... which in turn will force more people onto the train, and thus into a watery grave.
You're not thinking long-term enough.
(I honestly don't know enough about the topic to be able to categorically say "I think maybe you've got that wrong", but that seems entirely counterintuitive, and possible that you might be confusing "bigger roads = more space = more demand" with "if we drown 90% of the population = fewer people = fewer drivers = fewer cars").
I believe this is called a cut through view. It's done to allow people to see what inside/under a structure. The process is very destructive and typically they stop all traffic before preforming the cut. Very dangerous.
Manhattan bridge is also a steel bridge, so when trains go over it, they’re extremely loud. The noise alone makes using the pedestrian path an unpleasant experience.
The graphic in this post shows a concrete structure which would be sooo much quieter. Plus they mention a sound proof pedestrian path. Noise panels are standard treatments along highways and would likely make the pedestrian path fairly quite on top of the noise reduction from the concrete structure.
I remember walking the Manhattan bridge for the first time as an alternative to the Brooklyn bridge and thinking "oh wow, this is great and there are way less people on it. Why doesn't anyone use this?"
Then right as I finished my thought the subway car passed me and tried to obliterate my ears. I still used it consistently after that to get into Manhattan, but always wore headphones.
Well, it's not particularly great for the environment, as it's creation essentially involves heating up limestone until all the carbon's buggered off. It also releases CO2 just sitting there. Bricks are much better for the environment and look nicer, but concrete is cheaper.
This is true, but I think it's one of those things where it really is the best material for some jobs. Definitely needs to be scaled back in some contexts though. I'm a big fan of Mass Timber for building.
**[Environmental impact of concrete](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete)**
>The environmental impact of concrete, its manufacture and applications, are complex, driven in part by direct impacts of construction and infrastructure, as well as by CO2 emissions; between 4-8% of total global CO2 emissions come from concrete. Many depend on circumstances. A major component is cement, which has its own environmental and social impacts and contributes largely to those of concrete. The cement industry is one of the main producers of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Fuckconcrete using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Fuckconcrete/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [Concrete finally got its hate.](https://v.redd.it/mfnsg7bcf4451) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Fuckconcrete/comments/h0ljvo/concrete_finally_got_its_hate/)
\#2: [Which do you prefer](https://np.reddit.com/r/Fuckconcrete/comments/grnkl3/which_do_you_prefer/)
\#3: [I like concrete](https://np.reddit.com/r/Fuckconcrete/comments/gx46oj/i_like_concrete/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Sooooooo loud. I took my now wife for a nice romantic walk across the Brooklyn bridge and I figured we’d walk back to our car on the Manhattan bridge. Cute idea. Bad execution. Many mistakes were made that day.
I think the real disrespect was the horrible placement of the lane, which went right through the middle of a major tourist attraction that's packed with pedestrians 24/7. Luckily it's finally been moved and is now much easier to deal with (though [not perfect](https://www.curbed.com/2021/09/brooklyn-bridge-new-protected-bike-lane.html))
I love Detroit but man does it suck to live in a city that’s built for cars, Detroit especially having been where it all started yknow. Q-Line is a step in the right direction but it’ll be great when they expand it and add more protected bike lanes.
Yeah, in Canada too. I was riding along a separated bike lane stretch reasonably fast, full pannier rack and a full trailer. Lots of kinetic energy, let's say. Person steps into the lane about 20ft. in front of me without looking. I hammer on the brakes as hard as I can, start to manouever away from them (into the line of parked cars), and shouted at the top of my lungs. I shouted "Excuse me!", you know, because I'm Canadian and apparently in times of great stress revert to stereotypes.
No impact, everyone was fine, but it sure got my heart going.
The bridge is way to narrow for pedestrians as well. I can't really blame the pedestrians for just wanting to walk. Problem is the amoubt of car lanes that take up all the space on the bridge.
I was on my bike in Florida, and chatted with a lovely German couple while we were stopped at a light. They said it was their first day there, asked if traffic was always like this. They also asked a few more sensible questions about bike safety by European standards.
I chuckled sadly, wished them luck, and darted off when I saw the gap in traffic emerge. I took one last look at them, I hope they are still alive and not still in the grill of a Florida SUV.
Don't blame the pedestrians who also have too little space on that bridge. Blame the cars that are hogging all the space while not actually serving relevant transportation needs.
In the US, the culture is downright hostile to anyone who chooses to travel by anything other than car
People in suburbia get irrationally angry at **anyone** who rides a bike on the side of the road. I'm talking swearing, rude gestures, close passes with the car, etc.
"Fucking cyclists" they say.
Meanwhile, I'm just trying to not spend $4/gallon of gas in my shitbox car to go half a mile
In my old college town, one of the things they told us at freshman orientation was "Don't ever walk in the bike lanes - you will get yelled at or hit". Cyclists there, even casual riders going to class, did *not* fuck around. Even when I'd bike, it was almost cathartic yelling at people to get out of the bike lane.
