TransLink: New Farm changes - information session

[somebody]

I also don't understand why 50 different bus routes need to do the City-Valley route.

Already answered.  Because there is limited layover space in the city.  Or at least that is the main reason as far as I can see.

[#Metro]

I'm going to draw up a map later and see if we can find some common ground...

[somebody]

I'd also have to add that insisting on the 199 deviating via the Valley actually increases the amount of air carried to the Valley.

[somebody]

The 199 MUST serve the Valley. That is the point

How can you back that one up?

I'm going to point out that dwb has not responded to this.

[somebody]

How about this one for a 470 upgrade:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=200+Commercial+Road,+Newstead,+Queensland&daddr=Beeston+Street,+Newstead,+Queensland+to:50+James+Street,+New+Farm,+Queensland+to:Ann+Street,+Fortitude+Valley,+Queensland+to:410+Adelaide+St,+Brisbane+Queensland+4000+to:10+Adelaide+St,+Brisbane+Queensland+4000&hl=en&geocode=FacZXf4dmFMfCSlpVVbnkFmRazGB7n-8OWGvFg%3BFdcBXf4d0FEfCSkF-Y-2j1mRazEKjy02aWEc4A%3BFegJXf4dpzYfCSk53fpxjVmRazFXD6bSoBh4tA%3BFc8LXf4deygfCSm7xBOx9lmRazEt3TKR8H4wNg%3BFaLvXP4dqw8fCSn1EE059lmRazEnTm-IB-wzbg%3BFWrWXP4d2vAeCSnTBkdGBFqRazG1iQtiWIVYcA&mra=ls&sll=-27.46145,153.03641&sspn=0.027037,0.048194&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=15

This would remove the need for the 199 to run up Macquarie St to Teneriffe Ferry, it may be able to serve Lamington St instead.

Seems to be an all winner no loser proposition so long as the proposed route has an adequate frequency.  Not 100% sure if all the roads are passable by buses.

Here's a mod avoiding all narrow streets and only using streets already with buses on them:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=200+Commercial+Road,+Newstead,+Queensland&daddr=67+Kingsholme+Street,+Newstead,+Queensland+to:50+James+Street,+New+Farm,+Queensland+to:Ann+Street,+Fortitude+Valley,+Queensland+to:410+Adelaide+St,+Brisbane+Queensland+4000+to:10+Adelaide+St,+Brisbane+Queensland+4000&geocode=FacZXf4dmFMfCSlpVVbnkFmRazGB7n-8OWGvFg%3BFXL1XP4duFsfCSkZ-7pgj1mRazFtAsG-nEgn0A%3BFegJXf4dpzYfCSk53fpxjVmRazFXD6bSoBh4tA%3BFc8LXf4deygfCSm7xBOx9lmRazEt3TKR8H4wNg%3BFaLvXP4dqw8fCSn1EE059lmRazEnTm-IB-wzbg%3BFWrWXP4d2vAeCSnTBkdGBFqRazG1iQtiWIVYcA&hl=en&mra=ls&dirflg=w&sll=-27.462243,153.049936&sspn=0.027113,0.048194&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.461367,153.036461&spn=0.02696,0.048194&t=h&z=15

[dwb]

I'd also have to add that insisting on the 199 deviating via the Valley actually increases the amount of air carried to the Valley.

The 199 MUST serve the Valley. That is the point

How can you back that one up?

I'm going to point out that dwb has not responded to this.

If you insist, I will do the same and INSIST that the 199 must NOT bypass the Valley. My reasoning is that it is a key destination for the route, irrespective of whether you think these pax could be served by a multitude of illegible and infrequent different routes.

I also notice, that you didn't respond to my assertion that if a busway station was built in the Valley, there would be one such stop for a range of routes using either Elizabeth St or Adelaide St.

How about this one for a 470 upgrade:
http://goo.gl/maps/FnCR

This would remove the need for the 199 to run up Macquarie St to Teneriffe Ferry, it may be able to serve Lamington St instead.

Seems to be an all winner no loser proposition so long as the proposed route has an adequate frequency.  Not 100% sure if all the roads are passable by buses.

