Conestoga Parkway

[Canard]

I cringe to think what the traffic might be like on Fairway Rd in five more years.  Not. Good.

I've long since given up on driving anywhere near there.

Good thing there's an excellent alternative opening up in about a year and a half

[greybird]

I see that the expressway exits westbound at Homer Watson and Fischer Hallman will both be two lanes from the highway. Signs for two-lane exits are up now, but with one of the arrows taped over.

[JCnb]

With the 7/8 stretch just about done which should greatly improve traffic flow, the major bottleneck now seems to be the westbound loop ramp from hwy 8 north slowing traffic, significantly backing up to Franklin and even Fairway.

Has anyone heard any plans for this? Seems like it would be a very significant undertaking.

[Canard]

Yeah, it's a problem every day - and terrifying for those of us using lanes 1, 3 or 4. Especially when people in lane 3 decide at the last minute they need to be in lane 2, come to a complete stop to try and cut in, with traffic still moving at 90-110 km/h behind them and to their right!

[GtwoK]

Looking at it right now, I'm not even sure what could be done to fix it! A flyover would be the only way to do it without slowing down traffic I'd think, but to do it before the 7/8 bridge would require it to start waaaay back to avoid the current fly over (almost as far back as Franklin, even), and you wouldn't be able to get anywhere NEAR a wide enough radius after the bridge in order to do it.

How can it be solved?

[jamincan]

Perhaps make it a two lane loop ramp so that the two left lanes can both be used for accessing the westbound Parkway?

[Canard]

I bet the legacy radius of that ramp is far tighter than anything MTO would allow to be built today.

[neonjoe]

It may not be as bad on Highway 8 West once the widening is completed. Most of the back up onto Highway 8 is due to the fact that the on ramp to Highway 7-8 W and the three lanes of through traffic on Highway 7 West have to merge down to 2 lanes before Courtland. Highway 7 West usually backs up to the 8 East on ramp during afternoon rush hour.

[Osiris]

I personally enjoy the situation that exists with our faux-collector lanes on the expressway, particularly heading NB in the morning. Choose the "express" side and you inevitably get caught up, or move over to the collector portion and bypass all of those stuck in the express part, with the added benefit of the plausible deniability that you started your journey from Victoria or Wellington...

It will be very interesting to see the new dynamics when they rework those bridges and (presumably) have proper spans with 4 contiguous lanes through those areas.

[Markster]

It still boggles my mind that they don't connect the Lancaster onramp to the Bridgeport offramp. (Northbound)

Allowing those exiting at Bridgeport to leave the travel lanes would provide a little bit of space for those entering at  Lancaster to merge in.

   

For some reason, it's fine to have a 90m cross-merge zone on the southbound side, but not a 600m one on the north?

[timc]

It still boggles my mind that they don't connect the Lancaster onramp to the Bridgeport offramp. (Northbound)

Allowing those exiting at Bridgeport to leave the travel lanes would provide a little bit of space for those entering at  Lancaster to merge in.

For some reason, it's fine to have a 90m cross-merge zone on the southbound side, but not a 600m one on the north?

Is there some reason for it? Maybe they don't have the land?

[Osiris]

There's already a significant amount of space for the on-ramp merge, especially considering how infrequently that on-ramp is used. It certainly isn't a bottleneck or hindrance.

Terrible as it is to say, I think they don't have the cross merge specifically to simplify the transaction for drivers - this is the on part, this is the off part. Make the lane both, and yeah - you'd get the cross merge slowdown we see on the south side.

Not to mention it would be an extra 500m or so of pavement to maintain, for no real efficiency gain.

[Markster]

There's already a significant amount of space for the on-ramp merge, especially considering how infrequently that on-ramp is used. It certainly isn't a bottleneck or hindrance.

Terrible as it is to say, I think they don't have the cross merge specifically to simplify the transaction for drivers -  this is the on part, this is the off part. Make the lane both, and yeah - you'd get the cross merge slowdown we see on the south side.

Not to mention it would be an extra 500m or so of pavement to maintain, for no real efficiency gain.

It would be about 100m of extra pavement, as that's the distance to fill in between the two ramps.
They already have the Bridgeport onramp continue northbound all the way to University. Clearly such a construction is possible.

While the Lancaster onramp is not a significant source of traffic, it still adds to it. And that makes it the defining bottleneck for the northbound clog. After the 4 lanes merge into 2, it's the one final "oh yeah, let in these extra cars too, before anyone can exit." Connecting the ramps would help grease that section, helping those exiting at Bridgeport avoid a couple minutes of crawling.

[Canard]

My guess is they don't have the property to do it. Probably right on the very edge. While it may look possible from satellite imagery, and it would be wonderful (I often do that to save a bit of time instead of continuing on Lancaster and making that super-hard left onto Bridgeport), beaucracy probably got in the way.

[Waterlooer]

Anyone know if there are plans to expand 85 to either 6 or 8 lanes between Lancaster and University? Always is major congestion there during the rush hours.