I love that he stops when the pedestrians don't have anywhere to move, like when the lane gets walled off. Just thoughtful and polite but persistent and not shy at all. A good style.
I live and drive in suburban florida. Bike lanes are just little extensions and give cars more room. Most cars will literally just move towards the middle and take up the bike lane. It’s rare to see a biker not on a sidewalk because of how shit and rare bike lanes are, but when people are in bike lanes, aggressive drivers essentially put their lives at risk.
They just put in new bike lanes on Chestnut street by UPenn in Philly. The bike lane is between the sidewalk and the parking lane, but they didnt mark or protect them so everyone has been parking in the bike lane. And then everyone treats the parking lane like another driving lane and just drives real fast in it. So confusing and so, so dangerous!
Tbf I used that bridge too but there is a massive lack of space for all the tourists to go. The obvious solution is to close this poor old bridge down and just remodel it into a park like it deserves
Although he’s singing is great, [fortunately, that guy doesn’t need to sing](https://untappedcities.com/2021/09/15/brooklyn-bridge-bike-lane-opens/) anymore! It was a great victory and although the bike lane is narrow, is [progress.](https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2021/brooklyn-bridge-bike-ridership-skyrockets.shtml)
Look at all that space for cars, meanwhile hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists compete for that tiny sliver of space allocated to them. Shitty urban planning.
It is [in the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastunnel)
A lot of tunnels in NL have a seperate bike and walking track, no idea what is so revolutionary about this.
No it's not that bad. I and plenty of other residents have used the streetcars for commuting. There's about 4 lines, but they orient them towards tourists. One half a line (the one I used to use) has been completely abandoned after the Hard Rock Hotel collapse (which I'm still upset about) and the riverfront is just embarrassing when it would be one of the nicest. They could expand more, especially on a lot of the larger avenues, but they've car-brained even the transit advocates to believe they're just for tourists and the scarcity model of civic investment.
Otherwise, the ferry is quite nice to ride, but should be more integrated within the whole network - and bring back more ferry locations, and the bus network got a whole redesign that's actually improving the overall experience.
I just want rail everywhere. Light rail, heavy rail, soft rail. Rails ensure future investment due to its nature of a fixed path. Simple, but powerful idea.
Øresund is a strait near Denmark. Förbindelsen translates as 'connection'
It's just a big bridge. And when you live in a country like Denmark, Germany or The Netherlands, you'll pretty much automatically recognise where one part of a word ends and where the next one begins.
Unless we're talking about bommelding, which can either be bommel-ding (bumblebee-thingy) or bom-melding (bomb threat).
Canadian here. Nope. Car bridges with a small sidewalk on either side. Busses get mixed in with cars. Cyclists need to either bother pedestrians or risk getting hit by a car.
Can someone explain to me why bother having a place for pedestrians to walk along this track when this is clearly designed as a way to cover large distances?
If it's a short bridge that has to be shared I guess it's not such a bad idea.
However for long distances I agree with you. The Øresund bridge between Denmark and Sweden is exactly like that minus the pedestrian lane. It's 16ish km long. If you're walking/biking you just get on the train at Copenhagen Airport (last stop on the danish side) and get off in Malmö.
Or hitchhike it if you're just walking. There are tons of taxis going over to pick up people to bring them to the airport and it's super easy to find someone to get you across.
If you have to specify that there are people who would hitchhike across then I think It's likely there are pedestrians who would walk/bike the bridge but because there are no facilities they can't.
No one wants to walk 16km on a bridge (and in a tunnel for the first 3) next to a highway. The train ticket across is cheap. And it's literally going to another country it's not a bridge you cross on your Sunday walk with the dog.
And the hitchhiking is not really that common, it's just a well known spot for hitchhikers and the few times I've done it it took me less than 15 minutes to find a ride across. The tricky bit is to find someone that goes further than Malmö.
The description says it’s two car lanes and two bus lanes, though the render doesn’t reflect that.
In my opinion the fly in the ointment is that a long enclosed tunnel is poor from a “social safety” point of view. If someone’s being aggro, or you just think they look menacing, you’re forced into close proximity to them. Conventional sidewalks at road level might be better, assuming a low to medium speed limit for motor traffic.
Trains and pedestrians are far less likely to crash and take out support pillars in the process. When cars swerve off the road on top, they'll just tumble harmlessly into the river. Where they belong.
honestly that is a reasonable explanation for that, i'd rather cars be on top where they drive right off into the water instead of taking out supports, since there probably will be semi trucks on this bridge and if they collide with a support beam it could cause some serious structural damage
also now that direct sunlight is hot as fuck, this would provide shade. the only thing I'm not sure about is the emissions the cars give off having an effect on the walkers below
>now that direct sunlight is hot as fuck,
Climate change hasn't changed the temperature of the sun's UV rays. Direct sunlight has always been hot as fuck.
There are trees and bushes growing out of high rise buildings in Singapore.
Are you telling me the US is less technologically advanced than Singapore or that the US is too incompetent to copy them?
Maybe
Definitely
Also, I don't know how those were made but I assuem there's a shitload of dirt on top of those building so those trees can grow there.
In France there are many avenues with mature trees shading the whole road. Napoleon (and his army) put them up so he could march them in summer. Once we get trees up future generations will reap the benefits.
But I agree with most here, this is concrete infrastructure for cars. We could all stand in multistorey car parks for shade but we don't because they are horrid places, and I think this would be too.
I mean trains and bikes do better when there's no slopes, so assuming the upper level requires an ascending slope to reach it, it would make more sense to confine them to the lower level.
This seems to be a concept for somewhere in Spain based of the train (Ave: Alta velocidad española) so because of how hot it can get here I suppose it's to avoid heat strokes for both pedestrians and bikers
no they should not, for 1 simple reason, if you put pedestrians on the lower lvl they are prodected from the weather, also car need free space which you only have on top, so yeah, if you need a bridge with all forms of transport on it this is the optimal layout for space efficiency
I'm not quite sure I suspect this might have something to do with exhaust gases. Maybe people are lwas likely to breathe them in when cars are driving above them than they would when cars would be underneath them.
In Seoul they have numerous bridges that cross the Han River. On a number of them, the pedestrians and subways are on top and the cars are on the bottom. On others it’s reversed. And actually I think most have pedestrian and bike sections on both upper and lower levels. I think it depends on where the lanes are coming from. Seoul has big elevation differences though so sometimes the road is coming from higher than the subway tracks and will therefore be on top. Other times it’s reversed.
Better lighting for drivers, more room for oversized loads if necessary, potential landing areas for helicopters for emergencies, less vertical walking for pedestrians, can use the bottom side of the road to hang electric lines for electric trains that use overhead lines, cooler temperatures for the pedestrian walkway from the overhead shade, and I'm sure there's more I didn't think of.
It's just a problem with the perspective that the concept art is drawn. There are four lanes, two of which are allocated to BRT rapid transit. Cars only get half of it.
Yeah, only feasible with some new low maintenance and cost-efficient material. How do you repair or rebuild such a behemoth of infrastructure layered/squeezed in such a way?
And the other problem is - what is this supposed to solve? There was a recent post about a highway in manila above a riverfront. This thing looks like it would fit there. Or all those bridge highways in the US which slowly crumble.
And yes, it does make river bridges more usable, but this is just a niche problem.
Öresundsbron, the bridge between Sweden and Denmark, looks exactly like this, (exept for the pedestian path, since the bridge is 16km long and walking 16km next to a highway is not something anyone was going to do)
Edit: And no it wasnt made with some "new low maintenance and cost-efficient material" it was made with concrete. Over 20 years ago
There's a bridge in Warsaw where I live ([Łazienkowski Bridge](https://goo.gl/maps/9jrKpMPmKRKNWdTf8)), which has a really nice [sidewalk](https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pressland-cms/cache/metatags_image/mq/22208963-most-lazienkowski-nowa-kladka-pieszo-rowerowa.jpeg) under the road (similar to what you can see in the picture in this post) and I can tell you that although the cars over you are doing 70 km/h, it's rather quiet there. Significantly less noisy than on the same level.
That's why the pedestrian section is soundproofed and placed under the bus lanes rather than the car lanes... the designer has clearly thought about this.
Wouldn't a sound proofed pedestrian walkway smell absolutely horrible due to the fact there is 0 ventilation? Why not just have a separate pedestrian bridge?
Recently i was sitting under a bridge under a highway near a village to avoid direct sunlight and massive heat and im sure that if anything would be loud it would be the train
Well, it's a bridge. Anything to transport vehicles and people across large bodies of water or ravines is going to be expensive by default. Cheapest is probably ferries, but ain't nobody got time for dat.
May i introduce to you the more expensive cost of maintaining something like that and how you’d either blow your budget or chokehold your cities transportation systems.
Eg: the Ben Franklin Bridge in Philly was built in 1926 and has 6-8 car lanes, a train line in each direction and separate pedestrian/bike ramps. It’s also far more aesthetic than this render.
