Quote from: codyg1985 on April 15, 2015, 06:47:37 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 15, 2015, 12:08:43 AM
I'm all for improving walk-ability and accommodating bicyclists, but tearing down existing freeways especially when they're a major route is a non-starter. Urban designers need to think a little more creatively with improving walk-ability around things like major traffic corridors. A good example is the intersection with North High Street and I-670 near downtown Columbus, Ohio. The bridge over the Interstate was altered so the street could be flanked on both sides with some new shops, like bars, a steak house, a coffee shop. It filled a gap in a trendy, night life oriented part of the city. The freeway bridge seemed like a barrier before, but now it's hardly visible to any of the foot traffic crossing that bridge.
Now that is cool ...
(above quote from I49 in LA (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3124.msg2058120#msg2058120) thread)
The above discussion reminded me how much I like the Fifth Street Bridge over the I-75/85 Downtown Connector in Atlanta (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.776878,-84.391338,3a,75y,84.23h,81.61t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbc7XnzFraiBsTX1mpiWaXA!2e0). It serves to provide a good connection for Georgia Tech's main campus with some other school buildings on the other side of the interstate. The wide sidewalks and the landscaping provide a decent escape from the interstate below:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyqrSzHP.png&hash=a5a02b53ac9a803067f60838ac00119fd07ab4c5)
Do forum members have other favorite "pedestrian friendly" bridges over interstates and other freeways?
There's a very wide one in Boston.
How about this crossing of I-95 in Philadelphia
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.944173,-75.142259,3a,75y,280.02h,74.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRkb2blzNywXyXHjcVi2cNA!2e0
City residents want more of these to connect the city to the river front.
All of Seattle's freeway park lids: Freeway Park and the Convention Center in Downtown, the Mercer Island Lid, Mount Baker Lid, the new SR 520 lids on the Eastside...
Very walkable. Though Freeway Park is full of brutalist architecture and is kind of sketchy.
One of the first bridges you encounter in Brooklyn, NY, if going EB on the Belt Parkway after crossing the Verrazano, is a unique arch-like pedestrian overpass. The clearance at the ends is only 10'6", but then again, trucks are not permitted on the Belt Parkway. The bridge is used to access a trail that runs between the Parkway and New York Harbor, and is located in Bath Beach, even though there is no "beach" as we know it there, at least not today.
Does the pedestrian bridge at the service plaza in Angola, New York count?
Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 20, 2015, 07:21:50 PM
Does the pedestrian bridge at the service plaza in Angola, New York count?
I'm going to guess not, because the spirit of the thread seems to about bridges over freeways that are conducive to walking as a general means of getting around town. A service area pedestrian bridge that connects only a building to its parking area way out in an undeveloped rural area wouldn't seem to fit that description.
Quote from: Hoss6884 on April 21, 2015, 11:41:22 AM
I wouldn't call my hometown (Belle Vernon, PA) a metropolitan center, but there is this pedestrian bridge over I-70 a few miles east of the Belle Vernon-Speers Bridge.
http://goo.gl/zHShAX (http://goo.gl/zHShAX)
I can't say that pedestrian bridge looks particularly "walkable", at least not in the sense of the OP's "escape from the Interstate."
iPhone
It's not over a highway, but there is something similar at Disneyland.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=33.80911,-117.924054&num=1&t=h&z=20
Mortenson Plaza in Hartford CT.
It lies at the west end of the pedestrian walkway / bike path on the Founders Bridge (CT 2) across the Connecticut River in downtown Hartford, and forms part of the pedestrian/park access to the riverfront, across the interstate from downtown.
While it's mostly an over-highway park/plaza, there are places on the south side where you can stand and look down on I-91.
