Can we move on from the Spring Street reconfiguration issues?
The back-in concept that the city recently scrapped makes sense. By backing in, the vehicle has a safer means of visibility when entering the lane of traffic.
The idea that city parking staff are endangered with this method is questionable. Part of their job requires them to work in the street, especially with cars parked in the traditional, parallel fashion. They don reflective clothing for this reason. If someone has to walk in the street, these are the folks who are the most equipped and best trained to do it.
Previously, the curb “bump-outs” on the corner of Spring and High streets were reconfigured after poor public reception.
My concern is that the city is spending way too much time and money on a project that should not be considered highly complicated, and it is becoming apparent that the direction of the project is being heavily influenced by the loudest voices that have issue with it.
I’m not saying that the community shouldn’t be able to voice their opinion and have input on the progress that affects their lives. But we are talking about a multi-use street concept that has been heavily diluted from its original concept. The city planners, engineers and project managers are the experts in these areas; let’s not micromanage what we pay them to do.
I think that we also need to take a step back when reacting to new concepts. Change often takes time; the original concept for Spring Street had a lot of value to it because it was developed by people who specialize in city planning.
I’m losing confidence that the city will be able to tackle much larger developmental projects, if Spring Street is any indication of the level of effort, guidance and resources that they need to do a task.
Alexander Jacobs
Portland
Send questions/comments to the editors.