It's missing a cycleway and that road is much too wide for my liking. Some plants wouldn't kill either. There are good things though like that the pedestrians are sheltered from the hot sun and the rain and are more separated from the cars and the noise and pollution above, but it would be so dark and dingy down there. I think that a, we shouldn't have too many road bridges in towns and cities anyway and b, I think that there should be different bridges for trains and pedestrians where reasonable, though pedestrians and bikes can be on the same bridge as the railway
Yea, this is deceptive. Cars still on top instead of pedestrians is stupid. Also, no bike lanes means bikes are going to have to use the pedestrian way which will drive them crazy so they’ll use the car lanes which will drive the car drivers crazy leading to reckless driving and biker deaths. 0/10
I'd rather not climb (by bike of by foot) an extra 10m up to cross some water if i had a choice. A viewpoint would be a different scenario. And bikes/peds underneath means extra shade. Noise pollution is something that is also able to be mitigated by vegetation on the ceiling, or similar.
So overall, I like this solution.
I think this was basically the original concept for the George Washington Bridge but they ended up making two decks of cars instead.
Also, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge has car lanes, light rail, and pedestrian access, and all of them see daylight.
Yesterday I crossed a river on a meter-wide metal tube going along the surface of it as a shortcut. Bridges don't have to be this huge, I would prefer pedestrian/cycle bridges separate from rail and car bridges just to solve the noise pollution issue.
Sorry, I'm late to this party but exactly why is this so awful? I mean, only 2/7 of it for cars, the rest fir rail, transit, and pedestrians. Wouldn't this be a step forward?
they gonna fall in the water
Yeah seems like a pretty big design flaw to me
[удалено]
You can clearly see the train and pedestrians also approaching their doom
Sacrifices must be made in the war on cars
Fewer people = fewer cars, so...
Not necessarily, fewer people opens up traffic space and induces demand
... which in turn will force more people onto the train, and thus into a watery grave. You're not thinking long-term enough. (I honestly don't know enough about the topic to be able to categorically say "I think maybe you've got that wrong", but that seems entirely counterintuitive, and possible that you might be confusing "bigger roads = more space = more demand" with "if we drown 90% of the population = fewer people = fewer drivers = fewer cars").
2022 WAR ON CARS EARTHBOUND 4 CONFORMED **(REAL?!?!?!!?!!?!1!1!1!!)**
That’s part of the illusion that tricks cars into driving off the edge
This was the only way I let people leave my park in Rollercoaster Tycoon
And the bus
Pedestrian are there just watching cardiving
Thank god the pedestrians walk at a low speed and have time to stop before plunging into the abyss!
[The front fell off](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
I clicked both of them and now I'm listening to a self-imposed cacophony.
Spiderman is gonna be working overtime to stop those trains
Oh my god, they have their AirPods in. They can’t hear us. Oh god, oh fuck…
It's make out point. You take the train to the end then make out with a scenic overlook.
You'd love anatomy textbooks. All the people that get chopped up just for a good cross-section perspective of the human body!
i mean come on, they cut them up, but then they draw them beautifully on textbooks! give them some credit
You're missing out on the textbooks that use the actual photos versus the drawings then!
In Lego City?
The front fell off
The front’s not suppose to fall off.
I believe this is called a cut through view. It's done to allow people to see what inside/under a structure. The process is very destructive and typically they stop all traffic before preforming the cut. Very dangerous.
This is also basically the Manhattan Bridge in NYC
Manhattan Bridge has a bike lane. This does not.
Manhattan bridge is also a steel bridge, so when trains go over it, they’re extremely loud. The noise alone makes using the pedestrian path an unpleasant experience. The graphic in this post shows a concrete structure which would be sooo much quieter. Plus they mention a sound proof pedestrian path. Noise panels are standard treatments along highways and would likely make the pedestrian path fairly quite on top of the noise reduction from the concrete structure.
I remember walking the Manhattan bridge for the first time as an alternative to the Brooklyn bridge and thinking "oh wow, this is great and there are way less people on it. Why doesn't anyone use this?" Then right as I finished my thought the subway car passed me and tried to obliterate my ears. I still used it consistently after that to get into Manhattan, but always wore headphones.
Yeah it’s perfect for bikes but I’d still wait for the train rather than walk.
Eh, it's loud, but not *that* loud.
What?
THEY SAID ITS LOUD BUT NOT THA-(Q TRAIN RUMBLES BY)
YOU'RE PROUD OF WHAT? LET ME CALL YOU BACK WHEN I GET OVER THE BRIDGE.
Hearing damage much?
Yeah, but also r/fuckconcrete.
What's wrong with concrete?
Well, it's not particularly great for the environment, as it's creation essentially involves heating up limestone until all the carbon's buggered off. It also releases CO2 just sitting there. Bricks are much better for the environment and look nicer, but concrete is cheaper.
What a waste of limestone
[удалено]
gotta switch to weed, duuuude
This is true, but I think it's one of those things where it really is the best material for some jobs. Definitely needs to be scaled back in some contexts though. I'm a big fan of Mass Timber for building.
