[lenaitch]

One strong preference I have is to stop having a must-merge lane on highway entry. I feel this creates many dangerous moves and resulting accidents as people ramp up to highway speed and then, sometimes have no where to go and are running out of room.

I'd prefer to see the entry lane from one interchange, become the exit lane for the next. That way there is much less pressure to merge, and generally, you have at least 2km to get into an ongoing travel lane.

I would then like to see most interchanges designed so that the highway exit ramp is on the near-side (better sightlines), comes to a traffic lit intersection with the road to which one is exiting (better safety for pedestrians and cyclists than slip lanes); and the entry point is on the far side, so, if for whatever reason, you were were unsuccessful in merging, forgot, or got off at the wrong exit, there's at least one lane that passes through the intersection to allow you to re-enter the highway almost immediately.

I do agree, additionally, the highway, should transition down in size at logical points (after a major exit, where there is a net drop in traffic); and by and large, should transition down slowly, dropping one lane after each additional exit, not a rapid drop that creates multiple, frequent merging movements.

Not bad if the interchanges are a decent distance apart but if they are too close together they create their own conflicts. Once the interchanges are far enough apart, then it becomes a de facto through lane. The worst was were the acceleration and deceleration lane was common at a single interchange (I don't recall the name of that design).

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think greater GO service on LSE (15M 2-way, all-day, full GO Co-pay, slightly lower GO fares) and the extension to Bomanville should generally come first. I'm not opposed to minor improvements in highway capacity, particularly those that aid basic 'flow'; but for the most part expanded highway capacity is the wrong way to go. For one thing, if you induce more Toronto-bound commuters in the AM with said capacity, you have no ability to expand 401 capacity or DVP capacity once they get to the City. In other words, you just shift the bottleneck to a new point.

the 401 through Scarborough and Pickering isn't particularly congested, and I don't think many people from Durham commute much further west than that. Most people in Durham heading downtown already take GO as it's much a much more direct route and is probably more time competitive to driving than basically any other GO Line. Besides - what you describe is actually already coming first, with the contract signed for most of that work and no funding even announced for a widening of the 401 yet.


MTO's plan for the 401 through Durham is to extend the collector/express to the 412 then do 10 lanes east of there to the 418, then 8 lanes to Highway 35.

Honestly, right now, the only thing that's probably really needed is expanding it to 8 lanes to Thickson or Stevenson, but I suspect MTO will want to go all-out and build out their ultimate design, at least to the 412. Whitby is growing like mad right now so they probably anticipate some much higher traffic growth in the area, particularly now that the 412 is no longer tolled. The volumes rolling off the 412 will be higher than planned for before. I suspect that when the widening does happen, it'll be collector-express extended to the 412, with 8 or 10 lanes extended eastwards to Oshawa at Stevenson or Simcoe. The widening further east of that will probably be deferred longer as that part rarely gets congested currently.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Biffa's lane mathematics ftw! (for cities skylines fans.

IIRC one of the issues with expanding the E-C system through Durham is that there isn't much room in the corridor to add 6+ new lanes of traffic. The LSE rail corridor runs very close to the highway (less than 40 M in some spots) and isn't moving, meaning a significant portion of the expansion would involve expanding North. Also through Whitby/Oshawa there are homes that would have to be expropriated to accommodate a wider highway, that's not going to be popular. Not to mention all the bridges that would need to be rebuilt (many through Durham are the original bridges from the initial highway construction).

I think having a mini E-C segment through the 412 interchange, would be successful. Similar to how the 427 goes to an E-C system South of the 401 to the QEW/Gardiner.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Biffa's lane mathematics ftw! (for cities skylines fans.

IIRC one of the issues with expanding the E-C system through Durham is that there isn't much room in the corridor to add 6+ new lanes of traffic. The LSE rail corridor runs very close to the highway (less than 40 M in some spots) and isn't moving, meaning a significant portion of the expansion would involve expanding North. Also through Whitby/Oshawa there are homes that would have to be expropriated to accommodate a wider highway, that's not going to be popular. Not to mention all the bridges that would need to be rebuilt (many through Durham are the original bridges from the initial highway construction).

I think having a mini E-C segment through the 412 interchange, would be successful. Similar to how the 427 goes to an E-C system South of the 401 to the QEW/Gardiner.

I have the design plates saved on my computer for it - MTO has done preliminary design to get the E-C to the 412, then a regular 10-lane cross section through the pinch point in Oshawa. It fits, but there is a bit of expropriation involved.

MTO is replacing the Simcoe St overpass and surrounding overpasses starting this year, and will be doing most of the expropriating for that project. So most of the expropriating has already been completed.

