Comment 86689

By Sigma Cub (anonymous) | Posted February 24, 2013 at 07:53:12 in reply to Comment 86665

I admire Wainfleet's economic use of infrastructure dollars, but as parallels go, it's problematic, a two-lane rural town. Within a 25-min drive of Wainfleet, you can probably tally up 1/10 as many residents as you can within a 25-min drive of King and James.

And that’s not factoring in the wear and tear of habitual through traffic.

Even under the traffic volumes you have identified elsewhere, there is a vast difference in comparative daily traffic volume, to say nothing of the comparable ratio of heavy traffic or breadth of roads. As the article notes, the price tag escalates quickly.

That price tage also depends on what extras a project might entail.

The 2013 Wilson Street shave-and-pave, at $500,000 (cold-in-place recycling offers a savings, the MTO estimates, of 40-50% compared to conventional road treatments), cost a fraction of the 2012 Wilson Street roadwork immediately to the west. That project, which you hailed as “a complete streets approach that accommodates all road users” (and which can be viewed in progress on Google Street View), is a one-km, two-lane stretch of road that cost $4 million.

It’s about 5km from Victoria Park to Gage Park. Using the Wilson Street yardstick and treating the middle north-south kilometer -- the distance from Augusta to Cannon -- on Locke, Queen, Bay, James, John, Wellington, Victoria, Wentworth, Sherman and Gage as well as the 5km span of Main, King and Cannon you’d be looking at 25km of roadwork and a price tag of approximately $100 million.

Reduce the sticker shock by applying the $3.6 million area rating infrastructure windfall for Wards 1-3 against the bill, tackle the task with a firm timeline (five km of road conversions every year, say), and produce appreciable results in each ward annually.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds