Comment 105140

By Simon Ward 3 (anonymous) | Posted October 02, 2014 at 09:37:01

I live about 100 feet from King St on a very fast stretch with very economically deprived businesses/ shops; many of which no longer function as businesses or shops. So I am directly affected by these policies, King St. is part of a transport network that must serve the whole city and the whole city should have a say. So here's my say....
I can see King st right now - cars are passing at maybe 1 per second since 8am this morning, at a guess they would probably fit on one lane.If we define 'congestion' as"more users than the roads were designed for"- then we are far from being congested. Most of the Thoroughfares discussed on RTH carry far fewer cars than they were built for. They are therefore inefficient.

It costs tens of thousands of tax dollars to maintain each kilometre of each lane. Maintenance work the city has not been able to afford to keep up with, hence the back-log and deficit.
It's a bit like we are paying to keep street lighting on during the day in case it gets cloudy. It is a direct waste of Tax-Payers money.
'Road Diets' or using lanes for other things on under used streets is a concept that is starting to gain traction with our councillors, because they can smell possible tax savings.
E.g. The cannon bike lane- will not need to be resurfaced for decades.
I think the pro-LRT "lobby" needs to impress this point on the opposition.
The anit-LRT driver who is concerned about losing lanes and therefore traffic flow should be reminded that even though they would never use transit themselves, LRT's high capacity will keep a lot of other drivers/cyclist etc out of their way.
LRT will use under-used lanes in the most efficient and low maintenance way, to keep your lanes clear.
But if people in the suburbs prefer higher taxes then they should vote for the status quo.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools