Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
(10-26-2016, 06:56 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Which is why they should have seriously considered my idea to put the pedestrian/bike path down the middle between the transit lanes (and shift those lanes and the general traffic lanes towards the outside of the bridge in order to create the space to do so). This would allow pedestrians and bicycles to travel from the tracks to Colby/Conestogo without interacting with any motor vehicle traffic whatsoever.
I'm sorry, but this was never going to happen.
Posts: 7,526
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
195
10-26-2016, 08:38 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2016, 08:38 AM by danbrotherston.)
(10-26-2016, 06:56 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Which is why they should have seriously considered my idea to put the pedestrian/bike path down the middle between the transit lanes (and shift those lanes and the general traffic lanes towards the outside of the bridge in order to create the space to do so). This would allow pedestrians and bicycles to travel from the tracks to Colby/Conestogo without interacting with any motor vehicle traffic whatsoever.
I agree with you here, it's a very clever way of eliminating many crossings, especially dangerous ramp crossing. Sadly I also agree with Canard here, it was never going to happen. It's simply to...unusual, untested for it to be risked. The traffic engineers already know how risky sidewalks and bike lanes across freeway ramps are, and known risk is apparently good.
It was a nice dream.
Posts: 417
Threads: 49
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
10
(10-25-2016, 11:17 AM)timc Wrote: (10-25-2016, 09:29 AM)chutten Wrote: "U-Turn Permitted" signs might be useful as hints, but they aren't necessary. You can pull a U-ie on any straight stretch of road you have 150m of unhindered visibility on (no bridge nearby, not on a curve) so long as it isn't specifically covered by a "No U-Turn" sign and isn't near or on a railway crossing.
Though having rails, this section of rapidway isn't a railway crossing. So maybe "U-Turn Permitted" would be wise.
Are you certain that light rail doesn't count as a railway crossing?
This is a really interesting question timc. It seems that the LRT is signed as a rail crossing per the Highway Traffic Act. However the entire area of the crossing is a bridge. The U-turns signs could be permitted at Parkside Dr in the West and Conestogo Rd in the East as these are likely greater than 150m from "the bridge" but I haven't measured it.
I can't see how the cut throughs for the fire department can be used by regular traffic.
_____________________________________
I used to be the mayor of sim city. I know what I am talking about.
Posts: 4,907
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
118
I exited there last night. No two ways around it. It's a pain in the butt, but it's not the worst one in the region.
Posts: 4,289
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
177
(10-26-2016, 06:19 PM)Drake Wrote: (10-25-2016, 11:17 AM)timc Wrote: Are you certain that light rail doesn't count as a railway crossing?
This is a really interesting question timc. It seems that the LRT is signed as a rail crossing per the Highway Traffic Act. However the entire area of the crossing is a bridge. The U-turns signs could be permitted at Parkside Dr in the West and Conestogo Rd in the East as these are likely greater than 150m from "the bridge" but I haven't measured it.
I can't see how the cut throughs for the fire department can be used by regular traffic.
I’m a bit confused. Are you saying the bridge is a railway crossing? But on the bridge there is no interaction between the LRT lanes and any other traffic — it’s just LRT lanes (a railway) next to regular lanes (a road), not a crossing at all. The closest situations that could reasonably be called crossings are at either end, at Northfield and Conestogo and where the spur line and LRT tracks cross Northfield (well, half of Northfield in the case of the LRT tracks).
Posts: 4,289
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
177
(10-26-2016, 08:38 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: (10-26-2016, 06:56 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Which is why they should have seriously considered my idea to put the pedestrian/bike path down the middle between the transit lanes (and shift those lanes and the general traffic lanes towards the outside of the bridge in order to create the space to do so). This would allow pedestrians and bicycles to travel from the tracks to Colby/Conestogo without interacting with any motor vehicle traffic whatsoever.
I agree with you here, it's a very clever way of eliminating many crossings, especially dangerous ramp crossing. Sadly I also agree with Canard here, it was never going to happen. It's simply to...unusual, untested for it to be risked. The traffic engineers already know how risky sidewalks and bike lanes across freeway ramps are, and known risk is apparently good.
It was a nice dream.
Unfortunately, it seems planners are not paid to be creative. In fact, they seem to have mental defense techniques against any creative suggestion.
For example, at the spur line consultations, I suggested pedestrian refuges, in particular on Union and Allen, but potentially at other locations. They started on about “level 2 pedestrian crossovers” as if they were some great new thing, and didn’t seem to even understand why I was suggesting refuges — they’re better than crossovers because they allow pedestrians to deal with one direction at a time, which on a street like Allen or even Union is quite sufficient to take a dicy crossing and turn it into a comfortable one. Later I investigated what the crossovers were about and sure enough this new “level 1” and “level 2” stuff is just codifying relatively minor variations in signage for a concept that has existed for several decades — neither is anything really new, just two new slightly different standards for signage. What would have been so threatening to them about actually thinking about refuges? I just don’t understand it.
Then, closer to the Northfield bridge, I also wanted them to put a platform for the tourist train between the freight track and the LRT tracks. “No space”. But wait, the entire area is surrounded by grass. So, expropriating a 4m swath of the adjacent property would be no problem. Now, maybe it’s not worth it — maybe the Region would feel the tourist train should pay, and maybe they couldn’t afford it — but the idea that there is no space, full stop, is absurd.
Posts: 417
Threads: 49
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
10
(10-27-2016, 07:29 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m a bit confused. Are you saying the bridge is a railway crossing? But on the bridge there is no interaction between the LRT lanes and any other traffic — it’s just LRT lanes (a railway) next to regular lanes (a road), not a crossing at all. The closest situations that could reasonably be called crossings are at either end, at Northfield and Conestogo and where the spur line and LRT tracks cross Northfield (well, half of Northfield in the case of the LRT tracks).
The signed railway crossing I am referring to is the crossing near the Nissan dealership. It is properly signed, so it's a crossing. Therefore, no U-turns within 150m of that. The bridge, is the bridge that crosses over the expressway, no U turn within 150m of the bridge. Arguably, that is irrelevant as there are curbs and 2 LRT lines in the middle lanes of the bridge so a U turn would be impossible anyhow.
Does that clarify?
_____________________________________
I used to be the mayor of sim city. I know what I am talking about.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Sorry; is there a rule somewhere that says there's a 150m radius sphere of "No U-Turns allowed" within railway crossings or the ends of bridges?
Posts: 417
Threads: 49
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
10
10-27-2016, 07:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-27-2016, 07:27 PM by Drake.)
My bad. It's 30m for railway crossings and 150m for bridges, etc. 143 Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
_____________________________________
I used to be the mayor of sim city. I know what I am talking about.
Posts: 210
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
Reputation:
4
10-27-2016, 09:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-27-2016, 09:46 PM by embe.)
If a 'u-turn allowed' sign does get posted at the Colby or Parkside intersections: Question becomes how many Driver A (people making a right on the red from those side streets, into their assigned lane) would anticipate a car (Driver B) doing a 180 u-turn to go that same direction of traffic?
Ideally, Driver A stops, looks for pedestrians crossing, oncoming traffic to their left and proceed cautiously on their right turn while keeping to their assigned lane.
Meanwhile Driver B w/ the advance green attempts their 180 degree turning radius to 2 lanes. NOT LIKELY drivers can do a 180 turn keeping to two lanes.
Just don't see this as either safer or convenient?
Posts: 7,526
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
195
10-27-2016, 10:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-27-2016, 10:07 PM by danbrotherston.)
(10-27-2016, 09:39 PM)embe Wrote: If a 'u-turn allowed' sign does get posted at the Colby or Parkside intersections: Question becomes how many Driver A (people making a right on the red from those side streets, into their assigned lane) would anticipate a car (Driver B) doing a 180 u-turn to go that same direction of traffic?
Ideally, Driver A stops, looks for pedestrians crossing, oncoming traffic to their left and proceed cautiously on their right turn while keeping to their assigned lane.
Meanwhile Driver B w/ the advance green attempts their 180 degree turning radius to 2 lanes. NOT LIKELY drivers can do a 180 turn keeping to two lanes.
Just don't see this as either safer or convenient?
First of all, U-turning driver can turn into the leftmost lane, because they're turning across the LRT row, there's plenty of room. Secondly, Driver A who is making a right turn on red is responsible for ensuring they can make the turn safely, that includes anticipating u-turns.
This type of maneuver is not unusual, Roundabouts were far more obscure when we started building them. Even Toronto has u-turn locations. I'm certain that drivers here can figure it out.
And regardless, that is an oblique angle low speed collision, it is still safer than getting t-boned by someone doing 80 km/h.
And besides, you're making another good argument as to why right turn on red is a bad policy.
Posts: 2,002
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
124
These won't be a first for the region. U-turns are permitted on Hespeler and signed as such.
Posts: 210
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
Reputation:
4
(10-27-2016, 10:06 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 1)First of all, U-turning driver can turn into the leftmost lane, because they're turning across the LRT row, there's plenty of room. Secondly, Driver A who is making a right turn on red is responsible for ensuring they can make the turn safely, that includes anticipating u-turns.
2)This type of maneuver is not unusual, Roundabouts were far more obscure when we started building them. Even Toronto has u-turn locations. I'm certain that drivers here can figure it out.
3)And regardless, that is an oblique angle low speed collision, it is still safer than getting t-boned by someone doing 80 km/h.
4)And besides, you're making another good argument as to why right turn on red is a bad policy.
1) sure IF a u-turn drivers can keep to the leftmost lane. And I just can't see the right turn drivers anticipating this
2) Roundabouts are a different topic, agreed
3) safety first
4) Right turn on red in a bad policy? Is that new?
Posts: 7,526
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
195
10-27-2016, 11:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-27-2016, 11:04 PM by danbrotherston.)
(10-27-2016, 10:53 PM)embe Wrote: 1) sure IF a u-turn drivers can keep to the leftmost lane. And I just can't see the right turn drivers anticipating this
2) Roundabouts are a different topic, agreed
3) safety first
4) Right turn on red in a bad policy? Is that new?
2) They're a different topic, my point was to give an example of a traffic device that's relatively uncommon being successfully adopted in the region.
4) In general I mean, right turn on red is dangerous for pedestrians because drivers are often not looking for them (they're busy looking for a space in traffic) and they often obstruct the crosswalk while doing so, and is generally a more dangerous maneuver than turning right on a green.
This hasn't really been made an issue of in most of the country except Quebec, which started allowing them relatively recently (outside of l'Île de Montréal).
http://spacing.ca/montreal/2010/08/19/no...treal-mtq/
Apparently it's caused the deaths of at least 5 people since it was permitted.
However, traffic engineers, ever excited to improve traffic flow like them because they give you more capacity for free in the intersection....at the expense of safety of course.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
My no. 1 pet peeve is when people don't turn into the correct lane. It make me fume!
|