Several months ago my wife and I attended a meeting on the issue of converting State and High streets from one-way to two-way, and I chimed in with passionate aversion to this costly undertaking.

Part of my objection to this plan is that I live at the base of State and York streets, where we would be surrounded by traffic should the two-way plan go through. Furthermore, we walk these streets almost daily, and with the exception of the occasional speed demon, both streets are relatively quiet, except for the brief heavy drive-time periods.

As for the pedestrians, aside from us, there are so few. However, there is the occasional driver who tries to play “chicken,” racing us to the crosswalks, but we prevail, and without lifting a finger! The problematic areas are at State and Pine streets and the downsloping section of High Street.

Most important to remember is that this is a neighborhood, not a speedway or turnpike exit for the convenience of commuters. It’s where we live “24/7/52,” a fact that should be honored and treated as a priority in this discussion.

Additional timed traffic lights would be helpful in slowing traffic, allowing pedestrians to pass safely. Citations should be issued liberally when drivers don’t give pedestrians the right of way, speed through the ‘hood or blow their horns because the car in front of them is acknowledging the rules.

Those people who do not reside on these streets would not be subject to the noise level, fuel emissions or limited parking space should the conversion be implemented.

In essence, traffic is not the problem, it’s the drivers! Ergo, enforced road courtesy should be pursued, not an accommodation for the offenders.

Let’s save our money to address the more exciting and much-needed issues being presented to us today, please.

Frank E. Reilly