Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor
Pedestrian bridges would benefit residents
Story Tools
More Letters to the Editor
The grassy voids that exist between the Winters Freeway and its respective service roads are beginning to resemble what I think the "Friendly Frontier" would look like.
At first, I'd complain about the ungroomed appearance of the landscaping but have recently gained an appreciation of the accidental charm that the "au natural" landscaping exhibits. Amid the high grass, the native West Texas shrubberies, the prairie dogs and other "wild life," there are footpaths that part the grasses from the high amount of pedestrian traffic alongside the service roads.
As a frequenter of AR-N's Web site, I'm familiar with the debates that occur about Abilene's need for sidewalks and other utilities that would accommodate our city's pedestrians and patrons to public transportation. Although it would be unrealistic for us to expect Abilene to lace her streets with sidewalks on every single street, there would definitely be a great gain for us to build sidewalks in key areas around town.
I propose our city consider erecting pedestrian bridges in a few spots that cut over the hazards of Highway 83/84 and its service roads, connecting the neighborhoods and businesses that are bisected by the highway between the Buffalo Gap Road and South 1st Street intersections. This would not only encourage walking to their destination across the freeway, but also help walkers avoid the dangerous intersections and speeding traffic alongside the roads.
Just imagine being able to walk to the Mall of Abilene from your home on Ivanhoe Lane, or biking to Dyess AFB from S. San Jose Street.
Anthony DeCicco
Abilene
Posted by Dinner_4_2 on July 5, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pretty good idea. They have them in other cities and this city is always trying to copy other cities, so your idea may fly. I know they work in San Antonio.
Posted by metalhed1985 on July 5, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've been noticing how many residential areas are right across the highway from big shopping complexes. Thats when the light bulb came on...
I think I'll go see what the council thinks of it. This could help alot of people.
Posted by wild_bill on July 5, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, think of all the exercise the people will get climbing up and down the necessary stairs to get to the pedestrian bridges plus the walk across. You know they are going to have to be at least 12-13 foot above the freeways (to give clearance to the large trucks equal to that of overpasses). Since the access roads are usually several feet lower than the freeway, that means the pedestrian bridges would have to be probably 20 feet above ground level at the access road, plus being 8 to 10 lanes wide (depending on the location of the pedestrian bridges ) that could be a considerable effort for the elderly or handicapped.
Actually pedestrian TUNNELS under the roadway would make a lot more sense and probably be cheaper to build. Even there I can see problems though for illumination, drainage, criminals, etc.
Nice idea folks but I just don't think it would be feasable. Then again, if D-4-2 says it works in San Antonio perhaps it could work here. Do you think it would be worth another outside study? Since I'm in a wheelchair and don't live or pay taxes in Abilene, it really isn't a matter of importance to me either way.
Posted by lifeson1 on July 5, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Abilene is not really a pedestrian town. Car drivers are rude to bicyclists and pedestrians. They would have to be built to where no one could hurl objects down onto 83/84 motorists. This isn't Austin, and never will be. Bridges will collect dust. Now, put them out by ACU, and the students, NOT FROM HERE just might use them.
Posted by Orphan_of_Empyr on July 5, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Putting pedestrian pathways from shopping malls to residential areas is a good way to bring home invasions and burglaries to the residential areas. Malls have many exit points and provide a means for fleeing criminals to elude a search by increasing the area in which the search must be conducted.
Posted by metalhed1985 on July 6, 2008 at 3:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sure, lets put em near ACU, just like everything else. Let's provide them to those rich kids, who probably only walk near Judge Ely.
Don't you guys realize how many people already are walking alongside 83/84 currently? Ask them how much of a pedestrian town this is. I saw something for the first time today - a citylink bus filled to the brim with passengers. I dont know if its like that all day or just by coincidence when I was driving, but it was a first.
Last I checked, home invasions occur frequently in this town without the help of these devil bridges. On the other hand, synics and nay sayers are what bring progressive thinking to its knees.
Posted by M1 on July 7, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Elevated pedestrian bridges can be useful and they should be considered but they have complications too. They need to be placed where people will use them. In Dallas along I-45 they have such a bridge but they had to build a 6-8 foot tall chain link fence in the median because people where still trying to cross the interstate rather than walking an extra 200 feet for a safe crossing. A bridge would need to meet the ADA. Wheelchair ramps must have no more than a 12-1 slope. This limits the places where there is enough space to put them. Elevators are an option but they are more expensive and they sometimes break. The cost of a pedestrian bridge is high compared to the number of people who use them. You can rebuild a lot of road for the money you will spend. A bridge is almost allways cheaper than a tunnel however by a factor of 10-1 or more. Finally, during construction there would be some traffic disruptions. These can be managed but not completely eliminated.
Posted by donny on July 7, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
At state and the winters freeway hundreds cross the freeway there weekly. It's amazing noone has been killed there.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.