(03-05-2015, 03:43 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: And you'd be wrong. The size of the front yard easements tell the story. They were planned to be wide streets from day one.
Oh, you're right, that's true.
Edit: Actually, thinking about it, this might not be true. I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong if anyone remembers or has a source, but I've always thought that the houses were closer to the street than would be expected from houses of this age, as if the right of way had been expanded. I'm not sure.
(03-05-2015, 03:43 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Huh, where does that come from? I don't see anyone suggesting making those streets one way.
You brought those streets up, and I'm not sure what you were suggesting. I guess you mean zoning, though we weren't talking about that. It's not because these streets are residential that they should be converted to two-way. It's because two-way is much better for walkability, and there is too much capacity here for the traffic volume. Erb and Bridgeport are terrible experiences near Weber, too, where they are predominantly commercial. What would you like to see happen to these streets? Unless the answer is "for cars to move as fast as possible," it won't happen while they remain a one-way pair too big for the traffic they carry.