Indianapolis, I-65, just east of the 38th St. exit, there's this pedestrian bridge. I-65 bisected a neighborhood here and I assume this was built in a feeble attempt to reconnect the two sides.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.815816,-86.185171,3a,75y,296.64h,90.53t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5ukw7vGE-hDe12_oJTl7QA!2e0
Quote from: mobilene on April 23, 2015, 04:05:30 PM
Indianapolis, I-65, just east of the 38th St. exit, there's this pedestrian bridge. I-65 bisected a neighborhood here and I assume this was built in a feeble attempt to reconnect the two sides.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.815816,-86.185171,3a,75y,296.64h,90.53t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5ukw7vGE-hDe12_oJTl7QA!2e0
That sort of thing isn't what the OP is looking for at all. OP is looking for things like Sam Smith Park in Seattle, except maybe not as wide.
I think we need to define what we are looking at with a little more specificity. The following potentially qualify:
* Freeway lids
* Pedestrian-only overbridges
* Road bridges with sidewalks that pass over freeways
It sounds to me like the OP is looking for examples of any of these types that do an unusually good job of reducing or eliminating psychological severance from the freeway. There will be some examples of this that are not necessarily lids.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 24, 2015, 02:32:23 PM
I think we need to define what we are looking at with a little more specificity. The following potentially qualify:
* Freeway lids
* Pedestrian-only overbridges
* Road bridges with sidewalks that pass over freeways
It sounds to me like the OP is looking for examples of any of these types that do an unusually good job of reducing or eliminating psychological severance from the freeway. There will be some examples of this that are not necessarily lids.
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.
Above said, after reading some of the posts, occasional examples that do an unusually poor job of of reducing or eliminating psychological awareness of the freeway are now welcome because they help to provide perspective on other jobs well done.
Apologies for any confusion.
The George Washington Memorial Parkway is like this where it crosses the Capital Beltway in Alexandria, VA. This was part of the multi-year Woodrow Wilson Bridge project.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7933017,-77.0496225,365m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7933017,-77.0496225,365m/data=!3m1!1e3)
As well as the pedestrian/bicycle path on the other end of the Woodrow Wilson at Rosalie Island:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.792941,-77.0239992,212m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Does Margaret T. Hance Park in Phoenix count?
https://goo.gl/maps/wp2cU (https://goo.gl/maps/wp2cU)
Quote from: Grzrd on April 15, 2015, 11:15:23 AM...how much I like the Fifth Street Bridge over the I-75/85 Downtown Connector in Atlanta (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.776878,-84.391338,3a,75y,84.23h,81.61t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbc7XnzFraiBsTX1mpiWaXA!2e0). It serves to provide a good connection for Georgia Tech's main campus with some other school buildings on the other side of the interstate. The wide sidewalks and the landscaping provide a decent escape from the interstate below...
That bridge was replaced in the late '80's under Freeing the Freeways, then replaced again--as opposed to being widened in situ-- as what we see now. From here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.776524,-84.390573,3a,75y,330.53h,73.61t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPUKFu-aADRVWHlrbxmRuww!2e0) you can see that a new abutment was built about six or seven feet back from the previous one, which of course aligned with the retaining wall. That's the east side; the west side was moved outboard, too, though it's not as obvious since it's free standing. I have to wonder why they did that.
I like the result, too, though I wish that they'd thought to build it like that in the '80's.
What about the 3 park like Bridges in the middle section of I-696 in Oakland County? these bridges was built to allow Jews who don't drive on the Sabbath and allow them to go to the Synagogue in the area.
This one:
https://goo.gl/maps/VJICB
Looks really neat.
Does not Central Park in NYC have them over the Transverse Roads? Even the road bridges have the pedestrian jogging and walk paths long side of them and each bridge over the Transverse Roads have bushes covering the railings that unless you actually look for the bridges themselves, you would not notice them while driving or walking.
Anyway, I think some of the Transverse underpasses do not have roads on top of them, but jogging trails over them exclusively.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2015, 11:41:49 AM
Does not Central Park in NYC have them over the Transverse Roads? Even the road bridges have the pedestrian jogging and walk paths long side of them and each bridge over the Transverse Roads have bushes covering the railings that unless you actually look for the bridges themselves, you would not notice them while driving or walking.
Anyway, I think some of the Transverse underpasses do not have roads on top of them, but jogging trails over them exclusively.
Those roads are not freeways.
No but they are super two's. The only difference between a super two and the freeway proper (in ordinary use) is the amount of lanes and the divider in the median.
Eugene OR has a ped/bike bridge over I-5 between I-105 and SR 569 and another one on Delta Highway (which is a freeway at the point I mention) between I-105 and SR 569.
Rick
There is a ped bridge on I-294 just south of Ogden Ave in Hinsdale, IL.
There are also a couple of ped bridges over I-290 between Harlem Ave and the Loop. Those bridges are the continuation of the following streets: Home Ave, LaVenge Ave, Kildare Ave, Springfield Ave, Albany Ave, andMaplewood Ave.
There are several pedestrian bridges over the Crosstown Expressway (I-244) in Tulsa.
There's this hiking trail over I-87 in Lake George (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.425187,-73.721094,3a,57.4y,17.64h,87.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqGXQLfhuDK1tGgh53HUGrg!2e0)
Quote from: cl94 on May 12, 2015, 05:57:51 PM
There's this hiking trail over I-87 in Lake George (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.425187,-73.721094,3a,57.4y,17.64h,87.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqGXQLfhuDK1tGgh53HUGrg!2e0)
That would definitely fall into the "poor example" category. Looks eminently unwalkable for a hiking trail!
iPhone
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.)
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 (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.
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 17, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
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 (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
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
Quote from: empirestate on May 17, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 17, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
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 (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.
I'd rather cross at-grade unless traffic is too heavy.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on May 17, 2015, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 17, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 17, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
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 (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
Quote from: empirestate on May 17, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 17, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
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 (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.
Quote from: DeaconG on May 18, 2015, 02:17:26 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 17, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
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.)
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).
QuoteThere'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.
Quote from: JMoses24 on May 12, 2015, 11:54:55 PM
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
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 04:45:34 PM
Also NIMBYs would support it.
Finally, some good, reliable, load-bearing NIMBYs!
Quote from: empirestate on May 18, 2015, 08:10:12 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 04:45:34 PM
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.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 08:22:36 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 18, 2015, 08:10:12 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 04:45:34 PM
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.
Quote from: empirestate on May 19, 2015, 12:25:44 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 08:22:36 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 18, 2015, 08:10:12 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 04:45:34 PM
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
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 19, 2015, 08:05:11 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 19, 2015, 12:25:44 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 08:22:36 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 18, 2015, 08:10:12 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 04:45:34 PM
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. :spin:
Quote from: empirestate on May 19, 2015, 11:06:34 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 19, 2015, 08:05:11 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 19, 2015, 12:25:44 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 08:22:36 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 18, 2015, 08:10:12 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 18, 2015, 04:45:34 PM
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. :spin:
Oh
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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 18, 2015, 03:09:03 PM
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
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 (https://goo.gl/maps/zZlH2)
Quote from: Grzrd on April 24, 2015, 02:50:21 PM
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 (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Crews-break-ground-on-I-90-wildlife-crossing-at-summit-306650801.html) reports on a recent groundbreaking for an I-90 wildlife overpass near Snoqualmie Pass:
Quote
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fd5SRRDC.png&hash=f05302c3b8645da799bfee4864134b2690a4c37d)
Quote from: Grzrd on June 10, 2015, 08:19:54 PM
Here is a snip of it:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fd5SRRDC.png&hash=f05302c3b8645da799bfee4864134b2690a4c37d)
This is similar to a new freeway being built to connect Canada and the US at the new Detroit- Windsor crossing, only this one is mostly for pedestrians and cyclists.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillon.ca%2Fimages%2Fdefault-source%2Fprojects%2Frt.-hon.-herb-gray-parkway-%28formerly-windsor-essex-parkway%29%2Frt-hon-herb-gray-parkway-%28formerly-windsor-essex-parkway%29-final-design-%28photo-5%29.jpg%3Fsfvrsn%3D2&hash=39e94a6659cd159f5806caa808af5ba19224fa10)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV17bUkP5FY
Go to 0:35, 1:16, 1:23 and 1:43.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on June 10, 2015, 08:32:27 PM
This is similar to a new freeway being built to connect Canada and the US at the new Detroit- Windsor crossing, only this one is mostly for pedestrians and cyclists.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillon.ca%2Fimages%2Fdefault-source%2Fprojects%2Frt.-hon.-herb-gray-parkway-%28formerly-windsor-essex-parkway%29%2Frt-hon-herb-gray-parkway-%28formerly-windsor-essex-parkway%29-final-design-%28photo-5%29.jpg%3Fsfvrsn%3D2&hash=39e94a6659cd159f5806caa808af5ba19224fa10)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV17bUkP5FY
Go to 0:35, 1:16, 1:23 and 1:43.
Actually, your example is well known and used around Seattle as park lids over freeways. We have them over I-90 on Mercer Island (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5913007,-122.2458178,1500m/data=!3m1!1e3), over I-90 near the Mount Baker Tunnel (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.589768,-122.2956679,1500m/data=!3m1!1e3), over I-5 in Downtown Seattle (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6088505,-122.3314381,373m/data=!3m1!1e3), and several new ones either built recently or proposed on State Route 520.
Would this count? Decking and building over the "open" gap of I-395 in DC. This might be considered more of a tunnel, though.
http://capitolcrossingdc.com/#phasing (http://capitolcrossingdc.com/#phasing)
Quote from: lepidopteran on June 12, 2015, 07:08:34 PM
Would this count? Decking and building over the "open" gap of I-395 in DC. This might be considered more of a tunnel, though.
http://capitolcrossingdc.com/#phasing (http://capitolcrossingdc.com/#phasing)
That is definitely a lid. Also counts as a tunnel, just like the other lids.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 18, 2015, 03:09:03 PM
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).
The one you mention at Seminary Road has been demolished and is to be replaced by something new as part of the current construction going on there to build an HOV ramp on the interchange's south side–they're using that construction as an opportunity to do some additional reconstruction, although it barely scratches the surface of what needs to be done there.
I-495 in Virginia has two pedestrian/bike bridges, one adjacent to Wakefield Park near the Braddock Road interchange (was Exit 5, I think now it's Exit 54), the other just north of the I-66 interchange. The latter carries the W&OD Trail over the Beltway. But neither of these gives much of a feel of isolation from the highway in the way suggested by the original post. I don't really think the Shirlington one does either. It's been years since I've used that bridge, but I remember it felt like you're on display to all the traffic passing down below.
I-395 also has, or had, a pedestrian tunnel passing under it alongside Holmes Run at the bottom of the hill between Duke Street and Seminary Road. I have never gone through it and I don't have much desire to do so because I've heard it's a bit dark and usually very damp and creepy. I should ask my brother about it since he used to live right nearby off Beauregard Street. I think I read somewhere there may be plans to seal off the tunnel, but I may be mistaken on that. I know the City of Alexandria planned to seal off another pedestrian tunnel underneath the train tracks that pass under Telegraph Road by its interchange with Duke Street.
QuoteI-395 also has, or had, a pedestrian tunnel passing under it alongside Holmes Run at the bottom of the hill between Duke Street and Seminary Road.
Has (present tense, not past). Though you describe the tunnel pretty well (dark and damp), it's hard to tell you're actually passing under a freeway at that spot. There are no plans to seal off that tunnel, as it provides a critical link in the Holmes Run Trail. In fact, the city has long-term plans to reconstruct the trail in that area.
QuoteI know the City of Alexandria planned to seal off another pedestrian tunnel underneath the train tracks that pass under Telegraph Road by its interchange with Duke Street.
That tunnel has been sealed for some years now...it was replaced by a bike/ped path on the widened Telegraph Rd bridge over the rail tracks.
Thanks. The part about isolation from I-395 when you go through the tunnel is sort of what the OP was getting at even if he didn't mention tunnels.
I believe the similar, though much smaller, tunnel under Pickett Road in Fairfax near the ball fields has been closed. I used it a few times when I was growing up and it was always dark and dank. It's one reason I avoided the Holmes Run tunnel.
There's an old tunnel underneath old US 64 (Charles Page Blvd) and another under old US 66 (11th St) in Tulsa. From what I understand, both have been locked shut. I can see why, as they were most likely dark and damp and a haven for criminal activity.
This article (http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/jul/19/fayetteville-eyes-interchange-improveme/) describes current efforts in Fayetteville, Arkansas to design pedestrian-friendly crossings over I-49:
Quote
City officials are working with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department to come up with the best way for pedestrians to cross Interstate 49 at three interchanges being redesigned.
"When you look at Interstate 49 right now, it really divides our city, whether you're a pedestrian or on a bike or in a car," Alderman Matthew Petty, chairman of the City Council's Transportation Committee, said last week. "Getting back and forth across I-49 is a hassle for everybody." ....
"It's really critical as these interchange projects come through that we get that (pedestrian) connectivity across the highway," City Engineer Chris Brown said. "This is essentially our one opportunity, in our generation anyway, to get this done." ....
The Highway Department's initial concept for the Garland Avenue interchange showed two additional lanes of traffic on a widened bridge over I-49. Six-foot-wide sidewalks were planned on either side of the bridge with bike lanes between lanes of traffic and the sidewalks.
"In a situation like that, with five lanes of traffic and everything that's going on across a busy bridge, we just didn't feel like the bike lanes would be utilized or appropriate," Brown told the City Council last week.
City officials, instead, suggested removing the bike lanes and building a 12-foot-wide trail -- or "side path" -- on the west side of the bridge.
Brown said the side path is important, because it's supposed to be a key link in the city's trail system. It would connect the Shiloh Trail, which will eventually run along the west side of the interstate, to the Clabber Creek Trail, a section of which will run north on Garland Avenue to Van Asche Drive. City officials also plan to build a trail on the east side of I-49, down McConnell Drive, past Arkansas Athletes Outreach and the Washington County Fairgrounds, to the Meadow Valley Trail.
Highway Department officials last month agreed to build the side path at the city's expense. But their design didn't include any type of barrier between the trail and street traffic -- just a 5-foot paved buffer.
"The plans that we got back aren't safe," Petty said. "A lane departure there would be deadly when you have a 2-ton vehicle crashing into someone on a 20-pound bike."
City officials requested a concrete parapet wall between pedestrians and cars. But the Highway Department wasn't amenable to the idea.
Brown said a wall could increase project cost, especially if the bridge has to be widened further. Trinity Smith, head of the Highway Department's Roadway Design Division, said the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' guide for developing bicycle facilities only recommends physical barriers or railings when there isn't at least 5 feet of separation between a pedestrian path and a roadway.
"The proposed bridge cross-section provides the minimum 5 feet," Smith said by email Friday.
According to Brown, Highway Department officials recommended another type of barrier -- planter boxes or bollards, for instance -- but nothing had been decided by Friday.
Brown and Petty said they'd be OK with the planters or bollards. They just want a plan in place before the city commits $170,000 for the side path ....
While city and state officials near a solution for the Garland Avenue overpass, plans for the Wedington Drive and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard interchanges are unclear.
It will be interesting to see the end result of the Garland Avenue overpass.
Meanwhile, this July 3 TV video (http://www.kplctv.com/story/29472364/south-bossier-residents-see-results-of-city-lawsuit-settlement) reports on the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway* in south Bossier Parish, Louisiana. From a distance, I give it a low grade for walkability:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcrRq9Sg.jpg&hash=a41e7685d4d28e2ac63bcf022f344547e819648a)
* not a freeway, but I mention it anyway.