Anyways it's funny seeing the mask slip revealing just how anti-pedestrian urbanists are.
It's really telling because of their insistence on taking over roads rather than having shared pedestrian-cyclist infrastructure. A bike might technically be a vehicle, but at the end of the day a cyclist is closer to a pedestrian so it makes more sense. A cyclist-pedestrian collision probably isn't going to kill anyone, they can be avoided much easier than car or train related collisions, and bikes are more versatile than cars since they can take most pedestrian shortcuts aside from stairs.
Some of the less retarded urbanists can actually reach this conclusion, but there seems to be an equal amount that can't or won't. Maybe it's due to the influence of the spandex faggot type of cyclist, who refuses to give way to anyone and can't fathom the thought of getting off their bike and walking it for any reason. Cyclists are perfectly capable of sharing footpaths with pedestrians in less dense environments, but if they can't share a dense path with pedestrians what makes them think they're qualified to share a dense road with cars?
This is the bicentennial Bikeway in Brisbane, it's a shared bike-pedestrian path completely separated from the road that covers the 5km from the University at the edge of the CBD to where you could start classifying as suburban, or basically as far as most people would choose to walk to get to the inner city. Any further away from the CBD, there are plenty of footpaths that are wide enough and not constantly packed with pedestrians that allow for bikes to use them as well with no issues. Once you get even further out into the suburbs proper, all the streets are low traffic 2 lane roads which a cyclist can reasonably share with cars even if there is no footpath or bike lane, provided they are aware and considerate enough to give way and make space. All the bridges across the river have shared bike-pedestrian paths as well, so there are probably more paths like this to get into the city from other directions. If you want to get to the CBD, then riding a bike through shared areas to the Bikeway and taking it the rest of the way is a very valid way to do so. A car is obviously faster and easier, but then you have to worry about parking. Public transport is also easier, but you become reliant on timetables.
I would think that most people would see this kind of infrastructure as an ideal way to get the best out of every mode of transport. Cars are not inconvenienced by cyclists, pedestrians and cyclists are not inconvenienced by cars. And yet I can almost guarantee that a sizable portion of the urbanist crowd would either dislike this or at the very least think it's a "band-aid solution". They would either complain that it doesn't do enough because they can't ride their bikes on every single street through the densest part of the city centre without having to deal with cars (here's a thought: chain your bike up when you leave the bikeway and fucking walk around the city centre), complain about how they made it a shared pedestrian space instead of just ripping up the roads and replacing them with bikelanes like in Amsterdam, or complain about how because it snakes under the freeway it's still "car-centric infrastructure" and thus the worse thing to ever happen to them despite how useful it is. I'll bet none of them would ever raise my only issue with it, though, which is that as a somewhat-isolated area away from the roads it attracts niggers and the homeless.
As a bonus, you can also see one of the rail exchanges just northwest of the CBD, which is bigger than the nearby football stadium, and which replaced half of one of the largest parks in the city. Funny when you consider how often urbanist plans for walkable cities involve parks, green spaces etc. That's not even the largest railyard either, that honour probably goes to this one:
For as much as urbanists hate on highway interchanges for being huge and ugly, they never seem to mention that trainyards are equally ugly and usually larger. Brisbane in particular has more large railyards and interchanges than it does large highway interchanges, and it's still a mostly car-focused city. Sydney is just bad, it has more highway interchanges but its train yards and interchanges are huge. None of these are industrial railyards either, which in smaller cities are larger than the pedestrian ones. Imagine if we started using rail freight as the primary way to get goods to cities instead of trucks, just how much extra space would be needed for more interchanges and railyards. Imagine if we ripped up all the roads and ran train lines to every single suburb and outlying community of every single city. Train lines that cannot share their space with pedestrians or bike lanes. No, that wouldn't do. Better move everyone out of those suburbs and into pods.
