Square_Clock
New Member
Do we thing we could ever see Bradford bypass extended west to connect to Alliston instead of hwy 89 bypass as talked about above
|
|
|
Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion
- Thread starter Haljackey
- Start date
innsertnamehere
Superstar
MTO did a preliminary design for it a few years ago but it hasn't shown up on the highways plan for imminent construction.
ericmacm
Active Member
This downloaded section of HWY 3 that runs through Chatham is now known as Talbot Trail. There are long-term plans to realign the road, and the municipality of Chatham-Kent has assessed the shoreline within its borders. They have come up with a 30-year erosion estimate and a 100-year erosion estimate. As of now, the only piece of this project planned is a small section of road just east of Wheatley that has already been closed down due to erosion-related safety concerns. Chatham-Kent is planning to realign this section of road beyond the 30-year erosion line, just shy of the 100-year line at the cost of $4M.
We definitely need to see more measures taken into account to protect the Lake Erie shoreline even if it means creating a larger forested buffer between the shore and farmland or roadway. High water levels are going to continue eating away at it unless this is done. Forests of those giant cottonwood/poplar trees are the only reason sand spits like Point Pelee, Rondeau, and Long Point even exist in the first place. I've seen the beach at Long Point recede every year over the course of my life and it is significant.
Northern Light
Superstar
Exactly why I support making the shoreline park space, it can forested, w/some coastal wetlands as appropriate, and support a recreation bike trail. Where desired, near urban areas, it could have added depth and traditional park features (playgrounds and sports field inland from the naturalization.
Preferable in every way to spending lots of $$ on shoreline hardening or breakwalls; some of which may be needed in more urbanized pockets that won't be moving.
**
Do you have a link for the realignment project?
ericmacm
Active Member
I can’t find the actual ESA study at the moment (appears to be missing from the website), but the information comes from a planning document I found from 2020 that identifies a conceptual corridor for realignment between Wheatley and Erieau (the section closest to the shoreline and most at risk), with a few options highlighted for the potential new segment between Campbell Road and Port Road. Obviously this is way in the early stages.
There is also a planning study from the Lower Thames Conservation Authority that has the info about erosion estimates.
Northern Light
Superstar
Thank you! Excellent contribution.
From the Planning Study above, a good photographic example of the problem:
What the Erosion risk to the road looks like:
Look at the projected regulatory flood plain (100-year storm) with climate change modeled in)
More of the above, with/without climate change:
Ok, I need to stop for tonight, I only got to p.80. more at the link above.
Last edited:
hawc
Senior Member
Looking down at the 401/ DVP / 404 interchange this morning.
turbanplanner
Active Member
Anyone familiar with the HTA? I thought U turns are at fault for any sort of accident 100% of the time, saw an interesting sign in Woodbridge that may counter that?
afransen
Senior Member
That's crying for a signalized right turn.
lenaitch
Senior Member
This sign is stating the legally obvious (and by general design, amber sign is advisory). Without quoting chapter and verse, a vehicle facing a red indication may turn right after stopping provided they yield to any vehicles lawfully in the intersection. Since the other roadway is facing a green, they have the right-of-way.
U-turns in intersections are legal unless specifically prohibited. Personally, I would prefer they not be.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
The only reason I can think of for the sign (and there are a few instances along Hwy where the VIVA rapidways operate in the median) is where the interchange explicitly indicates that the intersection is dedicated for making a U-Turn. Often done where there is a business or some address that can only be access via a right turn.
So I'm curious where this sign is located...
See the location below where the sign explicitly indicates "U-Turn permitted".
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.787...SLdPUV0q9f_8mwSg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Bojaxs
Active Member
Saw something similar when I was in Calgary earlier this year. BRT running down International Ave., They allow a U-turn at every left turn when the "left turn light" turns green.
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com
lenaitch
Senior Member
I suspect the sign is there because of a high collision count or multiple 'close call' complaints, possibly because of the configuration of the intersection or some adjacent factor that is causing a high rate of u-turns (in my experience, they're really not all that common).
The sign on Hwy 7 is there to permit u-turns on the left turn signal; otherwise they would be prohibited because it is a dedicated lane signal for a dedicated purpose and, without the statement at the bottom, the sign says 'left turn signal'. Section 144(9) of the HTA basically says that the rules regarding rights-of-way, movements and signal indication rules are subject to any sign that is posted (like in this case). U-turns are still legal for the 'through signals because there is no sign prohibiting them. In the case of intersections like this, I find that particularly dangerous. It's a large intersection and, with the bus shelters, barriers and possibly transit vehicles sitting at the line, the sight lines look particularly poor.
ericmacm
Active Member
Work is now starting on the replacement of the HWY 401 Dorchester Road interchange just east of London. I saw some tree clearing happening last week, and today I saw that some early grading work is starting. I’m hoping that this interchange gets replaced relatively quickly like what was seen with the Westchester Bourne interchange just down the road.
Additionally, not much is happening at the HWY 401 Colonel Talbot Road interchange/Glanworth Drive underpass yet. I have only seen some minor tree clearing happen so far but nothing else, even though the Southern Highways Program shows this project as “underway”.
Additionally, not much is happening at the HWY 401 Colonel Talbot Road interchange/Glanworth Drive underpass yet. I have only seen some minor tree clearing happen so far but nothing else, even though the Southern Highways Program shows this project as “underway”.
Haljackey
Active Member
RIP to the last original 401 overpasses.
I always liked the one at Dorchester because you could see it a long ways off coming up that incline going WB. It looks pretty cool without a central support, but I'm sure the replacement will be generic and have one.
Westchester had a similar design and they also reconfigured the ramps with this work from a diamond (former cloverleaf) to some kind of hybrid thing. I wonder if they are doing the same at Dorchester. It was also a cloverleaf originally but due to the hill to the east, maybe they won't put any loops back in.
----
As for Highway 4, the whole 401 west of London was paraded by Douggie and his followers to be 6-laned relatively quickly and a barrier built in the median. Other than a short expansion through Tilbury the year after it was announced to 'build the barrier', nothing else has been done. While a barrier does exist at Highway 4, the overpass has to be replaced to get 6 lanes through and it's still a cloverleaf (and a odd one at that), so a redesign of the obsolete ramps is way overdue.
Last edited: