Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
This decision runs counter to that philosophy. It is more along the lines of bike lanes and curb bumpouts, things that make life worse for the motorist. And it was the most expensive option by several orders of magnitude - I strongly recommend the report for your elucidation on the subject:
https://www.halifax.ca/media/67849
And the important part, the summary comparison chart:
So a combination of any or all of the other options would still be less expensive than the roundabout. Yet it went through Council like you-know-what through a goose. Why? Because this was another HRM grease job, in this case to give the junior Councillor from Dartmouth something his planner background made him pine for even before he became elected. He had his hat set on a roundabout, and everybody went along to get along. After all, it isn't their money. Shameful.
It was only a matter of time. Just another reason to throw this bunch out in the next election. |
Sigh. I'm surprised you're opposed. You do know that this will actually increase the traffic capacity? That's not generally one of my priorities since our transportation emphasis needs to be on transit and active transportation, but I don't like having my residents maimed or worse. This isn't the 1950s Mic Mac Rotary we're building. It's a modern roundabout. The sort that exist at like every intersection in Europe and that are popping up all across North America. Why are they being built? Because they work. More capacity, lower speeds, fewer collisions and the collisions that do happen are generally less severe.
Yes, we could spend less here, but none of other options addresses all the issues being experienced (crashes, speed on Woodland Avenue, issues for pedestrians crossing). Installing protected lefts would mean major lane modifications and likely widening Mic Mac Boulevard, and would still leave high speeds on Woodland and dangerous conditions for pedestrians in place. Tack on adjusted right turn lanes? Again, that fixes part of the issue but not all of it. We could easily spend well over $2 million on non-roundabout options and that's before you factor in what the cost is in traffic accidents of a conventional intersection, and traffic lights. A roundabout is the best overall value. It costs the most upfront, but it's also the most effective.
This isn't my pet project. This was studied by HRM's staff, Provincial staff, and outside consultants and all agreed that a roundabout was the best approach. I suspected that would be the case, which is why I referenced it in my original motion to make sure it was in the list of things that staff looked at, but my motion wasn't prescriptive. I was more than open to alternatives, my goal was simply to improve this intersection. If you think I have the ability to bend the results of a whole group of professional engineers, most of whom don't even work for HRM, behind the scenes then you really have no clue how Council or government works.
Prev
Linear Mode
