05-10-2017, 08:37 PM
Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
Login or Create an Account
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
Login or Create an Account
Thread Rating:
General Road and Highway Discussion
|
05-10-2017, 08:59 PM
(05-10-2017, 07:17 PM)darts Wrote: As I understand it the ferry is paid for and run by the resident's of the island, so just their guests and themselves can use it. The ferry web page quite clearly says visitors are allowed (there appears to be a visitor lane and a resident lane): http://boblo.ca/amherstburg-ferry-company/ Quote:Bob-Lo Island Ferry Service Rules & Guidelines Apparently residents aren't charged a fee for the use of the ferry, though.
05-10-2017, 10:24 PM
(05-10-2017, 08:59 PM)tomh009 Wrote:As I said later,(05-10-2017, 07:17 PM)darts Wrote: As I understand it the ferry is paid for and run by the resident's of the island, so just their guests and themselves can use it. I believe they all pay some sort of maintenance fees, although looking online it seems that there is ferry service for visitors. When I asked my relatives before about it they said the ferry was just for island residents and other people can't go there, I've never tried, wasn't that interested in seeing Tim Allen's house. adding: those $10 fees ight be just for invited guests, the only other thing I remember from what they have said was I could go there on the ferry if I had a reservation for the restaurant there.
05-10-2017, 10:56 PM
I don't think it's just residents' guests, based on the web site.
05-11-2017, 09:58 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2017, 10:15 AM by PhilippAchtel.)
Related to the discussion of the restriction on driving down the residential detour in Conestogo, King St. in St. Jacobs is completely closed in two places and the official detour involves driving through a residential area via Printery to Water to Albert and then Northside to Sawmill. Perhaps because these roads are serviced by GRT buses, there's been no pass system suggested to my knowledge, nor are out-of-town cars being told to detour to Arthur St. to bypass the town.
That said, St. Jacobs has a much stronger tourism industry than Conestogo, along with the presence of the Home Hardware HQ, so turning away passers-through is probably not an option. And there are signs requesting that large trucks detour to 85. Edit: (05-10-2017, 08:32 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(05-10-2017, 07:16 AM)MidTowner Wrote: My reaction to hearing about this street closure to non-residents was...why can't we do this in more places? This quiet street in the township has for reasons of the construction been introduced to the dangers of rat running, has understandably been upset by it, and found a solution. Thanks for the link. As a Waterloo Region resident, it's always a bit bittersweet to read about locales that actually pay more than lip service to cycling and transit. Quote:This will be done by removing the centre line and by implementing cycle lanes. Since the ring is not for through traffic and the speed limit is 50km/h, separated cycle tracks are not necessary. But the ring is also a bus route, so there are a number of bus stops. For safety reasons separated cycle tracks will be built around all bus stops in the ring. They mention it so matter of factly. Like, of course, you'd have separated lanes for bus stops on side streets. Sometimes I wonder if the serious cyclists preference for mixing bicycle and automobile traffic actually creates an impediment for separated bike lanes as opposed to the lanes we have now by promoting the idea that it's natural for bikes to mix in and out of vehicle traffic. Like would you get sideways glances in the Netherlands if you showed them the lanes we have on busy streets such as University and Erb?
05-11-2017, 10:23 AM
(05-11-2017, 09:58 AM)PhilippAchtel Wrote: Sometimes I wonder if the serious cyclists preference for mixing bicycle and automobile traffic actually creates an impediment for separated bike lanes as opposed to the lanes we have now by promoting the idea that it's natural for bikes to mix in and out of vehicle traffic. Like would you get sideways glances in the Netherlands if you showed them the lanes we have on busy streets such as University and Erb? That would be crazy in 2010s Netherlands, but not in 1960s Netherlands. They made a lot of effort to make things more bicycle-friendly. Vehicular cycling is a terrible unfriendly idea and the people behind that are actively against separated bicycle lanes (they have taken cities to court over it).
05-11-2017, 10:24 AM
(05-09-2017, 04:54 PM)timc Wrote: I think this is the applicable section: Thanks for finding that timc. I've always wanted to blow past at the traffic guy when P&H in Preston blocked traffic for the reversing truck. I had no problem waiting while they reversed, but I think a few times I had rookie drivers go back and forth 5-6 times... with a minute or so off the roadway before re-attempting... that's when I wanted to pass, but didn't have the nerve to be "that guy". Coke
05-11-2017, 10:45 AM
(05-09-2017, 12:40 AM)Bob_McBob Wrote: 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. Solution? In reality, why can't you just say "I'm the Uber picking up at #97", then drive right thru..... Coke
05-11-2017, 11:19 AM
(05-11-2017, 10:45 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:(05-09-2017, 12:40 AM)Bob_McBob Wrote: 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. Also, it begs the question of whether these workers have the legal right to permit/deny access to the streets in question.
05-11-2017, 11:21 AM
(05-11-2017, 10:24 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:(05-09-2017, 04:54 PM)timc Wrote: I think this is the applicable section: What makes someone a "traffic control person" under the act versus just some guy?
05-11-2017, 12:19 PM
(05-09-2017, 04:54 PM)timc Wrote: I think this is the applicable section: I think this might be specific to controlling traffic when it's limited to a single lane (traffic can flow in only one direction at a time) due to construction. See the main section 146: Quote:146 (1) Despite subsection 144 (31), during construction or maintenance activities on or adjacent to a highway, a portable lane control signal system may be operated on the highway in accordance with the regulations by the authority having jurisdiction and control of the highway or any person authorized by that authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 146 (1). But in any case not just anyone can decide to become a traffic control person. Quote:“traffic control person” means a person who is directing traffic and,
05-11-2017, 01:19 PM
(05-11-2017, 12:19 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(05-09-2017, 04:54 PM)timc Wrote: I think this is the applicable section: Thanks!
Road closures are especially bad this year. And the planning (for the average motorist/bicyclist/pedestrian) leaves even more to be desired.
disclaimer: that's in no particular order guys
05-11-2017, 11:59 PM
/\ :-D
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)