Comment 101340

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted May 16, 2014 at 12:24:58 in reply to Comment 101339

I meant parochial in the sense of "concerned only with the interests of one's own ward to the exclusion of the interests of those living in other wards" because the mountain councillors felt that because some their streets didn't have sidewalks downtown residents shouldn't be getting two-way conversion. As a previous commenter pointed out, walkability is not a zero sum game between the urban and suburban parts of the city.

These same councillors opposed two-way conversions this year and last year because of the possible delays for their ward residents who might use those streets.

The issue of whether one-way streets have helped or hindered the downtown economy and residents over the past 55 years and whether this is still true today is separate and a ward 2 resident supporting one-way streets is certainly not being parochial (even though I would respectfully disagree).

It is also a fact that the one-way conversions were in fact approved thirteen years ago, and the fact they have still not been implemented is a troubling example of not following through on decisions.

It is also clear that the majority of residents, and the Ward 1 and 2 councillors are generally supportive of two-way conversion and supporting two-way conversion, wherever appropriate, has been a policy of the Durand Neighbourhood Association for many years.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-05-16 12:33:22

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds