7 Comments
User's avatar
bob todrick's avatar

Bad idea.

As a resident on 119ave I already have to deal with the two infill houses newly constructed, meaning four families in each as opposed to one…all owning vehicles and of course no back alley garages.

So parking on street is at a premium.

Being semi-retired I have time to relax in my front yard where I get to watch the maybe four or five cyclists per hour on our street (which by the way has a 30km/h speed limit).

Si we are supposed to get rid of parking, make it more difficult for the majority of road users for four or five cyclists?

The city needs to get its priorities straight and realize that Edmonton, whether they like it or not because of our long winters and urban sprawl is still a car centered city.

Expand full comment
Aaron's avatar

Do you measure the need for a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river?

Expand full comment
bob todrick's avatar

If it meant inconveniencing hundreds of people for only a few swimmers…yes.

Expand full comment
Aaron's avatar

Weird, because we never seem to have issues inconveniencing people to build car infrastructure.

You can always park you car in your garage.

Expand full comment
bob todrick's avatar

I guess than the fact I stand to lose my handicapped parking in front of my home doesn’t in your mind count as an inconvenience?

Expand full comment
Aaron's avatar

I'm sorry that that's happening, we certainly need to do a lot more to accomodate accessibility in the city. I don't recall seeing any signed handicapped parking when I did a parking audit in the area though. Hopefully there is still good access to your home for you, like via the garage.

Expand full comment
Victoria's avatar

4-5 cyclists/hr vs how many vehicles? I'm betting more cyclists come by per hour than vehicles. Edmonton is only a car centered city because the infrastructure has been focused on that. Change is hard, I know, but things don't stay the same forever.

Expand full comment