Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
I'm just not sure what the solution is though. Not sure if you've ventured south on MacLeod lately, but there's now a set of lights at ~192 ave. I made a comment to my buddy I was driving home, and he told me the reason for the "low quality intersection" is that it currently serves 1 community; but eventually will serve 4; and the plan is to get the developers to fork over some bucks to build the interchange.
I'm not sure how the land negotiations go between the city and the developers; and maybe that's part of the problem.
|
I think some of you are underestimating the cost of roadway maintenance. Building an interchange in a location that would probably need it, but not for another 10 years seems like it would be a good plan, but the cost of ramp and bridge maintenance over 10 years could easily surpass the cost of staging it as various intersections. Same with adding extra lanes when they're not needed. Beddington Trail is a prime example of this. People wonder why they're expanding to three lanes now rather than doing it at the start. 10-15 years of maintaining a third lane immediately upon construction would have matched or exceeded the cost of doing it now. It's probably a bit closer to par, since the boom was definitely not expected and probably reduced the lifespan of the road by a few years.
I do agree about city planners though. They bow down to developers and activitst groups way too often. That's why plans from the 70s for an East-West freeway were scrapped and why we're no longer allowed to build bridges over the bow. Lame-o!