11-26-2018, 04:44 PM
(11-26-2018, 04:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(11-25-2018, 01:48 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Fortunately, I think our citizenry still have enough initiative and sass to ignore such stupidity and exit from the stop in the direction that is convenient for them.
So our citizenry should make judgement on our rules and only follow ones that are "not stupid" and ignore ones that are not convenient for them. Yes?
Should that apply to automotive traffic as well? Construction? Liquor laws? Parking? Where does one draw the line.
(I'm sure some of our automobile-driving citizenry think the uptown bicycle lanes are stupid and not convenient for them.)
The uptown bike lane is very convenient, drivers can easily park in it, with no real risk to their vehicles...of course this is against the rules. If the design had curbs and/or bollards, the design of the bike lane wouldn't encourage rule breaking.
The same applies here, people will want to access the station from both ends, the design of the station should accommodate that need, or make it impossible/invisible...putting up a sign saying "don't use this obvious entrance" is the problem.
Now, not having an entrance might be a trade off that is required by constraints (although, given the unnecessary side of the road, and the importance of pedestrian access to a transit station). This applies to the bike lanes as well, not having parking on both sides is a trade off (in this case, one I believe is the right one), but it's important for the design to acknowledge human behaviour and result in the correct behaviour being the behaviour that comes naturally.