Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Not enough people cross 23 to justify ‘bridge’

June 12, 2014

To the editor: I am very much against a bridge across Highway 23. I am mostly against it because I don’t believe it is that much in nee....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jun-19-14 1:46 PM

Some certainties: pedestrians need a safe way to cross 23, and the overpass will provide it. The reduced conflict intersection will prove to be just as dangerous as people cut each other off to get into the left lane. Some people will continue to cross 23 dangerously. Some people will ***** no matter what is or isn't done.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-14 11:41 AM

You will never stop all the pedestrians attempting to cross at other than designated intersections. But, if you remove the vehicle crossings at all but 2 or 3 controlled intersections you will at least reduce the number of vehicle accidents. This in addition to a fence along 23 would also help with the pedestrian issue. Along most interstate highways cities will have a few access points, not an unlimited number with several coming from small side streets.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-14 10:53 AM

A few days of enforcement of j-walking would suffice then. And, probably should be happening anyway as there is no crosswalk there.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-14 9:43 AM

They're not jumping the fence along 23 now. Not with the overgrowth there. They're going over to Canoga and beyond to cross.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-14 9:37 AM

Yes, if Saratoga intersection is unsafe, I would give strong consideration to closing it. I'm not talking about a 3 foot high chain link fence. I'm referring to a "Barrier" fence along the highway - these are common along metro thoroughfares providing both acoustical relief and preventing people from going onto the road. It is completely realistic and completely safe. When was the last time you saw a pedestrian cross 494 or 35?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-14 6:56 AM

How about light rail? It makes as much sense here as in the metro. (Think about that as you support a metro area politician) Government has your money burning a hole in their pocket and it's gonna get spent. Along with more yet to be collected. People will still cross in other places and there will still be a high risk intersection for motorists. It would be nice to occasionally see government just say no if a solution isn't a solution rather than if we don't use it we lose it.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-18-14 8:59 PM

Personally, a pedestrian underpass (tunnel) would have been better. They gave their bs about why it wasn't done, but I believe the truth is that it was an afterthought.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-18-14 8:58 PM

There is a fence on the south side of 23, extending from Saratoga to Canoga. Can't build a fence on top of an intersection either. Maybe 23 shouldn't have any intersections once inside city limits. Is that a realistic solution?

Naturally, those that are closer to the Canoga intersection are bound to try to cross 23 instead of going all the way to traffic light. That's going to be an issue no matter what is done. Back on the Saratoga intersection, the overpass will serve those people close to it well.

Abandoning an intersection will only congest the Middle School, and Southview even more than they already are. It will not stop pedestrians from trying to cross 23. Be realistic about it.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-18-14 8:29 PM

There isn't a solution to this that will make everyone happy. Look at a satellite map of this area and it is apparent the population density on the far side of 23 does not justify the expense of a bridge. 23 is a bypass around Marshall and as such the crossings need to be kept to a minimum. If the Saratoga crossing has become to hazardous it needs to be closed, road dug up, finished. Traffic needs to be redirected to a controlled intersection. Saratoga is a crossing of convenience not necessity. Maybe next time someone, such as city planners, will be a little more careful about residential developments on the other side of a busy bypass.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-18-14 1:27 PM

Heavy enforcement may be required initially.

Or building a fence along the heavy residential area would be reasonable - and much less costly than the overpass. Fences are used in high traffic areas to restrict pedestrians, while also providing acoustical relief (think along metro area highways).

I don't necessarily like this solution - I'm just being realistic about the problems & solutions.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-18-14 11:11 AM

Yeah right. The argument is that pedestrians won't use the overpass because its shorter to cross 23. But now you think they will just walk over to the 23/59 intersection, if the Saratoga intersection is eliminated?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-18-14 10:33 AM

For a kid walking or on bike at this intersection is like playing the old video game "frogger". It is a matter of time before a pedestrian gets killed. People driving vehicles can't even get it right as there is an accident every month or more. How are kids supposed to cross it safely when adults that are supposedly educated enough to operate a vehicle can't do it safely. Get something done before someone gets killed and the blame game starts.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-18-14 9:14 AM

farmkid - closing the intersection at Saratoga and diverting pedestrians to Hwy 23/Hwy 59 where there is stoplights, defined crosswalks and even a sidewalk path absolutely resolves the issue. It's extremely safe, but it is just "too inconvenient" for people to realize the value.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-17-14 8:06 PM

I don't live on the far side of 23 but I will use the overpass. As I pay taxes, I figure I am spending my own money, not someone else's.

Closing the intersection doesn't address the issue of pedestrians getting across safely. Sadly that is a point that most of you just can't seem to grasp. It's not just kids on their way to school either.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-17-14 11:25 AM

That probably is the best solution. 23 as a bypass should have limited access points.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-17-14 10:42 AM

There is no way this bridge will be cost justified from a traffic standpoint. It will be very light usage (unless there is further development over there). From a safety standpoint, anyone can argue that preventing just 1 accident would be worthwhile.

It's a huge tax spend, based upon available grants, filled with controversy, but there is no "good" solution (no cheap solution or no "inconvenient" solution). I still believe that closing that intersection entirely & diverting traffic (pedestrian & auto) to 23/59 stoplight is the right answer - both for safety & cost - but inconvenient for many.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-17-14 10:33 AM

farmkid, the true liberal, smiling while he spends someone else's money. Yes I can assure you I do pay taxes. Do you farmkid ? That is a good idea for the jailbirds. As long as there are residents in the Lyon County jail there is a supply of labor for public projects. Good suggestion farmkid.

You obviously saw a benefit to purchasing a home on that side of a major highway, the builder made a profit selling you that home, if you won't take the time to escort or drive your children across the highway you and the builder should share the majority of the cost of a convenience bridge.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-17-14 9:39 AM

Farmkid...."That is, of course, if you pay taxes". Something about a pot and a kettle.....

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-16-14 3:00 PM

Every time I pass by the overpass, or am crossing on it, I'll smile and think of your taxes that paid for it. That is, of course, if you pay taxes.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-16-14 2:58 PM

That's right, and only those that drive in town should have to pay for repaving the streets in town. And, only the jailbirds should be paying for the upkeep of prisons, etc, etc, etc.

What color is the sky in the world you live in?

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-16-14 10:55 AM

If the home owners want a bridge over 23 they need to pay for it. I'm sorry, you purchased your home on the wrong side of 23 for convenience. 23 is a bypass around the town to reduce traffic through the busy city streets. Don't expect the rest of us tax payers to pickup the bill for a bridge. If safety is a concern for your children drive or escort them across. The bridge will see little if any traffic, especially in the winter when you have to walk an extra 5 minutes to use it.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-14-14 12:48 PM

When we were house hunting in Marshall we did not consider homes on the other side of 23 because we don't want our kids crossing the highway if they are riding bike, rollerblading, or walking to an activity, a sports practice, or a friend's house. Sure, we could drive them, but part of our decision to live in town is the convenience of giving that little bit of independence once our children are at an appropriate age. The bridge makes that possibility safer for everyone!

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-14-14 9:26 AM

Truth of the matter is people have a choice as to where to live. There is city buses in Marshal so why don't they include a stop in that area so many times a day and pick up people who live there and bring them into town? Even buying a extra bus would be cheaper then a over pass. This seems to be a very shortsighted move on somebody's part. Its funny how people try to make it a racial thing to influence a decision. Truth be known its a parents responsibility to teach their children what is safe to do and not to run out on busy highways or streets. I think a bus stopping there several times a day will enable people to get across that highway quite safely.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-14-14 4:22 AM

You're basing this on the use of the "bridge to nowhere"?

I'll use it.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-13-14 11:15 PM

I have lived right next to this 23 area for 40 years and have seen many accidents. In recent years it seems that the Hispanic numbers crossing the road has increased and maybe the trailer park has had a increase in Hispanics living there with no means of travel other than by foot, but no one will walk 3-4 blocks down to the bridge to cross. Be they white, black, Hispanic or green, red etc.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 31 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web