Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaggin
Some of those points were contradictory. A large, spread out land mass IS the argument for higher limits. Speed shrinks the country. The bigger the country, high limits need to be (or not exist at all).
|
Not really a contradictory point. There's three major elements at play:
-a logistical piece that has to account for how spread out the country is and how long it takes to move goods and people around;
- a safety element that has to be accounted for in how fast vehicles should be allowed to drive within the constraints of the highway conditions/state;
-a financial piece that has to account for how long the highway is and how much it cost to upgrade, maintain, and manage.
I'm not denying that it would be wonderful to have the TCH fully freewayed across the country. But the fact of the matter is, the TCH, and even rural interstates are not in conditions to allow the speeds you're suggesting without being unsafe, and the cost to upgrading it to those standards would be prohibitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaggin
USA's Interstates could easily be increased to 150km/h with zero improvements. Grade separation is the main safety factor and interstates are already grade separated. They're plenty well built.
So we're really only talking about grade separation here, something that needs to occur already anyway. Grade separation obviously improves safety.
|
I disagree, maybe a traffic engineer can override my argument.
My main problem with your argument is the speed limits you are suggesting results in large speed differentials when you are now giving people the legal option to go at 150+ km/h. You'll always have semis or other vehicles lumbering along in the 100-120 range and then someone coming up at 150+ km/h.
In a two lane road scenario, there is often situations where two slow vehicles are passing each other. Someone coming up doing 50+ km/h faster than the two slow vehicles passing one another is a safety concern. Yes, there are people that drive at those speeds right now, but you increase the odds of this resulting in a collision when ALL vehicles will be allowed to drive at such speeds.
Adding a 3rd or 4th lane in each direction on the TCH to mitigate these scenarios will drive up costs exponentially than what simply upgrading to a freeway would cost. Hell, the TCH isn't fully twinned yet, nevermind tacking on additional lanes in rural environments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaggin
The time savings of higher limits via grade separation trickle through the economy:
-Service companies (telecom, hydro, plumbing, etc) get more productive because they can complete more calls in less time.
-House prices drop, because larger catchment areas can access the city.
-Health improves because existing commutes shorten, literally giving extra time in the day.
-Police actually do useful things, instead of sitting collecting speed tax all day.
The cost is overstated too. We've been thru this in this board. Average rural 2-lane overpass should cost no more than $20m when managed properly. About 100 are needed to grade separate TCH from SK to ON. That's $2B total. At 10/yr (aggressive) that's $200m/yr, or less than 1% of MB Gov's total annual budget, and that doesn't account any Federal money.
|
Ok so $200 m/yr for those benefits will really
only benefit anyone that is travelling E/W along the TCH after a couple decades of upgrades. And that's optimistic since you're assuming a basic diamond interchange with no constraints (rail lines, major property expropriation, carriageway relocation) for that price.
And would police forces really abandon traffic enforcement the moment the TCH is upgraded? No they'd go to the next highway in their jurisdiction with high enough rates of speeding and camp there.
A lot have posted about the cost of one life saved, but I think it's the wrong question to ask. It should be what is most beneficial to society as a whole, including lives saved?
$200 m/yr in extra healthcare dollars will certainly save lives, potentially exceeding of those that die on MB highways annually.
$200 m/yr in social services could help many out of homelessness and get their lives back into productive and tax paying members of society, which could in turn generate more funds to upgrade our highways at a reasonable pace
$200 m/yr in education could improve the future students that join the workforce, increasing the caliber of MBs workforce, and reduce the likelihood of young adults becoming criminals and/or underproductive members of society -> bigger tax base and fewer people drawing on tax funded services.
So diverting 1% of the annual provincial budget just to upgrade highways isn't something that can happen in a vacuum without impacting other areas and I would argue are better return on investments than speed running the TCH to a freeway.
Prev
Linear Mode
