General Road and Highway Discussion

[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.

I do see it as a goal but agree to disagree on whether this is as big of an impact on increasing VMT as you are implying. I don't think that many people are making a driving decision based on this one ineffective piece of infrastructure being made a little more safe and practical. Maybe this leads to less people using Riverbend or Lancaster to make that route, and perhaps that is better on net to get some cars off potential cycling routes? 

I don't think the VMT and volume impacts are that certain, but having fewer merging near misses on a highway bend is more certain from my experience driving it. Making Lancaster a much better/baseline viable cycling route crossing of the 85 is also more certain to be a car-trip reducer. I think both are good design choices for a rethink of that infrastructure.

Reducing congestion was the first and only reason given initially. Now you (and others) say, it's 'logical' or 'practical' or 'safe', and I know how you feel. But we absolutely know that increasing capacity to reduce congestion does not work. And congestion absolutely deters driving. We aren't talking about something like realigning lanes, we are adding road capacity. It can only increase VMT...how much, I don't know and I haven't said, but increasing it at all is against the goal of decreasing VMT. If you find the "logic" so problematic, then argue for narrowing the other part of the highway.

I don't think "near misses" are related to the lane reduction, but instead the congestion that results. Nobody is confused about the lane ending, they are just aggressive because they are waiting in traffic.

And like I said, I support closing the road at Lancaster and agree it might even be a worthy trade off to widen the highway and close the Lancaster exit. But it IS a trade off...there is no win win here, its a bigger win for a smaller loss.

[plam]

I don't think "near misses" are related to the lane reduction, but instead the congestion that results. Nobody is confused about the lane ending, they are just aggressive because they are waiting in traffic.

And like I said, I support closing the road at Lancaster and agree it might even be a worthy trade off to widen the highway and close the Lancaster exit. But it IS a trade off...there is no win win here, its a bigger win for a smaller loss.

I would say that I am confused about the lane ending. At least before I got to know that section. It feels like you can go to the right lane to exit, but actually you can't. Now I don't do it anymore. But if you are new to the area you might.

[the_conestoga_guy]

I don't think "near misses" are related to the lane reduction, but instead the congestion that results. Nobody is confused about the lane ending, they are just aggressive because they are waiting in traffic.

And like I said, I support closing the road at Lancaster and agree it might even be a worthy trade off to widen the highway and close the Lancaster exit. But it IS a trade off...there is no win win here, its a bigger win for a smaller loss.

I would say that I am confused about the lane ending. At least before I got to know that section. It feels like you can go to the right lane to exit, but actually you can't. Now I don't do it anymore. But if you are new to the area you might.

I agree with Dan's sentiment about not wanting to improve highway capacity as it could lead to some induced demand. But I also certainly think that this merger of the express and collector lanes is pretty terrible.

I think a happy medium solution would be to force the collector down to one lane before it meets the express lanes. As Plam mentions, unfamiliar drivers will think that the extra lane is going to continue, which can lead to some hazardous last-minute merges. I think this change could improve safety while also not adding an extra lane.

[SF22]

New update to the study on whether or not to close the on/off ramps from the highway to Lancaster Street:

Report to Council regarding Lancaster Street and Highway 85 ramps

The project team will take a report to Planning and Works Committee on March 7, 2023 recommending the permanent closure of the two ramps at the Lancaster Street and Highway 85 Interchange. This will allow for an AAA cycling facility along with sidewalks on the Lancaster Street Bridge over Highway 85 and improve Highway 85 operations by reducing collisions.

The next steps for this study are:

-Subject to Council approval, file the Notice of Completion and place the Environmental Study File on the public record for a period of 30 days.
-Continue to work with MTO on the design of the highway in the area of Lancaster Street and Bridgeport Road to implement the ramp closures.
-Confirm timing with MTO for their project to rehabilitate Hwy 85, including the full decommissioning of the Lancaster Street ramps.
-Adjust the timing as necessary of the Regional contract to reconstruct Lancaster Street to coordinate construction with MTO, subject to the receipt of all technical and financial approvals, relocation of utilities and property acquisition.

Link to the full report

They are also asking for delegations to speak to council on March 7.

An interesting fact they slipped into the report: "The free-flow ramps create an uncomfortable condition for cyclists and walkers. This condition exists at nearly all of the urban interchanges in the Region and staff are working with the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to make changes at each location to better support active transportation."

