Comment 78118

By kettal (registered) | Posted June 07, 2012 at 15:32:35 in reply to Comment 78111

Not to mention the fact that a bunch of yellow lines are considerably less costly than bump-outs, boulevards, speed bumps, and all the other suggestions that have been thrown out in this increasingly quixotic need to cling to our one-ways.

Personally I'd like to see boulevards, bump-outs, etc, even if it was a two-way. If we just converted it to two-way we'd end up with more Upper James style eyesores.

And the paint isn't the expensive part, it's the required new traffic lights at every intersection.

Could you provide some links to this evidence, because as far as I can see, the trend is going the other way.

(Sorry I'm not sure how links work). Those cycle tracks being built in Vancouver, NYC, Portland, and Montreal would often be impossible along two-way streets due to lack of space and increased potential for collisions.

In the theoretical sense, a one-way grid requires less road space for the same amount of cars than does a two-way grid. That means that one-way grid provides more excess pavement for patios, bike lanes, transit, etc.

Comment edited by kettal on 2012-06-07 15:33:20

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools