200 South ? GreenWay

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/51713310-90/200-south-east-lake.html.csp

 So the city is debating to remove vehicle lanes of traffic and replace them with bike and pedestrian lanes. - Yes - I think anytime you remove cars from the road the better.  Oh but lets start the debate, if you read the article or the comments by the community you'll see that we all have our opinions.
Mostly I believe that the majority of the comments missed the point.  REPLACE cars with people. 

A summary of the article - First phase remove two of the four lanes of travel and replace them with bike and pedestrian lanes, On 200 South from 200 E to 900 E cost $500,000.  Second phase add green space.  If you know 200 South , you'll know that at 900 E there are already big green planting medians in the center of the street. How does that part of the street feel? Intimate, quiet, slow? Better then the next block to the west where there are for some reason four lanes plus a center turning lane and parking on the either side of the street.  I.E. the street is huge, just one of the many in SLC. 

Though many of the concerns are well grounded the biggest sharing pathways between bikes and pedestrians. Oh how selfish we all are.  Your telling me that if one lane each way was turned into a lane for both bikes and pedestrians that there wouldn't be enough room for the two?  Each lane is probably 12 feet wide and the average sidewalk is 4-5' ,  bike lane 4-6' , so that's the widest for each.  I know from experince that bikes and pedestrians can share both without to many problems, everyone needs to learn to be more aware of their surroundings. There are presidents all around the country and world for that matter that can prove that fact.  Lets think - don't forget that there already sidewalks on both sides of the street, how many pedestrians do you think are going to cross the road to walk down the middle of the street with no tree canopy? So I am guessing the lanes will be mostly used for bikes.  And bikers your telling me you rather share the road with cars that can kill you or pedestrian that just get in the way?

Another standard argument - Its going to increase car congestion. It might at first, the point is though to have those cars either decide to bike to work or use another street or just use that street but slow down. And yes all those are good goals, who out there doesn't  

The second phase I believe is a less needed , for the money and commitment the city should spent is time else where.  The most important Phase is the first where you are just removing car traffic and opening up the streets for diversification.  So build it and sit back and watch what happens and take that to the next project.