London Roads

[Djeffery]

City FB page reports that Dundas St OEV is now open

[jammer139]

Kick off for an EA study of Oxford and Gideon intersection improvements that might happen in 2024. https://pub-london.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=76654

[haljackey]

Interesting. I wonder if they will widen it from here to Sanatorium road. The Thames River bridge was built for 4 lanes but only carries 2... seems like a waste that they haven't widened up to at least Commissioners by now.

[TallerIsBetter]

If they had half a brain the whole route from the Hunt Club gates out to the 402 should have had the space set aside for a freeway, with service roads, out to the 402. Because of the future.

Freeways are Better

[jammer139]

City is so inept they had to add an east bound lane to Oxford from the private school to Sanatorium Rd 6-7 years ago due to massive traffic backups every morning rush hour. Just goes to show you how utterly useless their traffic studies are. Any 12 year old who plays SimCity would know that Oxford needed to be 4 lanes when they built the new bridge and extension. The evidence that they knew this was they at least built the bridge 4 lanes wide but left the approaches at 2 lanes. It takes a special level of intelligence to build a roadway like this.

[haljackey]

Traffic volume map
https://london.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=580f8891b84548dca9cd162d4dc73a03

Highest number I could find is 49.5k vehicles per day on Wonderland north of Oxford.

I think 20k is typically where 2 lane roads get congested. I would assume 40k is where 4 lanes start to perform poorly. London does have several stretches above 40k and most are eventually planned to be 6-laned or have BRT.

Exception is the Highbury freeway sections which handles volumes better. Freeways don't need to be 6-laned until volumes approach 60k.

[inimrepus]

Originally Posted by haljackey

I think 20k is typically where 2 lane roads get congested. I would assume 40k is where 4 lanes start to perform poorly.

I don't think that is accurate. Having twice as many lanes doesn't mean being able to handle twice the amount of traffic. You have diminishing returns when adding more lanes because traffic tends to focus in the far right, or far left lanes most of the time.

You also have the problem of adding more lanes causing induced demand.

[TallerIsBetter]

I'm finally calling out the induced demand BS. No, there not are lots of people walking or taking the bus or whatever until a new lane appears and then magically they go and get a new car and start filling up those lanes.

In reality the effect your describing points to people returning to a route when there is a new lane because they had abandoned it for an alternate. I, and lots of other smart people will happily drive a different, longer route to avoid congestion.

So your wonderful argument against road development and expansion is spurious. If you open a new lane and it immediately gets congested it means you needed two new lanes. And in those cases the traffic will drop proportionally on the alternative routes people are taking, but that is harder to measure because it has a wide range of start/end points and chosen alternate routes.

I'm kinda sick if the illogic of that argument which comes out of an anti-car ethos, and gets repeated by those who got it drilled into them in school without thinking it through critically.

[haljackey]

You're right that a 4 lane road doesn't have double the capacity of a 2 lane road. I'm just thinking along the lines of where it becomes congested enough to warrant capacity upgrades.

I still think 20k is the upper limit for 2-lane roads, but maybe it is in the 30s for a 4-laner. Adding a centre turn lane (5 lanes total) can beef things up a bit, along with things like double-left turns at intersections as well as dedicated right turn lanes. That would help prevent or delay the need to 6 or 8 lane the road.

-----

As for induced demand, it's a mix of both arguments. In a growing city, there's going to be increased demand on the transportation system with or without road widenings.

If the city was completely stagnant, you'd likely see additional traffic use the beefed-up road which would mean nearby roads would have extra capacity. This may cause more people drive themselves instead of take transit/carpool since things are flowing better. Therefore, the theory works in this sense.

In reality however a city like London is going to get more and more congested with or without new roads or widenings. These projects will just ease the strain put on by increased growth. So long as the focus is put not only on roads, but transit and walking/biking too, things can try to be more balanced.

The BRT project is a great example of this. Buses are getting their own lane which makes the existing lanes on the road flow better since there won't be any buses blocking a lane. Both car and bus capacity will increase.

Also people tend to point to road widenings as induced demand where really any transportation project is induced demand be it roads, subways, rail, etc. If you build it, they will most likely come.

[inimrepus]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

I'm finally calling out the induced demand BS. No, there not are lots of people walking or taking the bus or whatever until a new lane appears and then magically they go and get a new car and start filling up those lanes.

In reality the effect your describing points to people returning to a route when there is a new lane because they had abandoned it for an alternate. I, and lots of other smart people will happily drive a different, longer route to avoid congestion.

So your wonderful argument against road development and expansion is spurious. If you open a new lane and it immediately gets congested it means you needed two new lanes. And in those cases the traffic will drop proportionally on the alternative routes people are taking, but that is harder to measure because it has a wide range of start/end points and chosen alternate routes.

I'm kinda sick if the illogic of that argument which comes out of an anti-car ethos, and gets repeated by those who got it drilled into them in school without thinking it through critically.

1. I didn't say I was against road development, I was saying that there is diminishing returns.

2. There are large scale studies showing that induced demand is real. Sorry if I don't take your opinion as fact.

3. It isn't "anti-car" to point out problems with just continually making roads wider. The reality is that there is only so log you can keep doing that. We need other options. We can't end up with a 15 lane road running through the middle of the city, it just isn't an option.

