Highways in Canada

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

MTO doesn't have jurisdiction over railways. Transport Canada does. MTO has no legislative powers to intervene over railway abandonment.

This is part of the problem - complete lack of coordination between modes.

Highways are fully funded through gasoline taxes, does the MTO need to provide a service to those who aren't paying for them?

What a strange and shortsighted view. Everybody uses services they don't directly pay for, and every government agency provides services to people who don't directly pay for them. There are many reasons to build transportation infrastructure for users other than drivers, as I'm sure you're aware. By the way, the vast majority of roads are municipal and subsidized through property taxes.

Would a Montreal to Toronto trip on HSR even be competitive with a flight if the rail route via Ottawa was selected?

At less than 2.5 hours, of course it would. Pretty much anything under 3 hours is the sweet spot for HSR.

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Even in Europe which has extensive HSR (and the population density to support it), flying is generally faster and less expensive than the train.

The argument for HSR in the Windsor to Quebec City would make more sense if there were significant capacity issues at the major airports that required major capital upgrades. It's only then that the capital investment to electrify and upgrade the railway becomes economically obtainable.

No, it's economically obtainable today. I don't know why people keep downplaying HSR on boards like these. It's generally cheaper than flying, just as fast, and more comfortable, reliable, and convenient. And it dominates market share. Look at the Madrid-Barcelona run, which is almost identical to Toronto-Montreal in distance and population. Since they opened the HSR line a few years ago its market share has gone from 10% to 60% and rising. There's no reason to think that the same thing wouldn't happen here.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I agree we live in a fiscal federation but that doesn't mean the money should be thrown around like a drunken sailor.

Considering the very few who would benefit, it is an obscene waste of funds. If NWTT want to foot the bill themselves than go for it but federal dollars for roads and transit in the populated areas of Canada are scarce and that money would be far better spent in our clogged cities.

Thing is, very few people that far north even have cars. Not only are there no significant roads but even if there was an 8 lane freeway to Yellowknife, no one would use it. The distances are so great to even the nearest village that people fly everywhere. Even if the roads were fine, where exactly would you go?

Throwing everything we have at our main population centers is like putting all your eggs in one basket. We need to diversify, and there's no way the NWT is even remotely capable of footing the bill themselves. If you don't like the redistributional aspect of government, then you may as well get rid of public roads and infrastructure entirely, and have everything built and managed by private firms. At least then you'll get what you pay for. Now, on the topic of travel, you're forgetting one critical thing- goods required for your existence! Food and fuel flown in by air is outrageously expensive and is a massive impediment to those living in the north. You have to reduce the cost of living if you want to open up the area or nobody will want to have anything to do with it.

Now, on the topic of private cars. I only have hearsay evidence to the contrary, but a sort of friend-of-a-friend who worked in Yellowknife for a year told me the exact opposite; that there are several vehicle dealerships in town (he was even able to get his southern scum Saab serviced at the GM dealer), and practically everyone has a car. A lot of people in remote villages have pickups that they use to drive around INSIDE the isolated local road network.

Originally Posted by haljackey

I see it like this... As long as facilities exist.

Short distances (~200km or under): use highways.

Medium distances (~200-800km): use high-speed rail. (Assuming that you don't have to arrive 2 hours before your departure and the train goes ~300km/h)

Long distances (~800km or greater): use airplanes. (Assuming that you have to arrive 2 hours before your departure)

I actually really enjoy long trips, so any distance that I can cover in 14 hours is considered driving distance for me

But if your time is worth a lot then this chart is absolutely spot-on, save for the fact that you also have to consider time spent taking transit or getting a car rental or at your destination.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

As for the Inuvit/Tuk road, I pray none of my tax dollars go to that thing. Even if it can be built in an enviornmentally friendly manner, how can you justify $300 million to serve about 6,000 people? NWT is also the only Territory that has not seen any growth in population in the last 10 years unlike fast growing Yukon and Nunavut.

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Could it potentially have benefits for developing Arctic oil reserves? What are the prospects like in that area?

It is 100% intended to support oil exploration and development activities in the region.

Back in the 70's, much of the in-shore areas were scouted, and some potential reserves were marked (Natural Gas and Oil), in the Mackenzie Delta, and shallow areas of the Beaufort Sea, but very few have ever been developed (See Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Saga). No offshore exploration occured because there was too much multi-year sea ice present throughout the summer.

Now that we're seeing increasing declines in summer sea ice extent, and predominantly seasonal ice cover (melts out entirely in the Southern Beaufort Sea, with little multi-year coverage at all), there has been a sudden and massive interest in deeper water oil exploration leases in the area. BP, Imperial Oil (Exxonmobil), Conocophilips, Chevron, and others have all purchased off-shore exploration leases at costs of above $1B per lease. Seismic sub-bottom profiling was done in the area years ago (Revealing some interesting features), but this whole bonanza really started to ramp up in 2009 with preliminary survey work, but was delayed a bit by the deepwater horizon accident, and review of offshore operations in Arctic Waters. However, they've been given the green light to proceed with drilling test wells to actually determine what is out there. We can expect actual exploratory drilling to start in maybe 3-4 years... the actual prospects for the area are really not all that well known, but the seismic surveys suggest there are hydrocarbon reserves worth exploring further. As for actual production development... I think we'll need to see oil prices go up a bit further, along with resolution of transport of crude away from the region... I don't expect actual production for at least a couple decades.

But the discovery-exploration work is happening now!

So to answer your question about the Inuvik-Tuk road, it is PURELY to support the oil and gas industry as they would be using Tuk as a shore base of operations for resupply, personnel exchanges, etc. The fact that Tuk gets connected to Inuvik by an all-season road is merely a legacy benefit for them.

Expect to a road to Nunavut through Manitoba sometime soon too, which again, supports industrial development (i.e. mining) in northern MB and NU.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Mister F

What a strange and shortsighted view. Everybody uses services they don't directly pay for, and every government agency provides services to people who don't directly pay for them. There are many reasons to build transportation infrastructure for users other than drivers, as I'm sure you're aware. By the way, the vast majority of roads are municipal and subsidized through property taxes.

Of course it is. Subsidies for all then!

Originally Posted by Mister F

At less than 2.5 hours, of course it would. Pretty much anything under 3 hours is the sweet spot for HSR.


No, it's economically obtainable today. I don't know why people keep downplaying HSR on boards like these. It's generally cheaper than flying, just as fast, and more comfortable, reliable, and convenient. And it dominates market share. Look at the Madrid-Barcelona run, which is almost identical to Toronto-Montreal in distance and population. Since they opened the HSR line a few years ago its market share has gone from 10% to 60% and rising. There's no reason to think that the same thing wouldn't happen here.

HSR is economically obtainable today? Really? If it made economic sense to build a HSR line we would be building it. Period.

Who would pay for the capital to build HSR? Could VIA get a loan with realistic expectations to pay back the capital costs through farebox revenues alone?

The GTAA recently spent billions of dollars to upgrade and expand Terminal 1 at Pearson Airport with spending a single cent of taxpayer dollars. Why would any responsible government subsidize the construction of HSR when it would only divert traffic away from the airline industry that doesn't require any subsidies? Tell me how that makes sense.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

The legislature changes the Highway Taffic Act, not the MTO.

True in the strictest sense, but most changes to legislation come from within the bureaucracy before getting to the legislature. In the Cycling Strategy - all four pages of it! - the MoTO themselves acknowledge their role in shepherding changes to the HTA.

And even leaving aside that role, the MoTO is definitely still responsible for road design standards that affect cyclists province-wide.

The MoTO is involved in cycling no matter how much you, me or they might wish they weren't.

Problem solved:
http://goo.gl/maps/ke6yZ

What kind of solution is this? Who has got right of way here? Someone showed a similar design a couple of months back from BC, but it had yield signs for the cyclists so at least the right of way was defined, albeit in favour of cars entering the freeway. Here they haven't even done that. As far as I can tell, and despite the fact it went right through some catch basins further back, that's a legal bicycle lane. That in turn makes this location an intersection of sorts. At intersections where no one has a marked requirement to yield, it goes first come, first serve and then priority to the right, i.e. the cyclist in the bicycle lane.

In no other circumstances would the MoTO even contemplate having lanes do an uncontrolled scissors-like crossing of each other... but hey, it's just cyclists so that's all right.

Seriously: legally speaking, who has right of way at that crossing? I don't mean the "might makes right", I mean actual HTA-based legal right of way, even if in practise that led to "right but dead".

How do you know they are British, Dutch, or German? Did you pull over to the shoulder of the freeway to interview them? That seems like an odd thing to have done.

Variously. Flags and writings on jerseys, style of bicycle, general kit. But you're right. Some of them might have been Scandinavian. Or Belgian. And I suppose the guy in the Marmite jersey on the Dawes touring bike might have been something other than British.

At what point are cyclists not responsible for themselves? You can buy a good quality map of Ontario for $20 that would show lots of plausible alternates to the Queensway. If someone is stupid enough not to figure this out, maybe they deserve to ride down the freeway.

They were probably following the "Trans Canada" signs. They probably come from places where the road authorities take signage seriously. A strange concept for those in Ontario, I grant you, but there you go. It would be trivial for the MoTO to put up a few signs near Arnprior to redirect cycle tourists elsewhere. In fact, they could do so at Renfrew and direct them to the old railway RoW.

The standard Ontario roadmap is not too useful for the purposes of cycle tourists. There's no way to tell from it which minor roads are paved and which aren't. Case in point: there's a segment of old Hwy 17 east of Arnprior running parallel to Hwy 417 that one moment is a super-wide two-lane road with broad shoulders, then narrows to two lanes (no shoulders) and then rounds a corner (where it would otherwise encounter Hwy 417) where it promptly turns into a gravel road. Yay Ontario.

And you clearly didn't take in what I wrote, either.

People who have been cycling across Canada would already be habituated to cycling on the shoulder of divided highways in the Rockies and across the Prairies. They would have done so for well over a thousand kilometres. They would have no reason whatsoever to consider the same thing in Ontario to be any different. Nowhere west of Ottawa does cycling along the Trans Canada get you into an urban freeway; it only happens when you get to the suburbs of Ottawa.

I think a back country road running parallel to the highway would be a godsend, but maybe my idea of an enjoyable bike ride is different than yours.

And again, a failure to read and understand. The comparison was between Highway 417 east of Arnprior and Highway 17 west of it. If you were habituated to the latter, the former would seem a lot better.

Besides, there are no alternatives to Highway 17 northwest of Petawawa anyway.

I think you may be underestimating the intelligence of the average cyclist.

It's not the intelligence of cyclists that is at issue. It is the intelligence of the MoTO that is at question.

There are good quality alternates to both of those routes that would be more suitable to cyclists. You could be right though, there may be some missing cyclists/pedestrian prohibited signs in those cases. If you write to the MTO they'll probably erect the necessary signage.

They're missing pretty consistently across the Province. There's a better than even chance that if a highway turns into a controlled access freeway that it doesn't have any signage prohibiting cyclists from continuing. In *all* of the cases where it does so without passing through an intersection immediately before the start of the freeway (i.e. Hwy 69-400, Hwy 11-400, Hwy 17-417), there is no prohibition signage nor the redirection signs that would be required (i.e. "Pedestrians, Cyclists and other operators of non-motor vehicles exit here"). That's not "some" missing signs; that's a systemic oversight.

It's not my responsibility to do the MoTO's job for them. If they want to hire someone with some sense to how a transportation system should work, they're free to hire me, but until then the personnel they have should do the jobs they've been hired to do. It should be standard policy to erect pedestrian and cycling prohibition signs wherever a highway turns into a restricted access freeway, and to provide signage advising of alternate routes.

The lack of such a policy indicates a car-centric thought pattern at the MoTO because it doesn't occur to them that non-car users might be using the highway.

I drive this section of Hwy 407 a few times a month. I have never noticed a cyclist on the 407. But again, email the 407, they'll likely place a sign. They may have just assumed the general public had some common sense, and neglected to install a sign.

Again, not my responsibility to make up for the MoTO's neglectfulness and car-centric worldview. If you want to volunteer your services to helping the MoTO do their jobs properly, go right ahead.

Highways are fully funded through gasoline taxes, does the MTO need to provide a service to those who aren't paying for them?

Anyone who buys gas or diesel - for any reason or use - but doesn't drive on provincial highways is paying for something they're not getting. Indeed, unless you drive almost entirely on provincial highways, you're paying for something you're not getting. The Province's highways are effectively subsidized by all gas and diesel buyers for the benefit of those who use the Province's highways the most. The group that benefits the most is probably the trucking industry. So yes, the MoTO can spend a small chunk of its budget on non-highway uses, especially to mitigate the effects of its highways.

And anyway, we're talking about a dozen or so prohibition signs here, not a "service" to anyone else.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Of course it is. Subsidies for all then!




HSR is economically obtainable today? Really? If it made economic sense to build a HSR line we would be building it. Period.

Who would pay for the capital to build HSR? Could VIA get a loan with realistic expectations to pay back the capital costs through farebox revenues alone?

The GTAA recently spent billions of dollars to upgrade and expand Terminal 1 at Pearson Airport with spending a single cent of taxpayer dollars. Why would any responsible government subsidize the construction of HSR when it would only divert traffic away from the airline industry that doesn't require any subsidies? Tell me how that makes sense.

Yes, operating profits would pay for the capital costs. Seriously, go read some of the studies that have been done. It would pay for itself. The reasons that HSR isn't being built have nothing to do with viability. And there are all kinds of reasons to divert passengers away from air (and highways for that matter). Reliability, comfort, convenience, safety, reduced pollution, downtown to downtown travel, improved commuter transit, and a better integrated overall transportation system to name a few.

[ssiguy]

Toronto has a subway, why shouldn't my sister in Wardsville have one too?

Certain areas will require more funding than others due to isolation, topography, ability to pay etc..........Canadians know and accept that as one of the consequences of living in the world's 2nd largest country. That, howwever, is no excuse to spend money like a drunken sailor for pet projects which do little but make politicians salivate over the prospect of a big juicy ribbon cutting.

If the Inuvik/Tuk road is for energy exploration {which I kind of thought it was} that's fine...............let the oil companies pay for it. If not then toll the road to pay for it's construction with contributions from NWT and a small amount from the feds ie $5 million......on a percapita basis thats a whopping amount.

If people in Vancouver have to be saddled with tolls over their new bridges that will be used by 100,000 people a day then so can the people of the North.

[red-paladin]

You forget that NWT is a territory, and the Feds are responsible for that money. If it was a province, it would be a provincial responsibility.

[eemy]

If the oil leases are as expensive as the earlier poster indicated, the oil exploration companies have effectively paid for a highway already.

[MolsonExport]

Well, we should never have built the transcontinental railroad...after all, how many people lived out in BC when it went through?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Well, we should never have built the transcontinental railroad...after all, how many people lived out in BC when it went through?

Precisely. This is an exercise in nation building. After all, how can we claim to control the arctic when we don't even have a highway reaching the ocean shore....

If this is a highway to assist in resource extraction, it will eventually pay for itself.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

MTO doesn't have jurisdiction over railways. Transport Canada does. MTO has no legislative powers to intervene over railway abandonment.

That's only partially correct.

Transport Canada doesn't have statutory authority over railways that are provincial in nature, only those that cross provincial boundaries or are federally regulated out of national interest. If it exercises authority over provincial railways, it only does so because that power has been delegated to it by the Province. That's correct: it is possible for a Province to delegate to the Federal government, and that is what happens in Ontario with respect to provincial railways; Metrolinx is an obvious example, but there are a number of shortlines to which it applies as well. But the jurisdiction of provincial railways does ultimately lie with the Province. Other provinces, such as Quebec, Alberta and BC, do directly regulate the railways lying entirely within the province.

