11-18-2019, 10:46 PM
It's more than a bit rich?
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?
(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?