Originally Posted by Calgarian
No lane reversal on 17th, that would signal that the street is for commuting, not shopping / entertainment IMO. I think that street should be discouraged as a commuter street if at all possible, 11th works much better in that regard anyway.
I disagree. Just because lane reversals are currently used on commuter roads, that does not mean they should be used for that exclusively. It's a potential tool to maintain usefulness to peak time road users, while at the same time allowing the street to re-purpose part of itself for other uses. It's about striking a balance.
People will naturally use the most appropriate road. If 11th works much better, then it will naturally be utilised more. Unless you are proposing a significant reduction in the usefulness of 17th (Making it a 1 lane road, or closing links to roads such as McLeod or Crowchild for instance), it will continue to be a well-used road for car traffic unless better alternatives present themselves.
Saying that, I was looking for a balance between road and foot traffic. If there is a case to be made to severely cripple car access to the road, then I could get behind that too. I can't see it happening, so I was offering a balance, but might be interesting.
Originally Posted by bigcanuck
The problem with lane reversal (or even removal of one lane) is that most intersections do not have designated left turn lanes. If traffic in one direction is down to one lane, movement grinds to a stop. A solution to the above would be to restrict left turns during designated hours but these signs always seem to go unnoticed by a select few drivers.
I agree, but with better notice, I think it could be mitigated (large painted no-turn signs on the outside lanes, better enforcement etc).
I guess this is part of the same question. How far do we tip the scales to favour one mode of transportation over another? On a road like 17th, do we favour cars (as we kind of do), do we totally favour pedestrians (like an Stephen Ave style road) or do we try to get the balance in the middle? (Or any degree in between?) Is the improved access for pedestrians at the detriment of car access worth it? I think so, for certain roads.
I can think of dozens of roads that have totally eliminated pedestrian traffic for the benifit of the road user (all expressways, freeways etc) but I can think of only one that does the opposite (Stephen Ave). I think a well-rounded city should have certain roads made available to the benefit of pedestrians only, and 17th would be at the top of the list.