On the matter of the abandonment of federal railways, the Provincial government does have the right to intervene; they are specifically notified as part of the abandonment process and are given second right of refusal after the federal government. That notification goes to the minister of transportation or equivalent in each affected province. The MoTO, as an institution, knew about the abandonment of both the CN and CP lines in the Ottawa Valley and opted not to exercise their right to acquire the railway at its net salvage value.

I'll freely blame the feds for not having the vision to acquire a strategic transport asset for CFB Petawawa, but the MoTO is equally guilty of a lack of vision in failing to acquire the only rail corridors to bypass the GTA.

MTO has no jurisdiction over railways, but I agree, its a shame to see the railway go.

There is no other provincial body with the province-wide power to acquire railways when they are offered for sale during abandonment, and it is the MoTO that is notified as per the federal abandonment rules. They have a role, whether they like it or not, and they decline to exercise it.

It doesn't even have to acquire them with a view to operating trains itself; it just has to acquire the RoW with the tracks in place to hold it in reserve for possible future use, i.e. railbanking. It could allow train operators to carry on business at whatever rate the market will bear, even if that is below the capital carrying cost; after all, it's not like the MoTO charges the trucking companies for use of its highways.

[craner]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Some pretty impressive webcam images from the #1 Gateway project in BC. This is the Cape Horn Interchange area on the west approach of the Port Mann.

Still not complete, but starting to show its impressive size.

Very cool - will make for an interesting entrance to the city the next time I drive to Vancouver.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Dado

True in the strictest sense, but most changes to legislation come from within the bureaucracy before getting to the legislature. In the Cycling Strategy - all four pages of it! - the MoTO themselves acknowledge their role in shepherding changes to the HTA.

And even leaving aside that role, the MoTO is definitely still responsible for road design standards that affect cyclists province-wide.

The MoTO is involved in cycling no matter how much you, me or they might wish they weren't.

How many facilities that the MTO operates and maintains have bike lanes? MTO maintains almost no local urban roads that would warrant bike lanes, so why should an organization with little to no experience take a lead role in designing cycling facilities. That would be dumb.

Municipalities have supplmental standards for lots of civil works. They are, and should be, the lead on cycling facilities because they are the ones designing, building and operating them.

Originally Posted by Dado

What kind of solution is this? Who has got right of way here? Someone showed a similar design a couple of months back from BC, but it had yield signs for the cyclists so at least the right of way was defined, albeit in favour of cars entering the freeway. Here they haven't even done that. As far as I can tell, and despite the fact it went right through some catch basins further back, that's a legal bicycle lane. That in turn makes this location an intersection of sorts. At intersections where no one has a marked requirement to yield, it goes first come, first serve and then priority to the right, i.e. the cyclist in the bicycle lane.

In no other circumstances would the MoTO even contemplate having lanes do an uncontrolled scissors-like crossing of each other... but hey, it's just cyclists so that's all right.

Seriously: legally speaking, who has right of way at that crossing? I don't mean the "might makes right", I mean actual HTA-based legal right of way, even if in practise that led to "right but dead".

Seems a similar situation currently exists for pedestrians at basically all ramps, and that seems to work out fine.

You seem to insinuate that cyclists should always have the right away over vehicles. Aside from the obvious fact that cyclists are superior to everyone else because they are cyclists, why is that?

Originally Posted by Dado

Variously. Flags and writings on jerseys, style of bicycle, general kit. But you're right. Some of them might have been Scandinavian. Or Belgian. And I suppose the guy in the Marmite jersey on the Dawes touring bike might have been something other than British.

They were probably following the "Trans Canada" signs. They probably come from places where the road authorities take signage seriously. A strange concept for those in Ontario, I grant you, but there you go. It would be trivial for the MoTO to put up a few signs near Arnprior to redirect cycle tourists elsewhere. In fact, they could do so at Renfrew and direct them to the old railway RoW.

I have traveled a fair bit in my life and I have found that other jurisdictions often have the same kind of signing irregularities that we do.

People who come here to ride a bike should be expected to do a little bit of homework to find out where it is acceptable to ride and where it isn't. Ignorance is not an excuse of the law.

Originally Posted by Dado

The standard Ontario roadmap is not too useful for the purposes of cycle tourists. There's no way to tell from it which minor roads are paved and which aren't. Case in point: there's a segment of old Hwy 17 east of Arnprior running parallel to Hwy 417 that one moment is a super-wide two-lane road with broad shoulders, then narrows to two lanes (no shoulders) and then rounds a corner (where it would otherwise encounter Hwy 417) where it promptly turns into a gravel road. Yay Ontario.

Then they should buy a better map, one that does show this information. Google street view has images of virtually every back road across the country now. It's not an unrealistic expectation for people to plan their route somewhat before embarking on a month long transcanadian journey.

Originally Posted by Dado

And you clearly didn't take in what I wrote, either.

People who have been cycling across Canada would already be habituated to cycling on the shoulder of divided highways in the Rockies and across the Prairies. They would have done so for well over a thousand kilometres. They would have no reason whatsoever to consider the same thing in Ontario to be any different. Nowhere west of Ottawa does cycling along the Trans Canada get you into an urban freeway; it only happens when you get to the suburbs of Ottawa.

No, I got it, I just didn't agree. People are responsible to learn and observe the laws, missing signs or not. It is agains the law to ride on the Queensway, and a person is responsible for finding that out before they head out. Godsend or not

Originally Posted by Dado

Besides, there are no alternatives to Highway 17 northwest of Petawawa anyway.

Good thing they are two distinct places.

Originally Posted by Dado

It's not my responsibility to do the MoTO's job for them. If they want to hire someone with some sense to how a transportation system should work, they're free to hire me, but until then the personnel they have should do the jobs they've been hired to do. It should be standard policy to erect pedestrian and cycling prohibition signs wherever a highway turns into a restricted access freeway, and to provide signage advising of alternate routes.

The lack of such a policy indicates a car-centric thought pattern at the MoTO because it doesn't occur to them that non-car users might be using the highway.

At most suburban interchanges, vehicular traffic outnumbers cyclists by 1000s of cars to a single cyclist? Why on earth should cycling design take precedence over auto design?

Originally Posted by Dado

Again, not my responsibility to make up for the MoTO's neglectfulness and car-centric worldview. If you want to volunteer your services to helping the MoTO do their jobs properly, go right ahead.

Yup, you're definately better allocating your time on an online forum.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Yes, operating profits would pay for the capital costs. Seriously, go read some of the studies that have been done. It would pay for itself. The reasons that HSR isn't being built have nothing to do with viability. And there are all kinds of reasons to divert passengers away from air (and highways for that matter). Reliability, comfort, convenience, safety, reduced pollution, downtown to downtown travel, improved commuter transit, and a better integrated overall transportation system to name a few.

So then why isn't HSR being built. If the business case is so sound, why are smart people continuing to shelve the project? I have read the 2009 report and I honestly believe if the business case were really there, we'd already be building it.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Dado

That's only partially correct.

Transport Canada doesn't have statutory authority over railways that are provincial in nature, only those that cross provincial boundaries or are federally regulated out of national interest. If it exercises authority over provincial railways, it only does so because that power has been delegated to it by the Province. That's correct: it is possible for a Province to delegate to the Federal government, and that is what happens in Ontario with respect to provincial railways; Metrolinx is an obvious example, but there are a number of shortlines to which it applies as well. But the jurisdiction of provincial railways does ultimately lie with the Province. Other provinces, such as Quebec, Alberta and BC, do directly regulate the railways lying entirely within the province.

On the matter of the abandonment of federal railways, the Provincial government does have the right to intervene; they are specifically notified as part of the abandonment process and are given second right of refusal after the federal government. That notification goes to the minister of transportation or equivalent in each affected province. The MoTO, as an institution, knew about the abandonment of both the CN and CP lines in the Ottawa Valley and opted not to exercise their right to acquire the railway at its net salvage value.

