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) 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
211
212
213
|
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-08-2023 (02-08-2023, 10:30 AM), buWatdot Wrote: 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. 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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - SF22 - 02-08-2023 (02-08-2023, 11:08 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(02-08-2023, 10:30 AM), buWatdot Wrote: 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. 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-region/2013/08/24/a-question-of-life-and-death-grieving-kin-call-for-median-barrier-on-waterloo-expressway.html RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-08-2023 (02-08-2023, 11:44 AM)SF22 Wrote:(02-08-2023, 11:08 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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. 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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - bravado - 02-08-2023 Do we actually want more lanes? What's the point? RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - plam - 02-08-2023 (02-08-2023, 06:58 PM)bravado Wrote: 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? RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 02-08-2023 (02-08-2023, 08:31 PM)plam Wrote:(02-08-2023, 06:58 PM)bravado Wrote: Do we actually want more lanes? What's the point? 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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - SF22 - 02-08-2023 (02-08-2023, 09:35 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(02-08-2023, 08:31 PM)plam Wrote: Going north, the part where it narrows and immediately re-widens just before the Bridgeport exit is just really weird. Maybe that's bad? 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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-09-2023 It doesn't matter, you want to make driving easier. Making driving easier increases traffic. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 02-09-2023 (02-09-2023, 02:49 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - SF22 - 02-09-2023 (02-09-2023, 02:49 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-09-2023 (02-09-2023, 12:09 PM)SF22 Wrote:(02-09-2023, 02:49 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It doesn't matter, you want to make driving easier. Making driving easier increases traffic. "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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - cherrypark - 02-09-2023 (02-09-2023, 12:09 PM)SF22 Wrote:(02-09-2023, 02:49 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It doesn't matter, you want to make driving easier. Making driving easier increases traffic. 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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-10-2023 (02-09-2023, 10:26 PM)cherrypark Wrote:(02-09-2023, 12:09 PM)SF22 Wrote: 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. 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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - plam - 02-10-2023 (02-10-2023, 02:11 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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. RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-10-2023 (02-10-2023, 04:01 PM)plam Wrote:(02-10-2023, 02:11 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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. 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. |