Comment 81016

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 09:59:12

Excellent research, Jason. This debate should have been based on actually looking at the data, right from the beginning.

I'm surprised that staff didn't actually put together a report like this to allay the fears of councillors outside wards 1-3 that two-way reversion would lead to "gridlock".

It's now very clear that most of the downtown one-way streets are way under capacity, and this was confirmed by measurement done for the 2002 Durand Traffic Study.

The fact that most two-way streets carry more traffic overall, and more traffic per lane, than our downtown one-way streets should put to rest the fears of traffic chaos.

It is legitimate to be concerned about gridlock, but it is now obvious that this is an unjustified fear for almost all the ward 1-3 downtown streets. I just hope that someone can communicate this data and its implications to our councillors!

The justification for two-way reversion is not to cause traffic jams, but the reduce the speeding and driver inattention that drastically under capacity multi-lane one-way streets encourage. It is completely obvious that Cannon at James, at 18000 for 4 lanes, has way too much capacity for the traffic volume and the speeding this encourages is obvious to anyone who's tried to walk or cycle on that street.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2012-09-19 10:03:44

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds