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

If overpass is the best option on 23, keep it simple

July 3, 2013

If the city of Marshall is going to go ahead with a pedestrian bridge, or overpass, we urge our city leaders to do it with frugality in mind....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jul-03-13 3:42 PM

An overpass is virtually worthless to someone in a wheel chair, one who has difficulty going up an down stairs - or a ramp - and the elderly who do not have the ability to hike over a ramp.

Common sense would put a mandatory stop light controlled by the pedestrians as the correct solution.

Just because the state has "rules" doesn't always mean they are right or represent common sense - as in this case.

Take a trip to Canada - they don't have any problem with controlled pedestrian cross walks.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-08-13 12:44 PM

Maybe they should try some portable stop lights and do some research on how that may or may not work. Could be the answer and if not then do something else.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-08-13 3:03 PM

Stoplights at this intersection would defeat the entire purpose of having a four-lane, high-speed corridor.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-08-13 7:56 PM

It's an irrelevant discussion. Lights won't be there for decades.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-09-13 3:52 PM

I would prefer no lights. I safely cross that intersection regularily. I also regularily travel through it and appreciate not having to stop - it was designed as a by-pass afterall. Those folks who developed on the outside of it did so because of cheap land. If an overpass is required, those developers and residents should bear a portion of the costs directly.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 6:54 AM

56to58 offers a solution thats not often prescribed. Having the "folks" that benefit pay for something.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 10:05 AM

In this discussion, one important fact is being missed. "In 1970 when the highway section we are talking about was opened, it was a by-pass around Marshall." Marshall has grown in the last 43 years. The section is no longer a by-pass, it's in a residential and commercial area of the expanded city. Traffic speeds and control devices should reflect that.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 11:20 AM

Specific developers and specific residents knowingly made decisions to develop and take up residence on the other side of the bypass - as you pointed out, the bypass has been there for many years - the traffic and speeds come at no surpirse.

I'm not denying growth is good or asking them to foot the entire bill, but why wouldn't they specifically be assessed a portion of the costs it they stand to receive the greatest gain from the investment?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 1:02 AM

I'm surprised it would cost that as much as it does. I believe a pedestrian overpass in rochester cost a little bit less, it crossed a four lane highway, a railroad, and was longer. I think they should still go with a vehicle overpass with a frontage road to 4th street.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-12-13 11:19 AM

I wonder if there are any other situations like this in the world. Stop lights on a 4 lane bypass. Maybe some research here before anything is done.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 10 of 10 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