Comment 49679

By Geoff (anonymous) | Posted October 16, 2010 at 21:10:43

Thanks for the link to the study. The problem I see with that study is that it compares injury rates on one way streets to that of two way streets without factoring in the number of cars/pedestrians on the streets. If you count the total number of cars that pass along King, Main, and Canon in a day, it will be way higher than for other streets, and there are way more pedestrians crossing those streets. Regardless of whether those streets are one way or two way, there is a higher likelihood of pedestrians being hit.
I don't get the whole argument that people drive too fast on one way streets. If that is the case, then all that has to be done is to slow down the synching so that if you drive too fast, you come to a red light rather than a green light. This would encourage slower driving. Two way streets only encourage people to drive faster to beat the successive, long line of red lights awaiting them.
Can you prove that making driving more efficient and less frustrating encourages people to drive more? If someone needs to drive somewhere, they will drive somewhere. Long gone are the days of driving for pleasure.
My job requires that I drive throughout Hamilton, Burlington, and Oakville on a regular basis. Hamilton is, by far, the most enjoyable city to drive in and through. It can take twice as long to go half as far in the other cities. That decreases quality of life, increases pollution, increases fuel usage, and discourages people from visiting and working in those areas.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools