Jump to content

Unity Park (New 160 Acre West End Park)


btoy

Recommended Posts


10 hours ago, LBT said:

At the risk of sounding cynical, was this first bridge placed directly adjacent an existing roadway bridge with existing sidewalks? 

It will be part of a 15 foot wide multi use path that runs along S. Hudson Street.  I believe the path runs from Washington down to the park.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LBT said:

At the risk of sounding cynical, was this first bridge placed directly adjacent an existing roadway bridge with existing sidewalks? 

I thought the exact same thing when I heard there would be three bridges and where this one would be placed.  That pedestrian/bike crossover at S. Hudson is the next place someone is going to get hit by car and as more people take the SWT up to Unity, the odds will only go up that someone gets hurt or dies.  My hope is that there is a plan to make that safer and this new seemingly redundant bridge is part of it. 

 

Edited by gvegascple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gvegascple said:

I thought the exact same thing when I heard there would be three bridges and where this one would be placed.  That pedestrian/bike crossover at S. Hudson is the next place someone is going to get hit by car and as more people take the SWT up to Unity, the odds will only go up that someone gets hurt or dies.  My hope is that there is a plan to make that safer and this new seemingly redundant bridge is part of it. 

 

The bridge is not redundant.  Without the bridge, you have a gap in a busy part of the swamp rabbit trail that you have to transverse via a small sidewalk on a automobile bridge instead of a same width bridge thats ped/bike only.  Routing SRT traffic over that small bridge alongside cars would be an accident waiting to happen.

I've always thought that the crossing at Hudson is dangerous. I hope they put an actual light in there, but this bridge has nothing to do with that dangerous intersection.

Edited by NewlyUpstate
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NewlyUpstate said:

The bridge is not redundant.  Without the bridge, you have a gap in a busy part of the swamp rabbit trail that you have to transverse via a small sidewalk on a automobile bridge instead of a same width bridge thats ped/bike only.  Routing SRT traffic over that small bridge alongside cars would be an accident waiting to happen.

I've always thought that the crossing at Hudson is dangerous. I hope they put an actual light in there, but this bridge has nothing to do with that dangerous intersection.

It's pretty redundant (IMHO) without being part of a larger plan to keeps cars from hitting people and cyclists.  As I previously said, my hope is that there is a plan to make that safer and this seemingly redundant bridge is part of it. 

redundant.JPG

Edited by gvegascple
Link to comment
Share on other sites


10 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

It's pretty redundant (IMHO) without being part of a larger plan to keeps cars from hitting people and cyclists.  As I previously said, my hope is that there is a plan to make that safer and this seemingly redundant bridge is part of it. 

redundant.JPG

You would rather them route traffic over the bridge? Is there anywhere else in the city where SRT gets routed on a small sidewalk alongside a road like that? Greenways typically are supposed to be separate from automotive traffic.  The only place I can think of thats even close is along Faris/Cleveland St, but even then they have a extra large sidewalk and grass between the road and the sidewalk.

Edited by NewlyUpstate
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewlyUpstate said:

You would rather them route traffic over the bridge? Is there anywhere else in the city where SRT gets routed on a small sidewalk alongside a road like that? Greenways typically are supposed to be separate from automotive traffic.  The only place I can think of thats even close is along Faris/Cleveland St, but even then they have a extra large sidewalk and grass between the road and the sidewalk.

It is twice now that you have missed my point (I even used italicized words for crying out loud :shades:).  By itself, the new bridge is pretty much the definition of redundant, the only way it would be even more redundant would be to route cars over it.  Like I have said now multiple times, if its part of a larger pedestrian/cyclist safety strategy (which could include something like shutting down the pedestrian paths on the roadway/bridge) then we would be getting somewhere although it would need more things too such as a light or a bridge or tunnel etc.  I think we both are just in the mood to argue this morning and might be saying the same thing other than your point "but this bridge has nothing to do with that dangerous intersection" which I hope is not true, and again, my entire point to begin with.  Anyway, I had a nice lunch so I am not so inclined to stay in a back and forth on this.   I will kindly tap out and let you have the last say. This is becoming more a of SWT discussion and less of a Unity Park one anyway.

Edited by gvegascple
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gvegascple said:

It is twice now that you have missed my point (I even used italicized words for crying out loud :shades:).  By itself, the new bridge is pretty much the definition of redundant, the only way it would be even more redundant would be to route cars over it.  Like I have said now multiple times, if its part of a larger pedestrian/cyclist safety strategy (which could include something like shutting down the pedestrian paths on the roadway/bridge) then we would be getting somewhere although it would need more things too such as a light or a bridge or tunnel etc.  I think we both are just in the mood to argue this morning and might be saying the same thing other than your point "but this bridge has nothing to do with that dangerous intersection" which I hope is not true, and again, my entire point to begin with.  Anyway, I had a nice lunch so I am not so inclined to stay in a back and forth on this.   I will kindly tap out and let you have the last say. This is becoming more a of SWT discussion and less of a Unity Park one anyway.

Maybe your definition of the word of redundant is different than mine?  I'm going by the definition of it meaning "unnecessary" or "superfluous". I highly disagree that this is the case if you agree on that definition.  

The pedestrian paths on that bridge currently serve a different purpose as there is not currently the SRT on that side of the river. Once the new path extension opens on that side, you need a SRT-equivalent path to get there, AKA a separated lane, not some small sidewalk.  Without the new bridge or extensive enhancements to the current bridge, the new SRT portion on the north side of the river is not correctly attached to the greenway.

Maybe you just work in software and your definition of redundancy is duplication of critical components, which yes I guess that is sort of true, but isn't the classical definition of what redundant means.

Edited by NewlyUpstate
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

1 hour ago, gvegascple said:

Is Unity the logical location for future fireworks to be launched from now that County Square is no longer going to be one big parking lot? 

I don't know why they couldn't use the Greenville High practice fields, like they did a few years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, transplant08 said:

I don't know why they couldn't use the Greenville High practice fields, like they did a few years back.

I agree that their reasoning for not having it this year is "sus" as the kids say.  I think Unity is a great spot going forward.

Edited by gvegascple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, gvegascple said:

I agree that their reasoning for not having it this year is "sus" as the kids say.  I think Unity is a great spot going forward.

The other rumor going around is that they were too late ordering to be able to obtain that quantity of fireworks, which are temporarily in short supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.