U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2013, 04:41 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,718,144 times
Reputation: 2538

Advertisements



No one feels better about the acres of parking and the concrete walled facade of a big box store because you put a "nature trail" between it and the freeway.

If you are going to build crap like that - just build it. Lipstick on a pig doesn't make the pig any prettier. No one will ever use this trail because it goes from no where anyone wants to be to no where anyone wants to go, and it isn't even pleasant to be on because on one side you are looking at car fenders and the other side traffic is whizzing by at highway speeds - oh, but thanks for the dg trail. . .

Last edited by Komeht; 03-23-2013 at 04:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2013, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,782,157 times
Reputation: 8809
"Urban" planners don't build these. Money hungry developers do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,102,108 times
Reputation: 12647
Couldn't disagree more. I really enjoyed have the bike lanes all throughout Natomas. While I'm fine riding in the streets, it opened up cycling to a lot more people. When I was riding with my girlfriend who was not comfortable riding on arterial streets we'd often see old geezers, young families, and what not other than the 20-40 something predominantly male cyclist I saw on my morning commutes. Also, as willing as I am to ride on roads, I won't ride on a freeway which aside from Jibboom Bridge and the Bicycle/Ped bridge are the only two other ways across the Sacramento river.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,102,108 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
"Urban" planners don't build these. Money hungry developers do.
Wrong, fortunately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 07:40 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,910 posts, read 42,175,279 times
Reputation: 43311
They're probably required by code.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,102,108 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
They're probably required by code.
Yup, generally required by urban planners. The downside is they're then dependent on development. That was a downside with Natomas where bike trails would randomly end at the edge of development in really odd places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 08:18 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,718,144 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
"Urban" planners don't build these. Money hungry developers do.
Incorrect...these are mandated by code.

No one uses them. No one. This particular one goes from the middle of a strip mall parking lot to a freeway interchange.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
550 posts, read 1,092,371 times
Reputation: 650
Komeht, as much as I disagree with you on almost everything I kind of agree with what you said in the urban growth boundaries thread about how the government causes these things through building codes.

Apparently what happened here is some green, pro bike, anti car, do gooder lobbied the state or municipality to implement certain building codes that mandated bike paths. Whether bike paths are used is irrelevant. Aesthetically the green is prettier to look at than asphalt. But many of these things aren't used. I think it would be better to just let the developer handle this on an individual basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Kalamalka Lake, B.C.
3,044 posts, read 4,020,006 times
Reputation: 3898
Isn't the idea to eventually link these paths up?

Example: the last piece of property for the North Shore hike trail in Vancouver was not the First Nations property, but the old marina full of cranky, crusty old Englishman!

Eventually, it got connected. Just took some time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,782,157 times
Reputation: 8809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Incorrect...these are mandated by code.

No one uses them. No one. This particular one goes from the middle of a strip mall parking lot to a freeway interchange.
They aren't here. Developers build these to fool idiots into thinking they are worth their weight in sand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top