There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By Kyle T (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2013 at 12:38:35
As a resident directly impacted by the redirected traffic, I can attest that the traffic routed through my neighbourhood is a nuisance, but it can by no measure be considered “high volume”. Much of the redirected traffic is moving just fine on side streets with multiple stop signs. The south-bound traffic is also moving just fine on the single lane to which it has been reduced. The east-bound traffic has also seen little-to-no backup despite being funneled to a single lane (the detour to south-bound Kenilworth and subsequent return to King).
There are absolutely no indications that King Street requires any special traffic considerations like an overpass.
I am extremely disturbed by the following statement.
"Given that this is a partial replacement of the structure ( Deck and Pier only), and given that it needed to be done in relatively short time frame due to condition and traffic requirements, it is the more financially feasible scenario."
The disturbing part is the implied “short-term” with respect to “financially feasible”. There is absolutely no way that, long-term, the continued maintenance of the overpass is the “more financially feasible scenario”. It is absolutely irresponsible that the long-term financial repercussions are not duly considered.
The other disturbing point made is the following.
"we already had the higher level of safety and service provided by the King/Kenilworth Grade separation "
Does the “safety” consider the “Speed Kills” sign that has been in place on the rail bridge for as long as I can remember? Does it consider the nearly weekly police speed trap set up at Normandy and Kenilworth? Does it consider that neither King and Kenilworth nor the first intersections east and west of Kenilworth have safe crosswalks? With the overpass, there is nothing slowing cars down at this intersection. Pedestrians are expected to make a mad dash across King Street, sometimes having to pause on a thin strip of median.
No. Long-term financial feasibility was never a consideration, nor was safety.
Permalink | Context