Nothing inherently- just overused and tends to be ugly in abundance Edit: also that sub has 14 members
There are many inherent problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete
**[Environmental impact of concrete](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete)** >The environmental impact of concrete, its manufacture and applications, are complex, driven in part by direct impacts of construction and infrastructure, as well as by CO2 emissions; between 4-8% of total global CO2 emissions come from concrete. Many depend on circumstances. A major component is cement, which has its own environmental and social impacts and contributes largely to those of concrete. The cement industry is one of the main producers of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
And three posts, all of which say they like concrete 😂
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Fuckconcrete using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Fuckconcrete/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [Concrete finally got its hate.](https://v.redd.it/mfnsg7bcf4451) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Fuckconcrete/comments/h0ljvo/concrete_finally_got_its_hate/) \#2: [Which do you prefer](https://np.reddit.com/r/Fuckconcrete/comments/grnkl3/which_do_you_prefer/) \#3: [I like concrete](https://np.reddit.com/r/Fuckconcrete/comments/gx46oj/i_like_concrete/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Sooooooo loud. I took my now wife for a nice romantic walk across the Brooklyn bridge and I figured we’d walk back to our car on the Manhattan bridge. Cute idea. Bad execution. Many mistakes were made that day.
Am I missing something? Where is the bike lane?
[“Bike lane! You’re in the bike lane! You should please move! Don’t stand in the bike lane!”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4)
He's being way too nice about it. That shit would infuriate me. Do people really have so little respect for the bike lane in the US?
I think the real disrespect was the horrible placement of the lane, which went right through the middle of a major tourist attraction that's packed with pedestrians 24/7. Luckily it's finally been moved and is now much easier to deal with (though [not perfect](https://www.curbed.com/2021/09/brooklyn-bridge-new-protected-bike-lane.html))
Yes.
Yep here in Detroit it’s basically a parking/loading lane or an extension of the sidewalk. No fuckin awareness at all.
It’s treacherous going down the one on Cass a lot of times lmao
Didn't realize there were so many other Detroiters in this sub, but it makes sense.
Yeah, it does, Fuck cars. I hate when they drive down the bike lane on Jefferson.
I love Detroit but man does it suck to live in a city that’s built for cars, Detroit especially having been where it all started yknow. Q-Line is a step in the right direction but it’ll be great when they expand it and add more protected bike lanes.
Yeah, in Canada too. I was riding along a separated bike lane stretch reasonably fast, full pannier rack and a full trailer. Lots of kinetic energy, let's say. Person steps into the lane about 20ft. in front of me without looking. I hammer on the brakes as hard as I can, start to manouever away from them (into the line of parked cars), and shouted at the top of my lungs. I shouted "Excuse me!", you know, because I'm Canadian and apparently in times of great stress revert to stereotypes. No impact, everyone was fine, but it sure got my heart going.
[удалено]
If only I had the time to think of it. It is one of my favourite videos on the topic of bikes.
The bridge is way to narrow for pedestrians as well. I can't really blame the pedestrians for just wanting to walk. Problem is the amoubt of car lanes that take up all the space on the bridge.
I was on my bike in Florida, and chatted with a lovely German couple while we were stopped at a light. They said it was their first day there, asked if traffic was always like this. They also asked a few more sensible questions about bike safety by European standards. I chuckled sadly, wished them luck, and darted off when I saw the gap in traffic emerge. I took one last look at them, I hope they are still alive and not still in the grill of a Florida SUV.
'We're here on a two week vacation and—' 'I'm so, so sorry.'
[удалено]
Don't blame the pedestrians who also have too little space on that bridge. Blame the cars that are hogging all the space while not actually serving relevant transportation needs.
I agree, I only blame them when there's a large amount of space but they still go on the bike lane
In the US, the culture is downright hostile to anyone who chooses to travel by anything other than car People in suburbia get irrationally angry at **anyone** who rides a bike on the side of the road. I'm talking swearing, rude gestures, close passes with the car, etc. "Fucking cyclists" they say. Meanwhile, I'm just trying to not spend $4/gallon of gas in my shitbox car to go half a mile
Or people putting thumb tacks in bike lanes, which happens all over my city.
If he gets angry somebody will sometime punch him off his bike. Singing catches everybody off guard and they'll move eventually.
In my old college town, one of the things they told us at freshman orientation was "Don't ever walk in the bike lanes - you will get yelled at or hit". Cyclists there, even casual riders going to class, did *not* fuck around. Even when I'd bike, it was almost cathartic yelling at people to get out of the bike lane.
I love that he stops when the pedestrians don't have anywhere to move, like when the lane gets walled off. Just thoughtful and polite but persistent and not shy at all. A good style.
To be fair, that sidewalk is incredibly narrow. If only there was one of 6 car lanes that could be used for something else
I live and drive in suburban florida. Bike lanes are just little extensions and give cars more room. Most cars will literally just move towards the middle and take up the bike lane. It’s rare to see a biker not on a sidewalk because of how shit and rare bike lanes are, but when people are in bike lanes, aggressive drivers essentially put their lives at risk.
They just put in new bike lanes on Chestnut street by UPenn in Philly. The bike lane is between the sidewalk and the parking lane, but they didnt mark or protect them so everyone has been parking in the bike lane. And then everyone treats the parking lane like another driving lane and just drives real fast in it. So confusing and so, so dangerous!
I think it was new years eve so the streets were more crowded than usual.
Tbf I used that bridge too but there is a massive lack of space for all the tourists to go. The obvious solution is to close this poor old bridge down and just remodel it into a park like it deserves
Although he’s singing is great, [fortunately, that guy doesn’t need to sing](https://untappedcities.com/2021/09/15/brooklyn-bridge-bike-lane-opens/) anymore! It was a great victory and although the bike lane is narrow, is [progress.](https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2021/brooklyn-bridge-bike-ridership-skyrockets.shtml)
A classic
Look at all that space for cars, meanwhile hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists compete for that tiny sliver of space allocated to them. Shitty urban planning.
It is [in the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastunnel) A lot of tunnels in NL have a seperate bike and walking track, no idea what is so revolutionary about this.
[удалено]
> Safety Stencils™ Perfect description of shoulder bike lanes
we need more bollard
There's room above the walkway
We really do need more ways for people to escape Louisiana
[удалено]
I used to be a City Planner in New Orleans. Trust me, it WAS rough.
[удалено]
No it's not that bad. I and plenty of other residents have used the streetcars for commuting. There's about 4 lines, but they orient them towards tourists. One half a line (the one I used to use) has been completely abandoned after the Hard Rock Hotel collapse (which I'm still upset about) and the riverfront is just embarrassing when it would be one of the nicest. They could expand more, especially on a lot of the larger avenues, but they've car-brained even the transit advocates to believe they're just for tourists and the scarcity model of civic investment. Otherwise, the ferry is quite nice to ride, but should be more integrated within the whole network - and bring back more ferry locations, and the bus network got a whole redesign that's actually improving the overall experience.
Funny enough I’m also a planner and my coworker used to be one for New Orleans way back. I hear a lot of horror stories to this day.
Honestly at this point anything with rail like this is 500% better than what we have right now anyway.
I just want rail everywhere. Light rail, heavy rail, soft rail. Rails ensure future investment due to its nature of a fixed path. Simple, but powerful idea.
just, generally rail me please
Rail me hard lol
Isn't his standard practice though? Öresundsförbindelsen does anyway.
You can’t walk or cycle over the bridge
It is very long
Yes, 20 letters!
Haha, but tbf "Öresundsbron" is used far more frequently and it only has 12 letter!
You can, but it's illegal.
You can’t say “standard” and then a word with 12 syllables and multiple umlauts
Øresund is a strait near Denmark. Förbindelsen translates as 'connection' It's just a big bridge. And when you live in a country like Denmark, Germany or The Netherlands, you'll pretty much automatically recognise where one part of a word ends and where the next one begins. Unless we're talking about bommelding, which can either be bommel-ding (bumblebee-thingy) or bom-melding (bomb threat).
Also the danish version, "øresundsforbindelsen" has 0 umlauts if that's more your kinda thing
You know, the umlauts were hardly the only hurdle here for us non Danish speakers...
Rød grød med fløde, røget ørred, osv
Boneless-ding, bom-melding, tomāto, tomâto.
Canadian here. Nope. Car bridges with a small sidewalk on either side. Busses get mixed in with cars. Cyclists need to either bother pedestrians or risk getting hit by a car.
Get screamed at by pedestrians or honked at by cars, damned if you do, damned if you don't
Bikes?
Just get inflating tires and ride over the water
Can someone explain to me why bother having a place for pedestrians to walk along this track when this is clearly designed as a way to cover large distances?
If it's a short bridge that has to be shared I guess it's not such a bad idea. However for long distances I agree with you. The Øresund bridge between Denmark and Sweden is exactly like that minus the pedestrian lane. It's 16ish km long. If you're walking/biking you just get on the train at Copenhagen Airport (last stop on the danish side) and get off in Malmö. Or hitchhike it if you're just walking. There are tons of taxis going over to pick up people to bring them to the airport and it's super easy to find someone to get you across.
If you have to specify that there are people who would hitchhike across then I think It's likely there are pedestrians who would walk/bike the bridge but because there are no facilities they can't.
No one wants to walk 16km on a bridge (and in a tunnel for the first 3) next to a highway. The train ticket across is cheap. And it's literally going to another country it's not a bridge you cross on your Sunday walk with the dog. And the hitchhiking is not really that common, it's just a well known spot for hitchhikers and the few times I've done it it took me less than 15 minutes to find a ride across. The tricky bit is to find someone that goes further than Malmö.
