(08-11-2016, 09:40 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]Just like I'm sure putting 7th avenue through New York's Central Park would save people time getting from Harlem to Times Square, the value that is added by having a large car-free space often out-weighs making the road network as efficient as possible.
Ehr.. Central Park is crisscrossed every 500m with a transverse road: 65th,Terrace Dr, 79th, 85th and 97th.
Width-wise, 5th and 8th are only 800m apart so losing 6th and 7th is no big deal.
(08-11-2016, 09:40 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]The reverse beg signal was truly an ingenious suggestion; I wonder how many trips would then be diverted with a slower travel time?
Fun fact, the park already has one of those!
At David/Jubilee.
It's a stop sign.
(Seriously, think about it; cars must come to a complete stop, pedestrians have priority to cross.)
(08-11-2016, 10:27 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-11-2016, 09:40 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]The reverse beg signal was truly an ingenious suggestion; I wonder how many trips would then be diverted with a slower travel time?
Fun fact, the park already has one of those!
At David/Jubilee.
It's a stop sign.
(Seriously, think about it; cars must come to a complete stop, pedestrians have priority to cross.)
Similar but not the same. Also, the stop sign is a good example of the problems with the road, as cars often don't yield to pedestrians and pedestrians are afraid to assert their right of way.
(08-11-2016, 10:20 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ] (08-11-2016, 09:40 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]Just like I'm sure putting 7th avenue through New York's Central Park would save people time getting from Harlem to Times Square, the value that is added by having a large car-free space often out-weighs making the road network as efficient as possible.
Ehr.. Central Park is crisscrossed every 500m with a transverse road: 65th,Terrace Dr, 79th, 85th and 97th.
Width-wise, 5th and 8th are only 800m apart so losing 6th and 7th is no big deal.
The transverses appear to be basically grade separated. Sure, lets grade separate Jubilee Dr.
And 800m appeared to be a problem, given that the park drive was open to cars, of course, despite how convenient this route was for many drivers, this was considered a bad thing for the park so the city has moved to ban cars from the road more and more until it is fully closed.
Well that must be record for getting something from idea to implementation:
Victoria Park to get continuous stretch of sidewalk
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6899...-sidewalk/
"This project will only fill in the gaps in the walks on the commons side of Jubilee, roughly between David and Water streets, Spere said. When transportation officials consulted the city's heritage committee, it was decided to not put sidewalks on both sides to limit the impact on the park's heritage and to encourage meandering. City staff will monitor to see if this current work addresses pedestrian needs."
"The new sidewalks will meander to avoid existing trees and park features, he said."
Quote: it was decided to not put sidewalks on both sides to limit the impact on the park's heritage and to encourage meandering
Not really a fan of that reasoning.
Just because my destination is on the other side of a park is no reason to force me to meander. Put in meandering paths in addition to direct ones, and let me
choose if I want to use them.
If your goal is to follow Jubilee on the lake side, there's already a pretty direct path from the end of the sidewalk near Water past the boathouse to David. There are patches of grass between it and the road, but I'd consider that to be better than having a sidewalk directly adjacent to the road.
That works for the full distance of Courtland to Park, but fails for intermediate trips.
Looking at Google maps, I also count four crossings from the end of the sidewalk on the south side at Water street over to David. What intermediate trips are we talking about here?
(10-07-2016, 10:23 AM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: it was decided to not put sidewalks on both sides to limit the impact on the park's heritage and to encourage meandering
Not really a fan of that reasoning.
Just because my destination is on the other side of a park is no reason to force me to meander. Put in meandering paths in addition to direct ones, and let me choose if I want to use them.
That's just utter BS reasoning. First, how do sidewalks impact the park's heritage. People walking, that's the heritage of the park. Cars, less so, but, if there's going to be a road, sidewalks would seem to make sense.
As for, encouraging meandering, are they for real? Why should pedestrians be forced to meander when a direct through route is considered essential for cars? How much more backwards can we get?
Yeah I don't understand the meandering reasoning. To me, looking at the map, there's basically already a sidewalk along the south side of Jubilee -- it's just set back a bit from the road and is made out of asphalt.
That sidewalk does meander a little bit, but not so much that it would (at least not in my opinion) encourage people to walk off the sidewalk.
It doesn't meander any more than Jubilee drive does
(10-07-2016, 04:13 PM)bpoland Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I don't understand the meandering reasoning. To me, looking at the map, there's basically already a sidewalk along the south side of Jubilee -- it's just set back a bit from the road and is made out of asphalt.
Indeed, this isn't the side that needs it the most. If I'm understanding its being limited to the South side, this is basically a complete waste of money, contributes nothing.
By the messages here, it sounds like they've compromised, but I don't recall there being a public consultation. In any case, the reasons seem bogus, sounds like they're just trying to satisfy someone who is objecting to "change" regardless of what it is.
Well the above post says the sidewalks are going on the "commons side" -- isn't that the north side of Jubilee? My point was that sidewalks aren't necessary on the south/lake side since there is an existing pathway (not sure why they didn't just say that instead of the meandering thing). A sidewalk on the north side ( which is what I think they are doing) will definitely be useful.