Comments on: City: Commuter Needs Will Factor into High Bridge Plan

By: Susan Murray

Susan Murray — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:53:50 +0000

So true Andy. Nothing like making people feel like they are in a maximum security prison to bring out the best in all of us! I didn’t think of the GWB, but that’s a good example of how inconsistent this whole security fence thing is.

Angus, I think the connection will be good. they said it would be connected to the network via a ramp. So I’m not as worried about that anymore as I am about the hours of access, and the fence: Mostly the hours of access, though. I can learn to live with a fence, though I think it will really spoil the bridge for everyone.

We’ll need to keep a close eye on how the connection works, how will one get in and out of the parks on each side? etc.

A 4.5 foot high nice iron rail fence should be good enough to keep the little kids safe. They want to put up some kind of 7′ high thing, maybe made out of plastic… I can see the scratchiti already…

By: Andy B

Andy B — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:36:42 +0000

“…fencing (for safety reasons, high fences flanking the span are “something of a necessity”).”

WRONG!!!

If it were how come its never been on the GWB???

I can’t stand the safety mongers out there that will ruin the beauty on a place to save us from ourselves. Often times these “safety fences” turn what should be a beautiful experience over a bridge into something more akin to traversing a cattle chute!

By: Angus Grieve-Smith

Angus Grieve-Smith — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:36:53 +0000

Susan, thanks for all the work you’re doing on this. One thing I’m concerned about is how well this will be connected to the existing pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Will it be through a wide ramp, with big signs telling everyone how to get there? Or a dark, narrow, unmarked stairway littered with crack vials?

By: Silus Grok

Silus Grok — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:47:35 +0000

Ah… good call, Susan.

And completely correct: ban something, and then only the criminals will do it.

By: Susan Murray

Susan Murray — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:24 +0000

I speculate it’s about “safety concerns” No one (including the parks department) seems to remember why the bridge was closed in the first place. It may have been due to kids throwing things off of the bridge. So there are concerns that will happen again, even though the neighborhood is completely different, the park is a much more lively and welcoming place and there is much less foolishness.

I’m concerned that *not* having it open 24/7 will make the park more desolate that it could be with law-abiding people going over the bridge at all hours. Empty places become dangerous, if they don’t have it open people will still “jump the fence” as they do today to get over the bridge illegally. Most fence jumpers are just kids, but it’s not such a good thing when they only people around are those who are willing to break a rule or two to get over the bridge, you know?

The closure of the bridge was the inciting indecents for the parks downward spiral to being one of the worst in the city. Now it’s well on it’s way back, the open bridge will add momentum, and the parks department should do what they can to encourage frequent use. Not get in the way.

By: Silus Grok

Silus Grok — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:10:49 +0000

… it just seems so _random_.

By: Silus Grok

Silus Grok — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:59:44 +0000

Any thoughts on why any restriction on hours of use would be considered? … what would drive such an idea? Costs? Safety?