I completely agree on calibrating the lights to reward reduced speed. This seems like low-hanging fruit, but of course it probably needs to be studied first. 
The reading I’ve done on one-way to two-way conversions (reversions in some cases) indicates it’s a very context specific decision. What is the city’s existing density? How large are the city blocks? Do one-way couplets converge with one another or do they terminate within an existing grid?
Some additional resources for anyone interested:
It is ridiculous to say that un-syncing the lights on one dangerous street in a sprawling car dominated city is going to have any effect of global warming. The only solution is slow the cars. How many people are going to walk any distance out of their way to use a pedestrian bridge? Probably very few unless we build one at every intersection. And why are we suggesting that its the pedestrians that need the warning signs and not the impatient moron in their lifted 250 doing 50mph down a city street? That guy needs to be punished.
so punish everyone, @phil? de synch the lights, figure out how to block people driving thru, don’t like any of the architectural digest ideas. Open minds are better. naturally i made a “global warming” comment in sarcasm.
They could certainly start by dropping the speed limit and re-synchronizing the lights at a lower speed. 35 in an environment like this is absolutely inexcusable. This road is a hot spot for crashes with fatalities and serious injuries, for both pedestrians and motorists (at least 3 deaths in the past 4 years- a motorist in 2016, a pedestrian in 2019, and a cyclist earlier this year.) And thanks to the synchronization, this is a rare case where setting a lower speed limit (actually, re-timing the lights) would immediately result in lower speeds. It’s about a mile, so a speed limit of 25 would mean about 40 extra seconds to traverse downtown. Above 25mph, road capacity barely increases with higher speeds, so capacity would decrease by less than 5%.
What do you say @HardeesBiscuit ?
My next changes beyond that would be:
aww c’mon hitting that little dip at dawson and martin while going 55mph is fun…
Depends on what you hit…? My bad. Too much…
Well if people could drive responsibly and the police actually enforced the speed limit then I wouldn’t be suggesting de-syncing the lights but since people generally have their heads stuck up their rears and drive like wankers then yes, punish everyone with safe street design.
Since we’re on the topic of converting one-ways and slowing down traffic cutting through downtown, I’ll add my 2 cents.
I live on S Person St. (a one-way cut through of downtown), in a neighborhood setting. People drive way too fast all day every day; traffic needs to be slowed down for safety.
A few years ago my car parked out front was turned into a pancake because of a 5 car collision. It was actually knocked about 50 feet up the road into my neighbor’s car. Just 5 minutes before he was loading things into his trunk. You can see the front of my car is buckled from the impact.
Back to the topic, my opinion is that through development, and rethinking traffic flows/bike lanes, we can create a better, more connected, and safer downtown where people live. Not a traffic cut-through for people who want to save 5 minutes avoiding 440.
It will be a long time before I take parking issues seriously.
And, this just dropped in the News & Observer about the ONE Wake Coalition stepping up in to the process.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article246446345.html
Hopefully Kane & Malik will nod their heads…then ignore them
Wait, what? Can you try that again -but with punctuations instead of run-on sentences, this time?
So… the eye-rolling here makes it sound like this is a NIMBY group that’s just trying to drag along the Downtown South project into the pits. But that doesn’t sound like who they are in this article:
Kane being willing to listen to concerned nearby residents about specific, directed concerns with measurable possible outcomes (not an endless list of straw-man arguments) just sounds like a smart and reasonable idea. Am I missing something here?
Based on “Alinsky, a Chicago community activist”,holy cow, Raleigh is going to be screwed.
On Alinsky :
Ignoring the current polarization of ‘radical’ and simply focusing on tenets of belief without falling into the hyperbole that the man dedicated his final work - or even more sensational - his life to Lucifer… his theories don’t sound unreasonable for rallying people around a common goal in an effort to amplify their collective means? Sounds almost optimistic, which can feel strange in these times. His thoughts have been cribbed into notes argued for / against by both sides of our current political entrenchments.
"Organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions; (2) that the only way for communities to build long-term power is by organizing people and the money [they raise] around a common vision; and (3) that a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership—and not one or two charismatic leaders—can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions [and “grassroots” people]. "
In his defining of ‘Radical’ : “The Radical believes that all peoples should have a high standard of food, housing, and health … The Radical places human rights far above property rights. He is for universal, free public education and recognizes this as fundamental to the democratic way of life … The Radical believes completely in real equality of opportunity for all peoples regardless of race, color, or creed. He insists on full employment for economic security but is just as insistent that man’s work should not only provide economic security but also be such as to satisfy the creative desires within all men.” “Radicals … hope for a future where the means of economic production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.” “The Radical will bitterly oppose complete Federal control of education. He will fight for individual rights and against centralized power …The Radical is deeply interested in social planning but just as deeply suspicious of and antagonistic to any idea of plans which work from the top down. Democracy to him is working from the bottom up.”
I know most of us are pro-DoSo. There’s an opportunity to submit comments/letters to the planning commission (I believe). “Liveable Raleigh” is pushing for participation in this process. I want to see if anyone here can put together a well crafted message in support of the development that we could use as a template and drum up some support? Any volunteers?
Nah, their concerns are reasonable and they’re willing to work with Kane, they’re not being obstinate for the sake of it like some “anti-gentrification” types.
I 'm really not trying to past the buck on this suggestion but I think you Oak City would do a fantastic job writing a support letter concerning DT South ! There are so many Pro’s for Raleigh to have a project such as this . Raleigh is probably the largest city in America that does not have a downtown area sports stadium . Every large city in NC has a downtown area sports stadium . I’m guessing about this but affordable housing would probably be one of the first projects along with the soccer stadium to be built . Guys , this is very exciting !
