(11-18-2019, 10:46 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It's more than a bit rich?
(11-17-2019, 11:07 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Closing the Lancaster crossing would eliminate the traffic insanity around that area while only slightly increasing traffic on mostly Margaret and the new access roads. It’s not clear to me that traffic on Wellington would necessarily much increase — when I talk about using Margaret or the new access roads, I don’t mean to use Wellington to get over to those roads necessarily; instead I’m suggesting people would re-evaluate their entire routes. Furthermore, the inability to come down Lancaster would probably reduce traffic on Lancaster south (east) of the tracks, and therefore reduce the insanity where Cedar, Krug, Lancaster, and Weber all meet.
So there is a "traffic insanity around that area."
It's "not clear" that traffic on Wellington would increase.
You are "suggesting people would re-evaluate."
And traffic on Lancaster would "probably be reduced."
With this kind of massive, referenced, data-based evidence, how can I argue against it?
Let’s stay focussed. I said the insanity would disappear; you said it would necessarily remain, just moved to a different location.
I pointed out that insanity isn’t directly related to traffic volume but to a combination of traffic volume and road arrangements that (specifically, at particular points, usually intersections) that can’t take the volume.
Perhaps you haven’t read enough of my messages to see how I operate. I don’t say “That is not correct” everytime I disagree with somebody. I say it when I believe somebody has made a factual error — in this case, that moving traffic must necessarily move (not eliminate) the associated “insanity”. Other times, I might just explain my view, or ask questions about some particular point the other person is making. Still other times, I don’t even have a firm opinion. An example of this is in the ION thread where we are discussing some mysterious signs. I speculated as to their meaning, but clearly marked what I said as speculation.
Now you’re just digging through everything I wrote and pointing out that I didn’t include a detailed study backing up every statement. Well guess what, nobody here does that all the time; and in your latest message you aren’t even trying to support a contrary point. If you think one or more of my statements is wrong, I suggest that you explain what is wrong with it and why. For that matter, if you have reason to believe, specifically in this case, that the insanity would move elsewhere, we would all love to know where you think it might move and why.