Not everyone can drive. Most of those who can't drive also cannot afford a taxi or rideshare. Many of them also do not have friends or family who can get them where they need to go, and reliance on others is extremely demoralizing to independence.
That says nothing of the carbon cost in fuel, the microparticle cost in tire and brake dust, or other inflated pollutants.
The U.S.'s car-dominant infrastructure is a tragedy.
Cyclists and pedestrians should be considered two separate groups. Most biking infrastructure doesn't benefit me at all as a pedestrian (but it's okay, because the cyclists will still ride on sidewalk instead of the bike lane).
A lot of cyclists feel safer on the sidewalk because cars do not respect cyclists. It unfortunately does make it more dangerous for pedestrians.
> Cyclists and pedestrians should be considered two separate groups.
Yes, and they both rightfully expect safe infrastructure even if it is separate.
It's like the food chain, except cyclists don't seem to respect either pedestrians or motorists.
Not everyone can afford to live in an area of the city where they don't have to drive places, either.
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
In the meantime, until that's done and everybody lives where they can easily take public transit from their home to where they want to go, we'll continue to be in the situation I described, and will have to compromise with our fellow humans who have different locomotion options and choices.
All people are equal, regardless of transportation, so this intersection seems like a fair compromise which doesn't preference one person over another.
And besides it’s really depressing to be so isolated and only get around in a little metal box.
Walking is not merely some sort of hobby. It is transportation, a means of getting from one place to another -- often the most convenient and pleasant means. And transportation infrastructure certainly falls under the purview of local governments.