Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: General Road and Highway Discussion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I really like the idea of preventing right-turning vehicles from stopping traffic. I can always see vehicles turning right from Bridgeport to Regina, King, and Albert causing great (unnecessary) delays to all traffic. As this reconstruction makes Bridgeport only two lanes west of King, on page 72 (or 27 of 30) you can see that the rightmost lane of Bridgeport becomes right-only at King.

I would ask whether it would also make sense to ease pedestrian crossing and further disincentivize wrong-way driving by making the curb at Albert/Bridgeport, on the southeast corner, a right angle one, instead of a sweeping one, as no vehicle movements are allowed which would require any sweeping curve.

The biggest reason I see time and time again for the delays, even in normal construction-free driving, are at the Erb/Caroline intersection. It is pedestrian-heavy enough that both the northbound and southbound Caroline traffic looking to head west on Erb is delayed and confused by pedestrians. The island on the northwest corner, and the LRT-related west-side Erb crossing being farther west, both of these ameliorate this slightly.

Accepting that it would have to be done in a way which did not endanger pedestrians and cyclists, I wonder if there isn't a way to channelize the pavement so that cars turning westbound from Caroline to Erb can only:
A) wind up in the inside lane when going northbound-to-westbound
B) wind up in the outside lane when going southbound-to-westbound

That is the single biggest reason for backups. Enough people illegally (though never ticketed) turn wide when heading onto westbound Erb, both right and left turning vehicles. If it could be channelized such that you could only ever turn into the proper lane, much of the hesitation would stop, and I'd estimate possibly more than doubling the throughput of the turn.
(12-07-2015, 11:36 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]...
Accepting that it would have to be done in a way which did not endanger pedestrians and cyclists, I wonder if there isn't a way to channelize the pavement so that cars turning westbound from Caroline to Erb can only:
A) wind up in the inside lane when going northbound-to-westbound
B) wind up in the outside lane when going southbound-to-westbound

That is the single biggest reason for backups. Enough people illegally (though never ticketed) turn wide when heading onto westbound Erb, both right and left turning vehicles. If it could be channelized such that you could only ever turn into the proper lane, much of the hesitation would stop, and I'd estimate possibly more than doubling the throughput of the turn.

This is my thoughts as well. A dedicated traffic signal for the right turn would help as well, hopefully that's part of the changes.
It appears that there is room for an island that could separate the two lanes of traffic and funnel southbound traffic into the right lane on Erb and northbound into the left lane. This could shorten the pedestrian crossing; however, I'd be concerned about the conflict between pedestrians and right-turning traffic. It would likely still be safer overall since drivers would be able to focus on looking for pedestrians and cyclists; however, it would be easier for them to blast through the intersection too.
I also just got an e-mail from an engineer with the City of Waterloo stating that the Laurelwood Extension should be opening sometime today. I've been waiting a long time for this day!
Just so everyone's on the same page, I pieced together the pages of the Planning & Works document.  It was quite a job, as they've been stretched and squished to varying degrees to fit on those pages.  I had to undo that mangling:

[attachment=638]

My main concerns are:
  • What's with the ultra-wide unused pavement on Erb? The supporting documentation claims that there is space for an 'on-road bi-directional cycle track, but that doesn't explain the layover-bay style curbs in front of the church.
  • Albert has no legal way to bicycle south to Erb, despite being an otherwise very convenient bike route.
  • There's a stub of a bike lane and bike box on Caroline, but no one using the MUT can get to those, so... what exactly is the deal here? Are bikes supposed to be on the MUT, or the road?
  • The Caroline/Erb Intersection needs to allow straight-through travel for bikes coming south on the MUT. That crossing way to the east won't cut it.
  • The sharrow situation on Erb is laughable. That right hand lane that appears east of Caroline/Erb is traditionally a speedway for impatient drivers. I'd say make that lane a dedicated turn lane for the mall parking, to prevent that, while allowing bicycles to continue through.
  • Pedestrian crossing infrastructure is dismissed at Erb/Albert and Caroline/Dupont, because the current roads are terrifying to cross, and so "pedestrian counts are too low". I think they will find that people will actually start crossing the street now, when they're no longer super-wide speedways.

Things I like:
  • Caroline is the right size. There are only two real ways to go at Caroline/Erb, (straight, or turn right) so you only need two lanes to feed that. The chokepoint is the single-lane right hand turn, and no number of lanes will fix that.
  • Albert/Erb finally makes it possible to cross Albert without taking your life into your hands. It's nuts, trying to follow Erb's north sidewalk right now. In. Sane.
  • The MUT is wonderful, and connects to a couple trailheads that go into Waterloo Park. The driveways are few, and low-volume, so they're no concern. It's Great. Perfect. Print it.
(12-07-2015, 11:03 AM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-07-2015, 09:58 AM)timc Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a fan of adding multi-use trails where they don't belong. I think that the north side of Bridgeport/Caroline is not a good place for an MUT, especially given the large number of driveways/intersections crossing that path.

Hmm? I count 3 on Caroline between Albert and Erb and 1 per block (2 total) between King and Albert.

Unless something has changed, the recommended maximum amount of driveways and sidestreets for MUT is 3 per km. In the ~500 m from King to Erb, there are 10 crossings.

Now, I did count Albert Street twice there because of the right turn channel, and I guess the driveway at the old mill doesn't really count. And maybe you even would count the two separate driveways at the ex-Fox and Fiddle as one. But that still leaves 7 crossings in this stretch of just over half a kilometre.
(12-07-2015, 01:23 PM)timc Wrote: [ -> ]Unless something has changed, the recommended maximum amount of driveways and sidestreets for MUT is 3 per km. In the ~500 m from King to Erb, there are 10 crossings.

So thankfully, this then indicates that something has changed, and that there's understanding that MUTs are possible in more places than simply alongside suburban arterials.  The intersection of Albert is presumably going to be signalled, and hopefully gets a crossride like at Laurel Trail/Peppler/Erb.  The others are relatively low-volume, and people are just going to have to learn that an asphalt strip means to watch out for traffic coming from both directions (just like a road).

I really like that this MUT fixes some connectivity problems for the trails on the north side of PI and the lake. They used to just end at the sidewalk on Bridgeport. Either you sidewalk-cycle, or you jump the curb into the busy right lane of Caroline.


[EDIT]
I made a thread for the Bridgeport/Erb discussion, here:
http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/s...hp?tid=508
Construction is listed by the city for Manitou (from Homer Watson to Bleams) starting today and lasting til the end of April. With a project of such length in that area, the only thing I could think of is this, but the timeframe for that project isn't supposed to start until next spring. I've never heard of a project jumping ahead by 6 months, unless someone has another idea of what it might be?
(12-07-2015, 12:29 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I also just got an e-mail from an engineer with the City of Waterloo stating that the Laurelwood Extension should be opening sometime today. I've been waiting a long time for this day!

I didn't see your post, so I was pleasantly surprised to notice that it is now open!
Wellington @ Hwy 85 has been completely reopened to 2 lanes for a few days, and they were putting the final touches on the work by seeding the dirt earlier today. The Guelph St underpass is almost complete (within the next month, most likely). What is it that they're doing there anyway? I noticed they've built the edge of the 85 bridge out another 3 feet or so - what advantage is gained by this? Tongue

I'm just looking forward to when they'll start construction of Hwy 7. Anyone know when that's starting?
(12-09-2015, 04:02 PM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]I noticed they've built the edge of the 85 bridge out another 3 feet or so - what advantage is gained by this?

That width was required to account for the new ramps needed for the new parts of the interchange. One small piece in a large puzzle.
(12-09-2015, 04:09 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2015, 04:02 PM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]I noticed they've built the edge of the 85 bridge out another 3 feet or so - what advantage is gained by this?

That width was required to account for the new ramps needed for the new parts of the interchange. One small piece in a large puzzle.

That's what I had thought, but upon looking at this, the ramp there will require and entire other bridge to be built!

[Image: highway-7-500k-png.48779]
Well, it's a bit of both. Wider ramp space on the existing bridge (just completed), new bridge farther out (still to come).
Mhmm, I was just wondering WHY they needed the wider bridge. Just matching new standards? Still curious as to why Hwy 7 construction hasn't started, considering all the land has been acquired.
It depends on what you mean by started. There's been some utility relocation along Shirley Ave that I believe is related to the Hwy 7 work. I'm assuming next Spring/Summer we'll see more actual construction.