Comment 112247

By higgicd (registered) | Posted June 15, 2015 at 11:26:12 in reply to Comment 112246

While I can't claim responsibility for writing that section of the report, one of our major priorities was looking through the concept from a position of 'balance'. The Longwood case is a pretty crazy one - massive traffic flows from the 403 into West Hamilton funnelled on top of a great deal of local traffic. Note I mean cars as well as many transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians. At peak times the whole corner is a mess of people turning left, others stopping to let their kids out for school (the issue of no one walking to school is another entirely), and a whole bunch of other trips in other directions.

And though I personally am not fond of such a roundabout solution being implemented, I thought the Longwood case starting on Pg 109 was considerate of all these opposing forces. If the goal is to improve safety by removing opportunities for collisions while considering the existing street network and reducing local emissions by keeping traffic moving, it is an option, and one where for better or worse 2/3 of the necessary infrastructure already exists.

I also don't think one-way streets done right (NYC is full of complete one-way streets) are incompatible with complete streets as a concept. Paradise, Main, King, etc. as they stand now however, are. As one example, the amount of drivers that get pulled over crossing the King St. bridge into Westdale for exceeding the 50kph limit there is amazing, and exposes the fact that speed limits can only do so much to overcome poor design. And I don't have blind faith that this roundabout idea would be implemented in a different way.

Also note that the linked report should have been marked 'draft' as it is my job to incorporate a few changes made during a final proofread over the weekend. Edited grammar.

Comment edited by higgicd on 2015-06-15 11:33:34

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools