ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Pheidippides]

Obviously the region and Scherer property owners disagree what fair market value it, but at this point in time it comes across as anti-everything-that's-not-a-single-occupancy-vehicle.

[darts]

Obviously the region and Scherer property owners disagree what fair market value it, but at this point in time it comes across as anti-everything-that's-not-a-single-occupancy-vehicle.

how does it come across as that? I didn't think they have actually outlined what their position is.  They probably would resist equally if the region was looking to take their land to add another lane.

They may be interested in trying to keep as much land as possible since it won't be replaced and losing land  now will hurt resale value in the future when they want to turn it into a 50 storey building  with some park space and storm water managment pond.

[tomh009]

Obviously the region and Scherer property owners disagree what fair market value it, but at this point in time it comes across as anti-everything-that's-not-a-single-occupancy-vehicle.

how does it come across as that? I didn't think they have actually outlined what their position is.  They probably would resist equally if the region was looking to take their land to add another lane.

They may be interested in trying to keep as much land as possible since it won't be replaced and losing land  now will hurt resale value in the future when they want to turn it into a 50 storey building  with some park space and storm water managment pond.

Given that the negotiations have dragged on for over 15 months and the region now feels that they need to resort to expropriation, I do expect they have outlined their position to the region (if not to us) -- and the region cannot accept that position.

So the time for talking seems to be over and the land will now be expropriated, without any further negotiation.

[darts]

how does it come across as that? I didn't think they have actually outlined what their position is.  They probably would resist equally if the region was looking to take their land to add another lane.

They may be interested in trying to keep as much land as possible since it won't be replaced and losing land  now will hurt resale value in the future when they want to turn it into a 50 storey building  with some park space and storm water managment pond.

Given that the negotiations have dragged on for over 15 months and the region now feels that they need to resort to expropriation, I do expect they have outlined their position to the region (if not to us) -- and the region cannot accept that position.

So the time for talking seems to be over and the land will now be expropriated, without any further negotiation.

But I don't see how 15 months of negotiations equals "but at this point in time it comes across as anti-everything-that's-not-a-single-occupancy-vehicle."

[Pheidippides]

You are correct that there is nothing about the situation that implies that there is any other motive at work.

I guess I am guilty of projecting my bias(es) on to the situation. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I apologize for implying that. It could be any number of reasons (perceived unfair market value, Libertarianism, other, no reason at all, etc.).

Expropriation sucks for the owner, and put in the same situation and circumstances I may have ended up doing the exact same thing of fighting to the bitter end.

It still strikes me as odd though that once the writing was on the wall that someone would rather spend money on lawyer's fees to get the same price (effectively reducing the "profit") over a sliver of land that functionally doesn't really change the rest of the property than to move on with their life unless they were trying to make a point, what-ever that may be, especially when "fair market value" in the last 15 months would have been higher than ever before thanks to the recent real-estate cycle.

[Viewfromthe42]

If you have lived around that intersection during rush hour, you will have noticed that cars turning from Caroline NB/SB onto Erb St EB/WB don't follow their lanes very well. In each direction, cars will turn illegally wide, cutting the throughput by half or more. When it's turning EB, both sides can complete their turn on the red and aren't in the intersection as much to block anything, but when a left-turning to-WB-Erb car gets caught, it can jam the whole intersection. Since people haven't smartened up about that intersection, even without LRT, I wouldn't be opposed to removing the left due to the traffic issues it causes. Now, Caroline is the primary supply for Erb from the North, and FDB from the south, splitting the loading a bit better.

[ijmorlan]

If you have lived around that intersection during rush hour, you will have noticed that cars turning from Caroline NB/SB onto Erb St EB/WB don't follow their lanes very well. In each direction, cars will turn illegally wide, cutting the throughput by half or more. When it's turning EB, both sides can complete their turn on the red and aren't in the intersection as much to block anything, but when a left-turning to-WB-Erb car gets caught, it can jam the whole intersection. Since people haven't smartened up about that intersection, even without LRT, I wouldn't be opposed to removing the left due to the traffic issues it causes. Now, Caroline is the primary supply for Erb from the North, and FDB from the south, splitting the loading a bit better.

As far as I can tell, hardly anybody knows that they can turn left SB->EB on a red. They just sit there waiting.

Of course, the whole mess could be hugely simplified by eliminating SB straight-through traffic (turn left at FDB), right turns from Erb (turn right at FDB), and right turns NB->EB (use FDB), as well as left turns NB->WB (use FDB). Then the intersection of Caroline and FDB just becomes a bend in the road, except for a driveway to Waterloo Town Square, and Erb and Caroline reduces to a place where the road crosses the tracks (plus the left turn SB->EB, which could just yield to Erb St. traffic). Of course the intersection at FDB would need minor upgrades, in particular more left turn lanes, but there is space for that.

[danbrotherston]

If you have lived around that intersection during rush hour, you will have noticed that cars turning from Caroline NB/SB onto Erb St EB/WB don't follow their lanes very well. In each direction, cars will turn illegally wide, cutting the throughput by half or more. When it's turning EB, both sides can complete their turn on the red and aren't in the intersection as much to block anything, but when a left-turning to-WB-Erb car gets caught, it can jam the whole intersection. Since people haven't smartened up about that intersection, even without LRT, I wouldn't be opposed to removing the left due to the traffic issues it causes. Now, Caroline is the primary supply for Erb from the North, and FDB from the south, splitting the loading a bit better.

As far as I can tell, hardly anybody knows that they can turn left SB->EB on a red. They just sit there waiting.

Of course, the whole mess could be hugely simplified by eliminating SB straight-through traffic (turn left at FDB), right turns from Erb (turn right at FDB), and right turns NB->EB (use FDB), as well as left turns NB->WB (use FDB). Then the intersection of Caroline and FDB just becomes a bend in the road, except for a driveway to Waterloo Town Square, and Erb and Caroline reduces to a place where the road crosses the tracks (plus the left turn SB->EB, which could just yield to Erb St. traffic). Of course the intersection at FDB would need minor upgrades, in particular more left turn lanes, but there is space for that.

That left turn used to be allowed and some people made it.  Now I am not sure of the legality because of the bike box.  It is probably still legal because bike boxes aren't really in the HTA, but it makes people think twice about it.  I don't think that's a common turning movement.

The two biggest improvements they could make at that intersection would be to expand the corner island so that it blocks one lane, and make the right turn channel a direct turn into the lane instead of a merge.  The second would be to make the right turn lane a dedicated signal that only changes to permit trail traffic through (since there would be no other conflicting traffic movements).

[kitborn]

Maybe they need to put up one of those big electronic text signs at the side of the road there, have it flash 'NO LEFT TURNS / EXCEPT BUSES'. Leave it there for a week or two, hopefully get the message across.

You have to see the turn lanes for buses only at Highland Hills Mall to realize that they do not work. People use them all the time.

[urbd]

Ok great discussion about all sorts of left turns in the Region but can we get back on topic to ION? Unless there's nothing else to talk about, we can continue analyzing left turns.

[NotStan]

Maybe they need to put up one of those big electronic text signs at the side of the road there, have it flash 'NO LEFT TURNS / EXCEPT BUSES'. Leave it there for a week or two, hopefully get the message across.

You have to see the turn lanes for buses only at Highland Hills Mall to realize that they do not work. People use them all the time.

There's a difference in knowingly breaking the law as at Highland Hills Mall and inadvertently doing so at Caroline & Erb because the signage is so poor. 
Why don't they put up a camera at HH Mall and snap all the violaters and ticket them?

[ijmorlan]

You have to see the turn lanes for buses only at Highland Hills Mall to realize that they do not work. People use them all the time.

There's a difference in knowingly breaking the law as at Highland Hills Mall and inadvertently doing so at Caroline & Erb because the signage is so poor. 
Why don't they put up a camera at HH Mall and snap all the violaters and ticket them?