[danbrotherston]

New update to the study on whether or not to close the on/off ramps from the highway to Lancaster Street:

Report to Council regarding Lancaster Street and Highway 85 ramps

The project team will take a report to Planning and Works Committee on March 7, 2023 recommending the permanent closure of the two ramps at the Lancaster Street and Highway 85 Interchange. This will allow for an AAA cycling facility along with sidewalks on the Lancaster Street Bridge over Highway 85 and improve Highway 85 operations by reducing collisions.

The next steps for this study are:

-Subject to Council approval, file the Notice of Completion and place the Environmental Study File on the public record for a period of 30 days.
-Continue to work with MTO on the design of the highway in the area of Lancaster Street and Bridgeport Road to implement the ramp closures.
-Confirm timing with MTO for their project to rehabilitate Hwy 85, including the full decommissioning of the Lancaster Street ramps.
-Adjust the timing as necessary of the Regional contract to reconstruct Lancaster Street to coordinate construction with MTO, subject to the receipt of all technical and financial approvals, relocation of utilities and property acquisition.

Link to the full report

They are also asking for delegations to speak to council on March 7.

An interesting fact they slipped into the report: "The free-flow ramps create an uncomfortable condition for cyclists and walkers. This condition exists at nearly all of the urban interchanges in the Region and staff are working with the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to make changes at each location to better support active transportation."

That's great, and I hope you all take the time to go speak. This kind of change to transportation is the kind of thing that can make real long term changes to a city.

As for the "fact" I find it dubious that they're telling us anything we don't already know. It plays like they are starting a comprehensive multi-stakeholder review of all crossings, but if this was going on, they'd have talked about it by now. I'm betting it's still just Bridgeport they're looking at.

[cherrypark]

New update to the study on whether or not to close the on/off ramps from the highway to Lancaster Street:

Report to Council regarding Lancaster Street and Highway 85 ramps

The project team will take a report to Planning and Works Committee on March 7, 2023 recommending the permanent closure of the two ramps at the Lancaster Street and Highway 85 Interchange. This will allow for an AAA cycling facility along with sidewalks on the Lancaster Street Bridge over Highway 85 and improve Highway 85 operations by reducing collisions.

The next steps for this study are:

-Subject to Council approval, file the Notice of Completion and place the Environmental Study File on the public record for a period of 30 days.
-Continue to work with MTO on the design of the highway in the area of Lancaster Street and Bridgeport Road to implement the ramp closures.
-Confirm timing with MTO for their project to rehabilitate Hwy 85, including the full decommissioning of the Lancaster Street ramps.
-Adjust the timing as necessary of the Regional contract to reconstruct Lancaster Street to coordinate construction with MTO, subject to the receipt of all technical and financial approvals, relocation of utilities and property acquisition.

Link to the full report

They are also asking for delegations to speak to council on March 7.

An interesting fact they slipped into the report: "The free-flow ramps create an uncomfortable condition for cyclists and walkers. This condition exists at nearly all of the urban interchanges in the Region and staff are working with the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to make changes at each location to better support active transportation."

That's great, and I hope you all take the time to go speak. This kind of change to transportation is the kind of thing that can make real long term changes to a city.

As for the "fact" I find it dubious that they're telling us anything we don't already know. It plays like they are starting a comprehensive multi-stakeholder review of all crossings, but if this was going on, they'd have talked about it by now. I'm betting it's still just Bridgeport they're looking at.

It's plausible they are looking for those to be precedent setting, perhaps? Doesn't mean they are necessarily starting a rebuild of all of them but establishing those as not acceptable for any future works would be a welcome change. Our highway crossings are perhaps the most failing part of the cross city network (looking at you, Fisher-Hallman).

[danbrotherston]

That's great, and I hope you all take the time to go speak. This kind of change to transportation is the kind of thing that can make real long term changes to a city.

As for the "fact" I find it dubious that they're telling us anything we don't already know. It plays like they are starting a comprehensive multi-stakeholder review of all crossings, but if this was going on, they'd have talked about it by now. I'm betting it's still just Bridgeport they're looking at.

It's plausible they are looking for those to be precedent setting, perhaps? Doesn't mean they are necessarily starting a rebuild of all of them but establishing those as not acceptable for any future works would be a welcome change. Our highway crossings are perhaps the most failing part of the cross city network (looking at you, Fisher-Hallman).

Fair enough...

FWIW...this is a major departure from even recent regional policy, where by recently reconstructed crossings like Fischer-Hallman, Ottawa, and most famously (notoriously) Northfield are built to "TAC Standards" and regional engineers then publicly decree that they are fine and ya'll complainers are the problem.

If you're right, it's a real shame that this change of policy comes after a decade of reconstruction or enhancement of literally half a dozen of the interchanges (50%!!!) What a missed opportunity!

And in case you think I'm exaggerating...Ira Needles, Fischer Hallman, Homer-Watson/Ottawa, Ottawa again, Victoria St., and Northfield were all repaved, reconstructed, or majorly reconfigured, and King St. had the MUT added where the cyclist was killed by the driver. In all these cases no effort was made by the region to reconfigure the ramps to improve active transportation (plenty of effort was spent in several cases to reconfigure ramps to improve vehicle throughput of course).

So you can see why I'm cynical about the region on this issue...I'm glad if they've turned a corner, but it'll be another 50 years before many of those overpasses are touched again.

I am to understand that there has been some major staff turnover at the senior levels. That's probably a good thing. I hope the outgoing staff are proud of their legacy of death and destruction, fast traffic (except during rush hour).

Edit: Geez, I missed University which appears to have been repaved in 2014.

[cherrypark]

No lack of sharing in cynicism here. I still can't believe all the expense and time that went into the revised Victoria St. overpass only to omit cycling facilities altogether when it should have otherwise been an ideal crossing without ramps on the bridge. Riding the F-H overpass regularly makes me wish it had been reviewed earlier too.

[SF22]

I know that they're looking at redoing the Bridgeport on/off ramps as part of the reconstruction to add bike lanes, and I imagine that the Wellington and Frederick ramps will get revisited if/when the new highway 7 gets built. If there is precedent set from Lancaster and Bridgeport for safer and slower ramps without any slip lanes, then I would expect to see similar revisions made at Wellington and Frederick. Lord knows the on-ramp lane from Edna St is like, 4 cars wide for some godforsaken reason.

(I hope they fix Northfield sooner rather than later. Honestly, I think the only reason we haven't had any deaths in that stretch is because no one looks at those bikes lanes and says "Oh yeah, that looks like a good place to put myself.")

[bravado]

I wonder if local Cambridge city councillors will take this report as a personal failure? How is it that Cambridge tops the list of road fatalities, despite having half the population of Kitchener next door? Perhaps building a city entirely designed for cars means that the experience for everyone inside and outside of the car is shit?

Convenient crimes like distracted driving and speeding yet again take the duty off of the Region and City for designing better roads.

A new report from Waterloo Regional Police Service shows Cambridge tops the list for the most fatal road accidents in the region and comes in a close second for accidents causing major injuries.

Data presented to the police board during the March 15 meeting, reveals Cambridge has some of the most accident prone roads in the entire region.

Cambridge had a total of four fatal accidents and 22 accidents causing major injuries in 2022. Kitchener was the only other city close with three fatal accidents, 26 causing major injuries.

Police have noticed a decrease in the amount of fatal accidents overall, a decrease of 12 per cent, with 13 incidents in 2022 from 15 the previous year.

https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/local-news...on-6705875

[danbrotherston]

If folks want to hear more of my thoughts (I know, have a good laugh for that one), I'm writing a substack.

Today I'm talking about stroads: https://open.substack.com/pub/thecutstac...s-but-good

Why do we have them and how can we fix them. Charles Marohn has some thoughts on this, but he's an optimist, here is a realist view.

[Bob_McBob]

Regional council just failed to endorse the plan to remove the Lancaster ramps by a tie vote.

In favour: Redman, Deutschmann, Erb, Huinink, James, Williams, Wolf, McCabe

Against: Craig, Foxton, Harris, Liggett, Nowack, Solanen, Shantz, Vrbanovic

So much for that 

[danbrotherston]

Regional council just failed to endorse the plan to remove the Lancaster ramps by a tie vote.

In favour: Redman, Deutschmann, Erb, Huinink, James, Williams, Wolf, McCabe

Against: Craig, Foxton, Harris, Liggett, Nowack, Solanen, Shantz, Vrbanovic

So much for that 

What. The. Fuck.

Wasn’t the vote in committee like pretty close to unanimous.

[dunkalunk]

This will likely require a larger study once MTO gets involved with the Bridgeport Road cycling corridor. The Southbound weave between the Bridgeport and Lancaster ramps is particularly dangerous and should be removed. I can see removing the direct on-ramp from Bridgeport to build a dedicated cycling track as an equally valid option to get rid of that weave.

[ijmorlan]

What does the MTO think? They don’t usually care what municipalities want…