Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
But still necessary....this bridge was not....nor will it likely ever be.
Whether or not one likes the look of the thing, it truly was/is redundant in it's practicality....never mind the cost associated.
|
The bold shows a gross misunderstanding of transportation infrastructure and how it works. The preceding sentence alone understates the scale of how wrong your statement is, and I feel obliged to use the words ignorant, backwards and insensible as well.
Redundancy, in a transportation system is good. It is desirable. If you want to see examples of a lack of redundancy, look no further than the much-maligned one-exit/entrance nature of the community of Evanston, right here in Calgary. Nevermind the provisions being in place for a good modal split (a related concept), the place is gridlocked because there's only one way in and out, which is grossly inadequate for the number of trips generated by the place. It is a relative disaster directly because of the lack of redundancy.
Redundancy provides those taking a trip within the transportation system with options. Options if one route is congested, if one is in need of closure, if traffic is set to increase, etc. Redundancy and the addition of route options also drives where and when people take trips. If you add route options, it increases the amount of people that will want to live somewhere or locate their business there. That is called induced demand. It can also be implemented as a reactionary measure to trips that have increased or are projected to increase.