Here's a mod avoiding all narrow streets and only using streets already with buses on them:

http://goo.gl/maps/HzkS

Regarding the 470 my mind boggles that you would want to remove the 199 from Teneriffe and replace it with the 470, even if you do straighten it out a bit. I strongly think that Teneriffe waterfront should be served direct from Ann/Wickham and most effectively with the Glider having 1-2 stops added to it on Macquarie St, you could then have the 199 go straight down Brunswick.

Further, even if you are just wanting to straighten 470 and not change other services, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just stick with James St and Macquarie... why complicate the route as you have?

[Gazza]

Just looking, but I'd support the 199 going via Ivory street, because you can just walk from a stop (presumably located as close as possible to the Brunswick Ivory intersection, and made into a Super Stop) to whatever bit of the Valley central area you need to.

If drunk people can manage to walk that distance and greater to hop between bars on a Saturday night, then sober daytime New Farmers with business in the Valley can do so to...Its only a 200m walk to the mall, and 350m to Valley Metro....easy (And the mall itself is a good pedestrian environment, so you can cover ground quickly and it doesn't 'feel' like you are walking far.

It's a bit like how in the CBD, you can walk from one end of the Queen St mall to the other, no sweat at all, yet its actually 400m, which is the supposed limit for people walking to bus services.


At it means the 199 is faster (and hence cheaper to run), because it avoids that time consuming trip through the most congested part of the Valley going around the block with all the traffic lights etc.

[dwb]

Just looking, but I'd support the 199 going via Ivory street, because you can just walk from a stop (presumably located as close as possible to the Brunswick Ivory intersection, and made into a Super Stop) to whatever bit of the Valley central area you need to.

If drunk people can manage to walk that distance and greater to hop between bars on a Saturday night, then sober daytime New Farmers with business in the Valley can do so to...Its only a 200m walk to the mall, and 350m to Valley Metro....easy (And the mall itself is a good pedestrian environment, so you can cover ground quickly and it doesn't 'feel' like you are walking far.

It's a bit like how in the CBD, you can walk from one end of the Queen St mall to the other, no sweat at all, yet its actually 400m, which is the supposed limit for people walking to bus services.


At it means the 199 is faster (and hence cheaper to run), because it avoids that time consuming trip through the most congested part of the Valley going around the block with all the traffic lights etc.

Do you know where the last 199 stop is when it goes via Ivory St tunnel? I think if you'd used this service and knew where the stop was you would not be suggesting its use as it is entirely counter good PT 101. It is not legible and the pedestrian connections are not good. I stand by my assertion that the 199 must go via the Valley, this is a significant destination and origin for passengers in and out bound. Removing the route from the Valley would be a disaster!

[dwb]

199 - 197 - 196 - 195 changes

Translink's proposed changes to route 196/7 provide an opportunity to enhance New Farm routes beyond simply merging the 196/7 to provide a BUZ level of service.

The proposal below includes a simplified 196 route servicing Barker, Moray, Sydney, Oxlade Dv terminating at New Farm Park ferry terminal. It also includes pairing 196 BUZ and 195 express services and routing them via the Ivory St tunnel, extending the CityGlider to Merthyr Centre (via Macquarie and Merthyr Sts) and routing the 199 directly down Brunswick St to terminate at New Farm Park ferry terminal (rather than Newstead-Bulimba ferry terminal).

Proposed 196 - UQ to New Farm via City - green
Simplified route at New Farm servicing Barker, Moray, Sydney Sts and Oxlade Drive terminating at New Farm Park ferry terminal Continues to service West End and Highgate Hill. Services would commence servicing UQ however would no longer service Fairfield. Such a change would require alternative city bound routes via Annerley Road for residents of Fairfield.

Proposed CityGlider - purple
It is proposed to extend the Glider down Macquarie St to Merthyr Centre to give enhanced access to Teneriffe Waterfront and enable re-routing of 199. This would largely provide for the 'express' function for Teneriffe/Newstead Riverfront residents to the City and would make routing the 199 via Ivory St redundant. Layover would occur in front of New Farm park (the removal of carparking would not affect residents and there would be significantly improved all week public transport access to one of inner Brisbane's most popular destinations.

Proposed 195 - blue
New Farm ferry terminal down Oxlade Drive, Sydney St, Brunswick to City via Ivory St tunnel (paired as express with 196). Operated mainly as a peak hour express.

Proposed 199 - red
It is proposed to simplified the route at New Farm so that services travel the peninsular directly down Brunswick St terminating at New Farm park ferry terminal (along with 195/6).

Proposed 197
Service amalgamated with new 196 BUZ service.



To view the map in more detail access the google map here http://goo.gl/maps/RCrL

NB... from my perspective the likelihood of the CityGlider and 199 changing are next to nothing, so from my perspective we should concentrate on the changes to 195/6/7. However this is my entire proposal given Somebody's obsession with Ivory St tunnel for the 199.

193 could remain as Translink proposes and the entire 470 route should be reviewed, however this requires significant work at the Toowong end of the route and should not be done as a half measure.

[somebody]

I also notice, that you didn't respond to my assertion that if a busway station was built in the Valley, there would be one such stop for a range of routes using either Elizabeth St or Adelaide St.

That's because I don't see that one happenning.

Regarding the 470 my mind boggles that you would want to remove the 199 from Teneriffe and replace it with the 470, even if you do straighten it out a bit. I strongly think that Teneriffe waterfront should be served direct from Ann/Wickham and most effectively with the Glider having 1-2 stops added to it on Macquarie St, you could then have the 199 go straight down Brunswick.

Further, even if you are just wanting to straighten 470 and not change other services, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just stick with James St and Macquarie... why complicate the route as you have?

Not convinced of your CityGlider extension plan.  Once you pass Tenneriffe Ferry the route is starting to become indirect.

199 to New Farm Ferry with 196 along the River, may have some merit.

The Brookes St bit of the 470 is a bit annoying and I would seek to chop that one off.  Not 100% sure that a bus could make that weird right hand turn from McLachlan St into James St though.

[dwb]

I also notice, that you didn't respond to my assertion that if a busway station was built in the Valley, there would be one such stop for a range of routes using either Elizabeth St or Adelaide St.

That's because I don't see that one happenning.

Ever?? Bus improvements to the Valley have been on the cards for years. I think it is only a matter of time before it happens, and given CRR won't happen for a while, I think you might be surprised.... one day a plan for FV might just appear!

[dwb]

Not convinced of your CityGlider extension plan.  Once you pass Tenneriffe Ferry the route is starting to become indirect.

What is indirect about it?? If you lived Teneriffe Waterfront the most direct way to the city is along Macquarie St into Ann St, and that is what I'm proposing the bus should do. It seems counter intuitive to catch the bus the opposite direction than you would walk or drive.

[mufreight]

A possible solution at the university end of the routes would be the construction of a tunnel linking the bus station at the end of the Schonnel Bridge to Carmody Road with a bus station under the Carmody Road entrance, the only problem being Can Do Campbell and his tunnel vision has moved on and the Quick Quirk might not be as quick to go to (under)ground.

[dwb]

A possible solution at the university end of the routes would be the construction of a tunnel linking the bus station at the end of the Schonnel Bridge to Carmody Road with a bus station under the Carmody Road entrance, the only problem being Can Do Campbell and his tunnel vision has moved on and the Quick Quirk might not be as quick to go to (under)ground.

But even if you did this, would you route the 196 via it. I doubt it.

And why build a tunnel when there is a perfectly good road there already?

[#Metro]

A tunnel would be useful but expensive and time consuming to build. Of course a tunnel for PT is much better than TransApex fantasy tunnel from Buranda to Toowong. However, I think much of the money should be spent on fixing up the services we have now-- so money should be spent on winnable battles like frequency upgrades rather than concrete.

[somebody]

Ever?? Bus improvements to the Valley have been on the cards for years. I think it is only a matter of time before it happens, and given CRR won't happen for a while, I think you might be surprised.... one day a plan for FV might just appear!

A possibility some point down the track.  May be quite a number of years though.

Not convinced of your CityGlider extension plan.  Once you pass Tenneriffe Ferry the route is starting to become indirect.

What is indirect about it?? If you lived Teneriffe Waterfront the most direct way to the city is along Macquarie St into Ann St, and that is what I'm proposing the bus should do. It seems counter intuitive to catch the bus the opposite direction than you would walk or drive.

At the Teneriffe Ferry end this is true, but you still need to deviate in to the ferry wharf stops.  At the Merthyr Rd end you would go via James St.  The need to deviate in to the ferry wharf stop moves the break even point towards the ferry wharf.  Although if a reasonable turn around location was available this idea may be OK.

[#Metro]

If you want a direct service, go from Fortitude Valley
down Brunswick Street, and then up any of (Arthur, Harcourt or Kent Street) and then get into Commercial Road and terminate at Tenneriffe Ferry.

Although I am not sure if this is a very good route as it misses a lot of destinations. But it is more direct that most things proposed so far.

[mufreight]

A possible solution at the university end of the routes would be the construction of a tunnel linking the bus station at the end of the Schonnel Bridge to Carmody Road with a bus station under the Carmody Road entrance, the only problem being Can Do Campbell and his tunnel vision has moved on and the Quick Quirk might not be as quick to go to (under)ground.

But even if you did this, would you route the 196 via it. I doubt it.

And why build a tunnel when there is a perfectly good road there already?

The tunnel would allow through routing of services so a Moggil or Kenmore through routing to Tenneriffe would be a possibility as would a bi directional loop service through the city to the University, the removal of the the dead times at the present termini would enable a higher frequency.

[somebody]

If you want a direct service, go from Fortitude Valley
down Brunswick Street, and then up any of (Arthur, Harcourt or Kent Street) and then get into Commercial Road and terminate at Tenneriffe Ferry.

Although I am not sure if this is a very good route as it misses a lot of destinations. But it is more direct that most things proposed so far.

CityGlider already provides the direct Valley-Teneriffe Ferry service.

I think New Farm would be better covered by providing more of James St than any of the streets you have mentioned.

[#Metro]

And I agree with you... was just trying to show an alternative to the "indirect" routes under current discussion.
My previous ideas are already on record...

[Gazza]

Do you know where the last 199 stop is when it goes via Ivory St tunnel? I think if you'd used this service and knew where the stop was you would not be suggesting its use as it is entirely counter good PT 101.

Can you please articulate exactly why it wouldn't work, rather than using blanket statements like "it is entirely counter good PT 101".

I've already given my viewpoint as to why I think Ivory street would be better....Faster and I feel its no great imposition to make people walk to other destinations in the Valley since the distances are so short, and as far as I'm concerned, an Ivory street routing is serving the valley...Have a look at the suburb boundaries.

Dunno why there is this obsession that you have to go right to a places doorstep to consider it 'served'...
Its like how at UQ, it is a 500m walk from Chancelors place to the Architecture studios, or a 600m walk to the TESOL center, or a 500m walk to IT/Comp Science etc.
If you are coming from UQ Lakes, its a 700m walk to the Biological Sciences library, 850m to food science, 600m to Engineering etc.

Do we expect that they build a busway that loops around the campus, so everyone can sit on their bottom right up to a stop in front their faculties?

No, instead what we do is get everyone at a couple of concentrated points, where you can provide good waiting facilities, the bus only needs to stop/load once and people assemble themselves here on their own time, not on the systems.

So translating this back to Fortitude Valley, what's wrong with relocating a stop so it is in front of (opposite for inbound) the Judith Wright centre) and just have people walk a couple of hundred meters to the Brunswick St mall?
Is it really a horrible thing for New Farmers to go through? Or do they prefer to sit on and go through multiple sets of traffic lights to get around the block?

[somebody]

For the record, I don't think that an allegedly poor location of the first stop on Brunswick St after Ivory St is much of a reason.  In peak hour I have suggested a New Farm-Valley-RBH route which would trump the notion of the 199 via Valley in peak.  I think it should be consistent peak/off peak.

The short walk difference, especially inbound, doesn't amount to much either.

[dwb]

Ever?? Bus improvements to the Valley have been on the cards for years. I think it is only a matter of time before it happens, and given CRR won't happen for a while, I think you might be surprised.... one day a plan for FV might just appear!

A possibility some point down the track.  May be quite a number of years though.

Not convinced of your CityGlider extension plan.  Once you pass Tenneriffe Ferry the route is starting to become indirect.

What is indirect about it?? If you lived Teneriffe Waterfront the most direct way to the city is along Macquarie St into Ann St, and that is what I'm proposing the bus should do. It seems counter intuitive to catch the bus the opposite direction than you would walk or drive.

