If you're going to go that far I would also hope you'd plan on also promoting the addition of full bike lanes and/or MUT's as well!
(05-07-2017, 03:35 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]If you're going to go that far I would also hope you'd plan on also promoting the addition of full bike lanes and/or MUT's as well!
....... obviously! the idea would be to advocate for these 2 major streets to become full multi use routes that are compatible with and build upon ION.
(05-07-2017, 03:07 PM)urbd Wrote: [ -> ] (05-07-2017, 01:24 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]Correct on both points.
Phase 1 of Uptown reconstruction is also rebuilding Erb St. As a result, Bridgeport/Caroline will become 2-way from Erb/Caroline to Regina St. Several of these "wrong way" traffic lights have been installed in anticipation of this.
I've been interested in rallying or getting organized to propose the conversion of Caroline/Bridgeport and Erb into two-way streets as they used to be... this seems to be the perfect time to gain momentum! would anyone be interested in this? I've talked to a few people from different groups and there seems to be interest in this idea. Another key project is the Bridgeport/Caroline reconstruction slated for 2018-2019.
Presumably they would each be two-lane roads, with one through lane in each direction? I don’t think there is space for expansion from 3 to 4 lanes, especially if active transportation infrastructure is to be improved.
Personally, I’d like to see counter-flow bicycle lanes and the ubiquitous provision of turn lanes, made possible by reducing the number of lanes in straight-through sections of the streets. I’m actually OK with the one-way system itself. Having said that, if a two-way plan led to a significant improvement in how comfortable the city is for everybody, in particular those not driving cars, I wouldn’t be strongly opposed.
Do you know when the one-way system was created?
I'm sure that paying a crew to bolt the arms of the traffic lights to the existing posts isn't really all that high compared to paying a crew to put up and arrange signs and barriers.
(05-07-2017, 05:46 PM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure that paying a crew to bolt the arms of the traffic lights to the existing posts isn't really all that high compared to paying a crew to put up and arrange signs and barriers.
It's not so much the bolting of the lights, as it is the additional wiring and electronics to operate them.
urbd: which groups have you talked to, and what kind of strategies have you thought about for advocating for conversion to two-way? I agree that the temporary conversion would be a good opportunity...but haven't the foggiest myself how one would go about organizing the advocacy properly.
I've been working on a map proposal for two-way Erb and Bridgeport for while, but I have been slowed by lack of experience using Q GIS having only ever used MapInfo and ArcGIS.
I didn't know what I was going to do with it when I was done though, so "how to advocate" would be a useful discussion.
I really wish the City/Region had more forethought of looking at the larger picture before putting through the current changes to Erb, Caroline, Bridgeport, and Albert.
As wide as most of Erb and Bridgeport is in many places, the right of way is astonishingly wider in some places. The only real pinch point is between King and Regina, but even there you can squeeze one EB lane, one WB lane, a turning lane, sidewalks, and 1 segregated cycling lane; and that is using the obscenely generous lane widths in the regional guidelines.
For the most of both roads there is room for at least 2 lanes in one direction, 1 lane in the opposite direction, turning lanes, 2m sidewalks, buffer (hardscape or landscape) and 1 segregated cycling lane, and pedestrian refuges. The net result is that you still have 3 lanes going EB (2 on Erb, 1 on Bridgeport) and 3 lanes going WB (1 on Erb, 2 on Bridgeport), and one segregated cycling lane EB on Erb and WB on Bridgeport, and then also have redundancy in the network for when there are crashes or road work.
Forgive the potentially silly question, but when talking about making both Erb and Bridgeport two-way, how would you reconcile where Bridgeport and Erb meet on the east side just before the expresway?
(05-08-2017, 12:28 AM)Elmira Guy Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive the potentially silly question, but when talking about making both Erb and Bridgeport two-way, how would you reconcile where Bridgeport and Erb meet on the east side just before the expresway?
Lanes headed for westbound Erb and lanes coming from eastbound Bridgeport cross over, with a traffic light. Easy. The trickiest bit might be managing the flow of traffic on/off of the southbound expressway — I’m not sure of the exact geometry, but it seems to me those ramps are pretty close to the place where the roads split, so you might not want to allow all movements because they would have to cross too many lanes of traffic. So maybe, for example, the on-ramp would come from Erb eastbound only, not Bridgeport.
If not for the property acquisitions required it would make a good spot for a roundabout.
DHLawrence, I confess that I cannot picture what it is you describe. I'm not meaning to challenge the idea, but I still don't get it.
Are you saying that where Erb currently meets Bridgeport by what was once the Yellow Pages building (don't know what is now) would need to be reworked so that it connects with Bridgeport at a more perpendicular angle and then place traffic light at the new intersection?
(05-08-2017, 12:41 AM)DHLawrence Wrote: [ -> ]If not for the property acquisitions required it would make a good spot for a roundabout.
How would you address the angle at which the streets meet? I think a roundabout would require that the streets meet at a larger angle. Not to say that they couldn’t be re-routed, but the existing angle at which Erb and Bridgeport meet is pretty small.
I was going to say that this was a very dubious idea because there would be no traffic going from eastbound Erb to westbound Bridgeport or eastbound Bridgeport to westbound Erb, leaving the only conflicting movements being traffic from eastbound Erb vs. traffic to westbound Bridgeport, but I do agree that a roundabout would nicely handle allowing traffic on both streets to use the highway ramps.
Here’s another idea, which I would like to see studied: keep the one-way system, but have just one through lane on each road. So one lane eastbound on Erb, one lane westbound on Bridgeport. Now before anybody says I’m choking the life out of these arterials, the idea would be that there would be turn lanes absolutely everywhere that turning is allowed, so those through lanes would be for nothing except for moving traffic continuously. Furthermore, I would put a green wave on each street, so it would move continuously at a constant controlled speed, probably 55km/h or so. How does the capacity, and safety, of a single lane moving continuously compare to the capacity of three lanes where the left and right lanes are sometimes blocked by vehicles waiting to turn left or right respectively?
And while I’m at it, my idea for King and Regina is to have one lane northbound on Regina, one lane southbound on King. This would be from William St. north to somewhere past Bridgeport, possibly all the way to Columbia but probably stopping maybe in the middle at University. Vehicles can still get everywhere they need to go, but the actual space dedicated to them goes way down, even compared to the narrowed version of King that is now being built.
If they ever switched Bridgeport and Erb to two-way streets, I imagine the best bet would be to realign Erb where it meets Bridgeport so the intersection is more perpendicular. I figure they could probably realign it along where Goldbeck Lane is now and then relocate the lost parking to where the old alignment of Erb is.
Could work. I think Toronto's doing something similar to tidy up the Six Points interchange.
Is anyone else finding the detour for the Sawmill Rd water main construction in Conestogo rather tedious? The official detour turns a 3.2km and 3 minute drive through town into a 15.8km and 13 minute trek all the way up Northfield to Line 86 and then back down Katherine St. In July they are closing Northfield for the second phase and the second official detour adds 20km and 20 minutes to the drive! It's faster to just go all the way to Bridgeport. There is a residential street in Conestogo that bypasses the construction, but they have spotters at both ends stopping every car that enters during business hours and turning around non-residents without an official pass. Frustrating to say the least.
https://icreate3.esolutionsgroup.ca/2306...Routes.pdf