In reference to the letter in the Jan. 11 edition from Dr. Rawlek Stone regarding the logic of a traffic circle at Stickle Road, I think this letter is one of the most well articulated, analytical explanations of the options regarding Stickle Road that I have seen so far in this long, sometimes exasperating effort to understand how six city councillors have to continue to disagree with the conclusions reached by the mayor and the MLA.
Point three refers to the McElhanney report, which is the engineering report that is being relied on upon by the Ministry of Transportation and our MLA in terms of convincing Akbal Mund that this 20th Street bypass is the way to go.
For the benefit of readers, this is the report Dr. Rawlek Stone referred to:
I would like to cite article 2.2 (safety concerns) in that report:
“In future, as traffic volumes and corridor congestion increases, headways in highway traffic will reduce, and driver frustration will increase as delays become longer on Stickle Road. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that these factors may lead to an increase in the frequency and severity of collisions at the Highway 97 / Stickle Road intersection if no improvements are made.”
That overall conclusion is predicated on the accident statistics from 2003 to 2012.
So what does the same engineering report say about the feasibility of a traffic circle? Unless my right eye had inherited the laziness of my left eye, I don’t see that option even being considered in the report.
So option seven, despite the logical feasibility pointed out by Dr. Rawlek Stone above, does not seem to have even merited consideration, despite the safety and cost benefits indicated in her letter.
I would like to know why that option didn’t even merit consideration, wouldn’t you?