04-15-2018, 02:40 PM
While I don't really agree with your traffic routing logic, I don't want to argue about that as I think it's subjective, at least until someone does a real analysis on it.
But I would like to know why you think it's better to have a level crossing at St Leger and a pedestrian bridge at Lancaster, rather than a grade-separated crossing at Lancaster and a pedestrian bridge at St Leger.
Especially given that the new Highway 7 alignment will be from Wellington/Shirley rather than Victoria: Lancaster is already four lanes between Victoria and Wellington, so it can carry the increased traffic between the two, while St Leger and Wellington (between St Leger and Lancaster) are only two lanes. Unless we were to widen those two roads, we would be reducing the cross-railway capacity from the current six lanes to two, which seems like a bit much to me. And when freight trains are shunting, traffic backs up significantly on Lancaster and Victoria already, with two lanes it would surely be worse.
But I would like to know why you think it's better to have a level crossing at St Leger and a pedestrian bridge at Lancaster, rather than a grade-separated crossing at Lancaster and a pedestrian bridge at St Leger.
Especially given that the new Highway 7 alignment will be from Wellington/Shirley rather than Victoria: Lancaster is already four lanes between Victoria and Wellington, so it can carry the increased traffic between the two, while St Leger and Wellington (between St Leger and Lancaster) are only two lanes. Unless we were to widen those two roads, we would be reducing the cross-railway capacity from the current six lanes to two, which seems like a bit much to me. And when freight trains are shunting, traffic backs up significantly on Lancaster and Victoria already, with two lanes it would surely be worse.