General Road and Highway Discussion

[danbrotherston]

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.

Do you have a specific number on the deaths from crossover collisions? (or even injuries)? I know the 401 near Windsor had a serious issue with crossover collisions (the highway of death or something like that) but in the 16 years I lived in the region I cannot recall even one serious collision of that form, let alone a significant pattern, but I wasn't always paying attention.

I do hope they don't widen the highway, the last thing we need in the region is more traffic.

[SF22]

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.

Do you have a specific number on the deaths from crossover collisions? (or even injuries)? I know the 401 near Windsor had a serious issue with crossover collisions (the highway of death or something like that) but in the 16 years I lived in the region I cannot recall even one serious collision of that form, let alone a significant pattern, but I wasn't always paying attention.

I do hope they don't widen the highway, the last thing we need in the region is more traffic.

I don't know about a pattern, but a family friend died on the highway right near the Bridgeport exit in 2006 from crossing over the median. I know his dad used to put flowers on the side of the highway near Bluevale for years. The article notes that 2 people died in that same spot, 3 years apart. So it's not super common, but has definitely happened at least a handful of times.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ssway.html

[danbrotherston]

Do you have a specific number on the deaths from crossover collisions? (or even injuries)? I know the 401 near Windsor had a serious issue with crossover collisions (the highway of death or something like that) but in the 16 years I lived in the region I cannot recall even one serious collision of that form, let alone a significant pattern, but I wasn't always paying attention.

I do hope they don't widen the highway, the last thing we need in the region is more traffic.

I don't know about a pattern, but a family friend died on the highway right near the Bridgeport exit in 2006 from crossing over the median. I know his dad used to put flowers on the side of the highway near Bluevale for years. The article notes that 2 people died in that same spot, 3 years apart. So it's not super common, but has definitely happened at least a handful of times.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ssway.html

Thanks for the link, and my condolences. Seems like there's a reasonable argument for improving the barrier.

FWIW...I agree with the interviewee....building a media with concrete is expensive because an entire drainage system must be installed. A steel or cable guardrail can be installed with no significant extra expense. It's ridiculous they haven't done it.

[bravado]

Do we actually want more lanes? What's the point?

[plam]

Do we actually want more lanes? What's the point?

Going north, the part where it narrows and immediately re-widens just before the Bridgeport exit is just really weird. Maybe that's bad?

[ijmorlan]

Do we actually want more lanes? What's the point?

Going north, the part where it narrows and immediately re-widens just before the Bridgeport exit is just really weird. Maybe that's bad?

In general, I don’t think freeways should be expanded. But this freeway has a weird situation where 4 lanes go down to 2 suddenly, and I think it makes sense to have a 3 lane section as far as Bridgeport to smooth out the transition.

[SF22]

Going north, the part where it narrows and immediately re-widens just before the Bridgeport exit is just really weird. Maybe that's bad?

In general, I don’t think freeways should be expanded. But this freeway has a weird situation where 4 lanes go down to 2 suddenly, and I think it makes sense to have a 3 lane section as far as Bridgeport to smooth out the transition.

According to Google Maps, it's 700m between where the 3rd lane ends and the Bridgeport off-ramp starts. Feels like adding that third lane for 700m could do a LOT to help with congestion (I say, as someone who drives through this bottleneck everyday). Lord knows that no one knows how to successfully zipper merge to keep traffic flowing at a decent rate.

[danbrotherston]

It doesn't matter, you want to make driving easier. Making driving easier increases traffic.

[ijmorlan]

It doesn't matter, you want to make driving easier. Making driving easier increases traffic.

We’re already paying for maintenance on the 4-lane (each way) section. We might as well get it closer to capacity.

Now if you want to argue that the 4-lane section should be narrowed back to 2 lanes (each way), then I’d probably be OK with that. The present setup is just incoherent though.

[SF22]

It doesn't matter, you want to make driving easier. Making driving easier increases traffic.

True, but I'm certainly not advocating that we add another lane everywhere and turn Ira Needles into a ringroad highway. I worry that we sometimes let 'perfect' get in the way of 'good enough,' and end up making our situation worse waiting for the absolute best scenario. Less congestion means that cars spend less time on the highway, and that DOES make it easier to drive, but it also A) lessens the amount of idling from thousands of cars per day, which throws pollution into our air, B) gives people extra time in their day, that they might spend walking to the grocery store instead of driving, because now they have an extra 20 minutes in their evening where walking becomes feasible, and C) ideally minimizes the sort of dangerous driving that injures and kills people because driversaren't weaving through traffic trying to get ahead of the congestion.

