+- 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)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - clasher - 12-01-2022
I use it the odd time I'm driving home after being in Waterloo or farther north. Wouldn't really be upset if they closed it, it really isn't much to take the Wellington exit instead, or get off at Victoria, take Frederick into DTK... but they've got construction going on Benton around King St. for now.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - neonjoe - 12-01-2022
(11-30-2022, 05:30 PM)Chris Wrote: Region seeking feedback on possible ramp closures at Lancaster/Highway 85
https://kitchener.citynews.ca/local-news/region-seeking-feedback-on-possible-ramp-closures-at-lancasterhighway-85-6177697
The weaving there causes so many accidents and slow downs. Bridgeport is a better alternative.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Chris - 12-01-2022
I'd be happy to see them close the ramps. Should improve traffic on 85 and it would make biking and walking on Lancaster much more pleasant. It's also often awkward getting off 85 towards Union with the lane ending at the intersection. I think the Bridgeport access points can serve the neighbourhood well.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 12-02-2022
If they close the Lancaster ramps (or even if they don’t, actually) they should remove the ramp for taking eastbound Bridgeport traffic onto the freeway. Instead, have everybody turn left and use the same ramp as westbound traffic. That would simplify traffic flow on the expressway. While they’re at it, have that lane not merge; instead it can simply become the 3rd lane ahead of the 4 lane section.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Acitta - 12-06-2022
CTV News: Region explores removing trucks in downtown Cambridge
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - bravado - 12-06-2022
(12-06-2022, 12:08 AM)Acitta Wrote: CTV News: Region explores removing trucks in downtown Cambridge
I attended the public consultation, I don't really know why we need to submit our regional employees to this for such a normal, sane, common decision.
Sounds like it will happen and there will be a noise wall on McQueen Shaver, as there should have been from the start.
Trucks will still go across Concession/Rd 97 because there's no money to build a real bypass south of the city, which makes me sad since it's unsafe to bike there and not fun to walk there.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - SammyOES - 12-07-2022
(12-02-2022, 03:05 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: If they close the Lancaster ramps (or even if they don’t, actually) they should remove the ramp for taking eastbound Bridgeport traffic onto the freeway. Instead, have everybody turn left and use the same ramp as westbound traffic. That would simplify traffic flow on the expressway. While they’re at it, have that lane not merge; instead it can simply become the 3rd lane ahead of the 4 lane section.
Adding a left turn there onto the freeway doesn't seem better to me. Is it just to improve merging on the freeway? If so I think you'd have better options - particularly if the Lancaster exit is closed. You could do things like extending the eastbound-bridgeport on ramp into where the current Lancaster exit is adding more space between merge areas or you could have the eastbound-bridge port traffic merge into the westbound-bridge traffic on-ramp and then ultimately into the freeway. Both of these seem fine if you're not rushed to close the lanes because of the Lancaster exit.
I'm not sure you'd be able to do 3 lanes under the Lancaster street bridge. But if you could I'd say extend the westbound-bridgeport on ramp to be the 3rd lane (no merge required) and then have a normal merge from the eastbound-bridge port traffic on ramp.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ac3r - 01-12-2023
The 401 was shut down for 5 hours last night due to a fire at one of the many shanty towns: https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/kitchener/2023/1/11/1_6227461.amp.html
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 01-13-2023
(12-07-2022, 01:58 PM)SammyOES Wrote: I'm not sure you'd be able to do 3 lanes under the Lancaster street bridge. But if you could I'd say extend the westbound-bridgeport on ramp to be the 3rd lane (no merge required) and then have a normal merge from the eastbound-bridge port traffic on ramp.
NB expressway already has three lanes under Lancaster: the third is the merge lane from the Lancaster on-ramp. If the ramp were closed, that third lane could be used to continue from the collectors to the Bridgeport exit.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - the_conestoga_guy - 01-13-2023
(01-13-2023, 01:57 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(12-07-2022, 01:58 PM)SammyOES Wrote: I'm not sure you'd be able to do 3 lanes under the Lancaster street bridge. But if you could I'd say extend the westbound-bridgeport on ramp to be the 3rd lane (no merge required) and then have a normal merge from the eastbound-bridge port traffic on ramp.
NB expressway already has three lanes under Lancaster: the third is the merge lane from the Lancaster on-ramp. If the ramp were closed, that third lane could be used to continue from the collectors to the Bridgeport exit.
Considering this is always where the worst NB traffic happens, it's probably a good idea!
Related to closing these ramps, I wonder if the Shell station at Lancaster/Bridgeport would stick around if they were removed. It's already in a crappy spot, and taking away some traffic from Lancaster might be a blow to their business. I'm personally a fan of redeveloping gas stations into literally anything else...
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - cherrypark - 01-15-2023
(01-13-2023, 06:53 PM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote:(01-13-2023, 01:57 PM)tomh009 Wrote: NB expressway already has three lanes under Lancaster: the third is the merge lane from the Lancaster on-ramp. If the ramp were closed, that third lane could be used to continue from the collectors to the Bridgeport exit.
Considering this is always where the worst NB traffic happens, it's probably a good idea!
Related to closing these ramps, I wonder if the Shell station at Lancaster/Bridgeport would stick around if they were removed. It's already in a crappy spot, and taking away some traffic from Lancaster might be a blow to their business. I'm personally a fan of redeveloping gas stations into literally anything else...
Probably will be fine if the convenience store revenue ticks up with the new condos/apts going in around it. Not much for gas out that way anyways that isn't a ways up Bridge St.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - SammyOES - 01-18-2023
(01-13-2023, 01:57 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(12-07-2022, 01:58 PM)SammyOES Wrote: I'm not sure you'd be able to do 3 lanes under the Lancaster street bridge. But if you could I'd say extend the westbound-bridgeport on ramp to be the 3rd lane (no merge required) and then have a normal merge from the eastbound-bridge port traffic on ramp.
NB expressway already has three lanes under Lancaster: the third is the merge lane from the Lancaster on-ramp. If the ramp were closed, that third lane could be used to continue from the collectors to the Bridgeport exit.
I don't think that helps you because it's on the wrong side of the supports for the bridge. Or maybe I'm talking about the wrong ramps? I was talking about the ramps onto the SB expressway (which in true KW fashion is actually moving slightly north at this point).
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - neonjoe - 01-18-2023
(01-18-2023, 01:24 PM)SammyOES Wrote:(01-13-2023, 01:57 PM)tomh009 Wrote: NB expressway already has three lanes under Lancaster: the third is the merge lane from the Lancaster on-ramp. If the ramp were closed, that third lane could be used to continue from the collectors to the Bridgeport exit.
I don't think that helps you because it's on the wrong side of the supports for the bridge. Or maybe I'm talking about the wrong ramps? I was talking about the ramps onto the SB expressway (which in true KW fashion is actually moving slightly north at this point).
The median is extra wide where the Ontario Tall wall starts. As it stands currently it can support an additional lane in each direction with a standard median if a tall wall is erected to bridgeport.
If this doesn't work, the bridge embankments under Lancaster can be removed (like they were at Fischer/Hallman) and an additional lane in each direction fit under the bridge.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 01-19-2023
(01-18-2023, 02:44 PM)neonjoe Wrote:(01-18-2023, 01:24 PM)SammyOES Wrote: I don't think that helps you because it's on the wrong side of the supports for the bridge. Or maybe I'm talking about the wrong ramps? I was talking about the ramps onto the SB expressway (which in true KW fashion is actually moving slightly north at this point).
The median is extra wide where the Ontario Tall wall starts. As it stands currently it can support an additional lane in each direction with a standard median if a tall wall is erected to bridgeport.
If this doesn't work, the bridge embankments under Lancaster can be removed (like they were at Fischer/Hallman) and an additional lane in each direction fit under the bridge.
There absolutely is space under the Lancaster St. bridge for 3 lanes in each direction, without rebuilding or altering the bridge:
https://goo.gl/maps/C1Ypdwp8mCubuEsg7
https://goo.gl/maps/9QVfptqWsZdfnwgs9
Northbound I’m relying on using the space for the on-ramp as a regular lane.
Also I have to insert my standard boilerplate about how I generally am opposed to freeway expansion, but minor adjustments to efficiently use what has already been built are acceptable. In this case, the way the highway suddenly goes from 4 to 2 lanes makes no sense: it would make more sense for it to go to 3 and then 2, with the shrinking preferably taking place by a lane leaving as an exit lane (and 2 to 3 to 4 in the other direction, with the additions happening by an on-ramp not ending).
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Watdot - 02-08-2023
This section of the expressway is long overdue for expansion. There were plans probably 10 years ago now, but the province moved forward with the expansion on the Kitchener side only. Perhaps this is moving towards reviving those plans. Closing the Lancaster off ramp will make the expansion possible. Without the closure, keeping the expressway open southbound during construction will be virtually impossible.
Note that the Waterloo expansion of the expressway is not just to accommodate "rush hour volume". More importantly it is to build a proper median to improve overall safety. The number of deaths over the decades from cars crossing the median is significant.