This is the widening plan for through central Oshawa - the red hatched areas are required property takes. The biggest impact is a row of houses on Jackson Ave east of Ritson to accommodate a new off-ramp. OUtside of this one central section, the highway widening more or less fits within the existing ROW. A few houses are needed in Ajax as well, maybe 10-15.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I have the design plates saved on my computer for it - MTO has done preliminary design to get the E-C to the 412, then a regular 10-lane cross section through the pinch point in Oshawa. It fits, but there is a bit of expropriation involved.

MTO is replacing the Simcoe St overpass and surrounding overpasses starting this year, and will be doing most of the expropriating for that project. So most of the expropriating has already been completed.

This is the widening plan for through central Oshawa - the red hatched areas are required property takes. The biggest impact is a row of houses on Jackson Ave east of Ritson to accommodate a new off-ramp. OUtside of this one central section, the highway widening more or less fits within the existing ROW. A few houses are needed in Ajax as well, maybe 10-15.

View attachment 468833

thanks for that. I was unaware of how far along the planning had come.

 

[Haljackey]

Not bad if the interchanges are a decent distance apart but if they are too close together they create their own conflicts. Once the interchanges are far enough apart, then it becomes a de facto through lane. The worst was were the acceleration and deceleration lane was common at a single interchange (I don't recall the name of that design).

Are you thinking of a cloverleaf? There are 4 loops, and a common accel/decel lane where they enter and exit on most designs. You get weaving issues if the interchange is gets busy, but if volumes are low they work great due to no need for stoplights/signs.

Speaking of cloverleafs, the one at Highway 4 is finally getting rebuilt starting this year. Prep work/utility relocations are already underway.

 

[gweed123]

Not bad if the interchanges are a decent distance apart but if they are too close together they create their own conflicts. Once the interchanges are far enough apart, then it becomes a de facto through lane. The worst was were the acceleration and deceleration lane was common at a single interchange (I don't recall the name of that design).

Agreed. There are two examples in Ottawa of the same concept but that illustrate why interchange spacing is crucial in that kind of arrangement. Heading eastbound on the 417, between Pinecrest and Woodroffe the EB on-ramp becomes a 4th lane, and it exits at Woodroffe, 2km down the road. That setup works well. Another example is between Metcalfe and Nicholas/Lees, where the EB on-ramp from Metcalfe becomes the off-ramp for Nicholas being only ~450m down the road. This stretch is extremely treacherous, with accelerating and decelerating vehicles trying to maneuver in such a short stretch.

 

[innsertnamehere]

there are lots of examples of it. the QEW does it over Bronte Creek between Burloak and Bronte too, and that stretch usually operates a lot quicker and with less traffic than other parts of the QEW through Halton.

 

[Deadpool X]

It's very aggravating, especially going eastbound. 2 lane drops at Salem too close by creates one heck of a bottleneck. To remedy things a bit for now, a 4th lane should be extended to the 412. I was surprised this didn't happen when the interchange was built, but perhaps they didn't want a travel lane defaulting onto a toll highway? Since the tolls were removed on the 412 now, that is no longer an issue.

I don't think that should be an issue because that already happens on 400 and 404 where not just one but two travel lanes exit to 407. I think that happens on 410 as well.

I think greater GO service on LSE (15M 2-way, all-day, full GO Co-pay, slightly lower GO fares) and the extension to Bomanville should generally come first. I'm not opposed to minor improvements in highway capacity, particularly those that aid basic 'flow'; but for the most part expanded highway capacity is the wrong way to go. For one thing, if you induce more Toronto-bound commuters in the AM with said capacity, you have no ability to expand 401 capacity or DVP capacity once they get to the City. In other words, you just shift the bottleneck to a new point.

They both can coexist and serve different markets. DVP is already beyond its peak capacity. It's congestion is far worse than 401's congestion in Durham. Removing congestion from 401 won't do anything to DVP's congestion and there won't be more than a few new commuters using DVP. Those who are willing to sit in traffic on DVP are already doing so.

One strong preference I have is to stop having a must-merge lane on highway entry. I feel this creates many dangerous moves and resulting accidents as people ramp up to highway speed and then, sometimes have no where to go and are running out of room.

I'd prefer to see the entry lane from one interchange, become the exit lane for the next. That way there is much less pressure to merge, and generally, you have at least 2km to get into an ongoing travel lane.

In highway lingo, this is called an auxiliary lane. 407 has these lanes on most of its route.

These lanes are safer for merging but only when we don't have dumb drivers. On a busy highway, many drivers will not merge on the driving lanes because auxiliary lane has less traffic or they will just forget to merge and when they approach the next exit, they will just swerve to the left creating a risky situation.

If we force cars to merge, then the traffic coming from behind knows that traffic ahead will be merging and they can plan accordingly (slow down to let them in or move over to another lane). But drivers won't expect traffic ahead of them in auxiliary lane to suddenly jump in their lane because they don't want to exit. This already happens on 401 wherever we have auxiliary lanes.

 

[Northern Light]

These lanes are safer for merging but only when we don't have dumb drivers. On a busy highway, many drivers will not merge on the driving lanes because auxiliary lane has less traffic or they will just forget to merge and when they approach the next exit, they will just swerve to the left creating a risky situation.

If we force cars to merge, then the traffic coming from behind knows that traffic ahead will be merging and they can plan accordingly (slow down to let them in or move over to another lane). But drivers won't expect traffic ahead of them in auxiliary lane to suddenly jump in their lane because they don't want to exit. This already happens on 401 wherever we have auxiliary lanes.

The answer to this, I would contend, is rigourous police enforcement.

Lots of places have better driving culture.

Some of it is training (amount, quality, that its mandatory); some of it is tougher licensing exams. But much of it, in many places, owes to a no-nonsense enforcement of the rules of the road.

Even when speeding was more rigoursly enforced, unsafe lane change was something we were lax about here. Police would issue the occasional ticket, usually associated with an accident, or sometimes
when the person was foolish enough to do this right in front of an officer, cutting them off; but for the most part, I never saw common enforcement.

There ought to be. It would certainly prove profitable for government.

That said, last I checked, driver training still isn't mandatory here; road tests are not as comprehensive as they ought to be; and I would argue strongly for tests on simulators so that a variety of situations can be tested (driving in rain, snow, at night) during every test. A real-world test can be the final exam, but you have to pass the simulator test first, and it will penalize for unsafe lane change, and every other infraction.

 

[lenaitch]

Are you thinking of a cloverleaf?

Yes. It seems it was the most common interchange type on early 400-series builds. The ones at 400 at Hwy/Cty Rd. 88 and 400 at 89 became quite 'interesting' as traffic volumes increased, aggravated by increased large trucks volumes caused by general volume increases and Honda Alliston.

 

[lenaitch]

The answer to this, I would contend, is rigourous police enforcement.

Short of an unsafe lane change at the end, which has to be observed, I'm not sure treating an auxiliary lane as a driving lane is a violation of the current rules of the road.

 

[Northern Light]

Short of an unsafe lane change at the end, which has to be observed, I'm not sure treating an auxiliary lane as a driving lane is a violation of the current rules of the road.

I wasn't meaning to imply that it was.

Rather, I was addressing the idea proffered above that there are drivers who wait til the last possible moment to shift out of the auxiliary lane and then do so in an unsafe manner, without sufficient room in front of the vehicle they are seeking to enter traffic in front of; and/or without signalling or doing so with sufficient time to allow the other driver to react.

 

[lenaitch]

I wasn't meaning to imply that it was.

Rather, I was addressing the idea proffered above that there are drivers who wait til the last possible moment to shift out of the auxiliary lane and then do so in an unsafe manner, without sufficient room in front of the vehicle they are seeking to enter traffic in front of; and/or without signalling or doing so with sufficient time to allow the other driver to react.

Fair point. A lot of what we see (or don't see) in terms of enforcement isn't based on a lack of trying but a lack of success. When I was a supervisor with the OPP in the Toronto area, there were all sorts of charges under the HTA that members used to successfully prosecute. Over time, however; the traffic courts have shifted their views. Charges such as Following Too Closely, Unsafe Lane Changes, etc. are just about impossible to get convictions on unless there was a collision. You don't need to go to court too many times to see your charges tossed until you get the hint. Perhaps with the recent roll-out of dash cameras as part of the Automatic Licence Plate Readers, there might some better success once the courts get to see the chaos these people are causing. Dash cameras, as a stand-alone initiative, have been on the OPP's radar (pun intended) for years but governments would never fund them.

 

[Northern Light]

Fair point. A lot of what we see (or don't see) in terms of enforcement isn't based on a lack of trying but a lack of success. When I was a supervisor with the OPP in the Toronto area, there were all sorts of charges under the HTA that members used to successfully prosecute. Over time, however; the traffic courts have shifted their views. Charges such as Following Too Closely, Unsafe Lane Changes, etc. are just about impossible to get convictions on unless there was a collision. You don't need to go to court too many times to see your charges tossed until you get the hint. Perhaps with the recent roll-out of dash cameras as part of the Automatic Licence Plate Readers, there might some better success once the courts get to see the chaos these people are causing. Dash cameras, as a stand-alone initiative, have been on the OPP's radar (pun intended) for years but governments would never fund them.

I know Germany employs a distance rule for too close that is a factor of speed. ie., the faster you are travelling, the further behind the vehicle in front of you, you must be.

To my understanding most German highways have set markers that allow for a clear violation of following too close, its absolute liability and not open to judicial discretion.