At the Teneriffe Ferry end this is true, but you still need to deviate in to the ferry wharf stops.  At the Merthyr Rd end you would go via James St.  The need to deviate in to the ferry wharf stop moves the break even point towards the ferry wharf.  Although if a reasonable turn around location was available this idea may be OK.

Talk about pot kettle! You don't think you can move the stop for the ferry 50m on to Skyring Tce but you do want to move it from the centre of the valley several blocks across several major roads at least one with a dangerous slip lane and poor visibility and long pedestrian waits to an area that isn't visibly connected with the destination point.... sorry mind still boggles, throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

[somebody]

Firstly it is more than a 50m walk between the roundabout and Skyring Tce.  Secondly, serving the ferry is one of the main reasons for the existence of the CityGlider, while the 199 is there to serve New Farm.

[dwb]

Firstly it is more than a 50m walk between the roundabout and Skyring Tce.  Secondly, serving the ferry is one of the main reasons for the existence of the CityGlider, while the 199 is there to serve New Farm.

Yes indeed you are correct, it is 68m, I've just measured it.

[ButFli]

Secondly, serving the ferry is one of the main reasons for the existence of the CityGlider,

Who said?

[somebody]

Secondly, serving the ferry is one of the main reasons for the existence of the CityGlider,

Who said?

I did.  I'm ignoring the West End side, of course.  If it's to serve Newstead, then a BUZ 300 would have been a cheaper and better upgrade.

If not, then why have the Newstead side of the CityGlider?

[#Metro]

This is turning into a mess. Useful discussion though on routings.

[dwb]

Glider was the modern (read Liberal party) incarnation of the many proposed tram/light rail/street car plans for Brisbane. Each and every street car/ tram/ light rail plan had at its heart, the desire to link key land use renewal, this is particularly true in the case of Valley, Newstead, Teneriffe.

Why do you think the current Glider doesn't use Murri St and Commercial Rd both ways.... to serve Newstead River Park and support this renewed land use.

In fact this is globally true. Light rail/tram /street car projects are pretty much always targeted at supporting land use change and more public transport reliant lifestyles. That is why the thing serves destinations such as West End, South Bank Cultural Centre, City, Valley and Teneriffe. It is party why it links to ferries at either end to reach out to further afield land use destinations such as UQ and Oxford St Bulimba. But it is not is raison d'être! If you lived right on Oxford St the travel time for the 230 is more ore less equivalent to the city than using cross river ferry and Glider, and outside of peak it is quicker! So to inverse your logic, provision of right of way for 230 would have been cheaper than Glider.

[somebody]

Why do you think the current Glider doesn't use Murri St and Commercial Rd both ways.... to serve Newstead River Park and support this renewed land use.

You've lost me here.  The reason for this is the one way streets is it not?

In fact this is globally true. Light rail/tram /street car projects are pretty much always targeted at supporting land use change and more public transport reliant lifestyles. That is why the thing serves destinations such as West End, South Bank Cultural Centre, City, Valley and Teneriffe. It is party why it links to ferries at either end to reach out to further afield land use destinations such as UQ and Oxford St Bulimba. But it is not is raison d'être! If you lived right on Oxford St the travel time for the 230 is more ore less equivalent to the city than using cross river ferry and Glider, and outside of peak it is quicker! So to inverse your logic, provision of right of way for 230 would have been cheaper than Glider.

I'm pretty sceptical about the 230 timings.  The 232 is no faster in spite of using the Storey Bridge.  Maybe I should go out there just to see how good/bad it is!

[dwb]

You've lost me here.  The reason for this is the one way streets is it not?

No, Ann and Wickham are one way, Commercial Rd (and Skyring Tce for that matter) is two way and it can be accessed by a right turn off Wickham into Murri Way.

[somebody]

If that is true, then I am baffled as to the reason for the loop.  If the road network allows, routes should use the same roads in both directions, unless there is a good reason.

[dwb]

If that is true, then I am baffled as to the reason for the loop.  If the road network allows, routes should use the same roads in both directions, unless there is a good reason.

Clearly you weren't listening as I already told you the reason.

[somebody]

If that is true, then I am baffled as to the reason for the loop.  If the road network allows, routes should use the same roads in both directions, unless there is a good reason.

Clearly you weren't listening as I already told you the reason.

You mean to serve Skyring Tce and Commercial Rd?  I can't agree with such a strategy.  It would be better to provide a reasonable service to one road, after all, isn't that the strategy that made BUZ succeed.

[Gazza]

Exactly, if its going to be a high density area then obviously its going to be the sort of urban environment where people walk....So people should just walk to the one service through the heart of the area, not some silly loop that isn't even bidirectional.

[dwb]

Exactly, if its going to be a high density area then obviously its going to be the sort of urban environment where people walk....So people should just walk to the one service through the heart of the area, not some silly loop that isn't even bidirectional.

I presume it will be two way on Skyring Tce once the area has developed a bit more... I think they were too afraid of adding those extra 2mins and loosing the Commercial Rd passengers at the launch of the route.

The bus stop, minus the actual furniture is already there, opposite the Glider stop on Skyring Tce.

[SurfRail]

Looking at it, I find it hard to see why the service couldn't have just used the current Newstead-bound route in both directions to Teneriffe Ferry (ie as if doing a 300 between the city and Skyring Tce) and not travelled down Commercial Road at all.  The existing "normal" bus stop on Ann Street directly opposite Emporium and the Waterloo development would surely have sufficed in lieu of the current Cityglider stop around the corner - probably a better spot actually - and no other stops are made on Commercial Road anyway.

Not having any experience of using the Skyring Tce stop, do you actually end up with a forced transfer due to buses going out of service at the next stop?  My experience has been that generally a Cityglider leaves approximately the same time as one arrives to terminate, leading to a delay.

[somebody]

you do want to move it from the centre of the valley several blocks across several major roads at least one with a dangerous slip lane and poor visibility and long pedestrian waits to an area that isn't visibly connected with the destination point.... sorry mind still boggles, throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

Having been down to Brunswick St yesterday I cannot see how the slip lane towards the Ivory St tunnel is dangerous or has poor visibility.  It is unsignalised and has no pedestrian crossing, but it is easy enough to manage as a pedestrian off peak.  No trouble at all.  I doubt that this changes significantly in peak, to the degree that it becomes "dangerous".

I've measured some of the approximate walks in nearmap.com:
Valley Stn-Brunswick St stop 5: 450m
Valley Stn-Warner St stop 204: 300m, but requires crossing Wickham St without lights
Valley Stn-1st outbound stop after Ivory St: 640m
Last inbound stop before Ivory St to Valley Stn: 700m

On these walk distances, I do not understand the negativity regarding the Ivory St routing for the 199.  It needs to be done.  The current interchange is mediocre at best.  Making it slightly worse is outweighed by the advantage to CBD-New Farm trips, which is very significant.

[BrizCommuter]

you do want to move it from the centre of the valley several blocks across several major roads at least one with a dangerous slip lane and poor visibility and long pedestrian waits to an area that isn't visibly connected with the destination point.... sorry mind still boggles, throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

Having been down to Brunswick St yesterday I cannot see how the slip lane towards the Ivory St tunnel is dangerous or has poor visibility.  It is unsignalised and has no pedestrian crossing, but it is easy enough to manage as a pedestrian off peak.  No trouble at all.  I doubt that this changes significantly in peak, to the degree that it becomes "dangerous".

I've measured some of the approximate walks in nearmap.com:
Valley Stn-Brunswick St stop 5: 450m
Valley Stn-Warner St stop 204: 300m, but requires crossing Wickham St without lights
Valley Stn-1st outbound stop after Ivory St: 640m
Last inbound stop before Ivory St to Valley Stn: 700m

On these walk distances, I do not understand the negativity regarding the Ivory St routing for the 199.  It needs to be done.  The current interchange is mediocre at best.  Making it slightly worse is outweighed by the advantage to CBD-New Farm trips, which is very significant.

BrizCommuter agrees with DWB that the slip lane off Brunswick St to Ivory Street is dangerous to pedestrians. In fact it's probably one of the most potentially dangerous locations for pedestrians in Central Brisbane.

[somebody]

BrizCommuter agrees with DWB that the slip lane off Brunswick St to Ivory Street is dangerous to pedestrians. In fact it's probably one of the most potentially dangerous locations for pedestrians in Central Brisbane.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion.

Would a pedestrian (zebra) crossing sort this issue in your opinion?