Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydorn
Yes it's a great looking piece of design and adds some nice artsy flare to our very conservative/bland skyline in the city. But it's still a little silly to look immediately west and see two more bridges with pedestrian access within 3-5 blocks.
|
How is this silly?
As a foreword to this, I'm speaking more generally to the "other bridges are too close" argument that seems prevalent and not necessarily toward you jaydorn. Just using your post as a launching point. I'm also going to work under the assumption that many of the people using this line of reasoning are coming from the point of view of someone who travels predominantly by automobile.
In terms of walking or cycling, 550 meters (the distance between the bridges on the short side of the river) is problematic and undesirable because:
1. One has to go out of their way that distance and then has to double-back that same distance on the other side of the crossing.
2. As many would be doing this twice a day, the separation is as much as quadrupled for commuters.
3. Providing a more direct path from point of origin to destination is more acutely needed for cyclists and people who will walk because they use their manual power to make that trip and added distance is more directly proportionate to the time spent crossing that distance. It can be easy for people who normally don't travel as often on foot or bike to not relate to this because a more circuitous route usually costs very little in terms of fuel or time and costs virtually zero in terms of discomfort (other than pressing the gas pedal for a few more seconds). Much of the time spent traveling via automobile in cities is spent on the first 10% and the last 10% of the trip distance, and any double-back routing along the way is much less consequential due to average travel speeds along the middle of the trip as compared to travel speeds near the origin or the destination. The relationship is more linear for cyclists and especially pedestrians.
----------------
Looking at it from a general infrastructure angle, it's perhaps more intuitive. Route options increase as trip densities increase. On a macro-level, there's less bridges over geographic obstacles in rural Saskatchewan than there is near downtown Calgary. In Paris, there's a crossing of the Sienne River approximately every 200 meters. Not saying Calgary is Paris, but when Calgary starts to look more like Paris than it does like Oyen, it seems intuitive that there would be a need for more crossings of geographic obstacles.