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.
I am not referring to ones that curve because of topography or obstacles, but rather those that curve for no other reason that some silly person's aesthetics. This is stupid, wastes money (more materials and labor) and my time since I use these paths for commuting. If these same designers intentionally designed roads the same way they wouldn't have a job. Examples:
I don't know I have a 15 minute commute that costs me pennies and I get exercise too. Oh and I have great home appreciation in a neighborhood with tons of amenities. How about you?
You can address aesthetics with landscaping and complementary infrastructure.
So you wouldn't mind S-shaped roadways?
Using your line of thinking, do you wear the exact same pants and shirt everyday, like steve jobs, because, isn't it just a waste of money and time to buy a bunch of different shirts and pants ?
And shouldn't your jeans be blue, and your shirt be white,
and all the walls in your house should be white as well
Even if I walk my dog I still don't want to curve back and forth, and I'm sure he does not get any extra benefit. If I am going to the store I also want the straightest point between two lines.
How do curves make my bike/ped trip more enjoyable?
Why should cash-strapped municipalities advocate costlier designs ahead of practicalities?
Actually I find it insulting that just b/c I'm a pedestrian that somehow my time is not valuable. I actually walk and bike b/c they are the most practical modes given where I live and work.
Your dog (and you) are getting some more steps in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
Au contraire -- I suspect such paths were designed to *discourage* bicycle use, for the "strolling" pedestrians.
Where I live the off-street paths are for all modes of transportation other than cars, e.g. bikes, walking, roller blades, whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
The paths were not built strictly for commuting or else they would tend to be straight(like expressways and major streets). They were built so that someone could have an enjoyable bike ride or walk with little thought of getting from point A to point B.
Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
A fundamental principle of landscape design is that curved paths are more interesting and aesthetically pleasing than straight ones, primarily because they offer the "mystery" of "what's around the bend", which is why they are encouraged in both public and private spaces. I agree with luv4horses that most people prefer curving paths. People often consider a long run of straight/linear sidewalk or path that's flat and open to be a "desert" or "tundra", and a long run of straight/linear sidewalk or path lined with trees or buildings a "tunnel" or "canyon". Both tend to be off-putting, which is why you rarely see long, straight runs of sidewalks/paths in areas designed/redesigned in the last 50 years or more.
The OP's links don't seem to show a path, or maybe I'm missing something.
I bike for recreation, and I like to get out into other areas. A little longer is ok, but a bike path that's twice the distance is not something I'd want to use. I remember a bike path that had some extremely sharp curves that forced me to slow down a bunch for the curve.
I prefer a straight line when I'm commuting or trying to get somewhere. Having a winding path for aesthetics, especially considering even pedestrians tend to want to get somewhere without fussing about too much, is best suited for parks and recreational areas. But I've seen these on more utilitarian pathways and it's usually just because the render invokes the idea that everyone on it wants to walk recreationally.
We're not talking about long, lazy curves, but tight undulations. Pedestrians and cyclists want that on pathways no more than a driver would on a daily basis.
If those wavy sidewalks along the roads are the bike paths then I don't see the sense in that design. Sidewalks that simply follow and parallel a street look better straight, I think. I am glad and prefer to see bikes and pedestrians sharing a sidewalk path rather than bicyclists and cars sharing the road. They're doing the later here with an alarming rate of MV pedestrian accidents. That's not the case along the river paths.
If those wavy sidewalks along the roads are the bike paths then I don't see the sense in that design. Sidewalks that simply follow and parallel a street look better straight, I think. I am glad and prefer to see bikes and pedestrians sharing a sidewalk path rather than bicyclists and cars sharing the road. They're doing the later here with an alarming rate of MV pedestrian accidents. That's not the case along the river paths.
If the sidewalk intersects roads frequently, it's not really safer. Too many intersections with turning cars where cars aren't looking.
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.
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.