I'll freely blame the feds for not having the vision to acquire a strategic transport asset for CFB Petawawa, but the MoTO is equally guilty of a lack of vision in failing to acquire the only rail corridors to bypass the GTA.



There is no other provincial body with the province-wide power to acquire railways when they are offered for sale during abandonment, and it is the MoTO that is notified as per the federal abandonment rules. They have a role, whether they like it or not, and they decline to exercise it.

It doesn't even have to acquire them with a view to operating trains itself; it just has to acquire the RoW with the tracks in place to hold it in reserve for possible future use, i.e. railbanking. It could allow train operators to carry on business at whatever rate the market will bear, even if that is below the capital carrying cost; after all, it's not like the MoTO charges the trucking companies for use of its highways.

So becaue the MTO is notified of the impending abandonment, they should be compelled to purchase the railway?

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

So then why isn't HSR being built. If the business case is so sound, why are smart people continuing to shelve the project? I have read the 2009 report and I honestly believe if the business case were really there, we'd already be building it.

You really think that public policy decisions are based on what works financially? Cute.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

How many facilities that the MTO operates and maintains have bike lanes? MTO maintains almost no local urban roads that would warrant bike lanes, so why should an organization with little to no experience take a lead role in designing cycling facilities. That would be dumb.

Municipalities have supplmental standards for lots of civil works. They are, and should be, the lead on cycling facilities because they are the ones designing, building and operating them.

MTO plays an important regulatory role. It sets the rules of the road, signage, etc so that they are consistent across the province and also publish the Ontario Traffic Manual (working with municipalities through the Ontario Traffic Council ) and implement any changes through amended legislation/regs. There are upcoming revisions to cycling rules/design that may be coming later this year.

http://www.otc.org/uploads/File/Book_18_update_20120719.pdf
http://www.sharetheroad.ca/files/MTO_Bikeway_Guidelines_Amy_Ibrahim__Jim_Dowell.pdf
http://urbancommuter.wordpress.com/2012/...sais-quoi-draft-cycling-strategy-part-3/

In terms of construction there is an initiative to get MTO to pave shoulders on some of the non-400 series Highways, such as a "pilot project" on Highway 6. There are lots of roads like Highway 21 that could benefit from inter-town cycling facilities (I think they exist in the Grand Bend area).

[Dado]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

How many facilities that the MTO operates and maintains have bike lanes? MTO maintains almost no local urban roads that would warrant bike lanes, so why should an organization with little to no experience take a lead role in designing cycling facilities. That would be dumb.

Municipalities have supplmental standards for lots of civil works. They are, and should be, the lead on cycling facilities because they are the ones designing, building and operating them.

They themselves acknowledge their own mandate (for lack of a better term) includes the design of cycling facilities.

I don't like, you apparently don't like it and it sure seems that MoTO doesn't like it. But that's the way it is, and given that they have the mandate they should be expected to carry it out as they so enthusiastically carry out their freeway-building mandate.

Seems a similar situation currently exists for pedestrians at basically all ramps, and that seems to work out fine.

The slip lane ramps are equally disadvantageous to pedestrians; the right of way is set up incorrectly for them as well (but at least they're capable of stopping on a dime). It only "seems to work out fine" for motorists. Pedestrians could be stuck waiting at some busier slip lanes for an extended period of time.

You seem to insinuate that cyclists should always have the right away over vehicles.

Only in your imagination. Iit's a weird sentence anyway since cyclists are operators of vehicles...

At an interchange, the cyclist will always be through traffic and the motorist entering the freeway is the turning traffic.

Doesn't through traffic generally have priority over turning traffic in the absence of any other traffic control?

Aside from the obvious fact that cyclists are superior to everyone else because they are cyclists, why is that?

Nice attempt at deflection. How about you answer the question I posed as to who under the rules of the HTA has the right of way at the bike lane-slip lane onramp design you linked to?

