“Streets are for people” is a catchy slogan. But ask yourself: Is the person traveling by car any less precious than the pedestrian or the bicyclist? Are streets for all people, irrespective of their mode of transportation?

A recent letter to the editor called attention to the elimination of street parking to accommodate a bike lane in front of the Cherrywood Village Royal Anne assisted living complex. (“Readers respond: Bike lanes versus the elderly,” Oct. 10.) The writer raised the possibility that elderly residents will now have fewer visitors. I can just imagine the pro-bike and pedestrian lobby: “So what if people have to walk two or three blocks out of their way? Get used to it; this is the way of the future.”

But let’s look at this situation from a different lens: many adult children of assisted living residents are in their 60s and 70s, often with their own mobility issues. For these people, a three-block walk can mean the difference between visiting and not visiting.

For over eight years, one of my family members lived at Cherrywood/Royal Anne. During that time, as the adult children got older, mobility became more difficult. We are fortunate that while our loved one was alive, street parking was accessible. When decisions such as where to route a bike lane are made, is anyone looking at the larger context? Are streets, indeed, for the good of all people?

Anne Kolibaba Larkin, Portland