• KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    While this is a nice thought in theory, it breaks down as soon as you start actually thinking of it in practical terms.

    • Some rural road that gets a few cars a day at best does not really need sidewalks and certainly does not need bike lanes.
    • A road with potholes is more dangerous to pedestrians and bikers due to the potential for cars to lose control, or for drivers to swerve to miss a pothole and potentially endanger other travelers.
    • Adding bike lanes and sidewalks is just impractical in a lot of areas. Where is that space coming from, when private property extends to the road edge currently? Are we just declaring eminent domain and taking 3-6 feet of everyone’s property frontage for this initiative? I’m sure that will be a very unpopular initiative. What about areas where buildings are too close to the street to allow for this? There’s just too many areas where it’s not practical or possible to do.

    I’m all for phasing out cars in areas where it’s reasonable to do so, but your proposal just isn’t compatible with reality.

    • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Where is that space coming from?

      You can literally add separated light rail in the center and bike lanes next to the sidewalk and there would still be two car lanes left, one for each direction.

      What about areas where buildings are too close to the street to allow this?

      This street is too narrow to add a dedicated sidewalk, right?

      Which is why the blue square sign is there: The speed limit on this street is walking pace and pedestrians have priority on the entire road.

      Therefore: Put bicycle lanes wherever possible, reduce the speed limit where it isn’t.