General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours

[ijmorlan]

Left turns on red are permitted there, because it is a one way road to another one way road.  Many drivers do not know, and worse, many drivers honk and harass people who wait (which by the way is legal, unlike making a nuisance by honking--which all the people who live in the nearby buildings get to listen too).

Now with the bike box, it is even less clear that left turns are legal on red, but I believe under the letter of the law they are.

I have an idea that the bike box implicitly cancels the left-turn-on-red. If there was a bike box at a right turn, it would cancel right-turn-on-red, if I’m right.

Having said that, if that’s true, it should be explicitly signed.

Also, the bike box at the left turn is useless, so left turn on red definitely should be allowed. Bike boxes are intended to collect bicycle traffic halfway through making a left turn, and as such are not needed in left turn lanes. Given the poor knowledge of drivers, there probably ought to be a sign telling people that left turn on red is allowed. Except that would seem to imply it’s not allowed elsewhere. But where else in the Region do we have legal left turn on red? We don’t have an extensive network of one-way streets so there are few locations where it is a possibility.

As for the train barrier, I've noticed that the train signals and traffic lights make almost no sense at all when the train is going through, entirely non-conflicting movements are blocked for no reason.  I've even seen the ped signals turn off for the straight direction.  Of course in a world where we have a no-walk signal at a retaining wall, this isn't totally shocking.

In particular, when it is the southbound track that is in use, Caroline should get a green (no northbound left turn, obviously, but that is supposed to be bus-triggered in any case). There is no conflict between Caroline St. traffic and the southbound track.

Even with the northbound track, the pedestrian crossings across Erb on the east side and across Caroline on the north side should be allowed to go. I’ve actually been known to bicycle straight across the intersection parallel to the tracks when the crossing protection is activated — there is absolutely no conflicting motor vehicle traffic.

This isn’t the only location with issues. At University, the multi-use trail crossing could get a proceed signal when the crossing protection activates, but doesn’t.

[timc]

I have an idea that the bike box implicitly cancels the left-turn-on-red. If there was a bike box at a right turn, it would cancel right-turn-on-red, if I’m right.

I don't think that bike boxes are in the HTA.

Also, the bike box at the left turn is useless, so left turn on red definitely should be allowed. Bike boxes are intended to collect bicycle traffic halfway through making a left turn, and as such are not needed in left turn lanes.

What do you mean? Bike boxes make left turns easier for cyclists because they don't have to cross the traffic lanes.

[danbrotherston]

which by the way is legal

No, see s. 170 (12).

unlike making a nuisance by honking

‘Making a nuisance’ would be illegal, but just honking isn't. (s. 75 (1))

I'm not sure which statute you intended to reference, but when I look up s 170 (12) here:  

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK265

It states that:

"Vehicles interfering with traffic

(12) Despite the other provisions of this section, no person shall park or stand a vehicle on a highway in such a manner as to interfere with the movement of traffic or the clearing of snow from the highway.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (12)."

Edit:  Sorry, I missunderstood which section you were objecting too.

In any case, I still do not believe that is at all the law. By that logic, there is "no stopping" implicit everywhere.  Even if that were true, that section does not state that one must proceed, i.e., if I believe there isn't time to turn before traffic arrives, or a ped arrives, then that's my judgement. Suggesting that one must turn immediately on red otherwise one is "interfering" with traffic is not the intent of the law I think.

For the second, if you read down four statues to s 75 (4), it reads:

"Unnecessary noise

(4) A person having the control or charge of a motor vehicle shall not sound any bell, horn or other signalling device so as to make an unreasonable noise,"

Now, this one is clearly arguable, but I would argue that honking your horn, especially laying it on excessively because the driver in front of you is operating legally but too slowly for your liking is an unreasonable noise. It also happens to violate the noise bylaw at least in Kitchener.

Of course, I'd be shocked if this had ever been enforced in the history of the HTA, but as someone who lives downtown, I'm very much annoyed by obnoxious honking.

[danbrotherston]

I have an idea that the bike box implicitly cancels the left-turn-on-red. If there was a bike box at a right turn, it would cancel right-turn-on-red, if I’m right.

I don't think that bike boxes are in the HTA.

