Peter Rosenfeld
Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:55:32 -0800
From: "Kriebel, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But what they really need to do is get rid of the stairs on the Camden > side of the bridge and replace them with a ramp (and on the north side > remove the 'cattle chute portion'). That would make snow removal on > the walkways so much easier - no backing up or turning around for any > vehicle they used. Could the DRPA get ISTEA money for that? >
Yes - and there is room for the ramp too along the side of the bridge. I don't think it would cost a fortune. Another reason to do this is that the bridge is part of the Adventure Cycling trans-American route. I've helped several tourers with the steps. It's very difficult. They have to pull all their panniers off the bike, then get two people to help, one at the top, one at the bottom, to guard their equipment as they carry the stuff up. A major pain that leaves a bad impression of the area. One of my coworkers here in Camden commutes in from Philly. He's given up on the bridge this winter due to the unreliability of the walkway and just automatically takes Patco in, which adds a good extra 30 minutes or more to his commute. He's says he may just stop bike commuting until the bridge is reliable. I say we should be allowed to use the roadbed. Anything else is just too unreliable and inferior. Why does the Port Authority get to deny access on such an important link? It's not a limited access highway and so, under the laws in both states, should be open to bicyclists. A few of the "facility" proponents think I'm crazy, but the sight lines are excellent so it should be very safe. I've crossed on the roadbed several times over the years when both walkways were closed, such as ?two years ago. Other than getting pulled over by the DRPA police, it was just fine. -Peter Rosenfeld ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "bike." To subscribe or unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.