Waterloo Region Connected
General Road and Highway Discussion - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: General Road and Highway Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=335)



RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Markster - 09-14-2015

(09-14-2015, 02:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(09-14-2015, 09:59 AM)Markster Wrote: A roundabout capable of handling 2+2 through lanes likely wouldn't fit there in any case.

European-style mini-roundabouts (without a huge centre island) certainly would fit.  Whether it would be a good idea or not is another thing.
Is a 2-lane mini-roundabout a thing?  Would you be able to point me to an example?

I'm quite familiar with mini-roundabouts, (and one of my pet ideas is to do one at Queen/Courtland,) but I have trouble seeing how to do a 2-lane one in a tight space.

I also agree that roundabouts are not inherently cyclonic pedestrian crushers. It's an issue of design speeds, and drivers that are not trained to yield at pedestrian crosswalks (because there are so few out there that are not associated with stop signs or traffic lights).


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-14-2015

(09-14-2015, 03:20 PM)Markster Wrote:
(09-14-2015, 02:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote: European-style mini-roundabouts (without a huge centre island) certainly would fit.  Whether it would be a good idea or not is another thing.

Is a 2-lane mini-roundabout a thing?  Would you be able to point me to an example?

I can't think of an example offhand, sorry!  I'm quite sure I have seen some of those, although this kind of thing (roundabout with two lanes in a tight space) is certainly not as common.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - MidTowner - 09-14-2015

(09-14-2015, 03:20 PM)Markster Wrote: I also agree that roundabouts are not inherently cyclonic pedestrian crushers. It's an issue of design speeds, and drivers that are not trained to yield at pedestrian crosswalks (because there are so few out there that are not associated with stop signs or traffic lights).

I don't want to be one of those people that something can't work here because it doesn't exist here, so we're not used to it, but that's a big deal if motorists do not understand right-of-way at roundabouts. We could be talking about a very long time before that is rectified. I'm not sure the benefits of roundabouts would outweigh the costs to walkability over that time period. I also have seen little about how roundabouts can be made accessible to the visually-impaired, for instance: if there is no signal at them, and they are expected to wait for a gap or a yield from motorists, I'm not sure how that works.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-14-2015

(09-14-2015, 04:35 PM)MidTowner Wrote: I also have seen little about how roundabouts can be made accessible to the visually-impaired, for instance: if there is no signal at them, and they are expected to wait for a gap or a yield from motorists, I'm not sure how that works.

Our cities (and especially suburbs) are not very friendly to the visually impaired.  There are no warnings on the sidewalk surface for streets, edges or direction changes (compare that to Tokyo, below, for example):

[Image: pdwm.php?i=2716782&s=13217&p=8&t=%27Rais...0Direct%27]

Many streets have only stop signs, either in one direction or in all directions, so it's not just roundabouts that are dangerous to the visually impaired.  If we want them to be able to safely walk in our cities, we need a large-scale rethink of how pedestrian traffic works in our cities.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - MidTowner - 09-14-2015

(09-14-2015, 04:44 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Many streets have only stop signs, either in one direction or in all directions, so it's not just roundabouts that are dangerous to the visually impaired.  If we want them to be able to safely walk in our cities, we need a large-scale rethink of how pedestrian traffic works in our cities.

I personally think this is called for, even if the cost could be monumental. Cities being accessible to everyone is important, and the types of features that help people with sight and other impairments (like your example of textured pavements, and also visual and auditory clues) also make streets more walkable for everyone.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - KevinL - 09-14-2015

Actually, that knobbled surface in the Tokyo example is starting to be put in at new builds of pedestrian crosswalks (I recently saw them at Highland and Westmount). I gather it's now a standard expected to be rolled out with new construction.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - gomesjustin - 09-15-2015

They just installed these surfaces all over Conestoga College Doon Campus! As well updated or added new accessibility features to the entrances and exits, was very happy to notice them Smile


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-15-2015

That's great on both counts (Conestoga and Highland/Westmount)!


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Canard - 09-16-2015

A crane was upside-down (on it's roof with 4 wheels in the air) in the left-hand lane of 401 Eastbound, between 8 and 24 yesterday afternoon. Traffic was snarled up something fierce in both directions.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - GtwoK - 09-24-2015

Anyone know of potential upgrades to Hwy 85 or Blockline/Courtland (unrelated, of course)?

I've had to drive in the Blockline/Courtland area a bunch for the past few weeks, and this intersection has got to be on of the slowest and worst in the city. Traffic making a left from Courtland onto Blockline is always backed-up way past Shelley. Trying to get on Courtland from Shelley or Siebert is next to impossible.

I know it's a relatively new intersection but it's really just awful. Probably could have benefited form a roundabout, but it would have been difficult with A) the massive slope there, and B) The ion station there.

Hwy 85: does the MTO plan to widen this anytime soon? Every time I drive down there between 11am – 6pm, traffic is near stand-still until around Lancaster. It's been that way for some years. They've got all the space in the median for expansion, so I don't understand why they haven't used it, unless there are other plans for the area (it doesn't go as far as the new Hwy 7, so that couldn't be it I don't think).


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-24-2015

(09-24-2015, 03:40 PM)GtwoK Wrote: Hwy 85: does the MTO plan to widen this anytime soon? Every time I drive down there between 11am – 6pm, traffic is near stand-still until around Lancaster. It's been that way for some years. They've got all the space in the median for expansion, so I don't understand why they haven't used it, unless there are other plans for the area (it doesn't go as far as the new Hwy 7, so that couldn't be it I don't think).

I presume you are talking about the stretch between King and Lancaster exits.  I drive that twice a day, so I have at least frequent anecdotal evidence.

Northbound traffic is slow in the mornings, though not usually terrible.  Southbound is pretty backed up (stop-and-go level) during the afternoon rush hour.  The opposite direction usually moves quite well.  Everything was recently repaved, and the bridges are being repaired at current width, so I don't expect to see widening anytime in the next 5-10 years.  There is space to widen, but there is still a cost -- roughly $4M per lane kilometre, so doing it up to Northfield (the natural narrowing spot) would probably cost about $60M.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - gomesjustin - 09-24-2015

Maybe after the New Highway 7 is built and the Interchange area re-worked, I can see the MTO looking at widening the expressway in that stretch. There is room. IMO the Lancaster exits should be closed after the new Highway 7 is built, that is a major reason the backup happens going southbound on 85, the on-ramps from Bridgeport are too small and therefore quite the back-up ensues. I know the Lancaster exits are useful for people in that neighbourhood, but there has to be another solution.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-24-2015

Lancaster exits are also useful for people going to downtown Kitchener from southbound 85.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Markster - 09-24-2015

(09-24-2015, 04:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I presume you are talking about the stretch between King and Lancaster exits.  I drive that twice a day, so I have at least frequent anecdotal evidence.

Northbound traffic is slow in the mornings, though not usually terrible.  Southbound is pretty backed up (stop-and-go level) during the afternoon rush hour.  The opposite direction usually moves quite well.  Everything was recently repaved, and the bridges are being repaired at current width, so I don't expect to see widening anytime in the next 5-10 years.  There is space to widen, but there is still a cost -- roughly $4M per lane kilometre, so doing it up to Northfield (the natural narrowing spot) would probably cost about $60M.

My gripe with the Bridgeport-Lancaster section is that the Bridgeport on-ramp doesn't just continue through to become the Lancaster exit.
In an ideal world with ample freeway capacity, the current setup is safer, as it prevents cross merging.  

But we're not in an ideal world, and the Bridgeport merge is clearly where the highway gets pushed overcapacity. It would provide a little more breathing room for the People exiting at Lancaster to get out of the main flow, opening up a little space for the people entering from Bridgeport.

[Edit] okay, I totally misremembered. It already is like that.
The problem is that the cross-merge zone is tiny. They need to get that Bridgeport entrance ramp to meet up with the highway much earlier, to give people a little more time to do the cross-merging.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - timc - 09-25-2015

(09-24-2015, 04:19 PM)gomesjustin Wrote: Maybe after the New Highway 7 is built and the Interchange area re-worked, I can see the MTO looking at widening the expressway in that stretch. There is room. IMO the Lancaster exits should be closed after the new Highway 7 is built, that is a major reason the backup happens going southbound on 85, the on-ramps from Bridgeport are too small and therefore quite the back-up ensues. I know the Lancaster exits are useful for people in that neighbourhood, but there has to be another solution.

IIRC, the MTO decided not to widen the expressway in Waterloo because they were waiting to see the outcome of LRT and whether it would reduce the traffic demand.