09-24-2018, 10:15 AM
(09-12-2018, 09:15 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The other item is slightly misreported. The committee unanimously supported the design for Bedford that involves removing around 1/2 of the 88 parking spaces which saw maximum utilization of 3 spaces by the 14 homes on the street, all of which have long driveways (no sidewalks) and space for minimum 3 cars outside. It's utterly ridiculous for them to complain about parking. So there was no contention there, only question was about what type of protection was provided.
The other street, Sydney, there was much more discussion. The question was substandard trail, or sharrows. Removing parking was never even considered, since staff feel the road is still too narrow. Some members felt that the road was quiet enough that a substandard trail wasn't needed, others felt that a continuous trail was important for the IHT.
A front-page story in today's Record. Residents think building a separated bike trail is overkill and a waste of money. (If the traffic volume of 95 cars per day in the article is correct they may have a point.) I didn't spot any parking complaints in the article.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/892...dents-say/
Would a painted bicycle lane be sufficient for a street such as Bedford? Would either two lanes or a single two-way lane fit on the existing street without major reconstruction (while keeping two-way car traffic but not on-street parking)?