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
MTO did a preliminary design for it a few years ago but it hasn't shown up on the highways plan for imminent construction.Any plans to reconfigure 401 through Belleville? That to me seems much more substandard than Thorold Stone.
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.Here's a question for UT's Highway expert:
Are there any plans for this section Highway 3:
View attachment 547351
I feel quite strongly that this section should either remain a local road, where applicable, or even be removed (re-aligned) entirely. Its very close to the water and really cuts off Lake access in some measure, most of the properties on the south (lake side) are subject to erosion issues and may have to be removed anyway. Better to rebuild the road further north, particularly east of Wheatley and line it up to #6 or #8 east of Merlin.
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.
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.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?
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.
That's crying for a signalized right turn.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?
View attachment 549011
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.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?
View attachment 549011
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.
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.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
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 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
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”.