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