Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Stephane Dumas]

We talk of this since the 1960s and can we said this is THE moment we awaiting for Hwy-7 freeway between Kitchener and Guelph?  https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/breaking-province-announces-new-highway-7-to-be-built-2564995

And there this video posted last April showing construction progress of Hwy-427 extension. 

[Tom]

Members of a church located on Ont. Hwy 666 successfully got MTO to renumber the highway in 1985:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=QBJtjoHflPwC&dat=19851023&printsec=frontpage&hl=en (p.A5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_658 
 

[Stephane Dumas]

Members of a church located on Ont. Hwy 666 successfully got MTO to renumber the highway in 1985:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=QBJtjoHflPwC&dat=19851023&printsec=frontpage&hl=en (p.A5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_658 
 

I wonder if that highway got its signs often stolen like the former US-666?

I also got a more direct link to that article, I hope it'll work. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BV8zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tO8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4935%2C894629

[cbeach40]

Members of a church located on Ont. Hwy 666 successfully got MTO to renumber the highway in 1985:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=QBJtjoHflPwC&dat=19851023&printsec=frontpage&hl=en (p.A5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_658 
 

I wonder if that highway got its signs often stolen like the former US-666?

I also got a more direct link to that article, I hope it'll work. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BV8zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tO8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4935%2C894629

They often did. Highway 69 and Highway 420 often get stolen too for some reasons. 

[Stephane Dumas]

I saw that one on Skyscraperpage forums. https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9028843&postcount=826 Some commuters are sceptical about Toronto's third bypass aka possibly Hwy-413.
https://www.theifp.ca/news-story/10159512--between-30-to-60-seconds-new-400-series-highway-won-t-improve-commutes-for-georgetown-commuters/

Plans for a new highway that will ease traffic congestion through the Greater Toronto Area has been opposed by several groups in favour of alternative forms of transit.

The GTA West Highway, Highway 413, will pass through Halton Hills – stretching from Hwy. 407 in Milton to Hwy. 400 in Vaughan.

“The major issue is that this project is going to have significant impact on the environment and the communities through which it will pass,” said Keith Brooks, program director for Environmental Defense, “and it will deliver next to nothing in terms of benefits.”

According to a report commissioned by the Ontario government in 2018, the GTA West Corridor would save the average commuters between 30 and 60 seconds of travel time per trip.

As one user on Skyscraperpage mentionned, they could realign that proposed bypass and link it with the Bradford bypass.

[andrepoiy]

So technically not an Ontario highway anymore, but the VIVA Rapidways on Yonge Street seems to be mostly done! vivanext.com says it's 94% done and should be done by the end of 2020. (which is in a few weeks)

[andrepoiy]

So I was driving along Highway 48 today and when I came across the roundabout with Bloomington Road, I noticed the large amounts of money just dedicated to signage. Here's dashcam video, notice the 3 signs. First is a simple roundabout sign, the next one is the roundabout except showing the control cities, and the third is on a gantry showing the lanes and everything.

[jakeroot]

I have definitely never seen a roundabout in BC with two diagrammatic signs (the ground-mounted directional sign with arrows). I've also not seen white-on-green lane-use signs before. Over here, they're black-on-white.

[cbeach40]

I have definitely never seen a roundabout in BC with two diagrammatic signs (the ground-mounted directional sign with arrows). I've also not seen white-on-green lane-use signs before. Over here, they're black-on-white.

Black on white are typical here too but also regulatory. Green on white was selected to provide guidance but not be legally enforceable. If they were, large vehicles that have to straddle the roundabout lanes would be doing so illegally.

[jakeroot]

I have definitely never seen a roundabout in BC with two diagrammatic signs (the ground-mounted directional sign with arrows). I've also not seen white-on-green lane-use signs before. Over here, they're black-on-white.

Black on white are typical here too but also regulatory. Green on white was selected to provide guidance but not be legally enforceable. If they were, large vehicles that have to straddle the roundabout lanes would be doing so illegally.

Why the change from standard practice? It may not be technically legal to straddle lanes but it's not enforced?

[cbeach40]

I have definitely never seen a roundabout in BC with two diagrammatic signs (the ground-mounted directional sign with arrows). I've also not seen white-on-green lane-use signs before. Over here, they're black-on-white.

Black on white are typical here too but also regulatory. Green on white was selected to provide guidance but not be legally enforceable. If they were, large vehicles that have to straddle the roundabout lanes would be doing so illegally.

Why the change from standard practice? It may not be technically legal to straddle lanes but it's not enforced?

Basically, it's a new standard practice. The old one would open up a host of legal problems. The very, very short version of that is if there's ever a crash where regulatory signs are in place, but they contravene other messaging in place, then the road authority is definitely getting sued big time and the engineer who signed off on it would get their license revoked.

So, invent a new standard that's clear to drivers but doesn't put yourself in legal hell.

[jakeroot]

I have definitely never seen a roundabout in BC with two diagrammatic signs (the ground-mounted directional sign with arrows). I've also not seen white-on-green lane-use signs before. Over here, they're black-on-white.

Black on white are typical here too but also regulatory. Green on white was selected to provide guidance but not be legally enforceable. If they were, large vehicles that have to straddle the roundabout lanes would be doing so illegally.

Why the change from standard practice? It may not be technically legal to straddle lanes but it's not enforced?

Basically, it's a new standard practice. The old one would open up a host of legal problems. The very, very short version of that is if there's ever a crash where regulatory signs are in place, but they contravene other messaging in place, then the road authority is definitely getting sued big time and the engineer who signed off on it would get their license revoked.

So, invent a new standard that's clear to drivers but doesn't put yourself in legal hell.

Would it remove MTO from legal hell? I'm curious what the precedent is here. The bigger issue seems to be legal hell for everyone else: the new signs seem to imply that sticking to the lane lines is mere guidance and that drivers may, if they choose, simply ignore them. If the idea is for drivers who ignore the lines to potentially still be found at fault (there's still a sign!), then what have truckers gained from white-on-green signs? Either the lane lines are enforced or they're not.

Trucks and buses all over the US and Canada have warnings on the back that warn of lane-straddling/splitting and wide turns, and both types of vehicles frequently ignore existing regulatory signage and markings to safely complete manoeuvres. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that has laws on the books permitting either vehicle to legally do these things, but its understood that they must. When a crash occurs, it is not the road authority who is found liable but those involved: if you search "truck wide right turn", 90% of the results are law firms looking to represent those involved in crashes. None of the pages seem to imply any DOT or MOT is responsible.

[cbeach40]

Would it remove MTO from legal hell? I'm curious what the precedent is here. The bigger issue seems to be legal hell for everyone else: the new signs seem to imply that sticking to the lane lines is mere guidance and that drivers may, if they choose, simply ignore them. If the idea is for drivers who ignore the lines to potentially still be found at fault (there's still a sign!), then what have truckers gained from white-on-green signs? Either the lane lines are enforced or they're not.

For MTO, as their multi-lane roundabouts necessitate trucks straddling the lanes, and their signs and publications reflect that, then basically if they install regulatory signs then the messaging is contradictory. And if there's a crash and they get sued (which happens all the time), then that's a huge hole in their defense.

The advantage for drivers is that they are not obligated to follow the lane designations. If they were regulatory, then failure to follow them would be a Highway Traffic Act charge. But since they're not, even in the event of a collision they could not be charged for that.

So basically the signs are there to help people find the right lane, but it's not demanding that they do so.

Trucks and buses all over the US and Canada have warnings on the back that warn of lane-straddling/splitting and wide turns, and both types of vehicles frequently ignore existing regulatory signage and markings to safely complete manoeuvres. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that has laws on the books permitting either vehicle to legally do these things, but its understood that they must. When a crash occurs, it is not the road authority who is found liable but those involved: if you search "truck wide right turn", 90% of the results are law firms looking to represent those involved in crashes. None of the pages seem to imply any DOT or MOT is responsible.

If an intersection's design will not accommodate the appropriate design vehicle (eg, a transport truck), then it probably would be irresponsible to put a lane designation on it. But that's up to them.

In terms of those law firms, yes, they are representing the victims of those crashes. And in addition to the trucking company, the driver and/or their insurance company, they will most assuredly sue the road authority as well. And the condition and messaging of the signs in the area will be one of the first things they look at.