Bike path on 11th and Pecore

[s3mh]

Proposal in the works to make 11th through Pecore into a three lane road with a dedicated bike lane.  

 

http://houstonbikeplan.org/11th-street/

[Visitor]

Quite a bit of road repurposing going on by Bikeways.  Fastest and cheapest way to show extreme growth of bike paths in the city.

[mkultra25]

Not that Nextdoor is a barometer of anything beyond the intensity of the latest dumpster fire, but it's been quite a while since I can recall anything as contentious there as this proposal. Some residents along Pecore seem pretty peeved about the possibility of losing on-street parking in an area where off-street parking isn't plentiful and there are several businesses, while others seem to think that anything that cuts down on motorized vehicular traffic would be great. There may be more residents opposed than in favor, and they could have a chance to torpedo that leg of the proposed route if they present a united front of opposition and make a big enough stink. 

[Angostura]

10 hours ago, mkultra25 said:

Not that Nextdoor is a barometer of anything beyond the intensity of the latest dumpster fire, but it's been quite a while since I can recall anything as contentious there as this proposal. Some residents along Pecore seem pretty peeved about the possibility of losing on-street parking in an area where off-street parking isn't plentiful and there are several businesses, while others seem to think that anything that cuts down on motorized vehicular traffic would be great. There may be more residents opposed than in favor, and they could have a chance to torpedo that leg of the proposed route if they present a united front of opposition and make a big enough stink. 

 

Seems like one dude REEEAAALLLLLYYY against it, and a bunch of other people that actually know that 4-to-3 road conversions are usually a good idea, reducing accidents and improving pedestrian safety with minimal impact on vehicle capacity.

 

Let's do 19th, 20th and Yale next.

 

[s3mh]

Some people are just genetically predisposed to hating any infrastructure project that isn't 100% car centric.  Light rail, bus lanes, high speed rail, bike lanes, or any combination or variation on all of the above just send some people over the edge.  

 

I do have some sympathy for people living on Pecore.  Most of them have no alley access and losing on street parking will have an impact.  But when I was first looking for a house in the Heights, I looked at a few on Pecore.  It was pretty obvious that Pecore was over used as a short cut and not a good street for a house with little kids.  It seems like houses on that street are always coming on the market and get a bit of a discount due to the traffic.  So, those folks knew they were not getting an ideal situation when they moved in.

 

Otherwise, I think it is a great idea.  The bike lane downtown works great.  A bike lane on 11th would open up all of the Heights to easy bike access.  

[thedistrict84]

3 hours ago, Angostura said:

Let's do 19th, 20th and Yale next.

 

Idk about Yale. Heights Blvd. is already more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. No need to convert Yale too.

 

I take Yale 90% of the time because it flows better for vehicle traffic. On Heights, I always get stuck behind someone going at least 10 MPH under the limit. 

[Triton]

So I've been in full support for all these dedicated bike lanes like for the Hardy St one in progress and even the one downtown connecting Discovery Green to Buffalo Bayou Park, especially since I'm someone who bikes weekly around the city.

 

But I feel somewhat mixed about this proposal. I tend to take 11th going back home and reducing it down to 1 lane of traffic can make a bad traffic situation even worse, especially between TC Jester and Heights Blvd. Now if you had told me they wanted to add a bike lane to White Oak.. sure, that totally makes sense and I can see the room available... or hell, maybe even 14th St would be better. But 11th seems too major of a road to reduce the lane count down in both directions, especially since I don't see too many people turning left for those smaller streets. The only major plus I see is reducing the amount of people speeding down 11th which will definitely make 11th easier to cross on the Heights Bike Trail. That has always been an incredibly dangerous intersection to cross... constant traffic in both directions. Either way, I'm open to a new bike lane along this route... would be great to quickly get across the Heights to the White Oak Bike Trail but I knew the opposition was going to be intense from the get-go, especially for the people I actually know who live on Pecore. Parking spots are a luxury there, especially for the apartment complex there on Beauchamp.

[Ross]

If they took out the changes to Pecore, and started the work East of Shepherd, I wouldn't have any huge objections. However, it seems beyond stupid to tear out the treed esplanade between TC Jester and Durham, and the piece between Durham and Shepherd won't work with a single turn lane in the middle as there won't be room to turn South on Durham, North on Shepherd, and into Kroger. The current setup works quite well. I am not sure if there is enough room for 18 wheelers to turn left from Shepherd to 11th if the lanes are redone.

 

I also think they will have to eliminate left turns onto Heights, as the distance between the Northbound and Southbound lanes is too short to support a single middle turn lane.

 

Eliminating on street parking on Pecore will totally screw any home owner who has more than one vehicle, since most of the houses have a one car wide driveway. If there's a garage apartment, or a teen driver that brings total car numbers to three, it's going to be bad. Pecore right of way is 10 feet narrower than 11th, which will make it more difficult to fit all of the proposed lanes.

 

If there are dedicated bike lanes, are the groups of 20 riders I see in the mornings going to ride single file in those lanes, or take up the single lane available for cars?

[Angostura]

19 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

 

I take Yale 90% of the time because it flows better for vehicle traffic. On Heights, I always get stuck behind someone going at least 10 MPH under the limit. 

 

Evidence that street design has a much larger effect on vehicle speeds than speed limit signs. Yale is 30 mph, Heights is 35. Traffic on Heights is routinely ~25, on Yale it's typically 40+.

 

Yale sees a LOT of accidents. And with all the new commercial development on Yale, some traffic calming, along with wider sidewalks, would make things a lot safer.

 

 

10 hours ago, Ross said:

If they took out the changes to Pecore, and started the work East of Shepherd, I wouldn't have any huge objections.

 

The section West of Shepherd is trickier, and I agree there's no real reason to widen Pecore to 3 lanes.

 

 

[Texasota]

I'd like to see actual road sections of what they're proposing here. I assume Pecore is staying two lanes and I can't imagine they're planning on tearing out the esplanade - surely the "4-to-3" conversion applies only to the section that actually has 4 lanes - Shepherd to Pecore.

[s3mh]

13 hours ago, Ross said:

If they took out the changes to Pecore, and started the work East of Shepherd, I wouldn't have any huge objections. However, it seems beyond stupid to tear out the treed esplanade between TC Jester and Durham, and the piece between Durham and Shepherd won't work with a single turn lane in the middle as there won't be room to turn South on Durham, North on Shepherd, and into Kroger. The current setup works quite well. I am not sure if there is enough room for 18 wheelers to turn left from Shepherd to 11th if the lanes are redone.

 

I also think they will have to eliminate left turns onto Heights, as the distance between the Northbound and Southbound lanes is too short to support a single middle turn lane.

 

Eliminating on street parking on Pecore will totally screw any home owner who has more than one vehicle, since most of the houses have a one car wide driveway. If there's a garage apartment, or a teen driver that brings total car numbers to three, it's going to be bad. Pecore right of way is 10 feet narrower than 11th, which will make it more difficult to fit all of the proposed lanes.

 

If there are dedicated bike lanes, are the groups of 20 riders I see in the mornings going to ride single file in those lanes, or take up the single lane available for cars?

It would be stupid to put in a bikeway that doesn't connect to the White Oak bikeway.  That is half the point of this thing.  And let's hold off on the arm chair traffic engineering until they actually come up with the plans.  

 

Yes, people living on Pecore will have to take one for the team, but the Heights is a neighborhood that has integrated residential and commercial areas.  If people living near restaurants and bars lose ready access to  street parking to patrons of the restaurants and bars, then people living on Pecore can also lose access to street parking in order to make a bikepath.  No one owns the street parking in front of their house.  The city can come in at any time and put up no parking signs.  

 

And groups of cyclists can use the path or the road.  Cars have to share the road with cyclists even if there is a bike path available.  If you do not want to share the road with cyclists, move to the burbs.

 

[gmac]

35 minutes ago, s3mh said:

IIf you do not want to share the road with cyclists, move to the burbs.

 

 

That is a stupid and meaningless thing to say.

[thedistrict84]

4 hours ago, Angostura said:

Evidence that street design has a much larger effect on vehicle speeds than speed limit signs. Yale is 30 mph, Heights is 35. Traffic on Heights is routinely ~25, on Yale it's typically 40+.

 

Idk that Yale traffic typically moves that quickly, but it definitely moves more efficiently than Heights Blvd. Even if nothing is done with Yale, the speed limits for those two roads should be revisited and probably should be reversed. 

[s3mh]

2 hours ago, gmac said:

 

That is a stupid and meaningless thing to say.

 

No, its totally on point.  Every discussion about making this city bike friendly inevitably ends up with someone crying about how cyclists are to blame for everything.  It is either "cyclists don't obey the traffic signals" or "cyclists hog the entire lane" or Ross's complaint about cyclists using the road instead of a bike lane.  It all boils down to one thing.  Some people just do not think that they should have to share the road with cyclists because it forces them to drive slower.  If you are going to live in the Heights where density is coming at a rapid pace, you are going to have to share the road with cyclists.  If you don't like that, move to the burbs.

 

[skwatra]

There is a mindset issue here and it won't be easy to solve. Whether you live in the Heights, Midtown, or the burbs you will likely at some point have to go long distances. So people assume they will be able to go as fast as posted (or faster!), even through 'dense' (relatively) areas trying to get to a freeway. My brother lives in SF and I get in trouble driving there. Most of the time there is enough traffic, peds, bikes, buses, that you'll be lucky to hit 20 mph. When its clear I find myself flying and my brother has to make me slow down to 25 because you never know what will be over the next hill. The difference is we never have to go more then 3-4 miles there so you just deal.

 

I used to live in Montrose and road my bike everywhere including the Heights. I like this idea to just help with increasing bike routes and awareness, but the MKT trail to White Oak is sufficient for me. When there was no connectivity from MKT to White Oak, I had to take Nicholson and cut across that small stretch on 11th to get to White Oak. I hated riding on that stretch which is why this totally makes sense to me. I'm not familiar with Pecore, but 11th makes sense given all the destinations on that street.

[Triton]

4 hours ago, Texasota said:

I'd like to see actual road sections of what they're proposing here. I assume Pecore is staying two lanes and I can't imagine they're planning on tearing out the esplanade - surely the "4-to-3" conversion applies only to the section that actually has 4 lanes - Shepherd to Pecore.

Yea I think we need to see the schematics before we make any call here. Would be nice if they widened at least one sidewalk to make it bike lane compatible.

(edit: Im talking about near the esplanades).

 

 

But I drove down 14th St today to, ironically, pick up my bike from Blue Line Bike Lab. Almost seems like 14th is such the perfect street to convert. Barely any cars parked so one side of the street gone for a bike lane doesn't really matter. It's only 3 blocks away from the proposed route and quite honestly, 14th feels a lot safer to bike down since it's a lot more residential plus you actually have access to Heights High School. And if they want to make the crossings safer on 11th, which quite honestly would be at Heights Bike Trail and then the Heights Blvd/Yale intersections, then really you only need to add in a traffic light at the trail, similar to the crossing on Yale. Think it would be a win-win for everyone because 11th seems like too major of a thoroughfare to convert. If they do end up going through with this, then I think they really need to focus on the major intersections to make sure there are left AND right turning lanes, along with a straight lane. If not, I can see traffic REALLY building up along 11th, particularly at TC Jester, Shepherd, and Yale.

[Ross]

8 hours ago, s3mh said:

It would be stupid to put in a bikeway that doesn't connect to the White Oak bikeway.  That is half the point of this thing.  And let's hold off on the arm chair traffic engineering until they actually come up with the plans.  

 

Yes, people living on Pecore will have to take one for the team, but the Heights is a neighborhood that has integrated residential and commercial areas.  If people living near restaurants and bars lose ready access to  street parking to patrons of the restaurants and bars, then people living on Pecore can also lose access to street parking in order to make a bikepath.  No one owns the street parking in front of their house.  The city can come in at any time and put up no parking signs.  

 

And groups of cyclists can use the path or the road.  Cars have to share the road with cyclists even if there is a bike path available.  If you do not want to share the road with cyclists, move to the burbs.

 

I share the road with cyclists. I was asking the question because I didn't know whether bikes have to use a bike lane when one is available. If it's legal for them to use the street, that's fine, and I won't get frustrated. Others will, though, if there's no way to get around them, and cars are forced to drive 15mph while cyclists cruise along, taking up all the available lane space.

 

There's a big difference between losing parking in front of your house for a few hours in the evening, and losing the parking in front of your house 24/7. 

[Angostura]

16 hours ago, Triton said:

But I drove down 14th St today to, ironically, pick up my bike from Blue Line Bike Lab. Almost seems like 14th is such the perfect street to convert. Barely any cars parked so one side of the street gone for a bike lane doesn't really matter. It's only 3 blocks away from the proposed route and quite honestly, 14th feels a lot safer to bike down since it's a lot more residential plus you actually have access to Heights High School. And if they want to make the crossings safer on 11th, which quite honestly would be at Heights Bike Trail and then the Heights Blvd/Yale intersections, then really you only need to add in a traffic light at the trail, similar to the crossing on Yale. Think it would be a win-win for everyone because 11th seems like too major of a thoroughfare to convert. 

 

 

From the interactive map, 14th is ALSO on the bike plan to receive a high-comfort bikeway, along with 18th, 24th, Michaux, Bayland, White Oak, and N. Main (a mix of dedicated ROW and sharrows). The idea being that if we want people to actually use a bicycle as a means of transportation (rather than just recreation), they shouldn't need to go more than a couple of blocks out of their way. We shouldn't make human-powered transport take a less direct route than motorized transport, especially since it takes up a lot less space.

 

 

[s3mh]

15 hours ago, Ross said:

I share the road with cyclists. I was asking the question because I didn't know whether bikes have to use a bike lane when one is available. If it's legal for them to use the street, that's fine, and I won't get frustrated. Others will, though, if there's no way to get around them, and cars are forced to drive 15mph while cyclists cruise along, taking up all the available lane space.

 

There's a big difference between losing parking in front of your house for a few hours in the evening, and losing the parking in front of your house 24/7. 

Not really.  The main complaint with people living near restaurants and bars is that they cannot park on the street when they come home at night.  It is not like they park down the street when they come home from work and then go out at 12:30 am to move their car back in front of their house.  

4 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

 

From the interactive map, 14th is ALSO on the bike plan to receive a high-comfort bikeway, along with 18th, 24th, Michaux, Bayland, White Oak, and N. Main (a mix of dedicated ROW and sharrows). The idea being that if we want people to actually use a bicycle as a means of transportation (rather than just recreation), they shouldn't need to go more than a couple of blocks out of their way. We shouldn't make human-powered transport take a less direct route than motorized transport, especially since it takes up a lot less space.

 

 

14th is a great candidate for bike access.  A lot of kids at Height HS ride their bikes to school.  14th st is very narrow between Shep and Yale and is very dangerous for cyclist around Heights HS due to the on street parking.  

[Triton]

4 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

 

From the interactive map, 14th is ALSO on the bike plan to receive a high-comfort bikeway, along with 18th, 24th, Michaux, Bayland, White Oak, and N. Main (a mix of dedicated ROW and sharrows). The idea being that if we want people to actually use a bicycle as a means of transportation (rather than just recreation), they shouldn't need to go more than a couple of blocks out of their way. We shouldn't make human-powered transport take a less direct route than motorized transport, especially since it takes up a lot less space.

 

 

And I would agree with that. This city needs a major overhaul, especially even with the existing on-street dedicated bike paths as they always seem to be full of mud, rocks, and shattered glass. But anyway what you're saying seems more like a mindset change. And I'm not quite sure if the Heights is there yet... not on 11th at least. We'll see... maybe people will surprise me but I have a feeling the opposition is going to be a lot louder than the support. I remember how crazed people went when the city replaced the street lights in the Heights... people kept comparing it to a Walmart parking lot **dear Lord**.

[gmac]

On 2/28/2019 at 12:36 PM, s3mh said:

 

No, its totally on point.  Every discussion about making this city bike friendly inevitably ends up with someone crying about how cyclists are to blame for everything.  It is either "cyclists don't obey the traffic signals" or "cyclists hog the entire lane" or Ross's complaint about cyclists using the road instead of a bike lane.  It all boils down to one thing.  Some people just do not think that they should have to share the road with cyclists because it forces them to drive slower.  If you are going to live in the Heights where density is coming at a rapid pace, you are going to have to share the road with cyclists.  If you don't like that, move to the burbs.

 

You must not ever leave your inner loop bubble. We share all the roads with cyclists in "the burbs" since we don't have dedicated cycle lanes.

[wilcal]

There is zero chance that they have the funds to re-do medians or really, lay any type of significant concrete. This will be a paintjob only. It's probably a Rodney Ellis $10 million project which have all been quick and dirty. I love going to bikeways meetings, but IDK about going to this one. I think there will be some serious vitriol. 

 

On 2/27/2019 at 10:53 AM, s3mh said:

I do have some sympathy for people living on Pecore.  Most of them have no alley access and losing on street parking will have an impact. 

 

I don't see any homes on Pecore that don't have a driveway, and there are few to no businesses that are leaning on street parking currently. I would assume that PWE has done a traffic study like the other bikeway presentations, and street parking utilization in the neighborhood will likely easily absorb the loss of parking. 

 

Quote

However, it seems beyond stupid to tear out the treed esplanade between TC Jester and Durham

 

No way that'll happen purely on budgetary reasons. I imagine that they'll do a bike lane on each side of the road and it'll match traffic direction. 

 

On 2/27/2019 at 8:25 PM, Ross said:

Eliminating on street parking on Pecore will totally screw any home owner who has more than one vehicle, since most of the houses have a one car wide driveway. If there's a garage apartment, or a teen driver that brings total car numbers to three, it's going to be bad.

 

Most of the driveways I'm seeing will handle 3 cars in them without a problem? 

 

On 2/27/2019 at 8:25 PM, Ross said:

If there are dedicated bike lanes, are the groups of 20 riders I see in the mornings going to ride single file in those lanes, or take up the single lane available for cars?

 

They can choose whichever they want. I saw your further comment, and no, no legal requirement to ride in a bike lane (although you'd be kind of a dick if you weren't reallly close to the speed of traffic). 

 

On 2/27/2019 at 8:25 PM, Ross said:

Pecore right of way is 10 feet narrower than 11th, which will make it more difficult to fit all of the proposed lanes.

 

If I had to guess, you'll see the Lamar St style bike lane in that section with the drive lanes shifted up or down due to the lower ROW and a bike just on one side.

 

On 2/28/2019 at 1:58 PM, Triton said:

If they do end up going through with this, then I think they really need to focus on the major intersections to make sure there are left AND right turning lanes, along with a straight lane. If not, I can see traffic REALLY building up along 11th, particularly at TC Jester, Shepherd, and Yale.

 

With a middle turning lane, why wouldn't those be used as turning lanes at major intersections?  (Like W. Alabama throughout Montrose). 11th at Heights is much wider, too with there being 5 lanes across. 

 

 

[Ross]

40 minutes ago, wilcal said:

There is zero chance that they have the funds to re-do medians or really, lay any type of significant concrete. This will be a paintjob only. It's probably a Rodney Ellis $10 million project which have all been quick and dirty. I love going to bikeways meetings, but IDK about going to this one. I think there will be some serious vitriol. 

 

 

I don't see any homes on Pecore that don't have a driveway, and there are few to no businesses that are leaning on street parking currently. I would assume that PWE has done a traffic study like the other bikeway presentations, and street parking utilization in the neighborhood will likely easily absorb the loss of parking. 

 

 

No way that'll happen purely on budgetary reasons. I imagine that they'll do a bike lane on each side of the road and it'll match traffic direction. 

 

 

Most of the driveways I'm seeing will handle 3 cars in them without a problem? 

 

 

They can choose whichever they want. I saw your further comment, and no, no legal requirement to ride in a bike lane (although you'd be kind of a dick if you weren't reallly close to the speed of traffic). 

 

 

If I had to guess, you'll see the Lamar St style bike lane in that section with the drive lanes shifted up or down due to the lower ROW and a bike just on one side.

 

 

With a middle turning lane, why wouldn't those be used as turning lanes at major intersections?  (Like W. Alabama throughout Montrose). 11th at Heights is much wider, too with there being 5 lanes across. 

 

 

The driveways on Pecore can handle three cars in length, but not width. That means some car will have to be on the street if another car needs to get out, and isn't closest to the street.

 

TxDOT website says if there's a bike lane, bicycles generally need to use it https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/modes-of-travel/bicycle/know/laws.html

 

11th at Heights is 4 lanes, it's 5 at Yale, which has left turn lanes on 11th. There's no safe way to have a single middle turn lane on 11th at Heights, as there's only 40 feet of length to use. It would have to have 4 lanes to have safe left turns, or left turns would have to be prohibited from 11th to Heights.

[wilcal]

16 hours ago, Ross said:

The driveways on Pecore can handle three cars in length, but not width. That means some car will have to be on the street if another car needs to get out, and isn't closest to the street.

 

Please allow me to attempt to find my ultra small violin...

 

Quote

TxDOT website says if there's a bike lane, bicycles generally need to use it https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/modes-of-travel/bicycle/know/laws.html

 

"If there is an off-road bike path next to the roadway, does a cyclist have to use it or can they use the roadway?

No, provided the bicyclist adheres to all the discussed rules of the road and bike laws, bikes are entitled to all rights of the road that apply to a motor vehicle, including access."

 

?

 

Quote

11th at Heights is 4 lanes, it's 5 at Yale, which has left turn lanes on 11th. There's no safe way to have a single middle turn lane on 11th at Heights, as there's only 40 feet of length to use. It would have to have 4 lanes to have safe left turns, or left turns would have to be prohibited from 11th to Heights.

 

That makes sense.

[Ross]

3 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

Please allow me to attempt to find my ultra small violin...

 

 

"If there is an off-road bike path next to the roadway, does a cyclist have to use it or can they use the roadway?

No, provided the bicyclist adheres to all the discussed rules of the road and bike laws, bikes are entitled to all rights of the road that apply to a motor vehicle, including access."

 

?

 

 

That makes sense.

 

Why do you hate the residents along Pecore so much? 

 

There's another TxDOT response that's more applicable, from the same page:

If there is an on-road bike lane, does a cyclist have to use it or can they use the general travel lane?

See the previous answer. Because a bike is required to stay as far to the right as practicable, this could be interpreted to mean if there is bike lane, a cyclist would be required to ride in it, as it would be the far right side of the road. However, if one of the exceptions listed in the previous answer exist, they would be excused from the "far right" requirement.

[gmac]

18 minutes ago, Ross said:

 

Why do you hate the residents along Pecore so much? 

 

 

Probably because he/she doesn't live on Pecore.

[wilcal]

On 3/2/2019 at 3:46 PM, Ross said:

There's another TxDOT response that's more applicable, from the same page:

If there is an on-road bike lane, does a cyclist have to use it or can they use the general travel lane?

See the previous answer. Because a bike is required to stay as far to the right as practicable, this could be interpreted to mean if there is bike lane, a cyclist would be required to ride in it, as it would be the far right side of the road. However, if one of the exceptions listed in the previous answer exist, they would be excused from the "far right" requirement.

2

 

You are only required to "stay to the right" on lanes that exceed 14' in width. I don't think a separated bike lane is counted as part of that width. Chances are that it has not been legally tested and there is no clear cut definition.

 

On 3/2/2019 at 3:46 PM, Ross said:

Why do you hate the residents along Pecore so much? 

 

On 3/2/2019 at 4:07 PM, gmac said:

Probably because he/she doesn't live on Pecore.

 

I don't, but I am kind of fed up with people that think that they own the streets in front of their house. It's owned by the city, AKA everyone. The best use may not be for the city to subsidize their car parking.  And as your example above, not even subsidizing their need for parking, but their need for the preferential arrangement of their cars parked at their property? That's a full on facepalm for me. 

[s3mh]

If 11th through Pecore was bumper to bumper gridlock, I wonder how much empathy there would be for Pecore residents if the city proposed taking away street parking to add a lane for vehicle traffic?

[wilcal]

8 hours ago, wilcal said:

You are only required to "stay to the right" on lanes that exceed 14' in width. I don't think a separated bike lane is counted as part of that width. Chances are that it has not been legally tested and there is no clear cut definition.

 

 

I asked an industry professional, and any stripe creates a lane separation. 

 

The only way a rider would have to ride "in the bike lane" would be on a street that is > 14' in a lane. No way for a bike lane to be part of  a lane like that unless it was just sharrows. 

[Ross]

19 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

You are only required to "stay to the right" on lanes that exceed 14' in width. I don't think a separated bike lane is counted as part of that width. Chances are that it has not been legally tested and there is no clear cut definition.

 

 

 

I don't, but I am kind of fed up with people that think that they own the streets in front of their house. It's owned by the city, AKA everyone. The best use may not be for the city to subsidize their car parking.  And as your example above, not even subsidizing their need for parking, but their need for the preferential arrangement of their cars parked at their property? That's a full on facepalm for me. 

 

Everyone knows that you don't own the parking in front of your house. However, on a street like Pecore, eliminating street parking completely means you can't even park a car for 2 minutes while moving cars around. Nor can a truck park to move your belongings. Will people survive? Sure, but at great inconvenience.

 

18 hours ago, s3mh said:

If 11th through Pecore was bumper to bumper gridlock, I wonder how much empathy there would be for Pecore residents if the city proposed taking away street parking to add a lane for vehicle traffic?

 

Yet another BS strawman. Pecore isn't clogged, and never will be.