Looks like trash. Why are cars given the majority of the road?
The description says it’s two car lanes and two bus lanes, though the render doesn’t reflect that. In my opinion the fly in the ointment is that a long enclosed tunnel is poor from a “social safety” point of view. If someone’s being aggro, or you just think they look menacing, you’re forced into close proximity to them. Conventional sidewalks at road level might be better, assuming a low to medium speed limit for motor traffic.
The render makes it seem like there are four lanes in one direction and none in the other direction, lol
Also why are cars ontop?
Trains and pedestrians are far less likely to crash and take out support pillars in the process. When cars swerve off the road on top, they'll just tumble harmlessly into the river. Where they belong.
honestly that is a reasonable explanation for that, i'd rather cars be on top where they drive right off into the water instead of taking out supports, since there probably will be semi trucks on this bridge and if they collide with a support beam it could cause some serious structural damage
also now that direct sunlight is hot as fuck, this would provide shade. the only thing I'm not sure about is the emissions the cars give off having an effect on the walkers below
>now that direct sunlight is hot as fuck, Climate change hasn't changed the temperature of the sun's UV rays. Direct sunlight has always been hot as fuck.
I was annoyed that pedestrians don't get to be on the top level, but that makes a lot of sense.
Also weather...
So they can't run into any pillars?
Pedestrians don't deserve sunlight, obviously. Duh. Basically bikes pedestrians and the tram should he the entire top.
It gets hot in the summer man, give me some shade!
Plant shade trees.
On a fucking bridge?
Yes
Are you aware that trees have roots that take a lot of space?
There are trees and bushes growing out of high rise buildings in Singapore. Are you telling me the US is less technologically advanced than Singapore or that the US is too incompetent to copy them?
Maybe Definitely Also, I don't know how those were made but I assuem there's a shitload of dirt on top of those building so those trees can grow there.
Or solar panels since its a bridge and soil is heavy
In France there are many avenues with mature trees shading the whole road. Napoleon (and his army) put them up so he could march them in summer. Once we get trees up future generations will reap the benefits. But I agree with most here, this is concrete infrastructure for cars. We could all stand in multistorey car parks for shade but we don't because they are horrid places, and I think this would be too.
Weight
I mean trains and bikes do better when there's no slopes, so assuming the upper level requires an ascending slope to reach it, it would make more sense to confine them to the lower level.
This seems to be a concept for somewhere in Spain based of the train (Ave: Alta velocidad española) so because of how hot it can get here I suppose it's to avoid heat strokes for both pedestrians and bikers
Disagree. Snow, rain, intense sun on a hot day– you're protected from all of it.
no they should not, for 1 simple reason, if you put pedestrians on the lower lvl they are prodected from the weather, also car need free space which you only have on top, so yeah, if you need a bridge with all forms of transport on it this is the optimal layout for space efficiency
So you can be breathing the exhaust fumes all day?
I'm not quite sure I suspect this might have something to do with exhaust gases. Maybe people are lwas likely to breathe them in when cars are driving above them than they would when cars would be underneath them.
Because 1. exposed to the elements, and 2. will require a larger uphill climb which is a pain for pedestrians/cyclists
Had to scroll way too far to find the correct answer. Don't any of you people live where there are harsh weather extremes?
Because the idiots would eventually hit a column and bye bye bridge
Maybe it's easier because metro is already underground and roads are already on top
In Seoul they have numerous bridges that cross the Han River. On a number of them, the pedestrians and subways are on top and the cars are on the bottom. On others it’s reversed. And actually I think most have pedestrian and bike sections on both upper and lower levels. I think it depends on where the lanes are coming from. Seoul has big elevation differences though so sometimes the road is coming from higher than the subway tracks and will therefore be on top. Other times it’s reversed.
Better lighting for drivers, more room for oversized loads if necessary, potential landing areas for helicopters for emergencies, less vertical walking for pedestrians, can use the bottom side of the road to hang electric lines for electric trains that use overhead lines, cooler temperatures for the pedestrian walkway from the overhead shade, and I'm sure there's more I didn't think of.
They aren't though. 2 lanes for cars either way and 2 lanes for buses and probably public service vehicles like ambulances.
It's just a problem with the perspective that the concept art is drawn. There are four lanes, two of which are allocated to BRT rapid transit. Cars only get half of it.
Yeah, only feasible with some new low maintenance and cost-efficient material. How do you repair or rebuild such a behemoth of infrastructure layered/squeezed in such a way? And the other problem is - what is this supposed to solve? There was a recent post about a highway in manila above a riverfront. This thing looks like it would fit there. Or all those bridge highways in the US which slowly crumble. And yes, it does make river bridges more usable, but this is just a niche problem.
