Comment 87538

By bikehounds (anonymous) | Posted March 28, 2013 at 14:17:22

Examples of proof of overbuilt lanes abound.

King East over Kenilworth - down to one lane in each direction for at least 7 months now with no detrimental effect. Meanwhile they are working on rebuilding that overpass. Here's an idea - regrade it and get rid of that unnecessary infrastructure cost. We need to minimize the number of bridges to maintain. While we're at it, King East could be one lane in each direction with center turning lane and bike lanes or at least wide enough lanes to accommodate bikes. This would make it more pleasant for residents and make it easier to turn in and out of driveways.

King East near SHerman - this was down to two lanes for months and sometimes down to one lane with minimal effect on traffic. Why did we pay to repave the full width and assume the ongoing costs of mainenance for lanes we don't need? WHen we talk about 2-way conversions or bike lanes on King, we are told that we can't do anything until LRT moves forward - but somehow it's ok to spend hundreds of thousands on repaving of the very same stretch?

Claremont Access - perhaps the most overbuilt road in the city. Go down to Stinson and Victoria, look up and get a load of that infrastructure. It is an enormous overpass - something that puts LA's car culture to shame. It's 7 lanes at its widest point (compared to the 403's 4 lanes). We've been down a lane for over a year, and we could stand to lose 3 or 4 more with no impact to traffic.

Victoria - construction by General had it down to two lanes, and the backup was rarely more than one or two light cycles.

King West at Hess - down a lane for years now, and commuting life goes on with one light cycle delay at the worst of times.

King West at Ray - one lane down for the duration of construction with zero traffic impact. Even when the hess and ray closures were happening at the same time, the delay was minimal.

Main West at HMP - down a lane for over a year, no impact

Then we have the Hamilton-specific concept of "magically appearing traffic", where streets widen at random locations where there is no source for additional traffic to justify the widening:

York Eastbound at Dundurn... We go from one lane at RBG, to 2 lanes at the 403, to 3 lanes at dundurn. Are we to assume that people turn right from Dundurn onto York at such volumes that they need a dedicated lane?

Main Eastbound at McMaster - 2 lanes from the West become 3 lanes at Mac, to 4 lanes at Paradise, to 5 lanes at the 403

King leaving downtown - 2 lanes at John, 3 at James, 4 at Bay, 5 at Locke - I assume the widening at Bay is to accommodate staff and council coming from city hall so they can get the hell out of the city and back to their houses in brantford as fast as is humanly possible. But what about locke? Is the post-coffee-and-antique rush so heavy that a new lane needs to appear for those turning left onto King?

I am sure you can all think of other examples.

Every square foot of unnecessary lane capacity costs us a huge amount to install, replace, keep up, plough, etc... our roads budget is out of control and a large chunk of it is being spent on unnecessary infrastructure. We can't afford this anymore.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools