Hacker News Reader

Comment by iterationx | Hacker News Reader

So what is that 4 ft wide for two way pedestrian traffic? That's kinda sad. #sidewalkshame

In Portland we're also in the process of replacing another bridge which as a single sidewalk less than 2ft wide directly adjacent to traffic, no barriers. It's dangerous and awkward to try and move past another person on foot on it, and near-suicidal to try and cycle across. So I will be happy to have 4ft for biking and walking, really.

You are happy because the new bridge isn't "dangerous and awkward", but I maintain your standards are too low.

What's wrong exactly? It looks like it's split about 50/50 for bikes and walkers.

They make a bridge without cars and they only give the pedestrians 4 ft for 2 ways? That's preposterous. What's wrong is that it isn't wide enough. Maybe I can get an upvote by someone from Europe where they have bridges that are wide and pleasant to walk across.

For what it's worth I live in Europe (though I am from the states originally), and I don't see what's the matter here really. Space looks to be reoughly evenly distributed between cyclists and walkers. Of course, most of the bridge is used by rail, but I imagine that was a design constraint.

I'd love it if the bridge were wider, of course, but even so this seems a lot better than the usual treatment cyclists and walkers get.

Agreed. Here's the bike and pedestrian part of one of the main bridges for Gothenburg, Sweden: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:G%C3%B6ta_%C3%A4l... .

The US one seems wider.

It carries both the streetcar and light rail. Also there is another section of bike and pedestrian lanes on the other side of the bridge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com