Comment 92792

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted September 30, 2013 at 14:47:37

The problem is the Main/Longwood intersection and its proximity to the bridge. While the vast majority of Longwood doesn't need those lanes, the intersection might. Losing a lane on the bridge functionally means losing a lane through the intersection. I'd want to see a study of the usage of each lane. I'd wager you could lose one of the Southbound lanes - North of Main there are two Southbound lanes, and the eastern one is always blocked by left-turning traffic anyways... it's a de-facto turning lane already. Make it into an official turning-only lane and suddenly you've only got one Southbound lane feeding into the intersection. Then the bridge can be 2-lanes North, one lane South. After the bridge? Do whatever you want. Obviously those four lanes of live traffic go too fast so it's worth talking about killing a lane anyways and saving the money on eating up MIP's sidewalk for widening and a bike-path, but either way - the sister-bridge is the big crazy project for our cash-strapped city.

Heck, run a study. Still cheaper than building a bridge. Close the lane, re-paint some turning arrows, take some measurements, see what happens. Don't even bother building the bike-lane, just close the westernmost-lane of Longwood through the bridge and re-do the paint to make sense..

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2013-09-30 14:50:14

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds