Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looking on street view, there's no sign that indicated drivers on Carpenter Street are banned from making a right turn onto Passyunk Avenue. Judging by the tire tracks through the snow, drivers do use this pavement to complete a right hand turn at this intersection (legally i might add).
The turning radius that would be provided isn't adequate. Drivers (including passenger cars, trucks, and SUV's) would struggle completing a right turn without driving over the shaded green area.
I live about 4 blocks from here. So know it well - even burgers and IPAs at Royal Tavern from time to time.
That said, 7th street is also in this intersectiong and runs bascially the same way - few peoaple actually use Passyunk from Carpenter and 7th is an alternative that would only add about 20-30 seconds if required to re-roote to 7th and Christian and back to Passyunk (which basically dead ends shortly thereafter this intersection to begin with.
I guess advocates have never heard of turning radius, not to mention do you really want to be enjoying some Italian ice six inches from the travel path of a busy urban street?
Interesting collection of photos. Does show that not all pavement is used or needed.
Some people just don't get that we have devoted way too much real estate to the automobile and every street does not need to be a high speed thruway. People are complaining about loss of turn radius for autos and trucks, but what about reduced crossing danger for kids and the elderly?
People need to remember that something like 98% of us are pedestrians but only 66% are drivers.
It is ok if a car or delivery truck has to go a little slower or can not turn at EVERY intersection if it means
everyone else is safer.
I guess advocates have never heard of turning radius, not to mention do you really want to be enjoying some Italian ice six inches from the travel path of a busy urban street?
This is what I was thinking, too. After all the yap about the accident in Atlanta where a little boy who got away from his mom was killed by a speeding car, we want parks and tables out in the open traffic? I'm all for outdoor dining, I like it and my town has some restaurants that have street side dining in the summer, but not right in the line of traffic!
I guess advocates have never heard of turning radius, not to mention do you really want to be enjoying some Italian ice six inches from the travel path of a busy urban street?
well maybe you need to spend more time in Philly - people spend a $100 a person and wait hours to get tables where the they sit next to traffic - this would be nothing for the area. Though the allure is the outdoor seating and pedestrian entertainment, not the worrry of trffic - this is a walking city anyway - these comments show how far we hae swayed away from initmate places and slow moving cars - the car are the afterthought not the people and interactions IMHO
Most people from outside the area are blown away by the street seating - and most love it and interaction of life going on right in front - most dont even notice the traffic as it moves very lsow in these areas anyway and cars here look out for pedestrians moreso than the other way - how it should be in cities actually
its everywhere. I believe in CC alone there are nearly 300 places that have basically curbside seating - the sidewalks are narrow and it actually works cars dont move fast around here.
Some people just don't get that we have devoted way too much real estate to the automobile and every street does not need to be a high speed thruway.
By suggesting that the turning radius would be inadequate, that means I want every street to be a high speed thruway? Give me a break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
People are complaining about loss of turn radius for autos and trucks, but what about reduced crossing danger for kids and the elderly?
What about reducing the crossing danger for middle aged white males?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
People need to remember that something like 98% of us are pedestrians but only 66% are drivers.
It is ok if a car or delivery truck has to go a little slower or can not turn at EVERY intersection if it means
everyone else is safer.
The crosswalk at that intersection is roughly 30 feet long. That doesn't seem to be an overly long crossing. You want to talk long crosswalks, go to Florida!
By suggesting that the turning radius would be inadequate, that means I want every street to be a high speed thruway? Give me a break.
What about reducing the crossing danger for middle aged white males?!
The crosswalk at that intersection is roughly 30 feet long. That doesn't seem to be an overly long crossing. You want to talk long crosswalks, go to Florida!
Not a good comparison or reference IMO (although I know you weren't seriously comparing). South Philly is a very dense, walkable area. While only 30 feet, the occurrence of pedestrians meeting traffic are not even comparable to a FL highway.
In an area that's so dense, why should every corner consider turning radius? Not every street is (or should be) used for turning trucks and buses. However, every street is and should be used for walking. Signage could help direct drivers to the appropriate routes for adequate turning (most probably are already aware anyway).
That's a busy intersection, and the unused pavement made crossing that much less safe. By removing some of the unused pavement and extending the curb, cars can see pedestrians much more easily, and traffic stays where it should (vs trying to make inappropriate turns). A lot of times, the danger of crossing on these streets is that traffic and pedestrians cannot see one another until they're both in each others' critical path.
Oh, and what makes this so important is that just because you have the green light (car or pedestrian), it doesn't mean the other person is going to stop. Far too many people have been killed by the right-away.
I guess advocates have never heard of turning radius, not to mention do you really want to be enjoying some Italian ice six inches from the travel path of a busy urban street?
I think part of the point here is that every urban street does not have to be a Busy urban street.
Given the population density some streets can have a road diet and underutilized pavement can become people space.
This thread touches on the discussion about street activities that do not include driving (e.g. sports, biking, etc.). I've visited and lived in a few different dense urban neighborhoods that had very little street traffic. Dense cities with grids provide so many options for driving, that a lot of streets serve mainly residents of that street. The quiet in those neighborhoods can often times deceive you into thinking you're not in a large city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
