-
i disagree - there is a hierarchy of ideal urban travel, and cars are at the bottom. Most motorised urban transport is unnecessary (short trips which could be walked or cycled) and inefficient (single occupancy).
There will be exceptions (tradesman, physical disabilities) but our urban planning should reflect the hierarchy. Walking first, cycling second, mass transport (bus/train/tram) 3rd and cars below that.
Pedways reinforce that idea that cars belong in cities, so I'm against them generally.
gillies-
Agreed, I recall seeing loads of high level Pedways in downtown Atlanta. street level nonsense filled with parking lots, drop off zones, for hotels, shopping malls, business towers, several freeways converging, spaghetti junctions, good only for motorised vehicle traffic and fumes.. depressing thought considering it’s history as a city is as old as America it’s self..
almac68
I think I certain cases pedestrian tunnels or bridges make sense.
For example the museum underpass at south Ken really serves it's purpose well.
We need to make a city where motorised transport is not king but can co exist and run harmoniously.