05-14-2016, 09:28 PM
(05-14-2016, 11:07 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(05-14-2016, 07:04 AM)Canard Wrote: NOOOOO!!!!!! Must stay next to tracks!!! :panic:
Yes, this is yet another consultation that is going off the rails. Of course the Laurel Trail (which is a traffic route, not primarily a park walk) should continue to run by the direct route immediately parallel to the tracks. There can be no rational debate on this point.
What can be reasonably discussed is whether there should be another route through the park that is meant primarily to be a pleasant walk. A more interesting route running between different attractions within the park could be right for this, and could have the additional benefit of taking the “Sunday drivers” so to speak off the main traffic route.
But unfortunately I now expect this kind of rank illogic from our planners. Did you notice that the Bridgeport/Caroline/Erb plan still provides for only one lane turning from Caroline Southbound onto Erb Westbound? This will make Erb/Bridgeport continue to be the only four-lane road in the Region I can think of that has a bottleneck at one intersection where one of the directions is restricted to a single lane. Also some of the stuff they said about bike lanes and pedestrian crossings in that study was pretty far out there.
Is the third option to have both trails and both meet at the creek crossing?