Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GO Transit
(11-18-2019, 02:45 PM)MidTowner Wrote: It's specifically 14,115 average between Breithaupt and Victoria. Some of the traffic you mention between Union and Victoria takes Guelph or Louisa or Wellington.

14,115 on average pass over the tracks on Lancaster. For Westmount, only a few segments of Westmount Road East right before it ends at Fischer-Hallman carry that few vehicles.

Edit to add that, were Lancaster closed, some of that traffic really would just disappear. You're right that most of it would move to other streets, but it might or might not be true that the result would be "insanity" there.

Ottawa St S is less than that between Mill St and King St E. Westmount Rd S (I did say Westmount Rd S, not Westmount Rd E) is less than that between Dick St and Norman St.

The traffic would just disappear? All those people would walk instead? Seriously?
Reply


(11-18-2019, 02:17 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-18-2019, 01:47 PM)MidTowner Wrote: That's the figure for the intersection with Victoria...

The 2015 Regional traffic count shows 14,115 on Lancaster between Breithaupt and Victoria. That's not insignificant, but it's not high, and I think that number would support ijmorlan's assertion that the idea should at least be seriously considered.

Ah, I see, I misinterpreted the number. So using the "between" numbers from Union to Victoria, Lancaster carries between 15,000 and 18,000 cars per weekday. That's still similar to Ottawa St S or Westmount Rd S.

It might "eliminate the traffic insanity" but that traffic would not disappear, it would move somewhere else, so a new "insanity" would pop up, whether on Margaret, Wellington or elsewhere.

"Traffic would not disappear" the everpresent unjustified assumption.  Traffic is in fact flexible, if driving was made more difficult, there would be less of it....maybe not 14,000 fewer trips, but certainly there would be less.
Reply
(11-18-2019, 03:44 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-18-2019, 02:45 PM)MidTowner Wrote: It's specifically 14,115 average between Breithaupt and Victoria. Some of the traffic you mention between Union and Victoria takes Guelph or Louisa or Wellington.

14,115 on average pass over the tracks on Lancaster. For Westmount, only a few segments of Westmount Road East right before it ends at Fischer-Hallman carry that few vehicles.

Edit to add that, were Lancaster closed, some of that traffic really would just disappear. You're right that most of it would move to other streets, but it might or might not be true that the result would be "insanity" there.

Ottawa St S is less than that between Mill St and King St E. Westmount Rd S (I did say Westmount Rd S, not Westmount Rd E) is less than that between Dick St and Norman St.

The traffic would just disappear? All those people would walk instead? Seriously?

He quite clearly said "some" as did I, yes, not all would, but you're wrong to believe that there would be no reduction. Seriously.
Reply
(11-18-2019, 02:17 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It might "eliminate the traffic insanity" but that traffic would not disappear, it would move somewhere else, so a new "insanity" would pop up, whether on Margaret, Wellington or elsewhere.

That is not correct. The reason for the insanity is the unusual characteristics of the intersection, not a huge number of cars going through. On one branch, it’s a very narrow street. On another, it crosses a railway track and is therefore regularly closed for minutes at a time. On the other branches, there are no right-turn lanes. This is a recipe for traffic problems.

Moving traffic from one place to another does not have to move the insanity — it can make the insanity disappear. And this can be true even if the total amount of traffic moved stays the same.

For example, imagine two moderately busy 2-lane roads crossing at an intersection. If it is a 4-way stop, it will back up hugely as people individually take turns in the intersection. If it is a 2-way stop, it will be even worse, because people on the lesser road will get frustrated and start trying to squeeze into tiny gaps in the greater road. A traffic light with no turn lanes will also be very bad. But if a roundabout or traffic light with turn lanes is installed, the intersection will operate just fine.

So it is with Victoria and Lancaster. As others have done the research to find out (thank you!), the total number of cars using the piece of road which I propose to close is only about 14000 per day. Split this up between 2 new access roads to the east and Margaret and Weber to the west, and it’s just an increment on top of those other roads; and the other intersections involved all have much better characteristics for handling traffic.
Reply
If the "insanity" is caused by the rail crossing, it would also be addressed by a bridge.

And to that 14,000 you would need to add whatever volume there is on St Leger St.

However, I don't think there is any point in me arguing this with you further.
Reply
(11-18-2019, 09:46 PM)tomh009 Wrote: If the "insanity" is caused by the rail crossing, it would also be addressed by a bridge.

And to that 14,000 you would need to add whatever volume there is on St Leger St.

However, I don't think there is any point in me arguing this with you further.

