 |
|
Conclusions
|
|
|
|
In the image below are the Northeastern students' conclusions. My thoughts about them, and alternatives:
- The proposed greenway would have a very wide landscaped median, at the expense of inadequate width of the traveled way and frontage road.
- I dislike the term "road diet" -- I find it inaccurate, as I have said in comments on another image in this series. It is probably possible to reduce the lane count on parts of Lee/Clyde Street without producing traffic jams, though in my opinion, at least two lanes with wide shoulders are needed to avoid traffic backups and to allow convenient overtaking of bicyclists by motorists on both sides of the street. Three lanes with a center turn lane, and a median at crosswalks, would be even more comfortable.
- The students assume repeatedly that bicyclists will use roadways only while crossing them as pedestrians. This assumption is also made in the accompanying report -- bicyclists are to be accommodated throughout Brookline on paths rather than on streets. There is no apparent concern with the resulting conflicts, hazards and delays. The students also have paid no attention to issues of bicycle access in winter, or access to the side of the street opposite their frontage road.
- "Local streets must be treated differently from collectors and arterials" -- I agree, only the project provides very poor, slow connections on local streets that intersect with or cross Lee/Clyde Street, streets which are parts of an important through bicycle route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
