03-10-2016, 01:00 PM
They’re actually not “local” streets in quotation marks; they are just local streets. Isn’t that their designation?
I understand the need for redundancy in the network, but none of these streets seem to provide redundancy that isn’t provided somewhere else. I’m also not sure how big a consideration should be given to relief from “disasters” (which are by definition infrequent) compared with the every day liveability of our neighbourhoods.
It’s a good idea to plan the street network proactively when development can be foreseen. I’ve lived in neighbourhoods with significant rat-running- the practice pre-dated me and so I couldn’t very well complain. Additionally, though, it would have been pretty unlikely to get significant traffic calming put in place when so many people in cars were accustomed to using the neighbourhood streets as through-streets. If these streets are not commonly used by rat-runners (but, apparently, to some extent), but we can anticipate that they might be because they’re straight and traffic-generators are being built nearby, it’s a perfect time to implement traffic calming to discourage through traffic. If residents are reactionary instead of proactive, in ten years they might find themselves wanting solutions to genuinely unsafe and unpleasant conditions, but up against a significant number of motorists who have come to see themselves as entitled to drive through their neighbourhoods.
I think a lot of what things like this come down to, unfortunately, is what different people think a street should be. It can’t be disputed that these are public streets, but not all streets should prioritize fast car traffic.
I understand the need for redundancy in the network, but none of these streets seem to provide redundancy that isn’t provided somewhere else. I’m also not sure how big a consideration should be given to relief from “disasters” (which are by definition infrequent) compared with the every day liveability of our neighbourhoods.
It’s a good idea to plan the street network proactively when development can be foreseen. I’ve lived in neighbourhoods with significant rat-running- the practice pre-dated me and so I couldn’t very well complain. Additionally, though, it would have been pretty unlikely to get significant traffic calming put in place when so many people in cars were accustomed to using the neighbourhood streets as through-streets. If these streets are not commonly used by rat-runners (but, apparently, to some extent), but we can anticipate that they might be because they’re straight and traffic-generators are being built nearby, it’s a perfect time to implement traffic calming to discourage through traffic. If residents are reactionary instead of proactive, in ten years they might find themselves wanting solutions to genuinely unsafe and unpleasant conditions, but up against a significant number of motorists who have come to see themselves as entitled to drive through their neighbourhoods.
I think a lot of what things like this come down to, unfortunately, is what different people think a street should be. It can’t be disputed that these are public streets, but not all streets should prioritize fast car traffic.