Just curious -- do you pedestrian bridge hating posters hate this too? (Moreland: costs, rail)

[ATLTJL]

I still have a really difficult time understanding what makes these bridges so awful but this one so great:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7733...7i13312!8i6656

Just don't get it. I fail to comprehend how providing a place for pedestrians to walk without having to wait for a cross signal and choke on car fumes is a bad thing.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I still have a really difficult time understanding what makes these bridges so awful but this one so great:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7733...7i13312!8i6656

Just don't get it. I fail to comprehend how providing a place for pedestrians to walk without having to wait for a cross signal and choke on car fumes is a bad thing.

No comparison at all.

First of all, that wasn't built as a pedestrian bridge. It was converted to one.

And even if it had been built as one, it's connecting the trail together a full grade above the road. Makes no sense to go down to the road and then climb back up again to continue on the Belt line.

[arjay57]

The pedestrian bridges I'm not fond of are the ones where you have to walk up a set of stairs (or a ramp), cross the bridge over the street, and then walk back down on the other side.

In some cases -- such as getting over a multi-lane freeway -- that may be the only option, but it's awkward.

Pedestrian bridges work best when linking elements that are already above street level.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Why bother arguing? The pedestrian bridge-haters just want to shut down all major roads, turn every highway into a two-lane 20mph cowpath, and force everyone to live and work and spend their entire lives in one dense building.

I nominate this post for the Strawman Of The Month award.

[ATLTJL]

It just boggles my mind. I would think that the urban walkability crowd would be all about prioritizing pedestrian safety. I guess I'm really not in tune with the movement at all, I don't even know what the stances are. All I know is when I'm walking, I'll do anything to avoid standing there like a cool waiting for a light to change.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I like both the existing ped bridge over 41 in Cumberland, and the new one under construction over 285.

I like the MARTA bridge over 400 at Buckhead station.

I like the ped bridge in downtown Nashville over the Cumberland river.

For the most part though, in the core areas of the cities I prefer they make it safe to cross the road, by whatever measures that entails.

A bridge over a river is needed; a ped bridge over 41 because the local leaders would rather prioritize cars and speed over people is completely different. The Buckhead bridge was built to provide pedestrian access to the station. It is not open 24/7.

[Thulsa]

It kind of depends on which bucket the money is coming out of. Parks or roads?
If you think of this as an extension/connector for the parks, then it makes sense and enhances the park experience.
If it's being done as a road project for improving traffic ( either auto or pedestrian), then, that money could be used for ped/bike improvements in so many better ways around there.

[testa50]

I feel out of the loop on this one.

I certainly think this is a much, much better application than the pedestrian bridge planned outside of the Falcons stadium. The grades work in favor of this bridge. And it will be used more than a couple dozen times a year.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I don't live in the city, but yes I do oppose it. On principle, I oppose pedestrian bridges over streets and avenues in the city.

If Moreland is too car-clogged and dangerous for peds, then change that. If it's a highway, I support a pedestrian bridge over it. If it's a surface street, then the point of a city is being missed.

I generally agree with this, but in this scenario a bridge would be a good thing since it would connect the two pieces of parkland, making it a much more useful park. That'd be a huge win. It also would make commuting on foot or bicycle more efficient in this area. There's also the fact that the grade on both sides of the road are just right for a bridge, unlike any other place on Moreland.

Drivers are never going to respect crosswalks. Building a bridge isn't going to degrade the car/ped dynamic, and not building a bridge is not going to improve it.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

It just boggles my mind. I would think that the urban walkability crowd would be all about prioritizing pedestrian safety. I guess I'm really not in tune with the movement at all, I don't even know what the stances are. All I know is when I'm walking, I'll do anything to avoid standing there like a cool waiting for a light to change.

You can't make an either/or categorization. Some bridges are good, some are not so good.

So you have to look at them individually and decide what the pros and cons are in each situation.