Comment 90646

By Evie (anonymous) | Posted August 06, 2013 at 14:06:27

Hi Sara,

Great article, I support the idea of Complete Streets in Hamilton and I quickly read the draft policy. The policy does not speak to the issue of curb side parking. The only mention of parking is the creation of parking lots built by private developers. On existing streets or new developments where space permits, the City should be endorsing curb side parking as it protects pedestrians from moving vehicles and is a more affordable and convenient form of parking and the profit goes back to the City. Private developers building parking lots will surely have inflated parking rates and fines as is the case with imperial parking. In the case of Downtown Hamilton, the idea of adding parking lots might mean tearing down existing buildings. Accessibility to shops/restaurants/facilities by mobility challenged and elderly individuals will be limited if the only parking available is lot parking and could marginalize such persons from utilizing all Hamilton has to offer.

You and I conversed via twitter a while back concerning the removal of curb side parking on Hunter and you seemed to be endorsing the removal of the curb parking to accommodate a two way bike lane (that was my interpretation of your tweets, I may be wrong?), while I believe that the street could accommodate a bike lane, street parking and a single moving vehicle lane which would calm the street and leave it accessible to cyclists and motorists needing to park their vehicle. If you didn’t believe that Hunter could become more ‘complete’, how do you believe any other Hamilton Streets can become a complete street? Maybe my definition of a complete street is different from yours? I couldn’t find a clear definition of where parking is addressed in the draft.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds