Comment 115596

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted December 10, 2015 at 09:22:19 in reply to Comment 115590

Proposing simple two-way conversions instead of full out complete streets is a compromise:

  1. It is the cheapest option, costing just paint and signage changes, not rebuilding the streets to widen (e.g. double or triple) sidewalks, plant trees, install barriers for bike lanes, add chicanes etc.

  2. It does not remove vehicle lanes and actually makes it easier for motorists to reach destinations. There is some evidence that two-way conversion actually improves traffic flow by shortening trips by eliminating block circling and overshoots.

  3. It doesn't usually require removing parking (and adding parking is a cheap way of providing buffers to pedestrians).

Opposing two-way conversion but claiming to support complete streets is actually supporting a more expensive, more extreme option.

Two-way conversion is the conservative option: make ward 1-3 streets just like almost every other street in almost every other part of the city (and most everywhere else). It is amazing that such a conservative and cautious change is portrayed as radical!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-12-10 09:23:37

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools