I use 11th a few times a week and I am not opposed to keeping vehicles either - just want a sense of the magnitude of cost differential given all the alternative driving routes available. My argument is that unlike suburban spots, the pedestrian traffic along this corridor (and much of the city centre) is actually material and should be prioritized over vehicle access when trade-offs need to be made. Any growth argument that the area will see more car traffic from development also means it will see far more pedestrians as well. I can't imagine the 800+ new residents between West Village Towers and 11th and 11th tower will result in more new drivers on 11th than more new pedestrians.
Pedestrians aren't prioritized in Option 1 or 2. For example, Option 1 proposes only a 1.6m wide sidewalk which is around the technical minimum design standard for two wheel chairs or strollers to pass each other. Option 2 is a bit better at 2.0m sidewalks. But neither of these widths reflect how people actually walk, especially in urban areas - people vary in widths and speeds, often walk together in groups, often carry things (especially groceries back from the CO-OP a block away). We plan and build to the minimum or just above the minimum standards for pedestrians - which already don't reflect real users - even on a corridor with some of the highest pedestrian traffic around.
Now the car designs in Option 1 and 2 are also likely built to near minimum standards - the problem is road standards are far beyond the typical user need, so the exact opposite of the pedestrian issue. Big buffers between lanes, future-proofing so large fire trucks can use the road (which they currently operate fine without today due to avoiding the train crossing). All turns are preserved in both options. To rub in the bias a bit more, Option 2 is positioned to be a wider span and more expensive because it seeks to have a wider sidewalks and more plants, not because we have decided to allow cars to drive in all directions all the time and future proof for any possible vehicle size imaginable.
This is the bias in the design in Option 1 and 2 - pedestrians get the minimum regardless of their volumes or actual needs, drivers get everything they need including stuff they don't currently need like wide lanes, buffers and imaginary future large vehicles.
All this is to say: these factors and biases comes at real costs and real trade-offs so it's an important discussion. If trade-offs need to be made on cost and project scale, I'd sacrifice all the future-proofed road width standards for wider, future-proofed sidewalks given the area's current and future needs - and if necessary give up car access entirely if it means better access here and elsewhere for an increasingly pedestrian-heavy area.
