Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Highway 401 Widening - Highway 8 to Townline Road
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
I’m sick and tired of Dan always blaming engineers for everything without knowing all the circumstances surrounding a particular situation. The first couple of times I drove through there after it was first complete, I made the same mistake. Once I figured it out, I came to realize that it was a brilliant design for that particular situation. Yes the lines are incorrect but don’t fault the design.
(01-09-2019, 03:02 PM)creative Wrote: [ -> ]So they may have reconstructed the interchange since you last drove there!

They definitely haven't, Sportsworld interchange has been completed for a while now, it isn't changing.  This conversation wasn't about 401.
(01-09-2019, 03:27 PM)creative Wrote: [ -> ]I’m sick and tired of Dan always blaming engineers for everything without knowing all the circumstances surrounding a particular situation. The first couple of times I drove through there after it was first complete, I made the same mistake. Once I figured it out, I came to realize that it was a brilliant design for that particular situation. Yes the lines are incorrect but don’t fault the design.

"The lines are incorrect but don't fault the design"....that statement is...um...self contradictory, the lines are part of the design.

I fault the engineers when there is fault to put on them.  In this case, the double lines signify the lane ends, but it doesn't...that's an error, both, by the book, and by behaviour, as we see in this thread.

But it's also reasonable to fault them when the design fails to be used correctly most or much of the time, even if it's "by the book".

If you think I'm being too harsh on engineers, I'd suggest you read the book The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman, it's a great book, and looks at why design is so important.
I'm not an engineer but my job title includes the word. I'm friendly with several actual engineers (though no civic ones) and they're all very well aware of having to make compromises in their designs. Critical honest feedback makes engineers better. There are a lot of very well understood practices that can reduce the impact of humans who interact with a system and not all can be followed but by definition that's a bad design. Sometimes business constraints require bad designs. Sometimes humans fuck up, even the ones who have a special ring, and pointing out when a design is in error is not at all a bad thing.

There are some systems that are designed extremely well and many people aren't able to grasp that design - there are several social circles I inhabit where I can't say the word 'roundabout' without people shouting invectives - but even if that's the case here (I lack the knowledge required to have an opinion) criticizing the design isn't inherently wrong, it's an opportunity to learn.

So if the design is right, defend it with information. Claiming that someone is ignorant isn't a defence of a design. "You're not capable of understanding the constraints of the design" is a garbage argument, especially when levied against the people on this forum.
(01-09-2019, 05:10 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: [ -> ]So if the design is right, defend it with information. Claiming that someone is ignorant isn't a defence of a design. "You're not capable of understanding the constraints of the design" is a garbage argument, especially when levied against the people on this forum.

Especially when the person saying it doesn’t actually understand the constraints themselves; they’re just assuming that of course professionals must have had a good reason for doing something some way. Which generally is a good default assumption, but is sometimes clearly untrue. Now if an actual expert comes in and says something would be a great design except that FRA regulations require, or firecode requires, or whatever, that is also an opportunity to learn.
(01-09-2019, 04:45 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]"The lines are incorrect but don't fault the design"....that statement is...um...self contradictory, the lines are part of the design.

I think the point is that it’s fine to have lanes enter and not merge; how else would one start a new lane? The problem is the way it’s painted, which is a minor detail. Sure, the paint pattern is presumably part of the detailed design, but it’s easy to imagine adjusting the paint without having any actual construction.
It may be a "minor detail", but it could cause a crash, and it certainly reduces the overall potential efficiency of the system.

I've seen in other areas signs like, "Lane Continues" or something of that nature, so people know they can continue on. When people panic and immediately move over, people in the adjacent lane have to slow down and make room for them, which causes an inefficiency.
(01-09-2019, 08:12 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-09-2019, 04:45 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]"The lines are incorrect but don't fault the design"....that statement is...um...self contradictory, the lines are part of the design.

I think the point is that it’s fine to have lanes enter and not merge; how else would one start a new lane? The problem is the way it’s painted, which is a minor detail. Sure, the paint pattern is presumably part of the detailed design, but it’s easy to imagine adjusting the paint without having any actual construction.

