To be fair, the road design is literal highways all the way around it making it impossible to safely walk. It’s terrible design and super hazardous to pedestrians but there is a safety reason behind the rule.
They should have been required to build pedestrian bridges and paths. If we didn’t line in a shithole capitalist hellhole.
Its also Americans driving on those roads.
OP got the picture from either hexbear or X…
It was obviously going to miss the point.
It’s not a law that you can’t walk from a hotel to a stadium, it’s a law that you can’t jaywalk…
https://www.legalfix.com/statutes/state-codes/new-jersey/title-39/section-39-4-34
Likely across a highway/interstate that drink people keep thinking they can cross.
If there’s a clear need to cross, they should provide a way to cross. That’s how you prevent people improvising their own way.
That’s how you prevent people improvising their own way.
No, that’s how you completely destroy anyone’s ability to get anywhere…
Because no one would ever want to wait, so they’d constantly be widening every path.
Like, how often do you think an NFL game is even played at this one location?
And who’s paying for it?
Does the hotel have to pay for it? The stadium because that’s where people go?
The entire community they taxes even though they’d be the last ones to utilize a bridge that goes from a hotel to a stadium? They’ll already have to deal with the major road closure to build the sky bridge no local will ever use
Like, I understand the spirit of your point and that’s it’s coming from a good place, but you don’t understand any of what goes into just this one narrow aspect that slightly inconviences maybe a couple thousand out of town era 8 days out of the year.
No, the thing I don’t understand is why they wouldn’t build any pedestrian or cycling infrastructure around stadiums and hotels in the first place.
The decision to build a stadium that is completely inaccessible without a vehicle, even if you are staying at a hotel next door, is the point.
Or build a whole fucking multi-lane highway there, but can’t be bothered to make it 6 feet wider so pedestrians and cyclists could use it, too.
For at least a few decades, I’ve been hearing complaints about American city planning intentionally excluding people who choose to, or can do nothing but, walk. Making it mandatory to arrive via automobile, that’s what they’re complaining about.
The first I’d heard of this was a rich area in socal being completely inaccessible to the homeless because it was rimmed entirely by freeways. No way to leave or enter safely without a car and few groceries just outside. A local food desert. Or a food fort
With that said, half of MetLife’s exterior is walkable, according to some maps. A long walk around a freeway is part of it. I’m not a fan of an extra 10 minutes of walking with industrial scenery but it seems fine enough
I came down with the flu and 102° fever while on a work trip this week. I ubered to an urgent care and the pharmacy was just across the street, but the street being a typical 5-lane American road with no sidewalk on either side, and no pedestrian crossing in sight in either direction.
I had to play frogger in the traffic standing in an empty lane until the next one cleared to get across.
Just truly mind-blowing bad design
I’m glad my cities stadium is built on top of a train station. And that they close lanes of the surrounding roads for pedestrians to walk on when there’s a big match
Those who make peaceful walking impossible make violent jaywalking enevitable
Good to notice that they do have a train station right in front of the stadium. It’s a 2-minute walk. And if you’re able to afford visiting the stadium, you are definitely able to afford the local train ticket there as well!
It seems quite sure that “proper transportation arrangements” can mean taking the local train just fine.
yea it’s like three highways over there - you’d think they’d build a bridge
fuck that
Why would anyone want to go somewhere where its illegal to walk outside?
No, its not illegal to walk outside. You’re allowed to walk through public spaces.
So developed, much freedom
Removed by mod
No, and that’s precisely why sports venues are not built in middle of Autobahns.
Germans would not go to that sports venue because it would be illegal to walk outside.
I wish their was more infrastructure designed around walking, it makes me sad to see places that are so car oriented, it makes them ugly and unpleasant compared to city’s and country’s that prioritize walking and promotes a health lifestyle instead of driving and sitting in a car all day
Check out Bangkok’s Skyline rail, there’s multiple levels to it and generally a walking level beneath the train, at least in the popular areas of town.
I like walking when I’m not in a hurry and the weather is nice, but the weather usually isn’t nice in most parts of the country (the US West Coast is an exception to that). I’m looking at moving to a southern state now and the only reason I’m even considering it is that I would be living in a car-centered area where I wouldn’t have to spend more than a couple of minutes a day outdoors during the summer. Compare that to NYC where I used to live: milder summers, but still hot, and I had no choice but to endure them (and winters, and rainy days) because I couldn’t drive to most places I went to. The unpleasantness of that far outweighs all the advantages of walkable neighborhoods for me.
This comment is truly mindblowing to me!
I do welcome you sharing your perspective, but I also feel like we must be of different species, because I so profoundly cannot relate at all. Fascinating!
The REASON it’s illegal and dangerous to walk from these hotels is there’s a damn whole canal between here and the stadium and the bridge is a limited-access highway. https://maps.app.goo.gl/5nK4bkNg9fHkWunn7
There isn’t a pedestrian bridge over the canal, that’s why you gotta get a ride.
Sounds like bad planning.
When will the pedestrian bridge be ready?
So, why is there no pedestrian bridge?
Holy Shit, making it from the nearest hotel across the canal turns a 1-mile walk into a 6-mile hike =U
That has to be deliberate, there’s no other excuse for it.
Deliberate in the sense that someone built a hotel on land that was cheap for reason?
Do you think that the city should engage a billion dollar civil engineering project to build a pedestrian bridge over a navigable canal so that it can serve whoever was dumb enough to build a hotel here?
To be clear, there are like a hundred hotels that you CAN walk to this stadium from, just not this one.
How much extra do you think it would have cost to add an 6’ walkway to the bridge when it was built, merely as a future-proofing mechanism? When your first thought is, “No one would ever want to walk from one side to the other instead of using some kind of transportation,” these are the kind of results you get.
Do you think that the city should engage a – civil engineering project to build a pedestrian bridge over a navigable canal?
Uhmm? Yes? Have you somehow missed that there’s a stadium on the other side of the canal? There are a lot of things in the southwest corner of the map, not just one hotel. I do not believe there’s any other country on this planet where this is even a question. That bridge would absolutely get built. Building the stadium cost a big sum of money. A simple pedestrian bridge costs something like 50 000 $, maybe 200 000 $ if you want a fancy one. How would it not be possible for the stadium to pay that? It’s an increase of about one percent to the project’s expenses.
And if they somehow forgot to include the necessary traffic connections in requirements for giving the permission to build the stadium, then I can assure you that the state is able to pay for a hundred grand for simple infrastructure.
Yes, there are plenty of countries on earth that don’t pave over their rivers so that you can build a business wherever you want without obstruction. What a stupid fucking notion.
Sorry, I understand each word you wrote, but not really their meaning. Would you be able to paraphrase, please?
Geographic obstacles exist in other countries too. No country on earth removes every geographic obstacle to create a shortest possible-straight line walking path between every structure that exists. The idea that literally anyone would do this is absurd.
Here’s the thing, that bridge would only serve tourists customers of the hotel, not the tax payers of NJ who would be paying for it. So it’s on the hotel here to advocate for their customers and either work with NJDOT for the bridge or run a shuttle. But they put up the sign instead because their only care about their bare minimum liability, not making things safe or convenient.
Please take a look at the map. There are plenty of things there, other than just one hotel. There’s the whole town of Lyndhurst there, and the southern parts of Rutherford, just some 5 km away from the stadium. Or, if we take 5 miles, that would mean about 8 km. 8 km is about the limit until what distance can be covered by bicycle without an effort.
A society exists for maintaining infrastructure. It’s a basic function and it’s unforgivable for a city to fail on that!
EDIT: And because it’s really useful to look at the map, here’s a direct link to show the distances: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=40.81219%2C-74.07257%3B40.7875%2C-74.13428#map=14%2F40.80825%2F-74.09755
All of whom may take the NJ transit bus system to do so.
A billion dollars for a pedestrian bridge? That thing had better be made of gold, then.
found some figures about cost of bridge building and apparently if one were to construct a completely new pedestrian overpass/bridge over that canal would be on the ballpark of about 2-10 million dollars
That sounds a lot more reasonable. And that’s a standalone bridge. If you want to be stingy, you could also just have a walkway on the side of the highway bridge. Make sure you’ve got a solid wall between the cars ajd pedestrians, of course.
lmao fucking americans… “The government won’t let me walk on the highway, that’s the real tyranny!” What a confused bunch.
Also america: driving takes one mile, walking takes 6 miles to get to the same place.
That’s the reason I can’t simply walk to the nearby Denny’s if I wanted to even tho it’s like 3 blocks away; it’s on the otherside of highway 99 and there are no pedestrian crossings for MILES over it.
My FIL randomly got me an e-bike that I can’t use for that exact reason. There’s no way for me to get anywhere from my house without having to cross an extremely busy highway. I could drive the bike to places, but that defeats the purpose.
Wait… What? Riding the bike defeats the purpose of having the bike? I’m confused.
By drive the bike I mean putting it in my truck and bringing it somewhere safe to ride.
