I’ve seen a couple comments now to the effect of “it’s not more walkable” or “there’s no pedestrian roadway”.
If you go and look for yourself, however, both sides of the road clearly have a spacious, separated pedestrian and cycling roadway.
The roundabout in the OP is at the intersection of East Auburn and Harrison in Rochester, Michigan if anyone wants to see for themselves.
Edit: here’s the renovation plan if anyone wants to enjoy it over a slice of stale toast and some elevator music.
spacious
I forgotten how fucked American roads are where that’s “spacious” to them 😂
It was hideous before.
Suburban/stripmall decline. Hey that mud is gross, pave it. Hey I don’t want to mow that, pave it. Hey everyone is already driving over that, pave it.
Now that cement is super expensive you don’t see it as much, but for a while, the answer to any problem was “pave that sumbitch.”
Hey I don’t want to mow that, pave it.
Hey I hate stroads and car brained infrastructure too but honestly fuck mowing lawns, I relate to that instinct.
except the solution is very trivial: replace the lawn with succulents. 0 maintenance and it actually fucking looks nice.
Another view of the same area, now designed as a street.
honestly i’d go further, and say it’s “now designed”.
What was there previously wasn’t a design, it was the equivalent of leaving all your dirty dishes in the sink and telling yourself you’ll take care of it some day.
Where’s the bike lane?
you mean bike path, right?
No, I don’t.
Don’t be pedantic, especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I mean it’s Michigan it’s not like the drivers even know what the lines mean anyway, I’m not sure adding special lines for bikes would make a difference.
/s in case it wasn’t glaringly obvious
Still flawed, but a step in the right direction. Though I suppose you want to take baby steps to avoid backlash from sudden stronger changes.
Absolutely don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
The next step would be for people to voice there desired improvements and additions. This can be the addition of bike paths, raised crosswalks, bollards at intersections, benches and tree shade, patio areas and pedestrianised streets, dedicated tram ways, anything to turn a street into a destination as opposed to a thruway (or throughway).
Anything that can be done to push in the “right” direction is a win when it comes to improvements of infrastructure. Often enough we see cities get stuck in “planing and studies”, and rarely implement, as to not inadvertently make a select few “unhappy”.
Instead we all left collectively “unhappy”, as opposed to a select few of us “unhappy”.
Agreed. Perfection is the enemy of progress.
A few of these conversions near my home town and they are fantastic
Mostly unobtainable by most places because they don’t have an extra 20 feet of each side of the road way that’s currently… just sitting there…
I mean, it’s better than nothing, but it’s not exactly a great conversion.
Both setups waste space like crazy that could be used much better.
- They are using a roundabout as a slow-down area. That’s ok, though not exactly great. The road leading up to it is still straight and uninterrupted, which means crossing pedestrians still have to deal with speeding cars.
- There is a pedestrian crossing with an island, which is an improvement.
- They added a road-center green space. These things are a total waste of space. They can’t be used for anything. They look nice when driving by, but other than that, they do nothing. If they had moved it to the side of the road, it would at least increase the space between pedestrians and cars, but this way, it does nothing but increase speeding, because it separates cars from the oncoming traffic visually.
- They added bike stands, but no bike paths even though there’s more than enough space to do so.
- They added two lights. Well… Better than nothing I guess.
- Continuing with the motif of wasted space: That roundabout center island is a huge one.
Looks like a redesign by a rookie designer who has never been to a place that actually does it right. It looks like something that was built in the 60s in Europe.
They are using a roundabout as a slow-down area. That’s ok, though not exactly great.
Why? Roundabouts are good for traffic calming and are generally considered better than four-way intersections, especially in areas like this.
The road leading up to it is still straight and uninterrupted, which means crossing pedestrians still have to deal with speeding cars.
I mean for like a few seconds of driving it is? Every 40 meters or so is a large outcropping for the pedestrian/cycling crosswalks, which doesn’t curve the road but does visually calm traffic. Every other intersection is a roundabout that does curve the road.
Will people for the love of Christ just actually go look at what they’re talking about for five seconds before writing out a lengthy response to it?
There is a pedestrian crossing with an island, which is an improvement.
Agreed.
They look nice when driving by, but other than that, they do nothing.
Besides improve noise pollution, reduce the heat island effect, absorb rainwater, reduce headlight glare at night, improve the speed calming function of the traffic island…
If they had moved it to the side of the road
The side of the road is being used for street-side parallel parking. Regardless of what you think of that, though (I think it’s a great idea here), there’s no reason they needed to move it to the side of the road. Moreover, while not directly on the side of the road, there’s greenery (including trees) planted in fenced-off areas separating the cycle/foot lane and the smaller sidewalk that’s used for the street-side parking.
but this way, it does nothing but increase speeding, because it separates cars from the oncoming traffic visually.
Okay, now you’re just baselessly asserting that traffic islands like this that tighten the space of the roadway have the opposite effect that they actually empirically do (while also reducing collisions, of course).
They added bike stands, but no bike paths even though there’s more than enough space to do so.
See above about actually going to look at what you’re talking about. There are spacious bike paths. These bike stands are repeated several times across this stretch of road too.
They added two lights. Well… Better than nothing I guess.
You mean the street lamps? They added four – one at each corner of the intersection and should be adequate lighting. Again, just looking with your human eyes at the things you’re talking about…
Continuing with the motif of wasted space: That roundabout center island is a huge one.
The roundabout’s island is about 12 meters in diameter – extremely reasonable for this setup.
Looks like a redesign by a rookie designer who has never been to a place that actually does it right.
Not experts like you. I’ll bet they actually surveyed the place they were building at before designing for it. Rookie mistake.
There are spacious bike paths. These bike stands are repeated several times across this stretch of road too.
I don’t see any bike paths, only sidewalks and they’re not wide enough to argue that they’re shared use. I’m not sure about the laws in that specific area, but sidewalk cycling is illegal in some countries, apparently it varies a lot by area in the USA, but generally it should be discouraged for cyclists to cycle on the sidewalk.
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.
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.
as a swede (and sweden isn’t exactly renowned for our amazing bike infrastructure), this would only barely register as somewhere bikes are allowed to go, and only because of the bike racks.
It needs to be like 50% wider and actually be signed for bicycles, plus the seams in the concrete really imply this isn’t somewhere you’re supposed to use wheeled vehicles.
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.
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.
tldr, sorry best i can do is make reactionary comment to the title
Hum… Have you seen any actual improvement?
Because it doesn’t look more dense, it doesn’t look more walkable, there’s a bicycle parking spot but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to bike there…
I mean, there’s more greenery, there’s an island that makes crossing easier. It looks way less depressing. The speed of cars is likely to be way lower.
Is it amazing? No. But it is better.
there’s an island that makes crossing easier
As people already pointed, a fenced island. It looks better in a photo, but that’s not where people will be.
But yes, the speed of the cars is probably lower.
A crosswalk island isn’t for hanging out in the landscaping, it’s a break in the middle of the road so pedestrians only have to navigate one direction of traffic at a time when crossing a road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge_island
Also there are sidewalks now.
My experience with refuge islands as a driver is also great. On roads where there’s one lane per direction, when I stop as I’m legally required to at a crosswalk where there’s a pedestrian waiting, I know there’s not going to be some inattentive dumbfuck on the opposite side driving through anyway and keeping the pedestrian waiting (and, by extension, me).
It makes the experience as a driver more predictable.
Here in my area, people would get fed up with the roundabout and just hang a left and drive right over the walkway to make a U-turn to get to the other side of the road.
What’s with blocking the left and right sides of the road with all the grass and trees and stuff anyways? We’ve had many otherwise successful businesses get shut down when they decided to block the ability to access both sides of the road easily.
Roundabout, cool 👍
Grass and trees blocking turns, not cool 👎
- Greenery and beautification in my urban hellscape? Who needs it!
- Refuge island for pedestrians? Who needs it!
- Combating the heat island effect? Who needs it!
- Reduced noise pollution by planting trees? Who needs it!
- Traffic calming? Who needs it!
- Reduced risk of accidents using a physical median? Who needs it!
I’m not even a little sorry: the people there in your area – if this isn’t satire – sound like carbrained five-year-olds who shouldn’t be piloting a two-ton metal box.
The divider killed half the businesses and job opportunities near me, as nobody can find an easy way to turn to get to what used to be a Sonic and a Church’s Chicken, amongst many other businesses that used to exist, until the divider dried up their business and they closed down.
Imagine having to drive 50m to do a U-turn. Literally communism, amirite?
But seriously, that’s probably an intended feature, because people randomly turning into oncoming traffic is one of the main causes for accidents. Also note the double yellow line in the “before” image, so turns were prohibited even then.
Okay, I’ll give you that double yellow line thing, gotcha.
In our area, that similar area was literally a turning lane, before they decided to dirt and grass/tree over it. It was once a literal turning lane.
every single one of em should lose their drivers license. Suddenly the roads are even safer now
![[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}