Northfield / 85 Exchange upgrades?

[Pheidippides]

I'm sure it is only a matter of time to get the proper signage up. There are a few along King like this one at Mt. Hope:
   

[MidTowner]

I'm also unaccountably annoyed when I see a motorist turning into the wrong lane. I just don't get it. Just laziness? Or some other reason I can't guess?

danbrotherston, Right turn on red is bad, I agree. At minimum, in highly built-up areas it shouldn't be permitted.

[danbrotherston]

@MidTowner It bugs me a little when I see drivers turn into the wrong lane, it bugs me a lot when they cut me off in doing so. I think sometimes it's laziness it could also be incompetence, but what it indicates is poor vehicle control and/or improper speed through the turn. Either reason is scary in a driver.

[Elmira Guy]

In addition to signage warning drivers on the cross streets that drivers on Northfield will be employing U-turns, could there not also be signage prohibiting right turns on reds for drivers on those same roads?

[kps]

My bad. It's 30m for railway crossings and 150m for bridges, etc. 143 Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.

(d) within 150 metres of a bridge, viaduct or tunnel where the driver’s view is obstructed within such distance.

[ijmorlan]

My bad. It's 30m for railway crossings and 150m for bridges, etc. 143 Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.

(d) within 150 metres of a bridge, viaduct or tunnel where the driver’s view is obstructed within such distance.

Suggesting that if the view is not obstructed, the limitation might not apply at all. Which only makes sense. Depending on the design of the bridge and the surroundings, it might not even be obviously a bridge. There are places in Toronto where the road crosses the subway on a bridge, but the area on both sides of the bridge has been decked over so the subway is no longer visible at all.

[tomh009]

Right turn on red is bad, I agree. At minimum, in highly built-up areas it shouldn't be permitted.

No.  Allow everywhere, or disallow everywhere.  Inconsistent traffic rules are just asking for trouble.

[Markster]

I can't see how the cut throughs for the fire department can be used by regular traffic.

Notably, I was through there this morning, and the cut-through for the fire station indeed has a "No U-Turn" sign. I did not get a look at either Parkside or Colby.

[MidTowner]

No.  Allow everywhere, or disallow everywhere.  Inconsistent traffic rules are just asking for trouble.

We already have 'No Right Turn on Red' signs at some intersections; I think they ought to be used at many more. We also have signs indicating no right or left turn at certain intersections at certain times of day; those are wildly inconsistent, but necessary for a variety of reasons.

[Elmira Guy]

/\ Agreed. In fact I made this very point further up. No one noticed I guess. :-S

[MidTowner]

Oops, sorry! I got a bit off topic, and am expressing a desire to see more 'No Right on Red' signs in places where people are likely to be. Your suggestion to have them at Conestogo and Parkside is a good one, both because of the U-Turn issue, but also because it's a station area...so hopefully there will be a lot of people on foot around.

[tomh009]

No.  Allow everywhere, or disallow everywhere.  Inconsistent traffic rules are just asking for trouble.

We already have 'No Right Turn on Red' signs at some intersections; I think they ought to be used at many more. We also have signs indicating no right or left turn at certain intersections at certain times of day; those are wildly inconsistent, but necessary for a variety of reasons.

If it's signed I'm OK with that.  A blanket rule for some arbitrary areas is not good, though.

[MidTowner]

If it's signed I'm OK with that.  A blanket rule for some arbitrary areas is not good, though.

Sorry if it was unclear. I mean that, generally, intersections in built-up areas should not permit a right on red, but that these should be signed (which is required by the HTA- I don't think a municipality could create a "zone" anyway).

[danbrotherston]

If it's signed I'm OK with that.  A blanket rule for some arbitrary areas is not good, though.

Sorry if it was unclear. I mean that, generally, intersections in built-up areas should not permit a right on red, but that these should be signed (which is required by the HTA- I don't think a municipality could create a "zone" anyway).

Hard to say, I believe municipalities have blanket rules for parking, I've seen them on the way into some cities.

Montreal does it for Right turn on Red, but they're obviously not governed by the Ontario Highway Traffic Act--however, it does seem to work well enough there.

[nms]

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.

This would have been easy if it were only a 4m swath for a platform. Unfortunately, there was also a need to provide patron parking which required a much larger piece of property.   Since the LRT was announced, most pieces of property immediately around that location were targeted for development with its own parking requirements.  As a result, there was no room for a long-term parking solution.

Personally, I have avoided the Northfield/85 ramps since the directions that I needed were the worst to get on or off.