General Road and Highway Discussion

[danbrotherston]

Also, include data.

I read a bunch of what you guys claim on this forum as absolute fact and am often pretty skeptical (although in this case, I think you're probably right).  Ideally, if you're claiming a lane is unnecessary you'd have both traffic/usage data and cost data to back that up.  I realize its not often possible, but in most cases you're making claims about extra capacity based on overall (24/7) cost/benefit of the road to people that mostly use the road at peak times.  So they're skeptical of your claim because it doesn't match up with their anecdotal evidence.

Some of this is fact based, i.e., traffic volumes on Belmont do not justify 4 lanes.  City staff often have this data.  I think it's true, but I don't know for sure.  I do know other roads, Weber for instance, just barely justifies 4 lanes, as does Lexington, and because of vocal opposition the decision to compromise safety in favour of a few seconds drive time for 2 hours a day was made.  That's more a value judgement.  Then there are design issues.  There are plenty of resources showing that 3.6 meter lanes are more dangerous than 3.3 or 3 meter lanes.  But still, we build 3.6 meter lanes because that's what the designs have used before and that's what engineers sign off on.  Then there are pure value judgements.  We should not build roads that have vast unused capacity and compromise health, safety, lived environment, for 22 hours of the day just to satisfy the 2 hours a day that we have congestion, and certainly not if those roads front on people's homes.  Then there are efficiency arguments, more lanes at intersections are better etc.

But when it comes right down too it, this is why Belmont grinds my gears so much, every single argument above applies.  I'm quite certain it doesn't have enough traffic (again, I only have my personal observations), a road of that type should never be built that way, and efficiency wise, it is that wide because it was intended to be a major through road (connecting to Homer Watson via paving over several environmentally sensitive areas) that never (and will never) happen, so it's a waste to keep it so wide for a plan that is no longer happening.   (For that matter, the northern stub of Homer Watson also applies).