A fact that often seems to get swept under the rug in the struggle session about proper bike infrastructure, even by cycling advocate groups, and whether it's gentrificating or not is the fact that the entire thing has a lot of overlap with accessibility features because at many points, you're solving for the same problem: how to make a smoother ride or walk for anything that doesn't have a sophisticated, electronically modulated suspension i.e. anything that's not a car.

I'll point to this video from Not Just Bikes about how to design a curb that's friendly to pedestrians, wheelchairs, bikes, prams etc.

This kind of design extends to many other things. Even if you're not going for continous sidewalks (and ideally, we should), a lowered curb with an edge still sucks a lot more compared to an entirely smooth ramp design for both bikes and wheelchairs and prams and certain mobility issues.. Same extends to maintenance and upkeep. Potholes suck for everybody.

There's loads of little things. In Europe at least, you'll often see cross gates such as this to keep car traffic out or motorbikes out of a certain area and that has the same problem: They fucking suck. It's shitty to ride through as a cyclist and depending on the sizing, forget getting through there in a (electrical) wheelchair.

The Solution to both is making them parallelogram-shaped. It keeps out larger vehicles easily and allows for easy passing for everybody else.

Seriously, if you're advocating for it, include this in your argument., Anyone arguing against accessibility features is sure to look like a major dick to at least a sizeable part of the electorate. If you're on the fence about the topic, please also consider these facts.

EDIT: A fucking great example I forgot: Offering both Ramps (serpentined, with a sufficient radius at the curves) and stairs to cover elevation difference. The ramps are great for both cyclists and people who can't take the stairs for whatever reason.