Walkable Bridges Over Interstates and Other Freeways

[bugo]

There are several pedestrian bridges over the Crosstown Expressway (I-244) in Tulsa.

[cl94]

There's this hiking trail over I-87 in Lake George

[empirestate]

There's this hiking trail over I-87 in Lake George

That would definitely fall into the "poor example" category. Looks eminently unwalkable for a hiking trail!


iPhone

[JMoses24]

I definitely like the bridges over I-71 in downtown Cincinnati, OH. There has been off and on talk of placing a "cap" over the entire freeway from Elm to Main streets which would turn into a park. While I wouldn't mind seeing that happen, it's probably a long way off...if it ever happens at all. (That said, whenever the new Brent Spence Bridge is finally built, it may provide the impetus for that project.)

[Thing 342]

One of the only non-freeway editions of a pedestrian bridge I've seen: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.062339,-76.442112,3a,75y,98.18h,73.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjPAx7ZKdm-2_SAyFWdcOag!2e0. It's supposed to allow those who live in the neighborhood adjacent to access Sandy Bottom Park, however I've never seen anybody use it.

[empirestate]

One of the only non-freeway editions of a pedestrian bridge I've seen: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.062339,-76.442112,3a,75y,98.18h,73.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjPAx7ZKdm-2_SAyFWdcOag!2e0. It's supposed to allow those who live in the neighborhood adjacent to access Sandy Bottom Park, however I've never seen anybody use it.

Also decidedly non-walkable; in fact, without stair access it seems to be designed only for handicapped use, not for the general pedestrian public. But, it looks to me that the whole surrounding region is eminently unwalkable anyway.

Here's another example of a non-freeway pedestrian bridge, in a similarly unwalkable district:
https://goo.gl/maps/GIRJz

[bugo]

https://www.google.com/lochp?ll=36.083051,-95.940102&spn=0.000742,0.001203&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=36.083156,-95.940103&panoid=sDm1eqZ9QU3eWL1YJFNOPQ&cbp=12,356.17,,0,1.91

https://www.google.com/lochp?ll=36.129812,-96.004243&spn=0.001483,0.002406&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=36.129812,-96.004109&panoid=bdD1tUcxpY3QV2EyvRhdCg&cbp=12,262.95,,0,-2.31

This bridge is a rare through girder bridge:

https://www.google.com/lochp?ll=36.145328,-96.000209&spn=0.001483,0.002406&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=36.145341,-96.000363&panoid=VFi1UEAGYAgAxEAVidTDiw&cbp=12,100.08,,0,11.84

Another view:

https://www.google.com/lochp?ll=36.145351,-95.999738&spn=0.000741,0.001203&t=h&z=20

[Mr_Northside]

One of the only non-freeway editions of a pedestrian bridge I've seen: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.062339,-76.442112,3a,75y,98.18h,73.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjPAx7ZKdm-2_SAyFWdcOag!2e0. It's supposed to allow those who live in the neighborhood adjacent to access Sandy Bottom Park, however I've never seen anybody use it.

Also decidedly non-walkable; in fact, without stair access it seems to be designed only for handicapped use, not for the general pedestrian public. But, it looks to me that the whole surrounding region is eminently unwalkable anyway.

Huh?  I'm not sure I follow.  I can understand that statement the other way around.  If it were just steps, then it wouldn't be usable for handicapped (wheelchair) access.  But when it comes to the way this is designed, I find that I, and everyone I know, is perfectly capable of walking up/down a ramp.  I looked at the linked Streetview, and I would call it the opposite of "decidedly non-walkable".  Unless there is something I'm just not seeing, I'm 100% confident I could walk across that overpass.

[NE2]

I'd rather cross at-grade unless traffic is too heavy.

[empirestate]

One of the only non-freeway editions of a pedestrian bridge I've seen: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.062339,-76.442112,3a,75y,98.18h,73.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjPAx7ZKdm-2_SAyFWdcOag!2e0. It's supposed to allow those who live in the neighborhood adjacent to access Sandy Bottom Park, however I've never seen anybody use it.

Also decidedly non-walkable; in fact, without stair access it seems to be designed only for handicapped use, not for the general pedestrian public. But, it looks to me that the whole surrounding region is eminently unwalkable anyway.

Huh?  I'm not sure I follow.  I can understand that statement the other way around.  If it were just steps, then it wouldn't be usable for handicapped (wheelchair) access.  But when it comes to the way this is designed, I find that I, and everyone I know, is perfectly capable of walking up/down a ramp.  I looked at the linked Streetview, and I would call it the opposite of "decidedly non-walkable".  Unless there is something I'm just not seeing, I'm 100% confident I could walk across that overpass.

You're probably using a different definition of "walkable" than the topic intends; there's some clarification on that upthread.

As NE2 points out, while it's very possible to walk on this facility, many people would find it less appealing, because of the far longer path afforded by the ramp structure, than simply walking across the road.


iPhone

[DeaconG]

One of the only non-freeway editions of a pedestrian bridge I've seen: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.062339,-76.442112,3a,75y,98.18h,73.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjPAx7ZKdm-2_SAyFWdcOag!2e0. It's supposed to allow those who live in the neighborhood adjacent to access Sandy Bottom Park, however I've never seen anybody use it.

Also decidedly non-walkable; in fact, without stair access it seems to be designed only for handicapped use, not for the general pedestrian public. But, it looks to me that the whole surrounding region is eminently unwalkable anyway.

Here's another example of a non-freeway pedestrian bridge, in a similarly unwalkable district:
https://goo.gl/maps/GIRJz

Then you're really not gonna like this one:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.438693,-80.761929,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfKakFSKYpoLmh9GU-Wrpxw!2e0?hl=en

It's used by the students at Fairglen Elementary (which is off to the left of the pic)...and yes, the kids use it. Adults...not so much.

[empirestate]

Also decidedly non-walkable; in fact, without stair access it seems to be designed only for handicapped use, not for the general pedestrian public. But, it looks to me that the whole surrounding region is eminently unwalkable anyway.

Here's another example of a non-freeway pedestrian bridge, in a similarly unwalkable district:
https://goo.gl/maps/GIRJz

Then you're really not gonna like this one:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.438693,-80.761929,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfKakFSKYpoLmh9GU-Wrpxw!2e0?hl=en

It's used by the students at Fairglen Elementary (which is off to the left of the pic)...and yes, the kids use it. Adults...not so much.

Why wouldn't I like it? I never said I don't like non-walkable facilities.

In this thread, we were originally looking at examples of freeway-crossing pedestrian facilities that have a walkable design. Then the OP encouraged submissions of non-walkable facilities for comparison, which have made up the bulk of recent postings. So that was just me saying "yup, those are examples of the non-walkable kind".

(By the way, if you're not sure what "walkable" means in this context, a quick Google search of the word brings up several top hits that explain the idea. It doesn't simply mean "able to be walked on", it's a specific design and planning concept.)

[cpzilliacus]

There's a an attractive structure that carries the Appalachian Trail over I-70 in Maryland.

I-270 and I-495 are spanned by a trail that was re-purposed from a trolley line (service was abandoned in the 1930's).

There are several bike/pedestrian bridges that span D.C. 295.

There are at least two bike/pedestrian bridges over I-395 in Virginia (one at Shirlington Circle, one at Seminary Road).

Further south in that same corridor, there is a long bike/ped bridge over I-95 south of Springfield, near Va.289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway).

[froggie]

There's a an attractive structure that carries the Appalachian Trail over I-70 in Maryland.

Having been on that bridge, I would argue that it still gives that "boxed-in" feeling, so isn't quite what the OP was looking for.

[iBallasticwolf2]

I definitely like the bridges over I-71 in downtown Cincinnati, OH. There has been off and on talk of placing a "cap" over the entire freeway from Elm to Main streets which would turn into a park. While I wouldn't mind seeing that happen, it's probably a long way off...if it ever happens at all. (That said, whenever the new Brent Spence Bridge is finally built, it may provide the impetus for that project.)

I would love to see that, I don't think it would be too expensive compared the say the Brent Spence bridge. Also NIMBYs would support it. Although the overpasses would have to be torn out. It may not turn into a Cincinnati "Big-dig" project. But someone is against it obviosuly

[empirestate]

Also NIMBYs would support it.

Finally, some good, reliable, load-bearing NIMBYs!

[iBallasticwolf2]

Also NIMBYs would support it.

Finally, some good, reliable, load-bearing NIMBYs!

I am only saying NIMBYs would support it because it would put a urban park in place and make Cincinnati look "pretty". The good thing is it wouldn't impede any traffic except hazmat coming from  I-471 trying to get to I-75 or the other way around. No hazmats would come from south I-71 because of the Lyrtle tunnel.

[empirestate]

Also NIMBYs would support it.

Finally, some good, reliable, load-bearing NIMBYs!

I am only saying NIMBYs would support it because it would put a urban park in place and make Cincinnati look "pretty". The good thing is it wouldn't impede any traffic except hazmat coming from  I-471 trying to get to I-75 or the other way around. No hazmats would come from south I-71 because of the Lyrtle tunnel.

See, the joke is, I'm pretending that you said they'd support it because they would be actual structural components of the bridge. Like pieces of steel. Supporting the bridge. Load-bearing, if you will.

[iBallasticwolf2]

Also NIMBYs would support it.

Finally, some good, reliable, load-bearing NIMBYs!

I am only saying NIMBYs would support it because it would put a urban park in place and make Cincinnati look "pretty". The good thing is it wouldn't impede any traffic except hazmat coming from  I-471 trying to get to I-75 or the other way around. No hazmats would come from south I-71 because of the Lyrtle tunnel.

See, the joke is, I'm pretending that you said they'd support it because they would be actual structural components of the bridge. Like pieces of steel. Supporting the bridge. Load-bearing, if you will.

Well my point was NIMBYs would support it because it makes Cincinnati look "pretty" which is basically all they do besides shoot down every single road project that isn't tearing down freeways or replacing them with tunnels

[empirestate]

Also NIMBYs would support it.

Finally, some good, reliable, load-bearing NIMBYs!

I am only saying NIMBYs would support it because it would put a urban park in place and make Cincinnati look "pretty". The good thing is it wouldn't impede any traffic except hazmat coming from  I-471 trying to get to I-75 or the other way around. No hazmats would come from south I-71 because of the Lyrtle tunnel.

See, the joke is, I'm pretending that you said they'd support it because they would be actual structural components of the bridge. Like pieces of steel. Supporting the bridge. Load-bearing, if you will.

Well my point was NIMBYs would support it because it makes Cincinnati look "pretty" which is basically all they do besides shoot down every single road project that isn't tearing down freeways or replacing them with tunnels

That's fine; I don't think your point was in question. It's just that, since you quoted my joke, I thought you were trying to respond to it, perhaps to clarify your position in light of it. Certainly not necessary, as your position is earnestly held, and my joke is just, well, a joke. 

[iBallasticwolf2]

Also NIMBYs would support it.

Finally, some good, reliable, load-bearing NIMBYs!

I am only saying NIMBYs would support it because it would put a urban park in place and make Cincinnati look "pretty". The good thing is it wouldn't impede any traffic except hazmat coming from  I-471 trying to get to I-75 or the other way around. No hazmats would come from south I-71 because of the Lyrtle tunnel.

See, the joke is, I'm pretending that you said they'd support it because they would be actual structural components of the bridge. Like pieces of steel. Supporting the bridge. Load-bearing, if you will.

Well my point was NIMBYs would support it because it makes Cincinnati look "pretty" which is basically all they do besides shoot down every single road project that isn't tearing down freeways or replacing them with tunnels

That's fine; I don't think your point was in question. It's just that, since you quoted my joke, I thought you were trying to respond to it, perhaps to clarify your position in light of it. Certainly not necessary, as your position is earnestly held, and my joke is just, well, a joke. 

Oh

[rte66man]

Might be pushing it to call this a bridge, but the Minnesota Twins' stadium covers part of I-394.  If you didn't know better, you might not ever know there was a freeway underneath the RF concourse:

https://goo.gl/maps/YtvEC

[SectorZ]

There's a an attractive structure that carries the Appalachian Trail over I-70 in Maryland.

I-270 and I-495 are spanned by a trail that was re-purposed from a trolley line (service was abandoned in the 1930's).

There are several bike/pedestrian bridges that span D.C. 295.

There are at least two bike/pedestrian bridges over I-395 in Virginia (one at Shirlington Circle, one at Seminary Road).

Further south in that same corridor, there is a long bike/ped bridge over I-95 south of Springfield, near Va.289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway).

I-90 in western Mass has an overpass for the App Trail as well, even nicely labeled on each side of the highway. Not very attractive though, https://goo.gl/maps/29PTX

[Mr_Northside]

The Laurel Highland Hiking Trail bridge over the PA-Turnpike is a little more fancy with it's labeling. (It's a fairly recent replacement bridge.

https://goo.gl/maps/zZlH2

[Grzrd]

I was initially looking for any of the above listed types that do an unusually good job of reducing or eliminating psychological awareness of the freeway.

A true measure of whether the above goal is achieved can be to what extent wildlife use a bridge. This June 9 article reports on a recent groundbreaking for an I-90 wildlife overpass near Snoqualmie Pass:

Crews are breaking ground Tuesday on a critical project to make Interstate 90 safer for drivers and wildlife.
A new bridge, to be covered with trees and shrubs when complete, is designed to keep one of the most dangerous obstacles off the road - large animals who live near the freeway through the Cascade Mountains.
The new 150-foot overpass will cross the freeway just east of the summit, and officials hope it will be used by wildlife to get from one side of I-90 to the other.
It is one of a series of 20 bridges and underpasses being built on a 15-mile stretch of I-90 near Snoqualmie Pass. A handful have been built so far - and it appears that deer, bears and other wild animals are already getting the hang of using them.
The state Transportation Department says it has recorded a recent spike in the number of deer using the existing bridges because of the warm weather. A remote camera even captured footage of a cougar at one crossing.

The below video includes a visualization of the wildlife crossing:

Here is a snip of it: