Okay, I could say that the conclusions in yesterday's entry were just a test that you all failed (except you, Ben), but actually I wrote the conclusion totally backward. It should teach me to blog at 3 AM when I should be sleeping.
The simple street in the post is the more expensive one. The wider section costs more than the narrow section to both build and maintain. The simple street also depresses property values. By creating an environment that accommodates only automobiles, the street provides function, but no form. It is like using my daughter's watch she got from from McDonalds; it functions, but is not going to get me paid more after my next interview.
The simple street is a harsh place, unlike the complex street that is not only aesthetically more appealing, but provides for public space that adds value to the adjacent properties.
Incidentally, yesterday I was provided with this article, The Myth of the Great Wide Way, that delves into the safety aspect of wider streets. Not only is the more complex street cheaper to build and maintain, and not only does it improve property values instead of stagnate them, but it is actually safer than the simple, auto-only street.
I've updated yesterday's entry. If you were confused by what I wrote, go back and read the conclusions again. As for me, I'm going to go and get some sleep.