Wizard Marks wrote: << In the course of looking at all potential design alternatives for Lake >Street, the engineering firm of SRF and Associates has done a parking >analysis. The results are reflected in one of four options being considered--parking on >one side east of the 35W overpass. Other options have parking on both sides. It did surprise the assumptions of some members to learn that on-street parking spaces are not being used as >much as was taken for granted. That doesn't mean that the alternative that has >parking only on one side is preferred or not preferred by anyone on the PAC. Under this particular configuration by SRF & Assoc. more space would be available for wider sidewalks and more streetscaping. It's just one of the many trade-offs we will have to consider. > >The Lake St. PAC, of which I am a member, will fully evaluate all of the suggestions before approving any one solution. > >SRF also found that existing off-street parking on the north side exceeds demands and >if businesses would agree to a "shared" parking arrangement, the need for >street parking east of the freeway may not be as great. That is certainly true of the space between some 120' W of Portland to the East side of Park. All the businesses presently operating there are about automobile care, so customers and suppliers drive into the businesses; ergo, we need the parking on Wednesday nights, Saturdays and Sundays when churches have a lot of visitors and when homes have company. > >I don't know where you got the notion that the Oct. 7th PAC meeting ended in >chaos. Lively debate is not chaos, people were throwing out questions and otherwise stating their positions, but that's how committee's are supposed to work. > >I don't know this for a statistical datum, but it seems to me that each posting you do on this subject delivers a net gain in supporter of Smith-Parker: Law of Unintended Consequences in full bloom. > WizardMarks, Central >>
Keith says; Amazing that the County found "underutilized on-street parking" at Lowry Avenue. too. They decided that they could get rid of most of this unneeded resource on both sides of the Avenue; and get rid of two out of four existing traffic lanes. This would, by their research, accommodate the future needs of the redesigned avenue better then the existing configuration. In place of parking capacity, and existing traffic lanes; their researchers found that we needed 2 (two) bicycle lanes. One on each side along the newly constricted Lowry Avenue Corridor. My untrained, nor publicly financed, opinion is: This Corridor that must soon accommodate a new Firestation's, and Bus Rapid Transit', movement requirements, and anticipated higher density residential development, should not be narrowed. The current "action plan" for a fire emergency along Lowry shall be; traffic, in both directions including two flavors of buses, will pull toward the narrow bicycle lanes and the fire rig will speedily drive up the middle. Hello rush hour traffic, or untimely fender-bender. And good luck if it is your heart attack or house fire. Or if you just want to get home at 5 PM; and you are not on a bicycle. Keith Reitman NearNorth REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
