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.
As a non American, what even is that first picture? Is that a common “design” (or lack thereof) in American towns?
As an American the top picture is very typical of less urban areas. The bottom looks very a-typical around my parts.
That’s almost every suburb in the US and Canada. It’s sad.
it’s a very very common result of car-centric design, people just can’t be arsed to put even the slightest hint of effort in.
It’s not even remotely unique to america, there’s plenty of it all over the world, and i frankly think it’s almost as big of a problem as the car-centric aspect itself. It makes places look so fucking miserable and dead.
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.
I dont get the hate honestly.
Sure it might not be how you would do it but its infinitely better than it was.
There are two kinds if people in this space. This first kind that want better designed towns in general who reject the carcentric designs of the 50s and 60s that we are stuck with. The second kind are bike supremicists who wont be happy until every roadway is bike only. They couldnt give a rats ass about peedtrians, they just want to be the biggest thing in the road.
They couldnt give a rats ass about peedtrians
Apparently in this case the pedestrian infrastructure is explicitly also there for bicycles. Mixing bicycles and pedestrians is not a good idea. OP calls this “good infrastructure” in the title. It would be good infrastructure, if the bicycles had their own lane, there clearly is enough space for that.
In low density areas that don’t see a huge amount of either traffic, there’s no reason not to mix them. It works just fine in plenty of places.
Still, the space is there.
mixing bicycles and pedestrians is perfectly fine, you only get problems when people don’t have anywhere to bike quickly.
Most cyclists are happy to go 15km/h or slower, which works flawlessly with pedestrians so long as volumes of either aren’t huge. But there’s always some percentage of cyclists who want/need to go 20+km/h, which is only acceptable if there’s barely any traffic at all.
Frankly it can be really nice to mix slow cyclists and pedestrians, because it means more opportunity for people to talk to each other. I have several times met people i know while on my bike, and because my city at most separates cyclists from pedestrians with paint it means i can just stop and have a chat with them, it just feels nice.
It’s fine as long as the cyclists aren’t fast and there’s enough space.
I just want something more substantial than paint between a car and my toddler as I pedal pur way to daycare.
It looks so much nicer now!
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.
Every roundabout in the US needs to have a sign “use signal when exiting roundabout” until drivers here become civilized.
There is a roundabout in my town that I do my best to avoid because I will regularly see people signal to enter the roundabout and I have never seen anyone signal their exit.
I’m halfway across the world and it’s the same. Nobody signals their exit. I’ve learnt to watch the movement of their wheels to read their intent.
nah, I know how to use a roundabout. Maybe other drivers with a license can learn the rules if the road as well or lose their license
People don’t want to get into a car accident.
Where’s the bike lane?
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
you mean bike path, right?
No, I don’t.
Don’t be pedantic, especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Fuck bike lanes. This gives the road to bikes, and forces cars to go slower
it’s really irritating to cycle in front of an impatient driver even when there’s a 20km speed limit and a red light waiting ahead (some are irresistibly attracted to red lights. They want to drive as quickly as possible to just sit there and stare at it 🤷
👉🔴👈
It’s really fun to force cars to go slowrt than bikes. Fuck cars.
You’re in the wrong community my dude
And also not understanding of the average Rochester hills driver.
Nope. Fuck cars. All roads should be for cyclists.
Bike lanes give guaranteed space for bikes, whereas a bike-compatible road can end up with road hogging cars giving no space for bikes, and I’m booked having to “filter through” when there’s traffic - which also increases risks for the cyclists
You can do what you want but kids use bikes too while making unpredictable misjudged decisions.
A few of these conversions near my home town and they are fantastic
Massive upgrade!! Kudo’s to them.
One thing that it lacks though is protected bicycle lanes.
no, it lacks protected bicycle paths. Bike lanes are only acceptable on car-free streets (separating bikes and mopeds from pedestrians) or on rural roads with very low traffic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
tldr, sorry best i can do is make reactionary comment to the title
Round abouts are great.
But I agree that it lacks bicycle infrastructure.
Aka. Protected bike lanes.
Very few countries do this correctly, I live in the Netherlands so I’m spoilt with good pedestrian and cycling infrastructure
not bike lanes, bike paths. Lane implies it’s on the road and not significantly separated from cars, whereas path implies it’s properly separated either by height or by distance.
Fair, that’s what I meant. Just used the wrong wording.
I was recently on a fairly long road trip, and got routed down one of those annoying secondary highways where there is the occasional red light every few miles.
Except this one had been converted to roundabouts, so instead of lights, I just had to slow down a bit, and keep going. I had used roundabouts before, of course, but I had never seen them used so extensively on one highway before. I still would have preferred an open freeway, but it was a much more pleasant and efficient driving experience.
Now I’m hoping they’ll start using them more in my state.
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.
What could be present that would give you a reason to bike there ?
It looks nicer, but a huge & obvious problem is there is no pedestrian roadway! So what crosswalks (& as mentioned in other reply, the mirage that roundabout is better for pedestrians) are better, please.
there is no pedestrian roadway!
???
I can feel the emotion through those arrows.
Those are NOT separate/only pedestrians roadways. You do know what they are right?
you mean… sidewalks? because those are very clearly sidewalks; as they are narrow, made of concrete, and there’s absolutely no sign that bikes are allowed or were considered in the design.
I mean just look at the crossings, those are explicitly pedestrian crossings lol.
Not at all, pedestrians roadways.
We bicyclist cannot accept less, I live where yes, sidewalks are rare & available in more quality in the nearest cities, but they are minimum & not wide enough. We must demand better.
Our (I assume) country is more wealthy, than Scandinavian countries, yet they have better separation & whole roadways converted for non-motorized cyclist & can be used to get to more place, where I live such roadway is 15-miles away, with traffic from my home it takes 45-Mins. to get to it & it only goes along side US1 & connects to Metrorail’s first Southern Station & Metrobus station. I think letting other non-motorized ways for pedestrians to get around is okay.
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 👎
asphaltheads when they see something green
Oh no, I get it, I’m actually all about nature, plants, trees, birds, bees, squirrels, racoons, etc. I get that.
But hell, when a city is already established with roads where you can easily turn towards either side to get to the place you’re looking to go, then they put in a divider that blocks said easy access, then people stop going to those places when they get off work, and those businesses wither away and end up shutting down, which kills the local economy and associated job opportunities.
Believe me, I know, I’m from an area where two different cities did exactly that, put divider plants in the middle of the highway, and half the businesses no longer exist. And it still did jack shit to help bicyclists.
Well, the idea is that you stop driving everywhere. Unfortunately, you have to make it inconvenient to drive if you want people to stop driving and we do want people to stop driving. I’m not gonna apologize for making you park a block over.
Research and studies into street design has already proven you wrong and I got a foot halfway out the door so I’m sorry I can’t look them up right now, but nicer streets boost sales of local businesses. It turns out that when people are incentivized to walk more in an area, they tend to visit a lot more shops in that area. When a person can drive their airconditioned sofa box right up to the door of the store, they don’t shop around at neighboring businesses. Sales go down as a whole.
Bruh, they did this shit right after you get off of a high rise bridge where it’s illegal to ride a bicycle, or even walk for that matter.
- 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.
I call bullshit. If you want to go to a specific business, you can find the next safe intersection to do a legal U-turn. It’s like that where I live and it hasn’t put anyone out of business.
Go ahead and call bullshit, the next legal U-turn is like 3 miles up the road and over a major high rise bridge, where it’s also illegal for bicyclists and pedestrians to travel. Meaning you have to be driving a vehicle, and it makes it 6 miles out of the way to perform a legal U-turn.
So yeah, many otherwise successful businesses withered away and shut down because of their piss poor planning and rearrangement of the roads and highways.
Moss Point Mississippi if you wanna dig deeper into it, the whole shebang killed half the businesses in the area.
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}