Comment 79403

By Pxtl (registered) - website
Posted July 12, 2012 at 11:28:17 in reply to Comment 79389

The more specific you make your goals, the less flexible you are when you find out they're not functional.

The goal doesn't need to be "we will put this layout on Aberdeen", it can be "we will make Aberdeen into a complete street that's safe and functional for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists".

This is one possible plan. If it doesn't work, you come up with another one. So why could it fail?

The big question is width. Aberdeen is presently 4 lanes. We're looking at 4 lanes plus 2 bike-lanes... okay, that sounds like we don't have space. But are the existing 4 lanes super-wide? If so, it might fit. Or it might involve running the bike lanes in the door-zone, which isn't good.

Maybe we have to throw out a parked car lane on one side... okay, that could work. Also, what does Runnymede do at major intersections (you can argue that every intersection of Aberdeen is a major intersection)? Does it stay with that layout, or does it convert the parked car lanes into through-traffic and develop turning lanes? Where do the bike lanes go? You could probably just pull them over to the sides, actually - end the parking lanes near the intersection, pull the bikes lanes out to the side and pop a turning lane into the middle. Boom, cylists are happy, drivers are happy, and there's still plenty of place to park away from the intersections.

My point is that there's tons of design you could do, but you need to know your limits. And the big limitation is width.

So how wide is it? Wider than Runnymede, or not?

Reply | Permalink | Context

Comment Score: 2 (6 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds