Northfield / 85 Exchange upgrades?

[danbrotherston]

The proposed "alternatives" include U-Turns. These are not reasonable alternatives. I think it speaks somewhat to the real lack of alternatives. Someone trying to execute a U-turn creates traffic issues for other road users.

I would expect the St Jacob's exit south along King will be upgraded. Currently is is 2 lanes. If heavy vehicles servicing the industrial areas East of King and North of Northfield will start using that exit, otherwise they will exit at King and increase capacity in front of the mall.

This study cites 2031 in numerous places. I see how badly our traffic experts in the region blew Ira Needles and I remain a skeptic that their numbers are close.

Furthermore, it is a huge step backwards for motorists. The cities built an expressway to improve access for motorists. Reductions to an expressway while growth of vehicles and population is moving upward isn't insignificant.

For $2B I would have preferred to see a specific LRT bridge built over the expressway. Or, to appease Canard's fantasy, perhaps the LRT could have started at Northfield station and the Conestoga mall be serviced from there by monorail.

The U-turns are not just a random U-turn, they're at a signalized light where U-turns are permitted.  They're used on divided roads all the time, they don't create traffic issues.  Trust me, I've made the maneuver many times, its simply new here.

Also, that is one alternative, there are several others.

And yes, that will mean more volume on the other exits, but they're still well under capacity.  And yes, you can doubt the regions numbers if you want, Ira Needles was a big failure, although, I don't see them building a five KM long strip plaza along Northfield any time soon.

Expressways are designed to move many cars quickly, they induce sprawl.  But either way, vehicle access remains very good in this area.  The restricted turns had minimal movements, with one exception, it perhaps changes your perception of access, but it affects a limited number of people.  Hence, I argue, not a "huge step backwards".


Now, yes, we could have built a separate bridge over the expressway, for 2 billion I'm sure, but let me ask you, is it worth an extra 1.2 billion dollars so that 400 people can make a dangerous left turn instead of turning down King in the evening?  You're arguing a subsidy of (lets be fair, only high tens of millions) for 400 motorists convenience.