[jammer139]

The total volume variable is only one of many and maybe less important to the volume during rush hour times. Traffic at nite and off peak times is not as relevant as the volumes during the key morning/evening rush hour. To determine if a 2 lane should goto a 4 lane/5/6 lanes look at the rush hour volumes in the key sections. If it takes 3-5 light cycles to get thru an intersection during rush hours the road width needs to be expanded with more lanes and left and right turn lanes with proper advanced signalling. Or alternative route widening needs to added to the nearby road network to take some of the pressure off. Case in point is Oxford and Wharncliffe.
Traffic volumes in the middle of the nite are not important in the determination of road improvements. The improvements need to design safety in by getting rid of blind left turn lanes or changing the signals on left lanes to be fully signal controlled. This is a safety measure many of our intersections could use to reduce collisions.

Originally Posted by haljackey

Traffic volume map
https://london.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=580f8891b84548dca9cd162d4dc73a03

Highest number I could find is 49.5k vehicles per day on Wonderland north of Oxford.

I think 20k is typically where 2 lane roads get congested. I would assume 40k is where 4 lanes start to perform poorly. London does have several stretches above 40k and most are eventually planned to be 6-laned or have BRT.

Exception is the Highbury freeway sections which handles volumes better. Freeways don't need to be 6-laned until volumes approach 60k.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by inimrepus

1. I didn't say I was against road development, I was saying that there is diminishing returns.

2. There are large scale studies showing that induced demand is real. Sorry if I don't take your opinion as fact.

3. It isn't "anti-car" to point out problems with just continually making roads wider. The reality is that there is only so log you can keep doing that. We need other options. We can't end up with a 15 lane road running through the middle of the city, it just isn't an option.

1. Was not referring to you, I have no issue with your post, just adding to it. My apologies if I came across that way.

2. Some of those studies are indeed used by the ardently anti-car, and it's plausibile that some are done by researchers with agendas. It's great to believe in the process of Science, but unfortunately Science is done by Humans and sometimes they are biased, flawed, and unscrupulous. Not anyone specific, but a lot of anti car people are let's say, zealous. Again, I don't disagree with the phenomenon, but I suggest when it happens it's it's more indicative of a poorly designed or insufficient current road network/capacity than anything else - especially not some reptilian response by knuckle dragging drivers.

2. I agree 15 lanes is silly. There is obviously a sweet spot, and that could be properly calculated, with good faith algorithm design! And I agree there are a mix of solutions. More work from home, staggered start end times for work, really well designed transit that actually meets the needs of users, and yes even new and wider roads and a Ring Road (think about London in 50 years).

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by inimrepus

We can't end up with a 15 lane road running through the middle of the city, it just isn't an option.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

I agree 15 lanes is silly.

Naypyidaw would like a word with you two.



https://www.google.com/maps/@19.7767928,96.1245331,463m/data=!3m1!1e3

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Naypyidaw would like a word with you two.



https://www.google.com/maps/@19.7767928,96.1245331,463m/data=!3m1!1e3

Lmao now that would solve all the issues in the GTA for sure

[MolsonExport]

the 401 has that many lanes through much of North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough. Still packed to the gills.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

the 401 has that many lanes through much of North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough. Still packed to the gills.

Problem is the 401 is squeezed a lot in places. For example, at Yonge Street and Hoggs Hollow the westbound direction only has 3 express and 2 collector lanes. Elsewhere it's 4+4.

So it's best to try and make the roads a bit more consistent rather than widening at the edges, it often only enhances the bottleneck / squeezes.

London-specific, we are doing what we can to reduce these bottlenecks. Wharncliffe CN underpass gets fixed this year, for example.

I still think we need to look at building some missing links however. Bradley Ave from Pack/Bostwick Roads to Wonderland, and Wharncliffe to White Oak. The university will hate it, but a new bridge linking Sarnia Road to Huron Street would also be helpful. Environmentally impactful but another set of bridges linking Gainsborough and Windermere Roads, and Windimere to Kilally would also be helpful.

[Djeffery]

I agree with Gainsborough-Windermere-Killaly, but Huron isn't a through street east of Richmond, so a bridge connecting it to Sarnia is pointless I think. I would also love to see the Western-Richmond intersection revamped as it was supposed to be under the BRT plan.

[jammer139]

Bradley should be a major priority for missing links and widening given it's strategic east-west location running from highway 74 to Homewood Lane. Southdale west of Wonderland is long overdue for widening but the east end stops at Ponds Mills while Bradley continues east to 74 and has major residential developments built or in planning stages for the stretch east of Highbury and access to the VMP industrial lands.

[MolsonExport]

I just want to see a pedestrian link between Gainsborough and Windermere (crossing over medway creek). It seems as though most of the new pedestrian bridges (and almost every single soccer field) are East of Adelaide, whereas the Western parts of London are growing at quadruple the rates of the eastern side (and also pay considerably more into the city finances). I am all for spreading some of the wealth, but come on. The West side of London has been getting shortchanged for decades.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I just want to see a pedestrian link between Gainsborough and Windermere (crossing over medway creek). It seems as though most of the new pedestrian bridges (and almost every single soccer field) are East of Adelaide, whereas the Western parts of London are growing at quadruple the rates of the eastern side (and also pay considerably more into the city finances). I am all for spreading some of the wealth, but come on. The West side of London has been getting shortchanged for decades.

Well, the 2 latest pedestrian bridges over Thames were west of Adelaide, and the latest big budget recreational infrastructure project was the Bostwick Y/Arena/Library. And the new east London community centre has been mismanaged and delayed by years, while Bostwick opened on time. For sure, the west end needs more trail connections and recreational facilities, but the east end has been waiting longer as well. It is funny though, I follow Shawn Lewis on Facebook and am used to seeing the east vs west comments relating to how the east is being screwed.