Let’s review. You said the traffic would move elsewhere, and therefore the insanity would not disappear but just move elsewhere in the city.

I pointed out that the traffic can move elsewhere, while the insanity can just disappear entirely.

Does this make sense? Is there some error in my thinking? Did you say something different from what it looked to me like you said?

Of course a bridge would address the insanity, at a cost of several million dollars. My point is that the insanity can be eliminated for the price of a few large blocks of concrete plus whatever cost you assign to adding a bit more traffic to several surrounding roads, all of which can probably take it without overloading any intersections.

It’s more than a bit rich for you to slink away and claim that there is no point in further discussion.
Reply
It's more than a bit rich?

(11-17-2019, 11:07 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Closing the Lancaster crossing would eliminate the traffic insanity around that area while only slightly increasing traffic on mostly Margaret and the new access roads. It’s not clear to me that traffic on Wellington would necessarily much increase — when I talk about using Margaret or the new access roads, I don’t mean to use Wellington to get over to those roads necessarily; instead I’m suggesting people would re-evaluate their entire routes. Furthermore, the inability to come down Lancaster would probably reduce traffic on Lancaster south (east) of the tracks, and therefore reduce the insanity where Cedar, Krug, Lancaster, and Weber all meet.

So there is a "traffic insanity around that area."

It's "not clear" that traffic on Wellington would increase.

You are "suggesting people would re-evaluate."

And traffic on Lancaster would "probably be reduced."

With this kind of massive, referenced, data-based evidence, how can I argue against it?
Reply


(11-18-2019, 10:46 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It's more than a bit rich?

(11-17-2019, 11:07 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Closing the Lancaster crossing would eliminate the traffic insanity around that area while only slightly increasing traffic on mostly Margaret and the new access roads. It’s not clear to me that traffic on Wellington would necessarily much increase — when I talk about using Margaret or the new access roads, I don’t mean to use Wellington to get over to those roads necessarily; instead I’m suggesting people would re-evaluate their entire routes. Furthermore, the inability to come down Lancaster would probably reduce traffic on Lancaster south (east) of the tracks, and therefore reduce the insanity where Cedar, Krug, Lancaster, and Weber all meet.

So there is a "traffic insanity around that area."

It's "not clear" that traffic on Wellington would increase.

You are "suggesting people would re-evaluate."

And traffic on Lancaster would "probably be reduced."

With this kind of massive, referenced, data-based evidence, how can I argue against it?

Instead of arguing you could accept that induced traffic is a thing and that traffic volumes are not fixed.

Let me ask you this, what do you think the effect on traffic would be of widening all of Lancaster to four or five lanes?
Reply
(11-18-2019, 10:46 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It's more than a bit rich?

(11-17-2019, 11:07 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Closing the Lancaster crossing would eliminate the traffic insanity around that area while only slightly increasing traffic on mostly Margaret and the new access roads. It’s not clear to me that traffic on Wellington would necessarily much increase — when I talk about using Margaret or the new access roads, I don’t mean to use Wellington to get over to those roads necessarily; instead I’m suggesting people would re-evaluate their entire routes. Furthermore, the inability to come down Lancaster would probably reduce traffic on Lancaster south (east) of the tracks, and therefore reduce the insanity where Cedar, Krug, Lancaster, and Weber all meet.

So there is a "traffic insanity around that area."

It's "not clear" that traffic on Wellington would increase.

You are "suggesting people would re-evaluate."

And traffic on Lancaster would "probably be reduced."

With this kind of massive, referenced, data-based evidence, how can I argue against it?

Let’s stay focussed. I said the insanity would disappear; you said it would necessarily remain, just moved to a different location.

I pointed out that insanity isn’t directly related to traffic volume but to a combination of traffic volume and road arrangements that (specifically, at particular points, usually intersections) that can’t take the volume.

Perhaps you haven’t read enough of my messages to see how I operate. I don’t say “That is not correct” everytime I disagree with somebody. I say it when I believe somebody has made a factual error — in this case, that moving traffic must necessarily move (not eliminate) the associated “insanity”. Other times, I might just explain my view, or ask questions about some particular point the other person is making. Still other times, I don’t even have a firm opinion. An example of this is in the ION thread where we are discussing some mysterious signs. I speculated as to their meaning, but clearly marked what I said as speculation.

Now you’re just digging through everything I wrote and pointing out that I didn’t include a detailed study backing up every statement. Well guess what, nobody here does that all the time; and in your latest message you aren’t even trying to support a contrary point. If you think one or more of my statements is wrong, I suggest that you explain what is wrong with it and why. For that matter, if you have reason to believe, specifically in this case, that the insanity would move elsewhere, we would all love to know where you think it might move and why.
Reply
Right now, we know that Lancaster is used as route to DTK from both the north via the Expressway, and east via Wellington. Closing the Lancaster crossing would lead to changing travel patterns, but particularly for those coming from the east on Wellington, continuing on Wellington to Margaret is the most likely change they'll make. For those from the north, it's harder to say as there are many more options. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more traffic shift to Margaret instead (Bridgeport->Margaret->Victoria). Is this desirable?

Lancaster is also what you might call a main street in a similar sense to Belmont in that it's kind of the nexus for small restaurants, convenience stores etc. servicing those neighbourhoods. I don't think reducing connectivity for a street like that is desirable. Cutting out a key section of a network is something that should be done very carefully. Sure, it may reduce car traffic on that street, but it will also isolate that neighbourhood significantly as well.
Reply
One other thing to note is that Lancaster from Victoria to Bridge is a Regional road. If that crossing were to close the region would be putting traffic pressure on Kitchener city streets, the region may have to assume one of the other roads such as Margaret in this case as the maintenance costs of it would likely increase with increased traffic.
Reply
It seems like it will be a while longer before the new highway 7 is up and running so it's gonna be tough to figure out how traffic will change once that is complete. I use Lancaster to get downtown if I'm coming from Fergus or Guelph, seems like lots of folks do. Maybe a new gov't will just pony up and build both the highway and the freight by-pass.
Reply
(11-18-2019, 03:44 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-18-2019, 02:45 PM)MidTowner Wrote: It's specifically 14,115 average between Breithaupt and Victoria. Some of the traffic you mention between Union and Victoria takes Guelph or Louisa or Wellington.

14,115 on average pass over the tracks on Lancaster. For Westmount, only a few segments of Westmount Road East right before it ends at Fischer-Hallman carry that few vehicles.

Edit to add that, were Lancaster closed, some of that traffic really would just disappear. You're right that most of it would move to other streets, but it might or might not be true that the result would be "insanity" there.

Ottawa St S is less than that between Mill St and King St E. Westmount Rd S (I did say Westmount Rd S, not Westmount Rd E) is less than that between Dick St and Norman St.

The traffic would just disappear? All those people would walk instead? Seriously?

There are Regional roads (or, anyway, stretches of them) that carry far less traffic than Lancaster, you're right, and good job identifying them. In what way are these ones supposed to be good comparisons with Lancaster, though? Are they similar in any way besides the fact that they don't carry very much traffic? We've never built an expensive overpass on Westmount at Dick for instance.

Anyway, a few others explained induced demand to you- yes, a portion of the traffic really would cease to exist if the road were closed. An actual study of traffic patterns would give a good guess as to how much of it, and where other traffic would be diverted to. That's what should be done before we invest a huge sum of money here. Simply closing the street should be an option, given the capacity at Margaret and Weber and elsewhere.
Reply


(11-19-2019, 09:23 AM)jamincan Wrote: Right now, we know that Lancaster is used as route to DTK from both the north via the Expressway, and east via Wellington. Closing the Lancaster crossing would lead to changing travel patterns, but particularly for those coming from the east on Wellington, continuing on Wellington to Margaret is the most likely change they'll make. For those from the north, it's harder to say as there are many more options. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more traffic shift to Margaret instead (Bridgeport->Margaret->Victoria). Is this desirable?

Lancaster is also what you might call a main street in a similar sense to Belmont in that it's kind of the nexus for small restaurants, convenience stores etc. servicing those neighbourhoods. I don't think reducing connectivity for a street like that is desirable. Cutting out a key section of a network is something that should be done very carefully. Sure, it may reduce car traffic on that street, but it will also isolate that neighbourhood significantly as well.

People coming to Lancaster from the east will switch to using the new access roads being built as part of the expressway interchange. Some of them are probably coming off the expressway; for those people, they will be able to just proceed straight ahead where the offramp meets Wellington. I think they will switch even if a grade separation is built at Lancaster. The only question is what people do who are coming down Lancaster; they might use Wellington to get to Margaret, or they might change their entire route.

Overall, I expect traffic on Lancaster at the tracks to be even less than it is now once the interchange is built. At that point, the remaining traffic should be easy to handle on other roads. Keeping a multi-use trail crossing of the tracks, either at grade or a bridge, would ensure that Lancaster doesn’t feel disconnected. I don’t think it’s essential that cars be able to travel through directly.
Reply
The woman involved in the November collision at Lancaster has received an official charge. I imagine it is due to the child involved being under her care on her job at the time.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/983...rt-canada/
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links