12-11-2017, 12:00 PM
(12-11-2017, 11:50 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(12-11-2017, 11:41 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I totally agree, that would be a perfectly reasonable alternate route (although the hill on Marshal wouldn't be ideal), but it still wouldn't work as is (like just adding signage), reason being there are no safe crossings of Bridgeport, Erb, or Union, so somehow those crossings would have to be improved (given that I cross those roads daily, I know it's possible, but it's certainly not safe comfortable or fast). You could bypass to Margaret which has crossings, but now you're up to 5.3 km.
(On another note, how do you get those shortened Google maps links?)
Quite true on the crossings. But I think there would be far less pushback to adding signaled crossings than removing lanes.
Shortened links: click the share icon (assuming you're using a desktop browser) and then click the "Short URL" checkbox.
Ahh, neat! Thanks.
Far less pushback, from the population? Absolutely, you're totally right. People are not traffic engineers, they're generally bad at these things, they get angry about losing lanes that aren't needed, but don't object to added traffic lights.
Sadly, I suspect staff would push back on this, because it would affect their traffic throughput numbers I think, signals have a big impact on this.