Benton St reconfiguration

[tomh009]

Subsequent to the parking enforcement brouhaha on Benton St last year, the region has now undertaken an (apparently) broader assessment of the Benton St configuration, including active transportation.

The various configurations will consider the number of lanes, parking and all modes of configuration.

A report is planned to be presented to the Planning and Works Committee in the summer or fall. No indication of any formal collection of public input, though, apart from the committee meeting.  But maybe this would be a good opportunity to present a well-reasoned proposal to the region, in advance of their report? 


  Benton St review.pdf (Size: 571.99 KB / Downloads: 360)

[KevinL]

I believe a road diet had been planned here for some time, but put off by LRT construction. So it's good to see it happening now.

[tomh009]

One additional note on the timing is that the right-hand lane on SB Benton will be blocked off with the Arrow 2 construction until sometime in 2019, so any action on reconfiguration will probably not happen until after that.

[Spokes]

I thought a road diet was first discussed there like 15+ years ago.

[Canard]

Would love to see Frederick go from 4 to 2 lanes all the way from where it is Benton through to Lancaster, and add back greenery and bike lanes.

[tomh009]

Regional traffic counts for Benton (and for Frederick up to Lancaster, too, although that's out of scope for the region's current planning exercise) for 2015:

7797 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN COURTLAND & St. George
3970 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Church & St. George
7835 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN CHARLES & Church
7583 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN CHARLES & Hall's Lane
9629 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Hall's Lane & King

9242 FREDERICK ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Goudies Lane & KING
7840 FREDERICK ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Duke & Goudies Lane
8470 FREDERICK ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Duke & WEBER
11543 FREDERICK ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Spetz & WEBER
11643 FREDERICK ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Irvin & Spetz
10280 FREDERICK ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Irvin & Otto
11842 FREDERICK ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Lancaster (Ellen) & Otto

Pretty low traffic on the entire (regional) length of Benton. Frederick past Weber is busier, but I can't recall what the planning threshold is for four lanes vs two.

[ijmorlan]

Would love to see Frederick go from 4 to 2 lanes all the way from where it is Benton through to Lancaster, and add back greenery and bike lanes.

That would be great. And if they added appropriate turn lanes, it probably wouldn’t even affect vehicular traffic significantly. It might even improve traffic flow. There are a number of areas where the sidewalk isn’t particularly wide and the buildings are right up against it so a bit of extra space would go a long way to make the area feel quieter.

[jamincan]

Would love to see Frederick go from 4 to 2 lanes all the way from where it is Benton through to Lancaster, and add back greenery and bike lanes.

Realistically, it ought to be 2-lanes all the way through to Victoria.

Where it is four lanes, it tends to be short sections with lanes ending unexpectedly. A two-lane cross-section with appropriate turn lanes would be more efficient for traffic and also allow for better active transportation infrastructure.

[greybird]

Regional traffic counts for Benton (and for Frederick up to Lancaster, too, although that's out of scope for the region's current planning exercise) for 2015:

7797 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN COURTLAND & St. George
3970 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Church & St. George
7835 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN CHARLES & Church
7583 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN CHARLES & Hall's Lane
9629 BENTON ST  (Regional Road 6)  BTWN Hall's Lane & King

What's up with that 3970 number? Wouldn't that mean there are about as many drivers turning from St. George or Church onto Frederick (or vice-versa) as there are going straight through?

[panamaniac]

I think there has to be an error with that number.

[tomh009]

I think so, too. The numbers at the intersections are pretty consistent, and based on personal observation there is no obvious traffic behaviour to explain that low number.