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.
What does the MTO think? They don’t usually care what municipalities want… Wink
The loop ramp location would have been good for affordable housing, ramp infrastructure for highways take up so much real-estate.
(04-20-2023, 09:26 AM)neonjoe Wrote: [ -> ]The loop ramp location would have been good for affordable housing, ramp infrastructure for highways take up so much real-estate.

And they could expand the greenspace that currently fronts onto Riverbend, and plant a bunch of trees along the highway to help block noise and pollution from travelling into residential areas. This whole thing just feels like a MASSIVE missed opportunity.
(04-20-2023, 01:26 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2023, 10:17 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: [ -> ]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  Rolleyes

What. The. Fuck.

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

Not really - Berry's no motion was close but lost and then it wasn't a recorded vote to accept. From vote counts it seemed like Harris wasn't present last vote and that was the difference to make it a tie. Whole different discussion in there on why tie votes default to the status quo but anyways...

Hope the MTO comes through? First time I've ever said that.
(04-20-2023, 11:37 AM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]Not really - Berry's no motion was close but lost and then it wasn't a recorded vote to accept. From vote counts it seemed like Harris wasn't present last vote and that was the difference to make it a tie. Whole different discussion in there on why tie votes default to the status quo but anyways...

Hope the MTO comes through? First time I've ever said that.

Ties obviously have to result in status quo.

Otherwise, let’s simplify and suppose there are two states: “X” and “Not X”. Then whatever the current state is, proponents of the other state could put up a resolution to change the state, and win it on a tie vote. Then at the next meeting, proponents of the other state could put up a resolution to change the state, and win it on a tie vote. And so on.

But as to this particular interchange decision, this is very disappointing. Almost makes me wonder if the public active transportation orientation of some of the councillors might just be for show…

Of all the ramps in the city, I think these are among those which would be least missed even by people who use the expressway. If we can’t get rid of them, how can we make any of the more serious changes which are needed?
Don't know if it will help, but I emailed the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and basically made my thoughts known about the Lancaster ramps: it's dangerous, you wouldn't allow them to be built that way if they were getting installed in 2023, can you please consider coming here and taking them out?

Besides that and emailing all the councilors who voted 'open' to let them know that I fundamentally disagree with their decision, I'm not sure what else we can do (although I'm halfway tempted to get a dashboard camera and put together a compilation of 2 weeks of everyday driving past these ramps, just to help bring attention to the fact that they're a total disaster).
(04-20-2023, 01:27 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-20-2023, 11:37 AM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]Not really - Berry's no motion was close but lost and then it wasn't a recorded vote to accept. From vote counts it seemed like Harris wasn't present last vote and that was the difference to make it a tie. Whole different discussion in there on why tie votes default to the status quo but anyways...

Hope the MTO comes through? First time I've ever said that.

Ties obviously have to result in status quo.

Otherwise, let’s simplify and suppose there are two states: “X” and “Not X”. Then whatever the current state is, proponents of the other state could put up a resolution to change the state, and win it on a tie vote. Then at the next meeting, proponents of the other state could put up a resolution to change the state, and win it on a tie vote. And so on.

But as to this particular interchange decision, this is very disappointing. Almost makes me wonder if the public active transportation orientation of some of the councillors might just be for show…

Of all the ramps in the city, I think these are among those which would be least missed even by people who use the expressway. If we can’t get rid of them, how can we make any of the more serious changes which are needed?

I use the expressway to commute to the office when I'm not working from home. I can 100% say these ramps WOULD NOT BE MISSED for anyone who is not getting off at Lancaster. The weaving these create is the only reason that there is any southbound congestion on highway 85. Without it in place the highway would have sufficient capacity, the only issue is variance of speed when drivers are entering/exiting the highway at this location that causes a butterfly effect.
Ugh our leaders are clueless. Why do we vote them in over and over?
(04-20-2023, 04:26 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Ugh our leaders are clueless. Why do we vote them in over and over?

Sounds like another mouthpiece for Big Cycle!
(04-20-2023, 11:37 AM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-20-2023, 01:26 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]What. The. Fuck.

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

Not really - Berry's no motion was close but lost and then it wasn't a recorded vote to accept. From vote counts it seemed like Harris wasn't present last vote and that was the difference to make it a tie. Whole different discussion in there on why tie votes default to the status quo but anyways...

Hope the MTO comes through? First time I've ever said that.

What I found interesting:

The reason why the Mayor of Waterloo wanted it closed.
The reason why the Mayor Kitchener wanted it opened.
The ex-mayor of Cambridge voting to keep it open.

I have to admit I don't fully support the Mayor of Waterloo here. From anytime I seen her talk, she seems way off on things. Her voting NO had nothing to do with the safety of residents (Kitchener) using Lancaster for walking/cycling, but rather self-serving "something something Erb" in Waterloo.

I do get why the Kitchener Mayor wanted this. Right or wrong, I get it.

As for Doug Craig -- he's not a pro-Kitchener guy, but that vote to keep it open was a shot at Waterloo. Can't blame him for that, right or wrong.
(04-20-2023, 07:28 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]What I found interesting:

The reason why the Mayor of Waterloo wanted it closed.
The reason why the Mayor Kitchener wanted it opened.
The ex-mayor of Cambridge voting to keep it open.

I have to admit I don't fully support the Mayor of Waterloo here. From anytime I seen her talk, she seems way off on things. Her voting NO had nothing to do with the safety of residents (Kitchener) using Lancaster for walking/cycling, but rather self-serving "something something Erb" in Waterloo.

I do get why the Kitchener Mayor wanted this. Right or wrong, I get it.

As for Doug Craig -- he's not a pro-Kitchener guy, but that vote to keep it open was a shot at Waterloo. Can't blame him for that, right or wrong.

There's reasons, but in the end you have to look at the voting records, and this is a bad one.
(04-20-2023, 07:28 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-20-2023, 11:37 AM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]Not really - Berry's no motion was close but lost and then it wasn't a recorded vote to accept. From vote counts it seemed like Harris wasn't present last vote and that was the difference to make it a tie. Whole different discussion in there on why tie votes default to the status quo but anyways...

Hope the MTO comes through? First time I've ever said that.

What I found interesting:

The reason why the Mayor of Waterloo wanted it closed.
The reason why the Mayor Kitchener wanted it opened.
The ex-mayor of Cambridge voting to keep it open.

I have to admit I don't fully support the Mayor of Waterloo here. From anytime I seen her talk, she seems way off on things. Her voting NO had nothing to do with the safety of residents (Kitchener) using Lancaster for walking/cycling, but rather self-serving "something something Erb" in Waterloo.

I do get why the Kitchener Mayor wanted this. Right or wrong, I get it.

As for Doug Craig -- he's not a pro-Kitchener guy, but that vote to keep it open was a shot at Waterloo. Can't blame him for that, right or wrong.

Except it's not self serving if you listened to her point: that closing Lancaster links to the network on Bridgeport/Erb and would create a link to DTK of the same quality, as well as potentially influence the decision making on carrying the changes to the Bridgeport/Erb interchange with the MTO. That is inherently looking out for the safety of those road users in both cities.

If you found Vrbanovic's argumentation stretches convincing and McCabe's reasoning "off" it seems more like its informed by your preferences to me. 3/4 Kitchener councillors voted to close, so not sure what your point is on the city vs. city divide by mayors.
(04-20-2023, 02:14 PM)neonjoe Wrote: [ -> ]I use the expressway to commute to the office when I'm not working from home. I can 100% say these ramps WOULD NOT BE MISSED for anyone who is not getting off at Lancaster. The weaving these create is the only reason that there is any southbound congestion on highway 85. Without it in place the highway would have sufficient capacity, the only issue is variance of speed when drivers are entering/exiting the highway at this location that causes a butterfly effect.

Even if you get off at Lancaster, you can get off at Bridgeport instead (avoids the congested stretch between Bridgeport and Lancaster); continuing to Lancaster from there is quick and easy, might take a couple of minutes more, maybe.

Or use the Bruce St (between Victoria and Frederick) ramp, which is also not a big detour, depending on your destination. The three exits are really very close to each other.
(04-24-2023, 05:05 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-20-2023, 02:14 PM)neonjoe Wrote: [ -> ]I use the expressway to commute to the office when I'm not working from home. I can 100% say these ramps WOULD NOT BE MISSED for anyone who is not getting off at Lancaster. The weaving these create is the only reason that there is any southbound congestion on highway 85. Without it in place the highway would have sufficient capacity, the only issue is variance of speed when drivers are entering/exiting the highway at this location that causes a butterfly effect.

Even if you get off at Lancaster, you can get off at Bridgeport instead (avoids the congested stretch between Bridgeport and Lancaster); continuing to Lancaster from there is quick and easy, might take a couple of minutes more, maybe.

Or use the Bruce St (between Victoria and Frederick) ramp, which is also not a big detour, depending on your destination. The three exits are really very close to each other.
I’m just straight through traffic, I get off at Fisher Hallman or Trussler. Normally i just hang out in the left lane through the Bridgeport/Lancaster mess. Depending on the time of day the back up goes to King N. If they could remove the weave condition for the right most lane it would help significantly.
Not sure where to stick this since there isn't a rail general thread, so I'll stick it here. Somehow I missed this year long video where Reese Martin travelled to England and rode around the new Elizabeth line in London. Specifically, they explore the Tottenham Court Road station. Interesting video for the foamers here. I really wish we had a system like this here in Ontario. Compared to Crossrail, GO Transit is on par with a steam train.