05-05-2017, 02:28 PM
Yeah, it looks pretty final to me. Final and "minimum sufficient".
It's a damn shame that they did not specify that pedestrian crossings be a proper MUT width of 3m.
I look at that, and am terrified of two-way bike traffic. You're likely to run off into the coarse gravel, and if you then hit the concrete plate from there, you're going to have a bad time. I do not like designs that increase the chance of wiping out on active railway tracks.
All of the pedestrian crossings have a chronic problem, where the asphalt sections are strictly narrower than the concrete plates. At UW, you see this narrowing frequently, even where the crossing is perpendicular. It's needless constricting of the paths. Pretty much every pedestrian crossing is needs to be about 50% wider.
It's a damn shame that they did not specify that pedestrian crossings be a proper MUT width of 3m.
I look at that, and am terrified of two-way bike traffic. You're likely to run off into the coarse gravel, and if you then hit the concrete plate from there, you're going to have a bad time. I do not like designs that increase the chance of wiping out on active railway tracks.
All of the pedestrian crossings have a chronic problem, where the asphalt sections are strictly narrower than the concrete plates. At UW, you see this narrowing frequently, even where the crossing is perpendicular. It's needless constricting of the paths. Pretty much every pedestrian crossing is needs to be about 50% wider.