News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.7K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.3K     4 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2.1K     0 

Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

Haljackey said:
They are starting with a pilot project - probably a lightly used 400-series stretch.

Probably one with a good design standard.

Where may it be? 401 between Woodstock and Kitchener? 402? 403 between Woodstock & Hamilton? Those are my guesses.

Will trucks be allowed to go the same speed?

What will the limit be? 120? 130?

Speed variance is what kills.

Hopefully this will help keep most traffic (85th percentile) flowing at a similar speed.
Click to expand...
Imo a major problem is the driver education itself. Compared to Europe, drivers here are woefully prepared for highway driving. You dont even need formal training to take the test so alot of the drivers just downright suck on the 400s. Until theres an adequate driver ed program that teaches drivers to drive in all conditions at highway speeds, the you'll always see severe fluctuations in speed and skill.
 
A couple of the western counties have 90km - I think Bruce does as well on their county roads.
I agree that inadequate driver training is a problem.
Speed differential is a concern. Some of the 401 stretches with heavy truck traffic but are still 4-lane would be a concern. I would also like to see legislated minimums as well so long as there are alternate routes. Some US jurisdictions have a maximum, a truck maximum as well as a minimum. I don't know about Europe.
I would be interested to see variable speed limits tried in problem areas. There is a stretch of Quebec 20 that is susceptible to fog that has it. Doing it on a wide scale would likely be very costly in terms of signage, networks, control and management, etc. Areas of Simcoe County experience lake-effect snow streamers that come and go in a blink that would be difficult to manage. I also don't know how the enforcement aspect works in the other jurisdictions.
 
Many places in the US have you doing 135 legally and that nice. Even with higher speed limits in the US, you are getting pass by those who want to do 160 easy.

I have no issues with 120 on the highways outside city limits since I do 110-120 in the first place, base on road conditions and weather. Very rare I don't get pass on my trip at 120 to the point I have join a convoy of cars doing 140 plus, but back off doing 140 for long distance.

It was a pain doing 55 m/hr in many states next to another that had higher speed to the point they are now 65-75. NY was one of the last to move to higher speeds.

Bottom line, 70% of drivers don't know how to drive, let alone doing high speed on highways. Can't count the time I ran into Sunday drivers in the left lane under the speed limit and they are the ones who cause accidents since other drivers come upon them fast and force to change lane quickly to the point of cutting other drivers off.

As long testing is done on parking lots and not doing it on the real road and a highway, going to have bad drivers out there killing other drivers.

There are roads that will have lower speed limits since they weren't design for high speed in the first place.

Speed does kill people regardless how good a driver you are.

Try doing 90 km across the western province that are flat, straight and its a killer.
 
lenaitch said:
A couple of the western counties have 90km - I think Bruce does as well on their county roads.
I agree that inadequate driver training is a problem.
Speed differential is a concern. Some of the 401 stretches with heavy truck traffic but are still 4-lane would be a concern. I would also like to see legislated minimums as well so long as there are alternate routes. Some US jurisdictions have a maximum, a truck maximum as well as a minimum. I don't know about Europe.
I would be interested to see variable speed limits tried in problem areas. There is a stretch of Quebec 20 that is susceptible to fog that has it. Doing it on a wide scale would likely be very costly in terms of signage, networks, control and management, etc. Areas of Simcoe County experience lake-effect snow streamers that come and go in a blink that would be difficult to manage. I also don't know how the enforcement aspect works in the other jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
How does a minimum speed work? Is it essentially the as having a minimum speed that is simply "unreasonably safe", compared to having a fixed number (i.e.70 km/h). In either case, a slow driver would argue the conditions weren't ideal, there were potholes or pavement cracks to avoid, or whatnot. After all, I don't think we expect vehicles to travel the minimum (i.e. 70), regardless of the weather.
 
drum118 said:
Many places in the US have you doing 135 legally and that nice.
Click to expand...
Where? The highest I've seen is 113 km/hr (70 mph), though I've heard mention of 75 mph (120) and even 80 mph (129 km/hr) in Montana and some remote areas.

I have a hard time believing that there are many places in the USA that are signed at 85 mph!
 
They should introduce variable speed limit depending on condition. The 401 in a traffic jam should have a lower limit like 60-80 km/h which prevents people from going from 0 to 100 km/h and slowing down again. Meanwhile at night time 110-120 should be tolerated. For rural sections in clear weather, they could allow 120-130 km/h but reduce to 80-100 km/h in foggy and rainy conditions.

The 400 north of Barrie should really be 130 km/h in day times. Slower limit at night to reduce collision with wildlife is necessary. There's barely any traffic there.

nfitz said:
Where? The highest I've seen is 113 km/hr (70 mph), though I've heard mention of 75 mph (120) and even 80 mph (129 km/hr) in Montana and some remote areas.

I have a hard time believing that there are many places in the USA that are signed at 85 mph!
Click to expand...
There's a toll highway in Texas that allows 85 MPH. It's the only one. There's a long segments in Texas that allows 80 MPH.
 
nfitz said:
Where? The highest I've seen is 113 km/hr (70 mph), though I've heard mention of 75 mph (120) and even 80 mph (129 km/hr) in Montana and some remote areas.

I have a hard time believing that there are many places in the USA that are signed at 85 mph!
Click to expand...
I can't speak for other states, but Arizona has speed limits at 85mph.
 
nfitz said:
Where? The highest I've seen is 113 km/hr (70 mph), though I've heard mention of 75 mph (120) and even 80 mph (129 km/hr) in Montana and some remote areas.

I have a hard time believing that there are many places in the USA that are signed at 85 mph!
Click to expand...
Opps that should been 125. Up to 1999, Montana had no speed limit during the day with trucks doing 65 and everyone doing 65 at night. South of Canada on I 95 speed is 75 mph which surprised me. Lots of places on the east coast you will find 65-70 as the norm. Texas 130 has a speed limit of 85 with Texas looking at moving from 80 to 85.

7 states have 65 as max, 7 states have 80 as max and 13 at 75, with the rest being 70.

There are places you will find minimum speed limits as well max for car and trucks. Many places, the speed for trucks is less than cars.
 
Blew a tire today after going over a ridiculously bad pot hole I didn't see in the dark. What's the process for filing a claim against the city?
 
Hawaii has a maximum speed limit of 55, although in many cases, road geometry allows for much less (eg. Hana highway on Maui)
 
Haljackey said:
They are starting with a pilot project - probably a lightly used 400-series stretch.

Where may it be? 401 between Woodstock and Kitchener? 402? 403 between Woodstock & Hamilton? Those are my guesses.
Click to expand...

402 would be a great test case. Long, no major cities, wide median and lots of trucks. Plus 2 lanes. Good test to see if cars + trucks can co-exist. Also would encourage people to use the 402 while the 401 is under construction.

If there is sufficient increase in speed (say to 125) I think a good bargain is to include speed cameras. Every bridge, random spots, etc. If we all go the same speed and it's reasonably fast it is quite likely to decrease accidents.

(speed cameras for too fast AND too slow!)
 
I don't think speed cameras for too slow would be useful. There are many legitimate reasons to be going slow and you shouldn't penalize people for expressing their right to be cautious (when circumstances merit.)
 
timio said:
Blinding sun, mist, light rain, snow, strong winds, fog, in the rain at night, driving on a spare tire to the next exit - all legitimate reasons, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

That's different, in those cases everybody should be driving slow.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top