Regina Construction III

[Mike328]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

Forget the zipper merge, if we could get people to drive in the right-hand lane on Arcola, Vic Ave East (between Park & the Ring Road especially), and Albert south of 25th (get rid of on-street parking, screws up sight lines, needlessly congests) traffic "congestion" would be eased immensely.

The city totally shot themselves in the foot by rebuilding the Arcola Bridge over the Ring Road a few years ago and not widening it. Should have three lanes of traffic both ways down Arcola.

The city also has to seriously consider taking away on street parking on Arcola/Sask Drive between Victoria Avenue to Broad Street. Amazing how one parked car can tie up traffic for blocks.

[HomeInMyShoes]

We need to remember that we have more people from out of province and out of country without the usual history of how things have worked -- rightly or wrongly -- for years. For me it means being more careful around intersections and walking and driving in general. Some of it is familiarity and some of it is distractedness and some of it is just feeling more rushed which I've never really understood much.

Parliament will likely have three more sets of lights on it within a year or two. Rae, Montague and Pasqua. Rae should be done immediately for everyone's sake. It could probably be a flashing red intersection between 7:00pm and 7:00am.

[micheal]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

We need to remember that we have more people from out of province and out of country without the usual history of how things have worked -- rightly or wrongly -- for years. For me it means being more careful around intersections and walking and driving in general. Some of it is familiarity and some of it is distractedness and some of it is just feeling more rushed which I've never really understood much.

Parliament will likely have three more sets of lights on it within a year or two. Rae, Montague and Pasqua. Rae should be done immediately for everyone's sake. It could probably be a flashing red intersection between 7:00pm and 7:00am.

Yup. Pasqua and parliament should be done asap. A friend of mine, his mother, was t-boned 2 times this year already. Total loss on both vehicle.

[wacko]

I believe it's illegal to use a parking lane as a driving or passing lane. I once saw police nab someone on Pasqua St N for doing just that. (Yes, it's stupid to have houses on Pasqua St N in the first place, but I doubt the city has money to buy out those properties.)

On the other hand, driving lanes that are not explicitly marked as being right-turn-only are fair game to drive straight through. I sometimes do this on Lewvan Drive between Saskatchewan Drive and 1st Ave N. Of course I've been on the other side too, and waited for a green light to turn right onto Lewvan just to be safer, especially during rush hour.

I think U-turns at intersections with traffic lights should remain illegal except where expressly permitted. Just something that our Ontario brethren will have to learn, since every jurisdiction has its own traffic rules.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

We need to remember that we have more people from out of province and out of country without the usual history of how things have worked -- rightly or wrongly -- for years. For me it means being more careful around intersections and walking and driving in general. Some of it is familiarity and some of it is distractedness and some of it is just feeling more rushed which I've never really understood much.

Parliament will likely have three more sets of lights on it within a year or two. Rae, Montague and Pasqua. Rae should be done immediately for everyone's sake. It could probably be a flashing red intersection between 7:00pm and 7:00am.

I agree that Rae needs it immediately, and also that it can be flashing for evenings. Even once 5:30 or 6:00 hits there usually is no longer a backup.

I've never noticed a huge issue at Montague (I also drive through that each day, heading out to Lewvan), but I can see it needing one eventually. Pasqua is a weird situation in that it's not actually as backed up as I thought it would be when it was announced, but the fact it has 2 lanes each going east and west means having only a stop sign makes it a complicated intersection to navigate. Remembering the order of 3 or 4 vehicles is easy, but if there are 10 vehicles all pulling up at the same time it gets really confusing really fast. So for that reason I agree it needs a set of lights. They will need to be timed at least 2x as fast as Lewvan though to prevent backup in that short stretch.

Also the lights on Lewvan for Parliament really need to be extended for the Parliament drivers. Lewvan's driving time lasts a few minutes, while Parliament often only gets about 10 seconds, sometimes only allowing 4-5 cars through, especially in the winter when acceleration times get longer. On top of that it is by far the most defective traffic sensor system they have in the city. It's very common for the sensors to completely ignore vehicles sitting on the west side of Lewvan, just skipping past their turn for 3-4 times in a row until a 4th or 5th car arrives and triggers it. I've complained numerous times but nothing is ever done.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by wacko

I believe it's illegal to use a parking lane as a driving or passing lane. I once saw police nab someone on Pasqua St N for doing just that. (Yes, it's stupid to have houses on Pasqua St N in the first place, but I doubt the city has money to buy out those properties.)

On the other hand, driving lanes that are not explicitly marked as being right-turn-only are fair game to drive straight through. I sometimes do this on Lewvan Drive between Saskatchewan Drive and 1st Ave N. Of course I've been on the other side too, and waited for a green light to turn right onto Lewvan just to be safer, especially during rush hour.

I think U-turns at intersections with traffic lights should remain illegal except where expressly permitted. Just something that our Ontario brethren will have to learn, since every jurisdiction has its own traffic rules.

How do you know it is a parking lane on most streets?

[wacko]

Well, that's true. If you were from out of town, and driving on south Albert Street, you wouldn't know the right lane was a parking lane until you ran into a parked vehicle.

[Stormer]

The Regina Traffic Bylaw says the following:

No person operating a vehicle in the curb lane of a street shall overtake a vehicle
travelling in the same direction in the adjacent traffic lanes during anytime when
parking is permitted in the curb lane, except:
(a) to make a right turn on to or off of the street block in which the vehicle
entered the curb lane; or
(b) to park on the street block.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply:
(a) to bicycles and emergency vehicles or buses operated by the Transit
Department of the City; or
(b) where traffic is obstructed in the adjacent traffic lane by the breakdown of a
vehicle or a traffic accident.

This is rather surprising. I believe this means that, for example on Sask Dr. between Broad and Victoria you can never pass in the right lane except during rush hour when parking is prohibited. This seems ridiculous.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by wacko

Well, that's true. If you were from out of town, and driving on south Albert Street, you wouldn't know the right lane was a parking lane until you ran into a parked vehicle.

This is my point. Reginans feel it is a parking/turning lane. Other than the fact parking isn't specifically prohibited, nothing on South Albert backs the idea that it's not a driving lane up - e.g. other than at Gordon Road, there's no signage at intersections (e.g. Parliament, 31st, 25th) indicating right lane is for turns only.

There is signage heading east on 25th indicating that the curb lane is only for turns -- presumably they would have put similar signs up at the same intersection indicating that Albert's curb lanes are for turns only, if this were the case. They didn't.

Treating most curbs lanes as a parking/turning lane is simply an accepted custom in Regina.

Albert Street is a good example of this - the Bylaw prevents parking on streets over 50km/h (so, many portions of Lewvan, Arcola, Vic are no parking by definition).

Albert is entirely 50km/h or less... so curb parking is permitted along the entire length of Albert unless signed to the contrary. 25th to College has no signs restricting parking at the curb (aside from bus stops). The Bylaw doesn't prevent it... so parking is technically fair game... but no one parks there (if they got a ticket for doing so, it'd be easily overturned in court... City should probably put up No Parking signs to cover themselves).

The inverse is true South of 25th on Albert - nothing indicates that the curb lanes are exclusively parking/turning lanes. Reginans have simply accepted this as a practice.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by Stormer

The Regina Traffic Bylaw says the following:

No person operating a vehicle in the curb lane of a street shall overtake a vehicle
travelling in the same direction in the adjacent traffic lanes during anytime when
parking is permitted in the curb lane, except:
(a) to make a right turn on to or off of the street block in which the vehicle
entered the curb lane; or
(b) to park on the street block.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply:
(a) to bicycles and emergency vehicles or buses operated by the Transit
Department of the City; or
(b) where traffic is obstructed in the adjacent traffic lane by the breakdown of a
vehicle or a traffic accident.

This is rather surprising. I believe this means that, for example on Sask Dr. between Broad and Victoria you can never pass in the right lane except during rush hour when parking is prohibited. This seems ridiculous.

Highway Traffic Act Sec 48(1)(b) prevents passing on the right - unless a municipality's Bylaws premit it. Which begs the question - why did the City feel the need to create this element of the Bylaw, if it's already prohibited under provincial legislation?

To use a programming slang, the City's Bylaws are basically spaghetti code... too many revisions, updates, deletions, changes over the years. They need to be gutted & re-written from scratch.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

This is my point. Reginans feel it is a parking/turning lane. Other than the fact parking isn't specifically prohibited, nothing on South Albert backs the idea that it's not a driving lane up - e.g. other than at Gordon Road, there's no signage at intersections (e.g. Parliament, 31st, 25th) indicating right lane is for turns only.

There is signage heading east on 25th indicating that the curb lane is only for turns -- presumably they would have put similar signs up at the same intersection indicating that Albert's curb lanes are for turns only, if this were the case. They didn't.

Treating most curbs lanes as a parking/turning lane is simply an accepted custom in Regina.

Albert Street is a good example of this - the Bylaw prevents parking on streets over 50km/h (so, many portions of Lewvan, Arcola, Vic are no parking by definition).

Albert is entirely 50km/h or less... so curb parking is permitted along the entire length of Albert unless signed to the contrary. 25th to College has no signs restricting parking at the curb (aside from bus stops). The Bylaw doesn't prevent it... so parking is technically fair game... but no one parks there (if they got a ticket for doing so, it'd be easily overturned in court... City should probably put up No Parking signs to cover themselves).

The inverse is true South of 25th on Albert - nothing indicates that the curb lanes are exclusively parking/turning lanes. Reginans have simply accepted this as a practice.

