and 3) whether the ordinance leaves open alternative means of expression. The City has argued that it has a significant interest in controlling traffic and ensuring the convenience and safety of its citizens. The City submitted affidavits attesting to increased traffic on Saturday mornings and the need for local citizens to have access to doctors’ offices, a drug store and other businesses. It is well established that these are significant governmental interests. Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 553-55, 85 S.Ct. 453, 464,13 L.Ed.2d 471 (1965) (“Governmental authorities have the duty and responsibility to keep their streets open and available for movement.”); see also Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 506-09, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 2892-93, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the City has met the first of
holding that traffic safety is a substantial government goal holding that the government is immune from liability for its choice of traffic protection devices recognizing that concerns for officer safety warrant criminal history check during traffic stop holding that the national highway traffic safety commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in revoking a motor vehicle safety standard without supplying a reasoned analysis holding that sex offender registration statute is civil and nonpunitive and recognizing that ejnsuring public safety is  a fundamental regulatory goal