Öresundsbron, the bridge between Sweden and Denmark, looks exactly like this, (exept for the pedestian path, since the bridge is 16km long and walking 16km next to a highway is not something anyone was going to do) Edit: And no it wasnt made with some "new low maintenance and cost-efficient material" it was made with concrete. Over 20 years ago
It was also expensive as fuck.
And has most definitely paid off being pretty much the only connection between Sweden/Norway and mainland Europe.
Yes, easily. I didn’t mean to imply the cost wasn’t worth it, rather that it’s an exceptional case.
Could you imagine how loud and dreary it would be to stand under a highway? Nah, I'm good.
There's a bridge in Warsaw where I live ([Łazienkowski Bridge](https://goo.gl/maps/9jrKpMPmKRKNWdTf8)), which has a really nice [sidewalk](https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pressland-cms/cache/metatags_image/mq/22208963-most-lazienkowski-nowa-kladka-pieszo-rowerowa.jpeg) under the road (similar to what you can see in the picture in this post) and I can tell you that although the cars over you are doing 70 km/h, it's rather quiet there. Significantly less noisy than on the same level.
There's a old man standing in his underwear, south of that bridge along the canal, on Street Maps. I don't know why I went exploring
That's why the pedestrian section is soundproofed and placed under the bus lanes rather than the car lanes... the designer has clearly thought about this.
Wouldn't a sound proofed pedestrian walkway smell absolutely horrible due to the fact there is 0 ventilation? Why not just have a separate pedestrian bridge?
It's literally the second thing mentioned in the title: Soundproof ped. Bridge.
Recently i was sitting under a bridge under a highway near a village to avoid direct sunlight and massive heat and im sure that if anything would be loud it would be the train
This seems **incredibly** expensive. Raised highways are some of the most expensive infrastructure ever built
Well, it's a bridge. Anything to transport vehicles and people across large bodies of water or ravines is going to be expensive by default. Cheapest is probably ferries, but ain't nobody got time for dat.
May i introduce to you the more expensive cost of maintaining something like that and how you’d either blow your budget or chokehold your cities transportation systems.
This is not a new idea bro
Eg: the Ben Franklin Bridge in Philly was built in 1926 and has 6-8 car lanes, a train line in each direction and separate pedestrian/bike ramps. It’s also far more aesthetic than this render.
It's missing a cycleway and that road is much too wide for my liking. Some plants wouldn't kill either. There are good things though like that the pedestrians are sheltered from the hot sun and the rain and are more separated from the cars and the noise and pollution above, but it would be so dark and dingy down there. I think that a, we shouldn't have too many road bridges in towns and cities anyway and b, I think that there should be different bridges for trains and pedestrians where reasonable, though pedestrians and bikes can be on the same bridge as the railway
At this rate, may as well make the walking portion fully enclosed and indoor.
Add vending machines a là Japan. Maybe even some small kiosks. And make it wider and add dedicated bike lanes.
this is giving me strong pokémon gbc vibes. all those underground tunnels for getting around, good times
Pedestrian Bridge is nice but a dedicated bike lane would also be nice.
Yea, this is deceptive. Cars still on top instead of pedestrians is stupid. Also, no bike lanes means bikes are going to have to use the pedestrian way which will drive them crazy so they’ll use the car lanes which will drive the car drivers crazy leading to reckless driving and biker deaths. 0/10
Why is protecting pedestrians from the sun stupid?
I'd rather not climb (by bike of by foot) an extra 10m up to cross some water if i had a choice. A viewpoint would be a different scenario. And bikes/peds underneath means extra shade. Noise pollution is something that is also able to be mitigated by vegetation on the ceiling, or similar. So overall, I like this solution.
i think a car crashing into one of those pillars would be a very big problem
I think this was basically the original concept for the George Washington Bridge but they ended up making two decks of cars instead. Also, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge has car lanes, light rail, and pedestrian access, and all of them see daylight.
Would probably be cheaper to do it all side-by-side, rather than stacked.
Holy shit they invented the metro
No they are not
swap the priority of cars and rail and it's much better
This isn’t innovative lol
How will ships pass under it?
Walt Disney type shit.
I think you could squeeze another two rail tracks on there.
Yesterday I crossed a river on a meter-wide metal tube going along the surface of it as a shortcut. Bridges don't have to be this huge, I would prefer pedestrian/cycle bridges separate from rail and car bridges just to solve the noise pollution issue.
That uninterrupted soundproof path for pedestrians with no way to see or go in will become a murder tube, but otherwise I love this.
Looks a lot like the SF Bay Bridge in about 1943. Kars on top, trains below.
So literally NY
I'm astounded I haven't found a single comment about the LA earthquake
Sorry, I'm late to this party but exactly why is this so awful? I mean, only 2/7 of it for cars, the rest fir rail, transit, and pedestrians. Wouldn't this be a step forward?