Maybe I’m missing some nuance here. But it seems like “no cars” and “yes busses” are being treated as mutually exclusive when they don’t have to be?
The compromise doesn’t seem too out of bounds compared to similar projects: narrow the street to two bus only lanes, use the reclaimed area for pedestrianisation, and use natural speed-reducing features- like brick roads, raised pedestrian crossings, and trees lining the road- to make it feel pedestrian-owned and safer
As I understand it, the proposal on the table is "no buses." I agree that there's ways to make Granville friendlier for pedestrians without closing it off to buses. I'm reluctant to second-guess city staff, but I'm skeptical that the benefits of making Granville pedestrian-only would outweigh the costs.
Maybe I’m missing some nuance here. But it seems like “no cars” and “yes busses” are being treated as mutually exclusive when they don’t have to be?
The compromise doesn’t seem too out of bounds compared to similar projects: narrow the street to two bus only lanes, use the reclaimed area for pedestrianisation, and use natural speed-reducing features- like brick roads, raised pedestrian crossings, and trees lining the road- to make it feel pedestrian-owned and safer
As I understand it, the proposal on the table is "no buses." I agree that there's ways to make Granville friendlier for pedestrians without closing it off to buses. I'm reluctant to second-guess city staff, but I'm skeptical that the benefits of making Granville pedestrian-only would outweigh the costs.