Comment 80872

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted September 12, 2012 at 10:56:46 in reply to Comment 80869

Right, but there is an inherent perception that two-way conversions will create absolute gridlock (even though it's not true, that doesn't mean people don't think it).

"Streetscaping" proposals may not bring out the knee jerk reactionaries thereby allowing us to slip a livable street under their radar :-). It's almost as if the phrase "Two way" is a poison pill with some of the "non negotiable" streets.

I personally don't think we need any one way streets at all, but many obviously think we do.

Despite my personal opinions about one ways, I don't think it would be the end of the world if we ended up with a couple one-ways after reworking everything...

Sadly, it looks like we will never see an overnight reversion akin to the one that got us into this mess in the 1950s, but we can still create huge changes with smaller well managed steps toward a well designed final goal.

How about a first step proposal that lists a few dozen smaller streets (and most of the n/s arteries) with a reasonable timeline for conversion? at least that gets us toward an easier-to-navigate core and lays framework for future changes on the big kahunas...

The proposal could start with streets that are identified as in need of resurfacing, and have the conversion set to trigger when the resurfacing project is budgeted for.

Why not grab the low hanging fruit - I'm tired of the top-of-the-tree apples. I'm not getting any younger!

I vote down for offensiveness and up for humour. I cast no votes based on my level of agreement.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds