I’m posting another version of this because, given its implications, it has gone curiously unnoticed.
From the NPA platform:
In making decisions on how to best move people around the city, the NPA will maintain its transport hierarchy, which ranks pedestrians, cyclists, public transit, commercial traffic, and then cars. …
An NPA government will: …
• Create counterflow lanes and utilize technology to reduce congestion on major arterial routes;
This was an idea, I’m told, that came from Kirk LaPointe without a lot of discussion, and I suspect its appeal was based on his own experience as someone who lives in the UEL and works in North Vancouver: why wouldn’t people want an easier way to drive through the city?
There’s the usual rationale: “Vancouver citizens need a transportation plan that not only works for them, but with them: reducing polluting traffic congestion …” In other words, we can reduce pollution by achieving smoothly flowing traffic – something that can only work, logically, if with improvements in traffic flow, there is no increase in traffic!*
But there is also no recognition that reversing a lane in one direction would generate congestion in the opposite direction – and a huge political problem.
To illustrate, let’s take the Marpole Village between West 63rd and SW Marine Drive on Granville Street – surely a candidate for a counterflow given existing congestion and the connection to the airport.
North-bound Granville looks like this:
.
Reverse that fourth lane to the left during the morning rush-hour, and you’ve got only two lanes in the southbound direction – one of which is for curb-side parking until the evening from 3 to 6 pm (see sign).
Unless Kirk LaPointe is prepared to allow only one lane of traffic southbound during the morning rush hour, including space for the returning trolley buses, you have to eliminate curb-side parking on both sides of the street during rush hours – at least six hours of the day.
I doubt he has ever had the pleasure of negotiating with small businesses for whom curb-side parking is sacred, but he might want to prepare the rationale for its removal beforehand – or be prepared to live with the induced congestion and transit delays that result from a one-lane arterial flow.
That’s one reason I have called the counter-flow proposal ‘absurd.’ There are others that will become apparent when the costs and logistics are considered. Counterflow lanes are extraordinarily complex interventions (and hence expensive), typically only considered for tunnels and bridges, limited-access freeways and express lanes, and roads with few cross streets – almost none of which we have in Vancouver. Ideally, all that will be needed is a short meeting with the traffic engineers for the idea to get shelved (or as we used to say on council: subject to a report back with no deadline).
But there’s something more at issue.
The 1997 Vancouver Transportation Plan passed by the NPA Council of the day had as its key strategy that “changes to road network would be designed so as not to increase road capacity …” Specifically, “road capacity into the Downtown would not be increased above the present level” (which at that time, as PT has illustrated before, was higher than it is now). Those policies, plus better transit, effective land-use planning and regional shifts, have succeeded in reducing traffic flows into the core and, to a lesser extent, into the city
Given that the increase in traffic on a counterflow lane could, under ideal conditions, be about a thousand vehicles per hour per lane, how could this proposal not be considered an increase in capacity? And if there isn’t an increase capacity, why do it? Isn’t the whole idea of counterflow lanes to facilitate the movement of traffic through the city and into the central core? **
We would have a Vancouver mayor who for the first time since the 1960s be saying to suburban drivers: Come on back. All is forgiven!
It would certainly give a new mandate to EasyPark. And, given the new resources required for the engineering of counterflow lanes, likely de-emphasize time and money spent on active transportation, complete streets, and, yeah okay, bike lanes – which would require ‘community backing’ in any event.
Which leads to the next question: Will the neighbourhoods through which the increased volumes move be asked for their ‘community backing’ as they consider the increases in traffic, noise and air pollution? And if not, why for one and not the other?
And so it goes. There were a lot of other questions in the first post – but not much response.
I’m surprised that other parties have not picked up on the implications of this proposal: it is a reversal of the direction this city has been going for the last few decades, largely under NPA councils.
Given our success and international recognition, a reversal would be devastating.
For those of us who talk about Vancouver transportation in other places around the world (like Portland, see below), we would now have to say, “You know those policies and actions we have undertaken which have worked so well for us, and provide a model to emulate …?”
Never mind.
.
* With induced traffic, attracted by the congestion-free flows, you get a return of congestion – only at a higher volume.
** Unless, again, there is some unstated mechanism for limiting traffic to the existing volume, preventing new drivers outside Vancouver from using critical portions of the Major Road Network.
Gordon, yes, interesting that LaPointe (NPA) would, out of one side of his mouth, criticize Vision for making changes without enough or proper consultation (with LaPointe refusing to specify what sufficient and appropriate consultation entails, in his own mind) and, out of the other side of his mouth, tell citizens that he will put in counterflow lanes when he has had no consultation with communities at all.
Is it just me, or did Mr. LaPointe and the NPA put the cost of these counterflow lanes at $ 300,000? This, in my opinion, is too small by several orders of magnitude. In fact, it is likely that the $300,000 would get eaten up in just the consultation and design phase.
And then some. Even if consultation and design were budgeted separately, $300K will get you oh, maybe two or three overhead lights similar to those used on the Stanley Park causeway counterflow lane.
With such poorly thought-out idea fragments like this, it’s a mystery how La Pointe could actually think he could perform in such a demanding position as mayor.
The amount of parking allowed on arterial roads – much of it free – such as Granville, or along 6th Ave, or Broadway, is ridiculous. Granville should have no parking, and it should be a tunnel from 2nd to 14th Ave.
Kirk’s proposal makes a LOT OF SENSE. We need to utilize existing roads better, not for parking, but for flowing vehicles .. and since that flow differs am vs pm it makes sense.
Road pricing also achieves flow i.e. a toll that is increased until flow is achieved. Singapore makes ample use of that. Car use is far too cheap in Vancouver.
Of course, no councilor or mayoral candidate has mentioned road tolling or increasing property taxes substantially to make the necessary investment into subways, for example a UBC loop (not just a UBC spur along Broadway, but a whole loop back under 41st through Kerrisdale) or a loop through downtown (under Robson, Denman, Davie to Yaletown), or Skytrain to Langley or between the two Surrey city centers.
Until that debate is done, and local funding approved, Vancouver will choke in more and more cars.
No one even mentions the word “pedestrian zone” ?
He also doesn’t have the courage to say what streets he thinks should have counterflow lanes during the election. If he did, I expect the reaction to Pt Grey would look tame.
He knows or should know that the vast majority of people who live in the city don’t want 30% more vehicles speeding through their neighbourhood.
Of all the objections to Pt Grey, I at least understood the concern that some had with more traffic on their streets. Now the solution is to reduce traffic on every street by providing people with alternatives like cycling and transit so they are not forced to drive. Fighting over which street gets the traffic is no solution.
I’m surprised that none of the other candidates have gone to people living on these potential highways warning them of his plans.
Some streets are arterial roads, such as Commercial or Granville, and as such traffic flow ought to be maximized there. Any good idea should be looked at, such as no parking, tolling, counter-flow lanes, no bikes, no left turns etc ..
If you think three-dimensional, there could be tunnels below or drone traffic above.
Seriously, have you been on Commercial Drive lately? Every time I’ve been there in morning peak hour, I’ve been shocked by how little traffic there is. There certainly not enough traffic for even the four lanes of traffic is has now. There is obviously no need to spent tens of millions on tunnels for a problem that doesn’t even exist.
It’s quite obvious to me that he is talking about the roads which are currently 6 lane already and so clearly arterial, Oak and perhaps Granville south of King Ed. I doubt this is about little neighbourhood roads.
As regards providing cycling options so that people are not forced to drive, cycling numbers are such a minority. It’s far better to invest in mass transit that is reliable and comprehensive. That is a far more viable option if we are trying to get people out of cars.
Yeah, no kidding. The people along these streets already suffer from very high levels of traffic. I’m sure they won’t be keen on even more traffic.
If you would ever bother to even do a bit of research, you would know that cycling is a bit part of the solution. Many trips are short and it is far more convinent to cycle than wait around for the bus. Polls show and our experince here show that a lot of people will cycle if there are safe separated routes.
Cities that have 30% or lower of trips by car typically have transit use between 30% and 40% with the remaining 30% to 40% by cycling and walking. Without a massive amount of new density, many trips will remain out of walking distance. Cycling is the option that works the best for many of those trips. This is the reason why cities around the world are investing in cycling. And they invest in transit to. However, transit is expensive and can take a long time.
Dunsmuir is a good example of cycling success.
http://richardcampbell.org/2013/08/06/driving-to-work-down-east-of-dunsmuir/
And to let you know, I am involved in pushing for more transit though groups like GetOnBoard.
Unfortunately, I and others have been distracted from that through all the divisive nonsense put forward by opponents of family friendly bike paths.
Where do you come up with this crap? A tunnel? Are you high? I walked along both granvilles today and there are lots of people patronizing the shops and restaurants. Thomas you seriously have no clue what your are talking about when it comes to issues on this blog.
S-Granville is not a nice shopping street. Sidewalks are far too narrow. Far too much traffic. A tunnel would allow a pedestrian zone and a true shopping area, say from 7th to 14th.
The only beauty Vancouver has is its North Shore mountains, water and beach oriented locations ie pathways. Once you get away from the water the city is not very attractive, such as S-Granville or downtown. Much urban renewal is in order here. Far too car oriented. Not enough public transit that is fast. Buses are not for everyone that actually value their time (like me). Bikes are an option for short distances but not everyone likes to cycle in the rain or at +2 degrees or uphill (I am 3 on 3 here).
As to insulting me (“you have no clue”) may I encourage you to abstain from that, as every person has an opinion, and yours is not better than mine, perhaps just different. I have a lot of clues, btw, perhaps more than many that blog here as I have actually lived in many cities and chose to settle in Vancouver.
Vancouver has a lot of growing up to do to shed its car dependence.
Sorry, you have no clue. Why else would you say in one post we need to build a tunnel to move more vehicles and then turn around and end the post by saying “Vancouver has a lot of growing up to do to shed its car dependence.” WTF? If South Granville is so terrible as you say and needs major urban renewal, why are all the luxury retailers located along it? Williams Sonoma, West Elm, Pottery Barn, Restoration Hardware, MaxMara, etc. They all spend millions in real estate to locate on “not a nice shopping street”, Go vote for NPA and their losers including the Bimbo who told people at a candidate meeting that if they cant afford to buy a “normal” house in Point Grey they should move to Prince George.
perhaps I have seen too many other nice cities to see that more pedestrian friendly options exist besides Vancouver’s car orientation. Vancouver’s waterfront is where the beauty lies, the urban core is not nice, especially for pedestrians as cars are everywhere.
“Vancouver will choke in more and more cars …”
I beg to differ. Where is your evidence, Thomas?
The traffic accessing downtown has decreased by between 12% and 20% (depends on the source). Vehicle kilometres travelled are decreasing all over North America in lockstep with the higher fuel costs over the last decade, and the increasing concern about climate change. A significant proportion of the younger generations refuse to drive or even own cars and actively pursue urban living close to transit. Counterflow lanes are essentially already in practice by temporarily eliminating parking in one curb lane every rush hour on most arterials.
These statements are backed by unassailable, measured data. Yours are not.
There are almost no subways. Vancouber’s density is not very high outside of downtown. There are no pedestrian zones. EVERY street in downtown Vancouver is accessible by car. Sidewalks are narrow and take 10% to 20% of the road width and cars take 80-90% on most roads. it is ridiculous. The only way to get from A to B effectively is by car, unless you happen to live near a SkyTrain station. I live near UBC. To get downtown I take Car2Go (and te car on weekends) usually as the bus is so slow. What takes me 20 minutes by car takes me 45-60 minutes by bus (all in, incl. walking to and from station) .. times two directions: 1 to 1.5 h lost taking the bus. No thanks. I actually value my time.
People chose to drive less cars due to climate change concerns ? I think cost is the real issue here and the fairly low wages in Vancouver. What is true for Vancouver is not true elsewhere btw. A car is a necessity outside of Vancouver.
Thomas: all this nonsense you’re saying doesn’t change the facts, as have been measured: traffic is decreasing across the entire city of Vancouver already. Obviously lots of people are finding ways to live car-free.
Not enough in my opinion. Many roads, especially those with shops like Denman, Davie, Robson or S-Granville are still far too car oriented, and could be pedestrian zones, or at the very least have wider sidewalks.
50% of all residential streets and those downtown should be traffic calmed.
We have a long LONG way to go here.
Mr. Lapointe’s proposal only needs to sound like it makes sense. And to the majority of people, who are not traffic engineers, it seems to. You are correct in that this contra-flow proposal is ridiculous, but it is good politics. Lapointe gets to pander to motorist entitlement, encourage some Tea Party-esque gubmin’ bashing (The Mayor WANTS inefficient roads!), and claim the whole thing is just an exercise in exploration when after great expense it is quietly abandoned. The idea of building our way out of congestion is simply too intuitive to most people for facts or proof or a century’s worth of experience to discredit.
