01-08-2016, 10:00 AM
(01-08-2016, 09:27 AM)MidTowner Wrote:(01-07-2016, 09:07 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I do realize that. But if we have rail and we have pedestrians, what should we have? A raised monorail so there is zero pedestrian and cyclist impact? Is it really worthwhile? Or all rail needs to be underground so it does not cast a shadow on any passerby on foot? Seriously?
Weber Street has an underpass, and I personally think it's quite OK as a pedestrian. In the winter, I prefer it to the Margaret St bridge, too, given that it'll be sheltered from the winds.
That's not what he or I were saying at all. Viewfromthe42 referred to the "unavoidable pedestrian nightmare" that is an underpass. He wasn't referring to the retaining wall in the render, but that would be a pretty negative experience for people on foot. Nobody (except for you) said anything about "all rail needs to be underground" or anything like that.
So I'm asking what we should do to avoid the "pedestrian nightmares" that underpasses apparently are -- what is the solution? Forget the retaining wall, let's consider the "underpass nightmare" for the moment. What is the better solution?
And I think there is a big difference in degree between "pretty negative" and "nightmare" .