Also, the bike box at the left turn is useless, so left turn on red definitely should be allowed. Bike boxes are intended to collect bicycle traffic halfway through making a left turn, and as such are not needed in left turn lanes.

What do you mean? Bike boxes make left turns easier for cyclists because they don't have to cross the traffic lanes.

Bike boxes are in the OTM books, which is vaguely enforceable under the HTA.

[danbrotherston]

Left turns on red are permitted there, because it is a one way road to another one way road.  Many drivers do not know, and worse, many drivers honk and harass people who wait (which by the way is legal, unlike making a nuisance by honking--which all the people who live in the nearby buildings get to listen too).

Now with the bike box, it is even less clear that left turns are legal on red, but I believe under the letter of the law they are.

I have an idea that the bike box implicitly cancels the left-turn-on-red. If there was a bike box at a right turn, it would cancel right-turn-on-red, if I’m right.

Having said that, if that’s true, it should be explicitly signed.

Also, the bike box at the left turn is useless, so left turn on red definitely should be allowed. Bike boxes are intended to collect bicycle traffic halfway through making a left turn, and as such are not needed in left turn lanes. Given the poor knowledge of drivers, there probably ought to be a sign telling people that left turn on red is allowed. Except that would seem to imply it’s not allowed elsewhere. But where else in the Region do we have legal left turn on red? We don’t have an extensive network of one-way streets so there are few locations where it is a possibility.

It is the opinion of the City of Kitchener staff that right turn on red is permitted even when there is a bike box installed. I haven't read the OTM Book on the topic, but I suspect it doesn't contradict this belief.

I suspect there isn't another legal left turn on red in the region, but the point is, I don't like right turn on red anyway since it's dangerous to pedestrians, left would be even worse, because it's not practiced for drivers in the area, and there isn't a need for left turn on red capacity wise here, or even delay wise, it's a short light, in a pedestrian area, if a sign was to be put up, disallowing it would make more sense.

As for the bike box, as timc pointed out, you're confusing a bike box with a two stage left turn, the point here is that cyclists can come down the ridiculous 10 meter bike lane, and move to the left in front of cars to proceed left.  I've actually done this a number of times, it works as well as they ever do.

The region as part of their bike lane pilot project gives an example of each kind of box in their presentation:

   

As for the train barrier, I've noticed that the train signals and traffic lights make almost no sense at all when the train is going through, entirely non-conflicting movements are blocked for no reason.  I've even seen the ped signals turn off for the straight direction.  Of course in a world where we have a no-walk signal at a retaining wall, this isn't totally shocking.

In particular, when it is the southbound track that is in use, Caroline should get a green (no northbound left turn, obviously, but that is supposed to be bus-triggered in any case). There is no conflict between Caroline St. traffic and the southbound track.

Even with the northbound track, the pedestrian crossings across Erb on the east side and across Caroline on the north side should be allowed to go. I’ve actually been known to bicycle straight across the intersection parallel to the tracks when the crossing protection is activated — there is absolutely no conflicting motor vehicle traffic.

This isn’t the only location with issues. At University, the multi-use trail crossing could get a proceed signal when the crossing protection activates, but doesn’t.

Yeah, there are a bunch of others, King at Francis has issues. I really fail to understand the thought processes that go into these decisions.

[ijmorlan]

Also, the bike box at the left turn is useless, so left turn on red definitely should be allowed. Bike boxes are intended to collect bicycle traffic halfway through making a left turn, and as such are not needed in left turn lanes.

What do you mean? Bike boxes make left turns easier for cyclists because they don't have to cross the traffic lanes.

Right, a bicycle in the right-side bike lane can proceed through the intersection as if they were going straight, then stop in the bike box on the other side. From there, wait for the light to turn and proceed in the left-turn direction directly into the right-side bike lane. In other words, they never use the bike box at the head of a left-turn lane.

To put that in context at Erb/Caroline, to turn left from Caroline SB onto Erb EB a bicycle would be in the bike lane on Caroline SB. Proceed across Erb, stop in the bike box in front of stopped EB Erb traffic. Then proceed EB on Erb into the bike lane on the south side of Erb. Of course neither the bike box nor the bike lane exists in these locations on Erb, but that is how one would use a bike box to make this left turn.

