> Al's right There's no reason to force cars to slow down on Chester Avenue. > > It's not as if people are bringing children or dogs between two sections > of a _heavily-used urban park_ or anything.
I can see Al's concerns and your concerns as orthogonal, even though they both involve the belgian blocks to a degree. The quote you included from Al mentioned nothing about forcing cars to slow down. You might wish to begin your argument with "I believe belgian blocks help to slow down traffic, which is a cause for concern among many parents and dog-owners alike." Framing your argument in this way (as an example), gives the opportunity for people to respond with perhaps other ways of mitigating traffic flow which do not involve belgian block. Even though Al does a disservice to his discourse by calling people's comlaints "wailing", he does appear to target two specific issues: the current belgian blocks cause damage to motor vehicles, and the higher cost associated with keeping the belgian blocks, which must be shared by Septa and tax payers. (I am not stating these as facts, merely as Al's talking points) It would be useful to either debate him on those points directly, or start a new thread to discuss the mitigation of traffic flow, but it only confuses the conversation when different issues are confounded. Because I and my son use the park, I am concerned about safety in and around the park. I personally do not think of the belgian blocks as safety enhancements, but perhaps someone has statistics showing that they indeed mitigate traffic. I hope there are other ways of slowing cars down that we could perhaps implement alongside existing infrastructure (whether or not the belgian blocks remain). With regards, Dan W. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
