Comment 84648

By sselway (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 21:49:06 in reply to Comment 84645

Partial success? Thanks, but our appeal was dismissed. However, one of the reasons we appealed was for James N. and Burlington E. to be included.

One of the problems with the City's traffic hierarchy, is that once a street is "arterial" it is then developed, maintained, and forever an arterial. Burlington E. particularly is residential in character, with a park and 2 variety stores. Does it really need to be an arterial? James is more mixed use, with a large residential component.

In addition, we have a lot of "cut-through traffic" using Burlington, James, and Bay, although probably not comparable to Beasley's Cannon Street Hiway!

We want to encourage "destination traffic" (to the west harbour attractions, events etc.) to drive slowly as those streets are primarily residential. Yes, we have to have parking passes and we do get gridlock.

Another intent was to protect our neighbourhood as the west harbour is developed and Piers 7 & 8 are intensified. Looking to the future.

I think there are many positive aspects that can be taken from the North End Traffic Management Plan (City Version) that other ward 2 neighbourhoods would find attractive. Interesting - it is not online that I can find! I will make you a copy!

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds