[Uptown] Erb/Bridgeport/Caroline/Albert Reconstruction

[MidTowner]

This might be something to bring up with the region (I believe Bridgeport and Erb belong to them?). Having experienced Bridgeport and Erb as a driver, pedestrian, cyclist, transit user, I know just how bad it can get. Given Bridgeport additionally only has crosswalks instead of full intersection control at Peppler and Devitt, it means a very long stretch between Weber and Regina for high speeds to be achieved.

What ookpik is suggesting (time all lights so vehicles need never slow down) will make it worse, not better.

To the advocates of the "green wave": I know this is illogical, but traffic does not move at 50km/h just because the lights are timed that way. Drivers see a wide open road, and drive accordingly, even if it means they later meet a red light they otherwise wouldn't have had to.

[insider]

I've always thought that the best thing to do and the "best planning practice" would be to convert Erb and Bridgeport into two-way streets, as they were for many years. In the particular area of this project though, I would see them as very high quality urban boulevards with no grass strips, but instead an expanded curb/sidewalk with street furniture, trees/ planters, lower decorative lamps. There is absolutely no reason why Uptown (and Downtown) can or should have only one 'Main Street'. Both are urban cores - it's about time we get outside of the bi-dimensional King Street corridor and start to create attractive, liveable, walkable places that people want to explore and support. There are businesses in all of these surrounding streets, there are lots of people living in them, and lots of people visiting and walking every single day.

How about we start a petition or approach the Region to propose this?

[SammyOES]

I'd be interested in knowing what the peak traffic is on these roads as opposed to the daily traffic. I don't drive down them at rush hour very often but when I do they seem quite busy.

[clasher]

I lived in Hamilton for a bit in 2012, the rush hour and timed lights make no appreciable difference, I still got caught at red lights when trucks would block a lane, taxis would stop, people would slow down or speed up to close gaps and all kinds of other nonsense.

Duke and Charles used to be one-ways through downtown and I think Kitchener is better for everyone trying to drive into downtown and get around with them being two-ways. One way streets only seem to benefit people trying to get through a place rather than to it.

Bridgeport can be pretty race-track in between Weber and King, just spend a few minutes trying to cross the trail.

[Canard]

Bridgeport and Erb are almost Green Wave done right.

...Except the cross streets aren't integrated properly and screw it all up if just 1 car is waiting on the sensor.

[chutten]

To the advocates of the "green wave": I know this is illogical, but traffic does not move at 50km/h just because the lights are timed that way. Drivers see a wide open road, and drive accordingly, even if it means they later meet a red light they otherwise wouldn't have had to.

If it's wide open, then the Green Wave isn't needed. Racing ahead? Sure, whatever. Makes no difference to the cars in front or behind because there aren't any of them.

It's when congestion reaches a certain point that the Green Wave is needed and can shine. From that density of vehicles you only need a couple of people who know about it and a liberal dose of herd instinct to have a traffic volume travelling at the designed speed.

There are and always will be outliers. The people who, through malice or ignorance, decide to race ahead and have to come to a full stop at a waiting red light. So long as these are few enough, they shouldn't clog the intersections enough to worry the wave.

Anecdotally, I like riding the green wave home from the airport after picking someone up from the Calgary flight. Or I did, before Caroline @ Erb suffered the trench war (or whatever caused those artillery craters).

[ookpik]

To the advocates of the "green wave": I know this is illogical, but traffic does not move at 50km/h just because the lights are timed that way. Drivers see a wide open road, and drive accordingly, even if it means they later meet a red light they otherwise wouldn't have had to.

If it's wide open, then the Green Wave isn't needed. Racing ahead? Sure, whatever. Makes no difference to the cars in front or behind because there aren't any of them.

It's when congestion reaches a certain point that the Green Wave is needed and can shine. From that density of vehicles you only need a couple of people who know about it and a liberal dose of herd instinct to have a traffic volume travelling at the designed speed.

The "green wave" as implemented doesn't work on Bridgeport and Erb not because green waves don't work but...

1. It's not publicised. Only traffic gurus would know that a green wave is in effect and thus drive accordingly. Because it's not publicised most drivers speed ahead and then get frustrated by the inevitable red lights they encounter. The 3 or so parallel lanes of one-way traffic further contributes to this. Unfortunately Bridgeport and Erb are too busy and too wide to undergo a road diet that might calm traffic down in a more subtle, natural way.

2. Then as I pointed out before (and Canard repeated) there are several exceptions to the green wave at certain side streets. So a single car that arrives at one of those side streets can disrupt the green wave for a dozen or more cars on the main thoroughfare. Once you stop at a red light at one of those side streets you're almost guaranteed another red light at the next green wave-enabled cross street. As I observed before it must have taken a special kind of idiot at city hall to come up with that implementation.

3. It also makes no sense to have an official speed limit of 50km/hr on Bridgeport and Erb. I can understand the argument that since almost everyone drives faster than the posted limit on wide one-way streets a low posted limit will tend to slow people down to what they might do if the limit was higher. But 50 is so low that, speaking as someone who tries to follow it in order to catch a green wave, I can say that it requires exceptional determination and self-discipline to maintain it. Perhaps the limit should be raised to 60km/hr with good signage to indicate that a pure "green wave" is in effect and that as a result speeding is futile. 

P.S. Although I'm against radar automated speed traps in principle, perhaps this is one situation where they're warranted. If people won't slow down when there's no benefit in speeding then perhaps they need to be slowed down by the threat of certain monetary and legal penalties.

[SammyOES]

I think many people that drive Bridgeport and Erb regularly know that the lights are timed. But the killer really is the sensor lights on the side streets. If someone's in a hurry its still 'beneficial' to speed to avoid getting stopped by a random car triggering the lights.

[Markster]

Are we sure that the sensor lights are not tied to a timing mechanism?
I know that for many lights, they're on sensors, but they still wait until a green wave has passed by before changing.  (an example I see every day is on Columbia, just west of Philip)

[timc]

3. It also makes no sense to have an official speed limit of 50km/hr on Bridgeport and Erb. I can understand the argument that since almost everyone drives faster than the posted limit on wide one-way streets a low posted limit will tend to slow people down to what they might do if the limit was higher. But 50 is so low that, speaking as someone who tries to follow it in order to catch a green wave, I can say that it requires exceptional determination and self-discipline to maintain it. Perhaps the limit should be raised to 60km/hr with good signage to indicate that a pure "green wave" is in effect and that as a result speeding is futile. 

So is the right speed to drive here 50 km/h or 60 km/h? I live in the area and I haven't noticed any special timing of the lights, so I would like to know what speed I should be driving at.

[ookpik]

Are we sure that the sensor lights are not tied to a timing mechanism?

Yes, we (at least I) am sure. This is based on many, many trips.

[ookpik]

So is the right speed to drive here 50 km/h or 60 km/h? I live in the area and I haven't noticed any special timing of the lights, so I would like to know what speed I should be driving at.

The default when no speed limit is posted is 50km/hr in urban areas. I've confirmed that in practice the green wave is timed for that speed. Try it next time you're at the front of the queue at a red light in light traffic. Proceed at 50km/hr and you'll get a green light at the next intersection. Proceed at 60km/hr and you'll have to stop and wait at the next intersection for several seconds.

[mpd618]

There are and always will be outliers. The people who, through malice or ignorance, decide to race ahead and have to come to a full stop at a waiting red light. So long as these are few enough, they shouldn't clog the intersections enough to worry the wave.

Those who feel (erroneously) that the road lets them go fast may not affect the green wave much on average, but they affect the safety and comfort of the street for pedestrians quite a bit.

[MidTowner]

3. It also makes no sense to have an official speed limit of 50km/hr on Bridgeport and Erb. I can understand the argument that since almost everyone drives faster than the posted limit on wide one-way streets a low posted limit will tend to slow people down to what they might do if the limit was higher. But 50 is so low that, speaking as someone who tries to follow it in order to catch a green wave, I can say that it requires exceptional determination and self-discipline to maintain it. Perhaps the limit should be raised to 60km/hr with good signage to indicate that a pure "green wave" is in effect and that as a result speeding is futile. 

I agree that it takes self-discipline to maintain 50km/h on Bridgeport or Erb, and almost no one seems to do it. This statement is a real indictment on the design of these streets.

Most of the last comments (mpd618's excepted) are entirely car-centric. Obviously there's a need to allow motor traffic to flow on these and other streets, but there are a lot of other needs against which this has to be balanced. Right now, Erb and Bridgeport are together for many intents and purposes a six-lane freeway cutting through residential neighbourhoods. The traffic volumes on these roads don't justify the capacity that exists. Maybe they experience congestion at peak hours, but that seems like a normal situation in most cities. If we (over)build for those peak demand periods, the result is dangerously fast traffic at other hours. I drove on Bridgeport last night, and (the horror) I did have to wait at a red light, but I was also passed by vehicles going well in excess of the speed limit. Of course they do: faced with three wide-open lanes, that's what seems natural. The roads have to be redesigned to reflect the fact that they are inside of a city, passing through residential areas.

By the way, Canard, I don't know how it helps to say things like "We should all drive 4 km/h..." I've never heard anyone say this, so it's hard to know what you might be arguing against. ookpik suggests raising the speed limit to 60km/h. At that speed, a human being struck by a car will be killed 90% of the time. At 50km/h, it's 55% of the time, and at 30km/h it's 5% of the time. I would imagine that these specific roads probably need to see traffic flowing faster than 30km/h, but the way they're designed encourages much, much higher speeds.

[ookpik]

ookpik suggests raising the speed limit to 60km/h. At that speed, a human being struck by a car will be killed 90% of the time. At 50km/h, it's 55% of the time, and at 30km/h it's 5% of the time. I would imagine that these specific roads probably need to see traffic flowing faster than 30km/h, but the way they're designed encourages much, much higher speeds.

With the current limit 50, most traffic does 60-70, and some even faster. I'd rather see the limit at 60 and enforced, perhaps with photo-radar, than at 50 and ignored, both by drivers and the cops. I'll bet average speeds would be lower than they are today. IMO that would be safer for pedestrians. (As would a signalled crossing where Laurel Cr crosses Bridgeport, just as there is where it crosses Erb.)