The only way I support a third highway lane between Wellington and Bridgeport is with the removal of the on-ramp from Lancaster. That makes Lancaster a safer road for people to walk/bike on because they don't have to navigate the sweeping on-ramp lanes, and hopefully lessens congestion on the highway. That's a win for everyone.

I am fully in support of building this city up instead of out, and building spaces to revolve around people instead of cars, but I am also aware that it's not going to come all at once, and that we can make small changes in the meantime that aren't entirely in the direction we want to go, but still creates some kind of improvement. In an ideal world, I would love to see the region's population grow over the next 30 years as our new condos fill up, but have the additional population use active transit/public transit to a degree that we never feel like we need to expand/widen our highway. But the odds are we will always have the highway, so let's at least make it flow in a logical way.

[danbrotherston]

It doesn't matter, you want to make driving easier. Making driving easier increases traffic.

True, but I'm certainly not advocating that we add another lane everywhere and turn Ira Needles into a ringroad highway. I worry that we sometimes let 'perfect' get in the way of 'good enough,' and end up making our situation worse waiting for the absolute best scenario. Less congestion means that cars spend less time on the highway, and that DOES make it easier to drive, but it also A) lessens the amount of idling from thousands of cars per day, which throws pollution into our air, B) gives people extra time in their day, that they might spend walking to the grocery store instead of driving, because now they have an extra 20 minutes in their evening where walking becomes feasible, and C) ideally minimizes the sort of dangerous driving that injures and kills people because driversaren't weaving through traffic trying to get ahead of the congestion.

The only way I support a third highway lane between Wellington and Bridgeport is with the removal of the on-ramp from Lancaster. That makes Lancaster a safer road for people to walk/bike on because they don't have to navigate the sweeping on-ramp lanes, and hopefully lessens congestion on the highway. That's a win for everyone.

I am fully in support of building this city up instead of out, and building spaces to revolve around people instead of cars, but I am also aware that it's not going to come all at once, and that we can make small changes in the meantime that aren't entirely in the direction we want to go, but still creates some kind of improvement. In an ideal world, I would love to see the region's population grow over the next 30 years as our new condos fill up, but have the additional population use active transit/public transit to a degree that we never feel like we need to expand/widen our highway. But the odds are we will always have the highway, so let's at least make it flow in a logical way.

"Less congestion" is not the result of "more highways"...in fact, "more congestion" is the result of "more highways". If you make it easier to drive, more people will drive, and you will have more congestion.

I'm sure there are trade offs that I'd be willing to make, like you describe, but only because it's a politically feasible way to achieve more valuable outcomes. But arguing that adding road capacity (or convenience) does anything but make traffic worse is just so tired. Adding capacity to the highway, especially one of the few congested places in the region absolutely will increase driving over leaving it as is.

[cherrypark]

It doesn't matter, you want to make driving easier. Making driving easier increases traffic.

True, but I'm certainly not advocating that we add another lane everywhere and turn Ira Needles into a ringroad highway. I worry that we sometimes let 'perfect' get in the way of 'good enough,' and end up making our situation worse waiting for the absolute best scenario. Less congestion means that cars spend less time on the highway, and that DOES make it easier to drive, but it also A) lessens the amount of idling from thousands of cars per day, which throws pollution into our air, B) gives people extra time in their day, that they might spend walking to the grocery store instead of driving, because now they have an extra 20 minutes in their evening where walking becomes feasible, and C) ideally minimizes the sort of dangerous driving that injures and kills people because driversaren't weaving through traffic trying to get ahead of the congestion.

The only way I support a third highway lane between Wellington and Bridgeport is with the removal of the on-ramp from Lancaster. That makes Lancaster a safer road for people to walk/bike on because they don't have to navigate the sweeping on-ramp lanes, and hopefully lessens congestion on the highway. That's a win for everyone.

I am fully in support of building this city up instead of out, and building spaces to revolve around people instead of cars, but I am also aware that it's not going to come all at once, and that we can make small changes in the meantime that aren't entirely in the direction we want to go, but still creates some kind of improvement. In an ideal world, I would love to see the region's population grow over the next 30 years as our new condos fill up, but have the additional population use active transit/public transit to a degree that we never feel like we need to expand/widen our highway. But the odds are we will always have the highway, so let's at least make it flow in a logical way.

I don't really see what the argument against this would be, even if the time of day benefits are more about driver convenience than any secondary positive outcomes. This small section of an added lane between the collector and next exit is a small concession to improve safety and reduce otherwise pointless congestion with the benefits of also improving access and safety for other modes. Seems like the a good solution.

[danbrotherston]

True, but I'm certainly not advocating that we add another lane everywhere and turn Ira Needles into a ringroad highway. I worry that we sometimes let 'perfect' get in the way of 'good enough,' and end up making our situation worse waiting for the absolute best scenario. Less congestion means that cars spend less time on the highway, and that DOES make it easier to drive, but it also A) lessens the amount of idling from thousands of cars per day, which throws pollution into our air, B) gives people extra time in their day, that they might spend walking to the grocery store instead of driving, because now they have an extra 20 minutes in their evening where walking becomes feasible, and C) ideally minimizes the sort of dangerous driving that injures and kills people because driversaren't weaving through traffic trying to get ahead of the congestion.

The only way I support a third highway lane between Wellington and Bridgeport is with the removal of the on-ramp from Lancaster. That makes Lancaster a safer road for people to walk/bike on because they don't have to navigate the sweeping on-ramp lanes, and hopefully lessens congestion on the highway. That's a win for everyone.

I am fully in support of building this city up instead of out, and building spaces to revolve around people instead of cars, but I am also aware that it's not going to come all at once, and that we can make small changes in the meantime that aren't entirely in the direction we want to go, but still creates some kind of improvement. In an ideal world, I would love to see the region's population grow over the next 30 years as our new condos fill up, but have the additional population use active transit/public transit to a degree that we never feel like we need to expand/widen our highway. But the odds are we will always have the highway, so let's at least make it flow in a logical way.

I don't really see what the argument against this would be, even if the time of day benefits are more about driver convenience than any secondary positive outcomes. This small section of an added lane between the collector and next exit is a small concession to improve safety and reduce otherwise pointless congestion with the benefits of also improving access and safety for other modes. Seems like the a good solution.

Do you or do you not see limiting VMT as a goal? That will determine if you see an argument against this or not. Because along with all road expansion projects increasing VMT will be a direct result. I'm not saying it isn't worth a concession for improving Lancaster (although I think these are less linked than you folks seem to feel) but it does not change the fact that you are contemplating a project that will increase VMT.

[plam]

Do you or do you not see limiting VMT as a goal? That will determine if you see an argument against this or not. Because along with all road expansion projects increasing VMT will be a direct result. I'm not saying it isn't worth a concession for improving Lancaster (although I think these are less linked than you folks seem to feel) but it does not change the fact that you are contemplating a project that will increase VMT.

Let's think about this a different way. What if we put a speedbump on the 85? Should we do that? It'll reduce speeds and hence throughput.

OK. Now what if the speedbump was already there and we were going to spend some amount of money to remove it? Should we?

I kind of see this as a pretty similar situation to what we have now.

[danbrotherston]

Do you or do you not see limiting VMT as a goal? That will determine if you see an argument against this or not. Because along with all road expansion projects increasing VMT will be a direct result. I'm not saying it isn't worth a concession for improving Lancaster (although I think these are less linked than you folks seem to feel) but it does not change the fact that you are contemplating a project that will increase VMT.

Let's think about this a different way. What if we put a speedbump on the 85? Should we do that? It'll reduce speeds and hence throughput.

OK. Now what if the speedbump was already there and we were going to spend some amount of money to remove it? Should we?

I kind of see this as a pretty similar situation to what we have now.

Those are not remotely similar. Hitting pretty much any speedbump at 100km/h (and typical speeds are much higher) would be extremely dangerous. We'd probably see weekly crashes. The current restriction does not create even remotely such risk.

But lets take a different example...King St. from DT to Uptown, should we install speed bumps/speed tables/raised crosswalks there? Yes I think we should, for all the same reasons, and because there it does not create a safety hazard.