Yeah, I agree having the lane enter without merging is fine.

The paint isn't a minor detail, just because it's easy to fix, it's an important detail in usability, as we see here.  The fact that it's so easy to fix, just means, they should fix it....
Maybe it was designed by someone in an office in Toronto and they've never actually been here to see it, and nobody realizes it is a mistake.

How could we go about getting this fixed? Who do we go to, what is the course of action with something like this? CTV? (smirk)
It does raise all sorts of questions. When is the decision made how to paint the lines? Is it even part of the road design process, or is it something that is executed separately after? I mean, could it be as silly that somewhere it says to paint the merge lines for X metres after the lane joins simply because at one time it was a merge lane and no one bothered to change whatever booklet says to paint X here?
Argh, so now... I'm looking at this in other places. Everything I thought I knew, is wrong.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.670873,-7...authuser=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.668055,-7...authuser=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6151209,-...authuser=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6012831,-...authuser=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.79507,-79...authuser=0

...in all these instances that I could think of off the top of my head for where I've encountered lanes that don't end, they use the thick, double-frequency dashed lines. This is mindblowing, it doesn't make any sense at all to me. Arghhhhhhhh!!!

I could have sworn I was taught in Driver's Ed that this meant the lane you're in is about to end...
(01-09-2019, 09:46 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.79507,-79...authuser=0

...in all these instances that I could think of off the top of my head for where I've encountered lanes that don't end, they use the thick, double-frequency dashed lines.  This is mindblowing, it doesn't make any sense at all to me.  Arghhhhhhhh!!!

I could have sworn I was taught in Driver's Ed that this meant the lane you're in is about to end...

In your last example, the lane exits at the next exit, not very far away, so I don’t think it’s really an example of what you’re talking about. In the other examples, the frequent dashes don’t continue for very long; however, I still agree that it’s not clear what they’re trying to indicate with them. In practice they seem to indicate that “this lane joined up just a short distance back” which doesn’t feel very relevant to me; what matters is what is coming up ahead.

I think a case can be made that really the symbol should be a double white line, with one solid and one dashed line. For entrance ramps, solid on the expressway side; for exit ramps, solid on the ramp side. By analogy with yellow centre lines, this would indicate that one may cross over from the dash side to the solid side but not the other direction. For ramps that come on and then go off, perhaps the symbol could be a double dashed line. But that’s just some idle thinking on my part.
(01-09-2019, 09:46 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Argh, so now... I'm looking at this in other places.  Everything I thought I knew, is wrong.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.670873,-7...authuser=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.668055,-7...authuser=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6151209,-...authuser=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6012831,-...authuser=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.79507,-79...authuser=0

...in all these instances that I could think of off the top of my head for where I've encountered lanes that don't end, they use the thick, double-frequency dashed lines.  This is mindblowing, it doesn't make any sense at all to me.  Arghhhhhhhh!!!

I could have sworn I was taught in Driver's Ed that this meant the lane you're in is about to end...

You're not wrong, this is in fact the taught and expected meaning according to the MTO.  If it is common to find them in other places there are either a lot of road engineers reading books wrong (unlikely) or the design standards are broken (likely).  But it's clear this is a broken design.

https://www.ontario.ca/document/official...t-markings
OK, unsure if this has been brought up about the lane markings: I was thinking about it, and realized that the lines may have been painted this way as a reminder, not for the merging drivers to merge to their left, but rather as a warning to the drivers that just inherited a new lane to their right, NOT to go into the furthest right lane (for the odd drivers that understands that the right hand lane is for slower traffic).

Otherwise, drivers are seeing a free lane just as new traffic is coming onto the highway, which will cause major issues.

I don't think it was a design flow. It was intentional as to keep people safe.
Ah yes, that's a legitimate point. That part of the lake is designated for vehicles accelerating to match traffic

I believe that they now have a double solid/dashed line on the Winston Churchill exit of the 401 now, but it is a very recent change.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30