I want to know what the effect would be if the signal only went green for buses. Right now I think it is marked as being a transit signal (and there is a pair of them, because we know lights are so unreliable that it just wouldn’t work to have single signals…), but I think it turns green on every cycle, not just when a bus arrives. In other words, would people run a red to take the turn? And now thinking about the legal authorization for the cameras, I know we have red light cameras, so it should be possible to use them there, whether or not using cameras to enforce restricted lanes would be permitted.

[ijmorlan]

That left turn used to be allowed and some people made it.  Now I am not sure of the legality because of the bike box.  It is probably still legal because bike boxes aren't really in the HTA, but it makes people think twice about it.  I don't think that's a common turning movement.

The two biggest improvements they could make at that intersection would be to expand the corner island so that it blocks one lane, and make the right turn channel a direct turn into the lane instead of a merge.  The second would be to make the right turn lane a dedicated signal that only changes to permit trail traffic through (since there would be no other conflicting traffic movements).

I’ve looked carefully for a “no left on red” and it’s not there, so as far as I can see the turn should be permitted, although I agree the (somewhat weird) bike box probably makes people think otherwise (maybe even correctly, non-expert here). By not common, do you mean it’s not common to turn left on a red, or that particular left turn is uncommon? Because when I go by on a typical cycle there is a small lineup of multiple cars waiting to turn. I wouldn’t call it congested but it’s more than the occasional vehicle. Legal left on red is uncommon in this city but very common in places like Calgary with a one-way street grid downtown.

I agree entirely with your proposed improvements (as a more likely outcome in lieu of my idea to almost entirely eliminate the intersection). When the snow comes a large area of road that clearly doesn’t need to be road is made visible. Due to the position of the tracks, I don’t think the turn can be channelized quite as well as one might hope, but I agree that it would help to make it clearer to people turning right that they aren’t really merging with anything.

[danbrotherston]

That left turn used to be allowed and some people made it.  Now I am not sure of the legality because of the bike box.  It is probably still legal because bike boxes aren't really in the HTA, but it makes people think twice about it.  I don't think that's a common turning movement.

The two biggest improvements they could make at that intersection would be to expand the corner island so that it blocks one lane, and make the right turn channel a direct turn into the lane instead of a merge.  The second would be to make the right turn lane a dedicated signal that only changes to permit trail traffic through (since there would be no other conflicting traffic movements).

I’ve looked carefully for a “no left on red” and it’s not there, so as far as I can see the turn should be permitted, although I agree the (somewhat weird) bike box probably makes people think otherwise (maybe even correctly, non-expert here). By not common, do you mean it’s not common to turn left on a red, or that particular left turn is uncommon? Because when I go by on a typical cycle there is a small lineup of multiple cars waiting to turn. I wouldn’t call it congested but it’s more than the occasional vehicle. Legal left on red is uncommon in this city but very common in places like Calgary with a one-way street grid downtown.

I agree entirely with your proposed improvements (as a more likely outcome in lieu of my idea to almost entirely eliminate the intersection). When the snow comes a large area of road that clearly doesn’t need to be road is made visible. Due to the position of the tracks, I don’t think the turn can be channelized quite as well as one might hope, but I agree that it would help to make it clearer to people turning right that they aren’t really merging with anything.

I actually meant that it doesn't carry a high volume of traffic.  I wouldn't judge by the traffic right now, because King is closed everything is messed up.  At least before LRT construction started, I don't think it was a common movement.  It's basically turning around, only drivers coming down Albert who wanted to go west would use it I think.  That being said, I have no idea how common it will be going forward with all the changes around.

The left on red is an unusual turn as well, most drivers are not aware of when it's legal (or don't realize that they are in that situation at that location).

Yes, the 'sneckdowns' at that intersection are particularly spectacular .

[Markster]

I always loved making that left-on-red from Caroline to Erb! But yes, a lot of cars don't realize you can do it.