I'm quite confident that that wasn't ever in the plan. The reason the station is so far offset from the bridge is so there's room for the tracks to diverge around the center platform after passing under the bridge. Otherwise they'd have had to rebuild the bridge, and it was already rebuilt like 15 years ago.The pedestrian (foot) bridge looks like it could have moving sidewalks, but I doubt that they would be put there, since they are supposed to be trying to save money whereever they can.
Nothing screams accessible and welcoming infrastructure than speed bumps on a path...Hopefully, they'll have speed bumps there to try to discourage any thoughts of that from happening!!
Hopefully, they'll have speed bumps there to try to discourage any thoughts of that from happening!!
When I first saw your comment, I had to go back a page or two to see if you were talking about a road or the path. Since I realize it's a path, I completely disagree with you. All forms of non-motorized transportation should be welcome as long as the riders are respectful of others on the path.
It probably is, because the standard practice in paving is to wait on the final lift (layer) until all the messing around with the rest of the project is completed.The paved sections of the path look like a base coat. If you look closely, you can see the raised drainage structures.
Those are guardrails used on bridges. In case of a derailment, they in theory, will keep equipment in line.
Is it normal to put those in for routes that just go under bridges too? I feel like I haven't seen that much on other lines