View Single Post
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2007, 5:08 AM
Drmyeyes Drmyeyes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 384
tworivers...damn, the scene in that top picture is gruesome. The Feb 25 Don Hamilton article raises valid concerns about the inadequate shipping channels that exist with the old bridges, but otherwise, I'm finding it hard to be supportive of the bridge proposals so far.

I'm not that sure about a lot of general details associated with this traffic point, but this project definitely seems to raise the question, 'what is the intended purpose of this bridge?'. What volume of traffic across this traffic point do we wish to promote? You can tell that planners most closely related to studying the bridge proposal aren't thinking about a configuration that would stabilize or reduce present traffic volume, but rather, accomodate anticipated increased traffic volume.

At this point, I'd definitely lean to light rail or/and rapid bus lanes and to the idea of paying for it with a toll. And, carefully examining what much of the present and future traffic volume represents would make a lot of sense.

If it were possible to definitively identify a tangible percentage of that volume using the bridges purely for the purpose of commuting back and forth from state to state, job to home, a significant portion of that volume might be able to be reduced by more of a focus on residence/employment arrangements that wouldn't require this particular commute. Just dreaming on the keyboard, but...

Incidentally, any who haven't should seriously check out Pearson. It has a nice little museum and a quaint old timey airshow in the summer. It is historic. As usual, vague on details, but way, way back russian gonzo flyboys made a historic transpolar flight and made their landing at Pearson. Flew a beautiful long wingspan monoplane you can see pics of there.
Reply With Quote