12-02-2017, 08:15 PM
Numbers look huge when you look at ALL roads. But that's not really a calculation of what we would save if we narrowed all lanes by 10cm, it's a calculation of what we would save if all lanes were 10cm narrower. You are comparing the end state, not the net effect of making the change, as making the change also requires an investment.
And it is surely not palatable if you say "we're going to narrow all the streets over the next 10 years", you will get endless arguments about the math and other perceived lost benefits. I cannot believe that you would win this argument today. Maybe after we have been dieting roads for 5-10 years, but not today.
But if you were to do this when only when each street needs to be repaved, what would be the net cost -- or the savings? I think you would save some (less new pavement, less new pavement in another 30 years, possibly less salt/plowing) but also have some incremental cost (rip out existing curbs, build new curbs, rebuild boulevard lawns, rebuild driveways). Can you calculate that? If that shows a significant savings, you have a much better argument.
And it is surely not palatable if you say "we're going to narrow all the streets over the next 10 years", you will get endless arguments about the math and other perceived lost benefits. I cannot believe that you would win this argument today. Maybe after we have been dieting roads for 5-10 years, but not today.
But if you were to do this when only when each street needs to be repaved, what would be the net cost -- or the savings? I think you would save some (less new pavement, less new pavement in another 30 years, possibly less salt/plowing) but also have some incremental cost (rip out existing curbs, build new curbs, rebuild boulevard lawns, rebuild driveways). Can you calculate that? If that shows a significant savings, you have a much better argument.