree. The bridge is also a meandering opportunity for pedestrians, people like to look out, or take photos, of course, the existence of the pedestrian bridges hasn't stopped the photo shoots in the bike path...which I remember not feeling even a little bad about riding through the middle of.