There was never anything even remotely like the pedestrian and bike traffic over the Brooklyn Bridge on the Ambassador Bridge. The times I crossed by bike or on foot I hardly ever saw another living soul on the sidewalk. There was no problem at all having bikes and pedestrians sharing the sidewalk. And, like I said, you were supposed to walk your bike on the downhill side anyway.That pedestrian walkway is the major means for maintenance people to reach things (the other side has what, a foot?). It's also too narrow for two-way bike traffic. The Brooklyn Bridge has a lot wider bike section than that - and even then the bicyclists have a really hard time keeping on the bike part. And if you're going to open that sidewalk to bikes, don't you think pedestrians should be able to use it too?
Bicycles are permitted on all public rights-of-way in the State of Michigan, except as explicitly prohibited as in the case of limited-access roadways (i.e. freeways). Ontario's rules are similar.I think it is funny that so many of you rbi.k that just because something is a "public road" it automatically means you can ride a bike on it. I respect bicycle transportation and support new bike lanes, but you must understand certain limitations. The Lodge is a public road but that doesn't mean you can go for anevening ride on it.
My guess is that Wesley Mouch is right, and that pedestrians, and perhaps bicycles, were originally permitted to cross for free under the terms of the bridge's original charter.