Comment 114075

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 06, 2015 at 15:19:25 in reply to Comment 114074

The difference is that Fennel has grassy boulevards between the traffic and the pedestrians in most regions. Aberdeen lacks this feature. This means that high-speed through-traffic is directly next to pedestrians - that is unsafe and unpleasant.

I'm not sure how Google calculates their map, and I agree that the map doesn't seem to show backups where I'd expect to see them, but I would assume Google's algorithm fixates on unexpected backups. A long wait at a left-turn is, presumably, expected, so we don't see the well-known backup of Northbound drivers attempting to turn West off Beckett Drive.

Either way, if you think about the backups you see regularly when driving Aberdeen/Beckett/Queen/Garth, they generally occur at bottlenecks. Beckett Drive is noly 1 lane in each direction, is it's only natural that traffic would back up where 2 lanes become 1... so why do we need the 2 lanes in the first place?

I think Ryan's design might be overconfident in cramming 5 lanes of traffic into what's currently 4 lanes, but his point is fair: if the traffic is fast going to Beckett, backs up getting onto becket, then backs up a second time turning left getting off of beckett before going fast again, doesn't that indicate that the fast regions are unnecessary? If it was all 1 lane, it would be smooth the whole way through and the locals could actually have guests park on the road or ride bikes or other zany things like that.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds