+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: General Road and Highway Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=335)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - timio - 10-24-2018
Are they putting in the temporary median for the opening, I wonder.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Pheidippides - 11-03-2018
A road safety campaign AND eSolutions group. What could possibly go wrong with that?
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Pheidippides - 11-03-2018
Reading the new report on the proposed relocation of the signal at Bridgeport/Peppler to Bridgeport/Laurel trail has some interesting (and borderline comically (sad)) statements.
What's with the quotation marks around red-light running in the following paragraphs? It makes it sound like that it is a made up issue or something. And if someone can't tell signals apart should they really be driving at all? And why isn't that a problem elsewhere like on King?
"A question was also asked whether closely spaced signals could cause a “red-light running” problem. Traffic control signals spaced close together may result in drivers misinterpreting one set of traffic signals for another. Drivers may observe and react to a downstream traffic signal while failing to observe the indications of a traffic signal first encountered. Similarly, drivers may see the indications of a traffic signal first encountered and fail to observe or expect a downstream traffic signal soon afterwards. This condition can contribute to “red-light running” and angle collisions as a result of “red-light running”."
Why is it that if one-way streets are so horrible that the solution isn't to get rid of the one-way streets instead of denying pedestrians additional crossing?
"The Region has obtained “red-light running” data from its inventory of 16 red-light cameras. This data includes the frequency of “red light” violations and includes information regarding how long a motorist enters an intersection after the onset of a red signal indication (intrusion time). A longer intrusion time is a key indicator of drivers failing to observe a red signal indication.
Three of the top four intersections with the highest average intrusion times following a red signal indication are intersections situated on one-way streets. Of the three intersections situated on one-way streets, Erb Street at Regina Street has the highest average intrusion time of 9.2 seconds after the onset of a red signal. Regional staff believe that there are two primary contributing factors causing drivers to not observe the red traffic signal indication at this location. The contributing factors suspected include:
• The road being a one-way street; and
• Regina Street being situated only 80 metres east of King Street.
Based on the Region’s experience and supporting data, it is anticipated that the Region would create a condition very similar to Erb Street between King Street and Regina, (which has a demonstrated “red-light running” problem) if the signal at Bridgeport Road and Peppler is not removed and a second traffic signal is installed 105 metres east at the Laurel Creek Trail."
If you know people are going to speed why not post for 40kph and design for 50kph, etc.?
"Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) guidelines recommend that a roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h (design speed of 60 km/h) have a stopping sight distance of 75 to 85 metres. The existing westbound stopping sight distance on Bridgeport Road approaching the Laurel Creek Trail is approximately 144 metres. Therefore, this distance meets or exceeds recommended distances approaching the proposed location for the relocated pedestrian signal."
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 11-03-2018
(11-03-2018, 12:38 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: What's with the quotation marks around red-light running in the following paragraphs?
I expect that it's because while "red-light running" is in common usage, it is not a term defined in the HTA.
(11-03-2018, 12:38 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: If you know people are going to speed why not post for 40kph and design for 50kph, etc.?
Or maybe post for 40 km/h.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Momo26 - 11-09-2018
How long is the 401 expansion b/w 8 and Hespeler going to take?
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - timio - 11-09-2018
Eta July 2019. See thread for more: http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/showthread.php?tid=75
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - jamincan - 11-10-2018
I notice that the interchange with Wellington is going to have a giant, high-speed slip ramp onto Wellington heading west. Why in the world do traffic engineers insist on these lanes, often even for regular intersections? They make it very difficult to assess oncoming traffic since they end up positioned in the merging driver's blind spot. At the same time they encourage people to drive faster than is suitable by giving a generous turn radius. The victim of the design (the acceptable cost to avoid the inconvenience of stopping, I guess, according to our Region's Transportation Commissioner) is naturally going to be cyclists.
As a rule, I think slip lanes should only be used where there are few cyclists on the road (due to a MUT or something that crosses the lane at a more oblique angle that allows greater visibility) and where a suitably long ramp that allows merging to occur at speed is possible. It should almost never be used in an urban context. It's not the end of the world to stop and turn when safe!
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 11-10-2018
(11-10-2018, 08:44 AM)jamincan Wrote: I notice that the interchange with Wellington is going to have a giant, high-speed slip ramp onto Wellington heading west. Why in the world do traffic engineers insist on these lanes, often even for regular intersections? They make it very difficult to assess oncoming traffic since they end up positioned in the merging driver's blind spot. At the same time they encourage people to drive faster than is suitable by giving a generous turn radius. The victim of the design (the acceptable cost to avoid the inconvenience of stopping, I guess, according to our Region's Transportation Commissioner) is naturally going to be cyclists.
As a rule, I think slip lanes should only be used where there are few cyclists on the road (due to a MUT or something that crosses the lane at a more oblique angle that allows greater visibility) and where a suitably long ramp that allows merging to occur at speed is possible. It should almost never be used in an urban context. It's not the end of the world to stop and turn when safe!
I believe that is the existing ramp. But yeah, it’s not really appropriate in this context, and it’s interesting to note that the other one (on-ramp from westbound Wellington) is being removed. It seems like it would make much more sense just to have a normal intersection with Wellington.
Personally, as a pedestrian, I like the smaller separate right turn lanes because when I’m crossing the main intersection I don’t have to worry about right-turning vehicles, only straight-through and left-turning vehicles. But I want them to be shaped so that people don’t treat them like highway ramps.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Canard - 11-23-2018
Lots of replies from others who have noticed how awful this now is:
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - panamaniac - 11-23-2018
No advanced green at that intersection?
Edit: Just looked at your tweets. Is the flow of traffic too heavy to allow traffic to move over to the right turn lane to get around the left-turning car?
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Canard - 11-23-2018
That’s not legal, but yes, that’s what some people do.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - GtwoK - 11-24-2018
It's not legal to switch lanes when the lane you are in is moving slowly?
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - kitborn - 11-24-2018
Road markings for turn lanes are not regulatory. Lanes that are indicated with a regulatory sign (white on black) are the ones that have to be obeyed.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Canard - 11-24-2018
(11-24-2018, 02:27 AM)GtwoK Wrote: It's not legal to switch lanes when the lane you are in is moving slowly?
Not if the lanes are marked... in this case the left lane is Left Turn/Straight Through, and the right lane is Right Turn. If you were to switch into the right lane, and go straight through, you would not be following the lane markings. If you were 3 cars back and did this and the left-turning car suddenly was able to turn, the second car would proceed forward, parallel to you... and then you’d either be forced onto the LRT tracks, you’d have to aggressively merge, slam on your brakes, or sit there like a goof stopped with your left turn signal on hoping someone lets you back in (for being impatient). There is only one lane North of this intersection on Charles, if you didn’t know.
(11-24-2018, 07:54 AM)kitborn Wrote: Road markings for turn lanes are not regulatory. Lanes that are indicated with a regulatory sign (white on black) are the ones that have to be obeyed.
Wow, that’s news to me... is this actually written somewhere? It’s been a while since I went to drivers school, but I was of the impression lane markings were the law. So this isn’t the case, and people can just do whatever they want?
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - kitborn - 11-24-2018
(11-24-2018, 07:54 AM)kitborn Wrote: Road markings for turn lanes are not regulatory. Lanes that are indicated with a regulatory sign (white on black) are the ones that have to be obeyed.
Wow, that’s news to me... is this actually written somewhere? It’s been a while since I went to drivers school, but I was of the impression lane markings were the law. So this isn’t the case, and people can just do whatever they want?
How can road marking be seen in the event of snow covering the road?