345
[image] when good infrastructure design does not just prioritize cars its a plus for everyone.
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
345 points (98.3% liked)
Fuck Cars
14478 readers
647 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why? Roundabouts are good for traffic calming and are generally considered better than four-way intersections, especially in areas like this.
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?
Agreed.
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...
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.
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).
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.
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...
The roundabout's island is about 12 meters in diameter – extremely reasonable for this setup.
Not experts like you. I'll bet they actually surveyed the place they were building at before designing for it. Rookie mistake.
tldr, sorry best i can do is make reactionary comment to the title
Yeah, you want a lorry or a bus to actually make it through the roundabout. The size is absolutely appropriate.
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.
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.
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.