Comment 78121

By highwater (registered) | Posted June 07, 2012 at 16:02:57 in reply to Comment 78118

I guess I'm confused. I thought you were arguing that we need to find a compromise between liveability and through traffic, but now you seem to be saying that you prefer one-ways because they offer more liveability and less convenience for through drivers than two way streets.

So which is it, compromise or prioritizing liveability at the expense of through traffic? Because it seems to me that if compromise is the goal, two-way is the way to go.

I also question how one-ways are better for cyclists. The restricted one-ways you are proposing might offer more room for bikelanes, but I'm not sure the majority of cyclists appreciate having to ride several blocks out of their way to get to their destination anymore than drivers do.

Nor have we even touched on the fact that two-ways are better for street retail. Given the crucial role it plays in our local economy, it seems to me that if we are going to prioritize any one street user over another, it should be the people who have invested in our streets, and whose lives and livelihoods depend on them.

I'm willing to concede that in some cases restricted one-ways can offer liveability and more space for pedestrians and cyclists, but to my mind the goal should be balanced streets that balance the needs of all users, including drivers and businesses, and for me that means two-way.

Comment edited by highwater on 2012-06-07 16:18:01

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds