Originally Posted by Mille Sabords
Leading question or not, it didn't stop you from expressing your view. Bulbouts are OK for crossing, I agree, but be mindful that "better visibility for drivers" only encourages speed.
Sorry, I was just jesting. I have been hearing too much about political trials and inquests lately and I got caught up in the moment.
Yes, I did add my opinion though. If this is to be a purely residential street, then it could have so-called 'traffic calming' measures implemented. Notice that I said before that it was a "meandering cobble" street so the sight lines are not that long. For example:
shows a single-direction street with angle parking and bulb-outs. The bulb-outs are before the parking so that the drivers and pedestrians have the best chance of seeing each other. The driver is forced to adjust course frequently enough that no speed is built up.
I suggest single-direction because I think it is probably safer.
As I said, I think that this type of thing can be implemented in purely residential areas, but those areas must be properly serviced by larger roads which actually handle the traffic loads; that is, the neighbourhoods will be separated by arterial roads with higher speeds.
Traffic calming, as put forth by groups like CART (Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation) are nice ideas, but I fear that they are best applied to smaller areas. People want choices and have mobility, via their car, to get to those choices. It is all very nice to say that each neighbourhood will have a pub, laundromat, and convenience store so people don't need a car; however, once you start adding other amenities, the area would get so crowded with libraries, pizzarias, fine restaurants, Walmarts, schools, churches, community centres, McDonalds, offices, etc., that there would be little room left for the residences.
Then there is the question of whether the local neighbourhood can support the facilities which would need to be present in each area? Walmarts and Catholic Churches are not neighbourhood based and are built large to draw people in from a wide area. Gone are the days when people would walk 2 miles to go to church.
And are people willing to spend more on all of their purchases? A mom & pop corner shop certainly can't get the same discounts from the manufacturer as Best Buy can. I know I'm willing and able to travel 10Km in my car to save $400 on a new LCD TV.
What about when you hear that the new chip-wagon in the east-end makes the best Poutine and you live near the one in the west-end that uses grated cheese instead of fresh, never refrigerated, cheese curds. Cruds so fresh that the squeeking is almost deafening if you eat them alone, without the muting effect of the rich, thick gravey. Are you willing to drive to the east-end for better Poutine?
Traffic calming has some applications, but so do big roads, and I think the City's Planners need to realize that. Installing disincentives to car travel along Lyon in the name of traffic calming is silly: If the City created, admittedly at great cost, main roads to connect things, then most traffic would stay on those big roads and the smaller roads would benefit. Look at the number of cars that the Queensway carries; if they were forced off of the 417, that traffic would distribute across many a local street as the drivers try to find 'a better way home'. (Of course, they could always take the train - Oh, wait, Ottawa doesn't have a train yet. And when we do get one, it won't go out to the suburbs.)
OK, I'll come down off my soap-box now.