tnarduzzi said:
Wasn't there supposed to be a "jog around the column" for the third (northmost) lane coming off the ramp to continue onto Harbour? Anybody have a link to a schematic of the lane layout as built?
Click to expand...
Here you go. It does look like they are abandoning that idea. They would have to re-do the work they just did to accommodate that additional lane. I predict that the ramp will have a 3rd "right-turn only" lane. And two lanes will continue onto Harbour Street
 
Last edited:
MetroMan said:
Had the now unnecessary pillar been moved, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It would have allowed the road to be moved several metres north freeing up plenty of space for both a bike path and a wide sidewalk. That pillar and beam was only there to support the now removed overpass. It should have been replaced with a standard bent like the ones that can seen ahead of it.
Click to expand...

I just want to point out that the now removed exit ramp was never supported by that awkwardly located column. This column was (and likely must remain?) in this location to allow Lake Shore/Harbour to diverge out from underneath the Gardiner.

Screen Shot 2017-09-04 at 23.04.55.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-09-04 at 23.04.55.png
    Screen Shot 2017-09-04 at 23.04.55.png
    777.1 KB · Views: 398
Last edited:
Panontario said:
Here you go. It does look like they are abandoning that idea. They would have to re-do the work they just did to accommodate that additional lane. I predict that the ramp will have a 3rd "right-turn only" lane. And two lanes will continue onto Harbour Street
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I think you are correct that one of the ramp lanes will be right turn only. I wonder what prompted this change in design.

Also, it doesn't look like that laneway/side-street is going in on the east side of the park up against RBC Waterfront.
 
tnarduzzi said:
I wonder what prompted this change in design.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it was a safety concern. Both lanes go in the same direction (straight on), so it's not inconceivable that someone might think they can change from one straight-on lane to the other, and drive into the pier. On top of that, the two right-most off-ramp lanes would've had to merge into one about 100 meters past the traffic light.
 
TransitBart said:
Huh?
Click to expand...
Implied sarcasm. But really it is probably a good idea to keep flow moving and prevent tailbacks into the intersection and gridlocking on Simcoe. To me it seems like commuters in the GTA cannot merge at speed. People here drive with too much of a mentality to fight and jockey for position. Hell we could even expand the problem to merging with all of Ontario drivers... just compare the length of a 400-series onramp to those found on Quebec's autoroutes. The required skillset for a "competent driver" in Ontario is apparently very low, as such I imply we should build the roads accordingly. That weave would have seriously confused people. Especially if both Lake Shore eastbound and the off-ramp will be sharing the same green signal phase.
 
tnarduzzi said:
Implied sarcasm. But really it is probably a good idea to keep flow moving and prevent tailbacks into the intersection and gridlocking on Simcoe. To me it seems like commuters in the GTA cannot merge at speed. People here drive with too much of a mentality to fight and jockey for position. Hell we could even expand the problem to merging with all of Ontario drivers... just compare the length of a 400-series onramp to those found on Quebec's autoroutes. The required skillset for a "competent driver" in Ontario is apparently very low, as such I imply we should build the roads accordingly. That weave would have seriously confused people. Especially if both Lake Shore eastbound and the off-ramp will be sharing the same green signal phase.
Click to expand...

Yes. Drivers in Ontario are spoiled by the high standards of infrastructure - wide lanes, long sightlines, gentle curves, right turn lanes and directional rights, long acceleration lanes on our freeways.

Yet while we build to really high standards for our motorists, we have very poor standards for everyone else. The MTO paves wide shoulders on its freeways, but with very few exceptions, they refuse to do so on roads where cyclists might want to ride - same with many municipalities. In urban areas, those wide lanes come at the expense of wider sidewalks and bike infrastructure. Directional right turns make it even more difficult for pedestrians to cross at intersections.

Our motorists are spoiled.
 
Panontario said:
Here you go. It does look like they are abandoning that idea. They would have to re-do the work they just did to accommodate that additional lane. I predict that the ramp will have a 3rd "right-turn only" lane. And two lanes will continue onto Harbour Street
Click to expand...

From what I have seen the 3rd ramp lane is still through and right, but it merges with the adjacent lane about 100m east of the intersection.
 
darth_freeman said:
From what I have seen the 3rd ramp lane is still through and right, but it merges with the adjacent lane about 100m east of the intersection.
Click to expand...
There is no room for 3 lanes east of Simcoe, only for 2.

As pointed out earlier, there will be an right hand turning lane and 2 through lanes on the off ramp at the base. There will be 2 lanes coming off the Gardiner.
36906836121_0d2b412b3b_b.jpg

36212980384_34f86f8a67_b.jpg

36212981534_66a9c910c0_b.jpg

36240214393_31c534afc7_b.jpg

36212983514_a8d2a2fd35_b.jpg

36651141980_96f592659f_b.jpg

36213013834_cc5c816160_b.jpg

36651128490_a045855cb7_b.jpg
 
ShonTron said:
Yes. Drivers in Ontario are spoiled by the high standards of infrastructure - wide lanes, long sightlines, gentle curves, right turn lanes and directional rights, long acceleration lanes on our freeways.

Yet while we build to really high standards for our motorists, we have very poor standards for everyone else. The MTO paves wide shoulders on its freeways, but with very few exceptions, they refuse to do so on roads where cyclists might want to ride - same with many municipalities. In urban areas, those wide lanes come at the expense of wider sidewalks and bike infrastructure. Directional right turns make it even more difficult for pedestrians to cross at intersections.

Our motorists are spoiled.
Click to expand...

I am not sure exactly what you are getting at here but I wanted to add this...

"Because f*** cyclists."

But seriously. Can you imagine it being a good idea to promote cycling on roads with an average speed limit of 80 KM/h or more? This is just asking for fatalities. And no don't tell me that Highway 17 across northern Ontario should have it's shoulders paved. Nor should the limit on 17 be dropped below 90 KM/h. Both would be politically correct ideology at the expense of practicality. I am tired of this urbanist UrbanToronto cycling rhetoric. Sorry it's nothing personal but come on. I am saying that Ontario drivers cannot merge and somehow this becomes about road sharing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's interesting is that while we have the safest designed roads our auto insurance is the highest in the country?
 
tnarduzzi said:
I am not sure exactly what you are getting at here but I wanted to add this...

"Because f*** cyclists."

But seriously. Can you imagine it being a good idea to promote cycling on roads with an average speed limit of 80 KM/h or more? This is just asking for fatalities. And no don't tell me that Highway 17 across northern Ontario should have it's shoulders paved. Nor should the limit on 17 be dropped below 90 KM/h. Both would be politically correct ideology at the expense of practicality. I am tired of this urbanist UrbanToronto cycling rhetoric. Sorry it's nothing personal but come on. I am saying that Ontario drivers cannot merge and somehow this becomes about road sharing.
Click to expand...

Who invited Doug Ford to Urban Toronto?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top