That's incorrect about Albert St, there are signs from 25th to College preventing parking: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.420148,-...3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1LCF8MAfth5N10_ioipASQ!2e0

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

Highway Traffic Act Sec 48(1)(b) prevents passing on the right - unless a municipality's Bylaws premit it. Which begs the question - why did the City feel the need to create this element of the Bylaw, if it's already prohibited under provincial legislation?

To use a programming slang, the City's Bylaws are basically spaghetti code... too many revisions, updates, deletions, changes over the years. They need to be gutted & re-written from scratch.

If they fine you under the bylaw, the City gets to keep the fine money.

[Stormer]

I did a quick tour of the proposed resto/pubs in downtown:

1. 20Ten City Eatery on 12th looks close to completion and has a stunning, urban décor; http://instagram.com/20teneatery @20TenEatery
2. No action in the rumoured Famosa location in Tower 2;
3. Fat Badger Pub on the FW Hill Mall appears to be nearing completion. Décor is traditional pub with lots of booths;
4. A painter outside the former Deborah Dees on 11th and Cornwall confirmed it will be a restaurant by the owners of Flip. Little work appears to have been done inside. It is a beautiful space though.
5. I did not get over to Victoria's Pub on Hamilton, but they have been going hard on renos there for a while. The pic below is from May. https://twitter.com/VictoriasTavern
6. I did not get close to the Loggies building on Hamilton, but it appears from a distance that they are still clearing our inventory.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by Festivus

That's incorrect about Albert St, there are signs from 25th to College preventing parking: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.420148,-...3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1LCF8MAfth5N10_ioipASQ!2e0

You're right about the west side - there are signs, I missed them... apparently I was only looking at the east side of the street in Google Maps.

Looking again, I can only see 3 signs on the east side between 25th & College (just north of McCallum, just north of the bridge, and right at the museum). They're far enough apart that many tickets would not stand up in court.

So, parking's fine along most of the east curb lane of Albert - but not the west curb lane due to signs

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I did a quick tour of the proposed resto/pubs in downtown:[*]A painter outside the former Deborah Dees on 11th and Cornwall confirmed it will be a restaurant by the owners of Flip. Little work appears to have been done inside. It is a beautiful space though.

Thanks for the update. Great to get confirmation about the Debra Dees restaurant - that's a beautiful space, glad it won't be wasted.

[micheal]

http://www.leaderpost.com/touch/news/reg...er+budget/10022520/story.html?rel=815153

[jigglysquishy]

I'm sure there is something fishy, but if this is 100% true then this is extraordinary news. $45m saved in really something to be proud of and could spell wonders for P3s moving forward in Canada.

Again, I'm skeptical, but this could prove to be a gamechanger for public infrastructure in Canada.

[micheal]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

I'm sure there is something fishy, but if this is 100% true then this is extraordinary news. $45m saved in really something to be proud of and could spell wonders for P3s moving forward in Canada.

Again, I'm skeptical, but this could prove to be a gamechanger for public infrastructure in Canada.

Its 100%. Contract is done.
Over 200mil. In savings over the life of the contract.

[Udon'tknow]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I did a quick tour of the proposed resto/pubs in downtown:

1. 20Ten City Eatery on 12th looks close to completion and has a stunning, urban décor; http://instagram.com/20teneatery @20TenEatery
2. No action in the rumoured Famosa location in Tower 2;
3. Fat Badger Pub on the FW Hill Mall appears to be nearing completion. Décor is traditional pub with lots of booths;
4. A painter outside the former Deborah Dees on 11th and Cornwall confirmed it will be a restaurant by the owners of Flip. Little work appears to have been done inside. It is a beautiful space though.
5. I did not get over to Victoria's Pub on Hamilton, but they have been going hard on renos there for a while. The pic below is from May. https://twitter.com/VictoriasTavern
6. I did not get close to the Loggies building on Hamilton, but it appears from a distance that they are still clearing our inventory.

Famosa is still a go, it's just been delayed, the new target open date is Spring of 2015. Main reason is challenges they have had negotiating and getting the contract finalized with Harvard. Which is a bit surprising given that is Harvard's core business, renting out space.

There are also two other chain fast food type restaurants opening downtown, Chopped Leaf (I think) on Scarth and a mediterenian place on 12th.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Udon'tknow

Famosa is still a go, it's just been delayed, the new target open date is Spring of 2015. Main reason is challenges they have had negotiating and getting the contract finalized with Harvard. Which is a bit surprising given that is Harvard's core business, renting out space.

There are also two other chain fast food type restaurants opening downtown, Chopped Leaf (I think) on Scarth and a mediterenian place on 12th.

I forgot I looked in at the Chopped Leaf and they have a lot of work to do. It looks like they barely started.