only sidewalks and they’re not wide enough to argue that they’re shared use
It’s beyond plainly a shared cycling and foot path – one with enough space for an area like this. They’re about three meters wide and are supplemented by separated sidewalks designed for drivers getting in and out of their parked cars. This is a bog-standard size for a bike path in places like this; if you’re going to argue they aren’t, then you just don’t know what you’re talking about, and I can’t put it more simply.
At three metres it’s barely wide enough to be a shared path, but to me it still doesn’t look like a bike path. Without knowing the local laws it is not clear to me if cycling is allowed on that path. I looked around, there’s only some signage for pedestrians, nothing indicating that it’s a bike path. Maybe that’s how they do it in Michigan, but I’m not convinced that it’s a bike path.
Edit: Apparently sidewalk cycling is legal in Michigan. Still not great as a bike path.
I very much promise you regardless that it’s a) intended as one (obviously, if you just look at the bicycle parking and the major difference from the normal sidewalk width) and b) normal here. I don’t know or particularly care where you live to not understand this, but the debate over whether this is great bike infrastructure and whether it’s intended bike infrastructure are different points – and trying to argue it’s not intended is completely wrong.
Now here’s a direct quote from page 32 of the Auburn Road Corridor Plan detailing exactly what the renovation was meant to do from the planners themselves so that I can stop talking to a brick wall:
I already edited my comment, sidewalk cycling is illegal in a lot of places, but apparently it’s legal in Michigan. A lot of other comments also don’t see it as bike infrastructure. Generally it is better to separate pedestrians and bicycles. I still think that cyclists are an afterthought here.
I still think that cyclists are an afterthought here.
They really, really aren’t compared to how things are generally in the US. I guarantee you someone had to fight tooth-and-nail to get this cycling infrastructure in there. Any gesture toward cyclists in a place like this is something someone thought long and hard about; when cyclists are an afterthought here, cyclists get nothing. It’s why I knew, immediately and before reading the planning document, that this was intentional.
In a small, Midwestern city, a freshly paved, 10-foot-wide, well-separated path on both sides of a popular road with frequent access to public parking and crossings with refuge islands and curb extensions is excellent cycling infrastructure. It’s all relative, and I’m sure this is mediocre compared to somewhere like The Netherlands.
![[image] when good infrastructure design does not just prioritize cars its a plus for everyone.](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d469ed6b-d0c3-44d0-a3a8-aafcf7dc2fff.jpeg){kind=link}
It’s beyond plainly a shared cycling and foot path – one with enough space for an area like this. They’re about three meters wide and are supplemented by separated sidewalks designed for drivers getting in and out of their parked cars. This is a bog-standard size for a bike path in places like this; if you’re going to argue they aren’t, then you just don’t know what you’re talking about, and I can’t put it more simply.
Edit: Anyone downvoting this can look at page 32 of the Auburn Road Corridor Plan and eat crow, because you don’t know what you’re talking about even a little.
At three metres it’s barely wide enough to be a shared path, but to me it still doesn’t look like a bike path. Without knowing the local laws it is not clear to me if cycling is allowed on that path. I looked around, there’s only some signage for pedestrians, nothing indicating that it’s a bike path. Maybe that’s how they do it in Michigan, but I’m not convinced that it’s a bike path.
Edit: Apparently sidewalk cycling is legal in Michigan. Still not great as a bike path.
I very much promise you regardless that it’s a) intended as one (obviously, if you just look at the bicycle parking and the major difference from the normal sidewalk width) and b) normal here. I don’t know or particularly care where you live to not understand this, but the debate over whether this is great bike infrastructure and whether it’s intended bike infrastructure are different points – and trying to argue it’s not intended is completely wrong.
Now here’s a direct quote from page 32 of the Auburn Road Corridor Plan detailing exactly what the renovation was meant to do from the planners themselves so that I can stop talking to a brick wall:
I already edited my comment, sidewalk cycling is illegal in a lot of places, but apparently it’s legal in Michigan. A lot of other comments also don’t see it as bike infrastructure. Generally it is better to separate pedestrians and bicycles. I still think that cyclists are an afterthought here.
They really, really aren’t compared to how things are generally in the US. I guarantee you someone had to fight tooth-and-nail to get this cycling infrastructure in there. Any gesture toward cyclists in a place like this is something someone thought long and hard about; when cyclists are an afterthought here, cyclists get nothing. It’s why I knew, immediately and before reading the planning document, that this was intentional.
In a small, Midwestern city, a freshly paved, 10-foot-wide, well-separated path on both sides of a popular road with frequent access to public parking and crossings with refuge islands and curb extensions is excellent cycling infrastructure. It’s all relative, and I’m sure this is mediocre compared to somewhere like The Netherlands.