News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

"Even though you say it, I don't have to accept that two lanes can carry more than one," Schabas said.
Click to expand...

Man, I posted this article in a forum full of lawyers and you wouldn't believe the nitpicking that ensued over whether the judge was wisely pointing out that it isn't a given that traffic flows faster on a two lane street, or whether he was being an idiot because obviously two lanes "carries" more cars than one lane in that having two lanes means more cars could be idling in traffic.
 
evandyk said:
"The crown lawyer said she couldn't speak for the government"?
Click to expand...
1744907618092.jpeg
 
evandyk said:
Man, I posted this article in a forum full of lawyers and you wouldn't believe the nitpicking that ensued over whether the judge was wisely pointing out that it isn't a given that traffic flows faster on a two lane street, or whether he was being an idiot because obviously two lanes "carries" more cars than one lane in that having two lanes means more cars could be idling in traffic.
Click to expand...
The judge was correct. It is folk wisdom that more lanes means more throughput, but it is usually intersections that dictate throughput.
 
afransen said:
The judge was correct. It is folk wisdom that more lanes means more throughput, but it is usually intersections that dictate throughput.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the article said he said that two lanes don't necessarily "carry" more cars, and all the lawyers got angry because two lanes by definition "carries" more cars than one. Technically true, but the judge got the real point!
 
evandyk said:
Yeah, but the article said he said that two lanes don't necessarily "carry" more cars, and all the lawyers got angry because two lanes by definition "carries" more cars than one. Technically true, but the judge got the real point!
Click to expand...
Hey, one thing lawyers do well is nitpick! I would say though that this Trillium article is quite one-sided, and that's all well and good, but attending a one-day hearing and picking interactions that seem to favour one side is a terrible belwether for how a judge will eventually decide in a case. The issues of a charter challenge are legally complex and even if the judge spent all day hounding the Crown, that doesn't mean they will rule in favour of the applicants. I am also sure the judge would have grilled both sides, if not 100% equally, and that was not reflected in the Trillium piece at all. The Star carried a more balanced and nuanced take on the hearing, which is something seasoned court reporters do wisely given how different courts are from an average joe choosing a winner. We will not know until we know.
 
I think I have said above that I don't think the challenge will succeed in the end. It does sound like the judge will issue the interim injunction to stop any work from starting before he issues his decision.
 
evandyk said:
Yeah, but the article said he said that two lanes don't necessarily "carry" more cars, and all the lawyers got angry because two lanes by definition "carries" more cars than one. Technically true, but the judge got the real point!
Click to expand...

maybe I shouldn't stick my head into this, but what exactly is the legal definition of "carry" even? what does a road "carrying" a car mean?

seems like a vague term to be honest...

its it number of cars passing by a certain spot per hour?

is it a number of cars that can fit on a certain length of the road in a particular instant in time?

like if a road is in complete gridlock does having more lanes if all of them are stationary mean it's "carrying" more cars?
 
bearcat said:
maybe I shouldn't stick my head into this, but what exactly is the legal definition of "carry" even? what does a road "carrying" a car mean?

seems like a vague term to be honest...

its it number of cars passing by a certain spot per hour?

is it a number of cars that can fit on a certain length of the road in a particular instant in time?

like if a road is in complete gridlock does having more lanes if all of them are stationary mean it's "carrying" more cars?
Click to expand...

Carry here, short for carrying capacity would generally be understood as throughput.

As @afransen rightly notes, throughput is more a function of intersections than lanes, for the most part. If intersections had unlimited capacity, then adding lanes certainly would add throughput potential. But where intersections represent an upset limit, that doesn't automatically increase when you add lanes, and indeed, it may decrease......(counterintuitive though that may be, its true, because a higher volume of cars induced by more lanes may cause backups/congestion at overwhelmed intersections slowing traffic down)
 
Northern Light said:
Carry here, short for carrying capacity would generally be understood as throughput.

As @afransen rightly notes, throughput is more a function of intersections than lanes, for the most part. If intersections had unlimited capacity, then adding lanes certainly would add throughput potential. But where intersections represent an upset limit, that doesn't automatically increase when you add lanes, and indeed, it may decrease......(counterintuitive though that may be, its true, because a higher volume of cars induced by more lanes may cause backups/congestion at overwhelmed intersections slowing traffic down)
Click to expand...

okay, that would make total sense

in which case I don't see the argument how "by definition" adding more lanes will increase carrying capacity since clearly one can think of a situation where it doesn't

I am curious if there is perhaps some other definition of what a road "carrying" a car means which does necessitate that if there are more lanes that a road must be "carrying" more cars
 
bearcat said:
okay, that would make total sense

in which case I don't see the argument how "by definition" adding more lanes will increase carrying capacity since clearly one can think of a situation where it doesn't

I am curious if there is perhaps some other definition of what a road "carrying" a car means which does necessitate that if there are more lanes that a road must be "carrying" more cars
Click to expand...
Take a wander in the internet and you will find info like this: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technica...oad-network-for-private-motorised-traffic.pdf
 
bearcat said:
okay, that would make total sense

in which case I don't see the argument how "by definition" adding more lanes will increase carrying capacity since clearly one can think of a situation where it doesn't

I am curious if there is perhaps some other definition of what a road "carrying" a car means which does necessitate that if there are more lanes that a road must be "carrying" more cars
Click to expand...
I think it is just folk wisdom/layperson understanding of how roads work. Congestion? Add lanes. "Obviously" 4 lanes can move 2x the car traffic as 2 lanes. Turns out that intuition is wrong, or at least not true in many circumstances.
 
evandyk said:
I think I have said above that I don't think the challenge will succeed in the end. It does sound like the judge will issue the interim injunction to stop any work from starting before he issues his decision.
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't see you say that, but I wasn't really replying to you as much as the notions put forth in the Trillium that have been widely shared in cycling forums like this one.

You were just the most current comment in that conversation when I replied.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top