Park Connector Bridge -- November 4th Meeting Attended by over 120
A large turnout of near neighbors and park users came to the public meeting held to get feedback on three alignment options for the connector bridge slated to be built by October 29th as part of the CSX-City settlement agreement. Each alignment was described and then critiqued for its advantages and disadvantages. Renderings of each alignment will be posted (as soon as we get them), along with an online survey, so that people will more of an opportunity to make comments if they were not able to attend the meeting, or have additional comments to make. You are also welcome to make comments on the alignment options, or on the public outreach process here on this blog.
The "red plan" would be a disaster.
We would lose a gorgeous park by cutting it into pieces with a concrete bridge. Keep our little slice of open space open! Place the connector bridge in either the green or yellow locations -- which does not disrupt the existing park.
Avoid the red plan, unless you want a bunch of vagrants living sheltered under a slab of concrete.
Posted by: Charles Bangor | November 05, 2007 at 06:57 PM
I would like to see a site plan including both this ramp and the park extension with yet another ramp to the South Street bridge. How do the two ramps interact? These two projects need to be coordinated. Yes I know this bridge is 'mandated', but I don't see the benefit for the millions of dollars to be spent. Is this our 'Bridge to Nowhere'? The money saved could be used to make one ramp nicer and better.
Posted by: William Fisher | November 08, 2007 at 06:25 PM
I agree that the red plan would destroy the open space in the neighborhood. It would also be the least safe option since it would cut off the full sight lines you currently enjoy in the park. With the current crime in the city, we do not need to create a structure that invites criminals to use it as a stalking ground. Several crimes have already been committed in or near the park as is.
Posted by: red should be dead | November 08, 2007 at 09:19 PM
I agree that the red plan would destroy the open space in the neighborhood. It would also be the least safe option since it would cut off the full sight lines you currently enjoy in the park. With the current crime in the city, we do not need to create a structure that invites criminals to use it as a stalking ground. Several crimes have already been committed in or near the park as is.
Posted by: red should be dead | November 08, 2007 at 09:19 PM
On first glance, the red plan looks like bad news, but I can see how that bermed space might be nice. The green plan seems awkward at its entry point with the switchbacks. All in all, yellow gets my vote for now.
Posted by: Dubin | November 08, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Yellow has my vote. It is the least intrusive into the park and yet achieves the desired outcome.
I thought the Nov. 4 meeting was useful. As a regular park user from east of Broad St. I support the need to make sure both nearby neighbors and other park users have input and influence in the design selection.
I was taken back by the desire of some Nov. 4 meeting attendees to "dominate" the meeting as the presentation was nearing completion.
I remain grateful that the at-grade crossings are to remain open and that we have had a chance to influence the bridge design.
Posted by: Tom | November 09, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I hate the red plan for the previous mentioned reasons. The yellow and green are not as intrusive as the red. I kind of like the green the best as closer to the Locust St access. Should it be blocked, it would be easier for people to get to. The down side is some of the garden area has to be used.
Posted by: Wes Burton | November 10, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Wow! What a waste of time and money. The "at-grade" crossings in the area are perfectly safe and adequate even as is. There are plenty of examples from around the country where multi-use paths have been able to cross rail ROWs at grade with a simple gate. Get them to use the money someplace else where it is it would be more useful.
Posted by: Andy B from Jersey | November 12, 2007 at 12:28 AM
I'm a cyclist and not a park user. I would like to see the bikes and the park users separated. I don't want to be dodging kids in the playground nor endangering moms with strollers. The red plan would work best for cyclists, though I agree that it would break up the park. Could it be moved upstream so that it affects the north end of the park and not the middle?
Posted by: Mister Max | November 16, 2007 at 06:03 PM