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 are all collectively left “unhappy” as opposed to a few of us “unhappy”.
Another view of the same area, now designed as a street.
Where’s the bike lane?
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 🤷
👉🔴👈
You’re in the wrong community my dude
And also not understanding of the average Rochester hills driver.
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.
I just want something more substantial than paint between a car and my toddler as I pedal pur way to daycare.
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.
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.
It really is just asphalt with paint. Not even proper signs. At least from this one picture I wouldn’t have expected an intersection there.
That’s almost every suburb in the US and Canada. It’s sad.
It’s a huge improvement for sure. But I also have to say most “underdeveloped” countries have better infrastructure than how it was before. I would have hardly called it infrastructure. It was just an area with asphalt and some paint.
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 😂
Michigan, USA
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.
Massive upgrade!! Kudo’s to them.
One thing that it lacks though is protected bicycle lanes.
It looks so much nicer now!
A few of these conversions near my home town and they are fantastic
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
As a cyclist I hate roundabouts, it actually takes more time & more dangerous, than just hiring authorities to issue traffic tickets to bad-dangerous drivers.
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 ?
![[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}