Just to make it a bit simpler, imagine that the bike lane wasn't a bike lane at all but a regular width through traffic lane with cars in it and that it crossed the slip lane onto the freeway in the same manner as the bike lane does. If that's a tad unrealistic, let's try something a bit more plausible: a bus lane. If a bus lane and freeway onramp slip lane were designed in exactly the same way with no yield or stop signs present, who has right of way at the scissors crossing?

Then they should buy a better map, one that does show this information.

First, that's an admission that the maps that the MoTO produces aren't all that useful for cyclists.

Second, you can't readily get such maps. There is no aggregation mechanism for municipalities to list which roads are paved and which are not to some common or higher body to disseminate that information to map makers. Ontario is not alone; I had this problem when cycling in Alberta of not being able to get useful maps for cycling. The best you can do are the Federal government's topo maps, but they're often years out of date.

Google street view has images of virtually every back road across the country now. It's not an unrealistic expectation for people to plan their route somewhat before embarking on a month long transcanadian journey.

That is relatively recent. I would expect we'll see a lot less of this issue from now on because of it, but that in no way excuses the MoTO's longstanding oversight.

No, I got it, I just didn't agree. People are responsible to learn and observe the laws, missing signs or not.

I see. So essentially: "We're Ontario. We don't like cyclists. Screw you."

Why bother having signs at the ramps at all then? If anything, the MoTO is wasting their resources because putting up signs to deter pedestrians and cyclists from venturing onto a freeway at an onramp, is, when you get right down to it, kind of pointless as they're not likely to do it anyway (recall what you said about me supposedly underestimating the intelligence of cyclists and my response that it's the intelligence of the MoTO that is at issue? Exactly). Far more useful would be to put up some signage in the few rare instances where a highway turns into a freeway.

And this is not some new problem, either. It has existed since long before the internet turned up on the scene. If anything, it was worse in the past when there was no readily available way to do that kind of research ahead of time.

You are busy defending the MoTO's car-centric mentality that prevents them from seeing the need to put up a few signs on a few highways just before they turn into freeways. The need should be obvious: a road changes status... surely someone down at the MoTO could have asked themselves what kind of implications that has on non-motor vehicle users.

It is agains the law to ride on the Queensway, and a person is responsible for finding that out before they head out. Godsend or not

Except it isn't "against the law". It's prohibited by regulation, not by law. Anyone who had consulted the HTA before heading out would find no prohibition against travelling on the Queensway or any other controlled access freeway by means other than in a motor vehicle. For that you have to (1) know to start looking through regulations, (2) find the regulations, and (3) identify the correct regulation.

At most suburban interchanges, [motor] vehicular traffic outnumbers cyclists by 1000s of cars to a single cyclist? Why on earth should cycling design take precedence over auto design?

Fixed that for you.

I'm not sure how that amounts to a response to what I wrote, but then again deflection is becoming a bit of a pattern.


But, to answer your question, as a general principle of road design, precedence in design should be accorded to the most vulnerable road users. That's first pedestrians and then cyclists. Paucity of numbers shouldn't be used to justify dangerous designs. If anything, the dangers to any pedestrians or cyclists who are present are worsened with a lack of numbers, so adding bad design on top of that is hardly a good idea.

Additionally, you're overlooking the fact that auto-centric design is to a large extent responsible for the very disparity in numbers you're using to justify further bad auto-centric designs.

[eternallyme]

About the bicycles vs. ramps issue, that is a tricky one. There isn't a great solution.

First of all, the number of bicycles on most intersecting arterial roads is quite low, so there would be a great impact on traffic operations with a small number of users benefiting (maybe 20 a day instead of 20,000 or more that are punished).

That is why I think off-street bicycle paths are the best solution for high-traffic arterials. They can meet the ramps at signalized intersections themselves or be grade-separated. Otherwise, it is a case of driver courtesy.

In rural areas, traffic is generally low enough that safety should not be compromised and bicycles should get an opportunity to travel through.