Comment 104707

By brendansimons (registered) | Posted September 22, 2014 at 15:58:32

The plea for 2-way reversion of Main is an interesting (and ignored) part of the report. The first plan I saw out of the (ex) rapid transit office had bidirectional transit on Main. That route is straighter, wider, would benefit most from transit-oriented development, would affect the least number of parking spaces, and doesn't require the construction of a new bridge! Almost as soon as the suggestion was made, the RT office changed course and baselined King St - saying all of the lanes on Main St were still needed.

I am not calling for a redo of Rapid Ready, or the King St corridor study. We have spent more than enough money, and we need to get on with construction already (either corridor). But one wonders what went on in back rooms, when the most cost-effective solution is kiboshed, and then the replacement is criticised for being expensive and disruptive!

Comment edited by brendansimons on 2014-09-22 16:08:21

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds