Aucklund, New Zealand is considering adding a tolled, clip-on bridge to the Auckland Harbor Bridge (NZ$3 each way, or a little more than US$2)
Council officers are backing a cycling and walking SkyPath attached to the Auckland Harbour Bridge, subject to conditions such as parking management and matching its colour with the ruling battleship grey.
They have prepared a report which will recommend the $33.5 million tolled crossing proposal to independent planning commissioners preparing for a public hearing next month.
Recommended conditions include changing the proposed colour of the pathway - to be slung under the "coat-hanger" bridge's citybound clip-on lanes - from white to grey and limiting users on it at any one time to a number yet to be prescribed by the Transport Agency.
I like this as a way to add a bike facility onto an existing bridge. It may not work on arching bridges like the Nice Bridge, but perhaps something similar could be used to add a MUT to the American Legion Bridge over the Potomac and/or the New York Avenue bridge over the Anacostia.
New Zealand has very different laws that make this sort of thing possible. In the USA, if there was any injury, they would sue the bridge maker.
Posted by: SJE | July 12, 2016 at 11:12 AM
What the hell? Helmet laws are an over reach but mandating clip on pedals makes sense? Or is this an Emily Letelier moment?
Posted by: Riley | July 12, 2016 at 07:34 PM
If you mean Emily Litella, then yes.
Posted by: washcycle | July 12, 2016 at 08:17 PM
Reading the source article I feel like New Zealand is separated from us by a common language...
The "clip-ons" refer to the fact that the bridge was widened ten years after it was constructed by hanging new sections off of it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Harbour_Bridge#.27Nippon_clip-ons.27
The pedestrian/bike path depends upon this unique construction. However, I would think that pretty much any bridge that can handle motor vehicle traffic could have a bike/pedestrian path added -- proportionally, the loads are minimal.
Posted by: contrarian | July 17, 2016 at 01:14 AM
no reason not to do this except the complete lack of funding for non-car infrastructure in the region.
Posted by: Mike | July 18, 2016 at 12:32 PM