The bike box that actually exists at the intersection could hypothetically be used to turn left from Erb WB to Caroline SB, but since no WB traffic is permitted on Erb, that is moot. And for that purpose, the bike box has no need to exist in front of the left turn lane — only the straight-through lane.

[ijmorlan]

As for the bike box, as timc pointed out, you're confusing a bike box with a two stage left turn, the point here is that cyclists can come down the ridiculous 10 meter bike lane, and move to the left in front of cars to proceed left.  I've actually done this a number of times, it works as well as they ever do.

The region as part of their bike lane pilot project gives an example of each kind of box in their presentation:

Oops, I replied to the other message before reading this one. OK, I didn’t realize there were these two scenarios. I’m thinking of the 2-stage one. Having said that, I think the 1-stage one is kind of contradictory: bicycles want to stay in the bike lane and avoid mixing with motor traffic, but they’ll still make a left turn from the bike box in front of a bunch of motor traffic, and have to contend with opposite-direction motor vehicle traffic when they make their turn. By contrast the 2-stage turn keeps the bikes completely separate, except for having to avoid conflicts with right-turning motor vehicle traffic.

I also have a slightly different perspective from some on these issues. From the way some people talk, it is as if the goal is to slow down motor vehicle traffic, meaning not the maximum speed at which vehicles travel (well, that too) but rather increasing the time to get from A to B (not the same thing in the city, where waiting for other traffic is inevitable). I don’t think that is a reasonable goal at all: ceteris paribus, as the economists like to say, getting places faster is better. What is a reasonable goal, however, is giving higher (much higher) priority to non-motor-vehicle safety and speed than we currently do. Right turn on red can be executed perfectly safely: the driver just has to be actually watching. But really the same is true of right turn on green: in both cases, the driver has to watch for pedestrians crossing on a walking person signal. In particular, if there are no pedestrians around, then the reason for forbidding the movement goes away completely and the restriction becomes an utterly pointless delay.

So my position can’t really be summarized as pro-car or pro-pedestrian. If it were up to me, King St. in Uptown would be one moderately narrow lane, southbound, and Regina would be one moderately narrow lane, northbound, with traffic light timings enforcing a 50 or maybe even 40km/h green wave on each street (plus both-direction segregated bicycle lanes on each street). If that means motor vehicle travel is slow, fine. Caroline/Erb would similarly be reduced in capacity, although possibly only to 2 lanes each way. But I would allow right turn on red at those intersections.

[Watdot]

Does anyone know what's happening with the houses on Erb Street West?....about 5 houses are boarded up...about 190ish Erb Street West

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/180+Erb...3481?hl=en

Big redevelopment coming up...

Saw they just put up a wooden frame for a large billboard at the corner of Westmount & Erb Streets this weekend. Something is coming...

[Watdot]

Billboard is up.  What is pictured is a long stretched podium (2-3 floors) anchored by two towers on Erb Street.  I'm sure there will be different renderings in the future, but exciting to know they are looking at such a big development there.

[Spokes]

Wow very exciting. Any ideas how tall they looked?

[Watdot]

The towers looked to be about 10 floors above the 2-3 storey podium/building.  Will try to grab a photo next time I pass by.  Not an easy intersection to stop and take a photo at.
If the buildings remain on that top grade along Erb, the north/east facing units will have a great view.

[jwilliamson]

The houses around 31 Erb St E (just east of Regina) have been demolished.

[GtwoK]

There's been some soil drilling happening the past few days at the former collectibles store and also the former Relish cooking studio uptown. Today they've moved on to soil sample drilling in the parking lot at the corner of Regina / Bridgeport (not the one behind the old post office). Combined, these are a pretty large parcel. Thought it odd that drilling was being done on both private and regional property, unless possibly it's already been bought up by a developer?

It's possible that some drilling also went on at the houses in the corner chunk missing, but I didn't see it

[kalis0490]

I believe that the land is owned by HIP developments. 

There was an article some time ago about HIP was leasing the houses to artists.

https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-st...roperties/

[Spokes]

I so desperately want something to happen on that corner. Match that with the old post office station. Wow.