Author
That may be true; it may be the messaging that counts. But messages are reflective of a worldview, a set of assumptions, experience and education. If not counterflow lanes, then what?
Or does Kirk’s worldview begin to realign, based on what he learns from consultation and transparency (his strongest message of all) with the NPA transportation and urban policies under Gordon Campbell and Philip Owen? (Assuming of course that they are still relevant and largely reflect community consensus)
It would be putting the city at grave risk to firstly trust in and then wait for Kirk’s ability, or even willingness, to undertake and accomplish the required learning curve. In speaking with him directly, I found him to be muddled, uncertain, over-whelmed, cagey, and determined to get votes by any means, including overt dishonesty.
Why are counter-flow lanes ridiculous ? Some streets are arterial roads, such as Commercial or Granville, and as such traffic flow ought to be maximized there. Any good idea should be looked at, such as no parking, tolling, counter-flow lanes, no bikes, no left turns etc ..
Because traffic engineers use a set of tools to increase road capacity. They take out all the parking. Then they eliminate all the left turning bays and ban left turns. They reduce the number of intersections. Then, when they have done all of those, they consider counter flow lanes. They don’t start out with counter flow lanes. Look and see where counter flow lanes are currently used; places like the causeway, with no parking, no left turns, few intersections.
But if you were going to do all of the above, you would first have to reverse the current position of not increasing road capacity.
And if you wanted to keep those counter flow lanes flowing smoothly once you built them, you would have to apply road tolling or some other measure so that traffic didn’t expand back to fill the space, putting us right back where we started, except for having more traffic and a large tax bill to pay for the investment that didn’t provide a return.
Commercial is not an arterial you bozo
They’re not ridiculous in theory, but there are two obvious problems with them in the context of Vancouver roads:
1) they will very obviously not work on the roads that Mr. Lopointe is speaking to. It is true that they can ‘work’ on limited-access corridors, but not for any significant stretches along busy urban arterials with lots of side street accesses and conflicting street use needs (i.e. parking, turning movements, transit stops, people, life, etc.). This is so obvious that to continue to affirm that it would work is disingenuous at best – and so obvious that to believe it is to be just as complicit in the falsehood as the person telling it.
2) as a policy matter, there is very legitimate question as to whether or not the City should be attempting to increase vehicle capacity at all (which could work to some limited effect in a few places if parking, transit accesses, and turning movements are all eliminated). Do we want to make it ‘easier’ for people to drive and induce more traffic onto our roads?
Only if you disagree with the ‘increasing capacity’ argument are the contra-flow lanes “ridiculous”. I say they are ill-conceived, an obviously wasteful dead end, and a very obvious ploy to pander to motorist entitlement. I said they were “ridiculous” because Mr. Lapointe knows they will not work but continues to push for them nonetheless.
Commercial is a neighbourhood street, not a street where the primary goal is moving cars. You need to improve the consistency of your message: do you want car dependence or pedestrian neighbourhoods? Because right now you’re arguing for two incompatible things.
My understanding is that one factor that lead Vancouver to originally abandon its freeway scheme was a large survey by Walter Hardwick that revealed that having livable districts mattered more to people than rapid crosstown traffic flow. (I am also aware that objections to the planned distruction of Chinatown and much of Strathcona were also important factors). Hardwick repeated his survey a while later and found that the same community centric values remained important to Vancouver residents.
If I understand Mr. Price correctly, it sounds to me like your politicians are making decisions and then attempting to rationalize them after the fact, all without nothing to attend to and appreciate what actually matters to their constituents. Surely in a city known for creative urban design a better solution ought to be possible? The first thing that comes to mind for me is finding ways to reduce the influx of cars and doing everything feasible to shift traffic to public transit?
As I am sure people have heard, the greenest community in the US if we are talking about energy consumption per capita is Manhattan! This is purely the result of fewer people on average owning and operating cars. Maybe driving a privately owned vehicle in Vancouver should be made as difficult as possible, while bicycling and mass transit ought to be facilitated? What if the Lions Gate Bridge only allowed busses and bikes? What if Vancouver became car free instead of car based? Maybe I am mistaken but it seems to me that Vancouver is a leading City that others will follow and I really hope you wonderful people can find a better solution than merely postponing facing the real problem which is the car itself.
Indeed. Car use is far too cheap. But more buses are not options, especially if they are not faster than cars. Buses are for people that cannot afford cars, or are too old for bikes, or as a last resort. Only fast trains, i.e. SkyTrain or subways will get people out of their cars. Wobbly buses are NOT great public transit alternatives !
I (and ten’s of thousands of others) rather pay $20 using my car than sitting in a stinky, crowded bus that is far slower, where I have to wait 20 minutes for it to arrive or to connect, even if it costs only $2.
Time is money.
As such, FAST public transit is required. Not just more (wobbly, slow, stinky, non air conditioned) of it !
“Only fast trains, i.e. SkyTrain or subways will get people out of their cars. Wobbly buses are NOT great public transit alternatives !”
You can’t have rapid transit without those “wobbly buses”. We can’t afford to build Skytrain along every bus route, and without those buses most people wouldn’t be able to get TO the Skytrain.
Your objections to buses are self-perpetuating. The way to overcome your objections of slow, infrequent, crowded service is to have more buses and fewer cars, not the other way around.
Time is money. If buses are slower (and certainly more inconvenient) than cars few that value their time will take a bus and continue to use a car until cars are either very very expensive like HongKong or Singapore, or far slower than buses.
Vancouver needs more subways, to UBC, under Granville, below 41st, under Robson/Denman/Davie, between Surrey’s two towncenters, to Langley, to MapleRidge, through Richmond. Until this happens, CAR IS KING.
If time actually was money for road users, then many of those vehicles that could be using the new Port Mann bridge wouldn’t be lining up for the Patullo instead, just to avoid a small toll. Seems a significant number of road users don’t value their time the same way those who created the business case for the new bridge did.
“Buses are for people that cannot afford cars, or are too old for bikes, or as a last resort.”
I’m a bus and SkyTrain rider and I do not fall under any of your descriptors above. So what am I? A pariah?
I love public transit because it gives me freedom of movement. It extends my pedestrian experience of walking onto the bus, getting somewhere, and continuing my walk. I have a car, but I much rather take transit to many places if possible.
I don’t like a slow bus, just like you Thomas, but buses in the City of Vancouver actually have decent frequency (a lot of the routes are less than every 15 minutes) and they serve most of the city.
Even a city like Hong Kong that is touted for all their rapid transit is actually mostly served by it’s very extensive and frequent bus service across the territory. Buses are not good public transit only if the powers that be make it that way.
When challenged on counterflow lanes on Twitter, Kirk Lapointe asserted that counterflow lanes “won’t increase capacity”.
https://twitter.com/kirklapointe/status/525166033687289856
It’s kind of flabbergasting how in every other policy area all he’ll say is that he’ll consult with the community, but when it comes to car traffic he apparently can’t even be bothered to consult with an engineer or planner.
Correct me if I’m wrong Gordon, but I seem to recall the NPA council of your day floating trial balloons of eliminating parking on Granville in Marpole to facilitate vehicle movement. What businesses on the west side of Granville cater to a morning crowd (or are even open before 10am)?
Of course making life difficult for residents of other municipalities isn’t really the concern of Vancouver politicians. Or should it be? The reality is much of the vehicle traffic moving throughout the city is from areas underserved by transit. However Vancouverites with their relatively good transit options can afford to be smug and lecture about taking the bus. But how realistic is it to expect those areas to get transit options giving funding constraints?
If the referendum fails, there will be no other options. While we navel gaze at the world bounded by English Bay and 33rd Ave, there are over 2 million people outside of it. I noticed many elections signs in Richmond for the Richmond Community Coalition candidates, loudly proclaiming Stop the Tax Hike! Doesn’t bode well for a referendum question asking for cash.
Author
Only reference to removing parking in Marpole that I recall was with respect to the original Granville B-line. And look what happened. The parking stayed in the non-rush hour direction as before. That’s why I chose it as an illustration.
So what do you think the prospects are for removing street parking across the city to facilitate suburban car traffic – especially if they vote down transit? And why would a mayor of Vancouver want to spend his political capital to do so?
Thanks for the clarification. The B line connection does ring a bell now that you mention it.
I don’t think the counterflow suggestion is workable. However if a transit referendum fails Vancouver Council may well be forced to take on the handful of businesses who protest against losing street parking to provide additional road capacity. Absent any increase in transit the alternative would be gridlock, which would be economically damaging on a goods route such as to/from the airport. With regards to a Vancouver mayor having to expend political capital fro suburban interests, some might take that as a case for amalgamation. What responsibility does one municipality have to the region as a whole?
I disagree: first, because car use in the city of Vancouver is already decreasing and has been decreasing for almost 20 years: there is no burning need i Vancouver to add road capacity.
But even if suburban commuters were sitting in ever-increasing amounts of traffic, I don’t see how making inner-city neighbourhoods less livable would exactly make things better for the “region as a whole.” Certainly arguing that those residents should have their democratic vote swarmed out by suburbanites with an interest in destroying the livability of their neighbourhoods in order to shave a few minutes off of those suburbanites’ commute seems absurd and anti-democratic. If anything, it’s an illustration of why amalgamation reduces democracy.
I think swamped out was the word I was looking for, not swarmed out. Either way, overwhelmed is probably a better alternative.
But if you have congestion, isn’t it about alleviating that congestion so that traffic flows better rather than necessarily attracting more cars? I mean, does that go for the Massey Tunnel plan as well? Is it better to keep it clogged because if we make a bridge, it will just attract more cars, or is it about relieving a blockage in the system? I don’t know much about counterflow plans, I’m just surprised that the assumption is that doing so is just about attracting cars rather than helping an existing problem. By that thinking, we would never increase any road capacity, would we?
“isn’t it about alleviating that congestion so that traffic flows better rather than necessarily attracting more cars?”
The issue is that the act of alleviating congestion itself attracts more cars. You can’t do the one without the other happening. When it becomes easier to drive then more people decide to drive. Traffic expands to fill the available space when that space is free. This has been demonstrated time and time again in cities all over the world.
The solution to congestion is NOT more road capacity – it’s road pricing. Just look at the Port Mann bridge traffic: volumes actually dropped after they increased its capacity. Why? Because of the toll. They could have reduced congestion on the old bridge simply by tolling it instead of spending billions to add lanes which are now less utilized than before.
But at the same time you have to provide alternatives, which is why investment in transit is so important.
Very well put!
Exactly. Yet no one of the mayoral candidates talks about it. The money for enhanced public transit has to be raised mainly locally, i.e. higher property taxes and far higher gasoline tax and road tolls at every major road/choke point. When will this happen ? 2030 ? 2040 ? 2050 ?
Thomas, road pricing is part of the Mayor’s Council recommendations for the referendum. This should be put in place before any road expansion or counterflow ideas are implemented. Unfortunately, LaPointe is neutral on referendum, so if he gets elected, we may be in a transportation mess for another 25 years.
Mr Price answered your question several weeks ago.
https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-fundamental-rule-of-traffic/
For more lanes to work you have to out-build the latent demand, which isn’t really possible in Vancouver.
Firstly, I don’t really see counter-flow lanes working, when most arterials lead to bridges where the structures don’t generally lend themselves to counterflow lanes (except maybe Granville Bridge) or are not under the City of Vancouver’s jurisdiction.
That said, on the island of Kauai, the main highway between Hanalei and Lihue is counterflowed in the morning (not sure about the afternoon) by orange pylons placed by hand each day. That includes making a through lane out of what are ordinarily left turn lanes – and it works.
I don’t think that considering counterflow lanes is “ridiculous” and wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. It could we’ll be that curbside parking is very important – probably as important as it is to those along West Broadway who might oppose an at-grade LRT for the same reasons – but would you dismiss an at-grade LRT on West Broadway for that reason and without consultation? I seem to recall it in the TransLink list of options, so someone doesn’t think so.
I also don’t think a reversal of the “no increase in capacity” policy would be “devastating”. It might be devastating for Gordon’s consulting and public speaking business, but I don’t think it would be “devastating” for the general public.
In fact, considering that “capacity” might incorporate both elements of physical infrastructure and elements of efficiency – is it arguable that ANY increase in efficiency (of which counterflow lanes are an example) leads to an increase in capacity (or throughput)? i.e. timed traffic lights, left turn bays, left turn signals, right turn signals, turn prohibitions.
It’s undeniable that the City has installed left turn bays on major arterials since the 1997 Transportation Plan was invoked – so the efficiency part of “capacity” has already fallen, and we haven’t been “devastated”.
As for the physical infrastructure part of “capacity” … that seems to still hold.