04-27-2023, 01:22 AM
(04-26-2023, 06:30 PM)Bytor Wrote:(04-26-2023, 05:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'm not sure why you say it's too narrow...it's four lanes the whole way.
And yes, I know Cambridge....-ites....-ers...*googles*...Cantabrigians?! really?! Okay then. Cantabridgians believe the world will literally end if that road has less than four lanes...but...I mean...they're tiresome...hardly a real objection...this is a fantasy map anyway.
I say it because it is true.
First off, King St. in Preston is not 4 lanes wilde. https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3931728,-...384!8i8192
https://i.ibb.co/VHkKM6p/Hypothetical-LR...reston.png
That's the width of Charles street post LRT construction overlain onto Preston's King St with building outlines. The red ones are the ones that would need to be torn down.
Here's the same map but without the satellite imagery. Light blue is asphalt outer width, salmon are the sidewalks. not all the building outlines that overlap.
https://i.ibb.co/MfSKfrL/lrt-preston-king-1-300dpi.png
You cannot fit two tracks plus two lanes down it.
The fantasy map does not have the ION on King at that location, in fact, it only diverts TO king at the point where King becomes 4 lanes.
Queenston Rd. is another issue, I'm not sure what dunkalunk was suggesting for that section, but it's clear they were intentionally avoiding the narrow parts of King St.