Madison community members and business owners said Wednesday they are concerned about a plan that could convert a portion of West Gilman Street from one-way to two-way traffic flow.

In a meeting Thursday, locals and engineers talked about the advantages and disadvantages of making the section of Gilman Street between State Street and University Avenue into a two-way street.

The plan has been in the budget for several years, according to principal city engineer Christy Bachmann, but it was pushed back to 2009 due to delayed construction on the 500 and 600 blocks of State Street.

Ald. Marsha Rummel, District 6, and owner of Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative, 426 W. Gilman St., said the benefit of the two-way street would mean greater ease of access and traffic flow, which could increase the “vitality lacking on the street.”

But some said the two-way proposal creates further logistical challenges regarding both pedestrian and automobile safety, with the Gilman Street and University Avenue five-way intersection particularly in question for city officials.

The one-way option would add terrace to either side of Gilman Street but would not accomplish better circulation to the State Street area as originally planned in previous resolutions.

Community members present at the meeting were almost unanimously against the two-way proposal.

Gregg Watermann, Gilman Street property owner, said a two-way road “may bring more vehicles to that block, but at a sacrifice to pedestrians,” adding more exposure would most likely be fairly limited.

Walter Borowski, co-owner of Porta Bella Wine Cellar, said a one-way Gilman would work best, adding there are “numerous instances of safety concerns” for traffic and fellow pedestrians and bikers.

Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said the committee needs further input from area stakeholders and is not sure how to proceed on this issue.

“The two-way proposal was originally one of the least controversial issues in the plan,” Verveer said. “For years I was operating under the premise that this was … really a nice way to proceed.”

The commission decided to defer its decision for a month to allow it and community members additional time to consider the issue. They moved to address the reconstruction at the next meeting May 22.