Dilla
Senior Member
I think lay-bys are justifiable only at "destinations" (subjective as that may be) such as hotels, large department stores etc. At those destinations, the rights of pedestrians and bicyclists should be subordinated. Heresy? Maybe, but I do believe there is a place for automobiles downtown.
Now that you mention it, I don't think the lay-by at Pusateri's is warranted, as it's not a large store for which people would specifically drive downtown.
As for why the City doesn't actively encourage these things, I think it's pretty clear that planners aren't really keen on them in principle but will occasionally make an exception on the merits. Moreover, governments are by their nature reactive -- even on issues officials deem good public policy.
And one shouldn't assume that private interests and the public good are mutually exclusive.
Thank you for that, well thought out, convincing post. I too don't mind lay-bys at certain destinations, and it is the circumstances as to how this one came about as much as the physical thing itself which lead to the bad taste in my mouth.
I don't mind automobiles downtown, but I'm not into the idea of making it much easier than it already is for car at the cost of bicycles and pedestrians. Hopefully my fear here is unwarranted, and the private interests in this case will be congruent with the public's. I certainly do not assume the two can never be the same. In this instance, we'll have to wait and see, I suppose.
Now that you mention it, I don't think the lay-by at Pusateri's is warranted, as it's not a large store for which people would specifically drive downtown.
This is part of the problem, there's now two very recent, very close to one another, right downtown. Is this a harbinger of things to come?