[Wharn]

Just used Google Maps yesterday to plot a trip from Collingwood to London, and it's not just the London numbering that's all screwed up. It still shows parts of old provincial highways that haven't existed in over a decade. For example, Highway 9 is still shown as being continuous from Kincardine to Newmarket.

[haljackey]

Made this for a school project, but may as well share it here:

ZDfwNE8OtI0

It's a video render of what Annadale Drive (near Wonderland Road and the Aquatic Centre) could look like if some upgrades were made to the road and the surrounding area.

The end result is intended to reduce car use and improve connectivity and efficiency for all modes of transportation (in this case car/bike/bus/pedestrian).

[manny_santos]

Just used Google Maps yesterday to plot a trip from Collingwood to London, and it's not just the London numbering that's all screwed up. It still shows parts of old provincial highways that haven't existed in over a decade. For example, Highway 9 is still shown as being continuous from Kincardine to Newmarket.

With Mapmaker, you can have all the arguments you can find in favour of getting something changed, including a signed affedavit from the Ministry of Transportation that a highway no longer exists, but if a Google staffer can't find it on his/her 1975 edition of a dog-eared Rand McNally map, you'll either get your edit denied or told condescendingly to "undo" the edit. In my brief stint as a Regional Expert Reviewer for Ontario, I ended up approving some edits that were obviously valid, that some Google employees in California had told users to "undo" because they "couldn't find the information" even though it took me under 30 seconds to find the same information. I don't think their employees even know how to use their own search engine; how hard could it have been, in one case from Richmond Hill I dealt with, to Google the name of the street and "Richmond Hill"?

If you're using Mapmaker, some of the Google "reviewers" to watch out for include "Brian K", "Nancy", and "Nick C". Do NOT trust anything they claim about Ontario roads or other features. Their holier-than-thou, condescending attitudes, claims about mapping methodologies that were contrary to Google's own guidelines, and generally disrespectful actions towards locally knowledgable mappers (such as quietly undoing valid edits with no explainations) are the reason I left Mapmaker - and now use only Mapquest for Canadian or U.S. mapping.

[Wharn]

With Mapmaker, you can have all the arguments you can find in favour of getting something changed, including a signed affedavit from the Ministry of Transportation that a highway no longer exists, but if a Google staffer can't find it on his/her 1975 edition of a dog-eared Rand McNally map, you'll either get your edit denied or told condescendingly to "undo" the edit. In my brief stint as a Regional Expert Reviewer for Ontario, I ended up approving some edits that were obviously valid, that some Google employees in California had told users to "undo" because they "couldn't find the information" even though it took me under 30 seconds to find the same information. I don't think their employees even know how to use their own search engine; how hard could it have been, in one case from Richmond Hill I dealt with, to Google the name of the street and "Richmond Hill"?

If you're using Mapmaker, some of the Google "reviewers" to watch out for include "Brian K", "Nancy", and "Nick C". Do NOT trust anything they claim about Ontario roads or other features. Their holier-than-thou, condescending attitudes, claims about mapping methodologies that were contrary to Google's own guidelines, and generally disrespectful actions towards locally knowledgable mappers (such as quietly undoing valid edits with no explainations) are the reason I left Mapmaker - and now use only Mapquest for Canadian or U.S. mapping.

I don't plan to use Mapmaker because I have better things to do with my time than start edit wars with retarded Americans. Google Maps used to be good, but now there is all sorts of incorrect information that just makes it completely unreliable. For example: a few days ago, Cummer Avenue, a road that has existed since the mid 1800s, mysteriously disappeared from Toronto. For its entire length, it was replaced by McNicoll Avenue, a 1970s extension of the same road. Despite this, Old Cummer Avenue was untouched. Logic dictates that if there is an "Old Cummer", there must be a "New Cummer" somewhere else, but apparently Google didn't consider this. Now, if I had printed out a map telling me to go to "144 McNicoll Avenue", I would have ended up somewhere on Cummer between Yonge and Bayview.

On another note, Highbury Avenue South has been changed to "N. Highbury Avenue" after remaining correct and unchanged for several years... what gives? Someone should write Google, tell them their product is shit and ban the reviewers.

[manny_santos]

I don't plan to use Mapmaker because I have better things to do with my time than start edit wars with retarded Americans. Google Maps used to be good, but now there is all sorts of incorrect information that just makes it completely unreliable. For example: a few days ago, Cummer Avenue, a road that has existed since the mid 1800s, mysteriously disappeared from Toronto. For its entire length, it was replaced by McNicoll Avenue, a 1970s extension of the same road. Despite this, Old Cummer Avenue was untouched. Logic dictates that if there is an "Old Cummer", there must be a "New Cummer" somewhere else, but apparently Google didn't consider this. Now, if I had printed out a map telling me to go to "144 McNicoll Avenue", I would have ended up somewhere on Cummer between Yonge and Bayview.

That's basically why I left - I told my Google "mentor" that I have better things to do with my time than to argue over road priority designations. At the time I left, I talked to another Regional Expert Reviewer (RER) in B.C. and he was about ready to pack it in for the same reasons.

On another note, Highbury Avenue South has been changed to "N. Highbury Avenue" after remaining correct and unchanged for several years... what gives? Someone should write Google, tell them their product is shit and ban the reviewers.

I had submitted an edit at one point to designate Highbury, north of the Thames River only, as "Highbury Avenue North" as that is the proper name as per the City of London. Obviously some idiot thought it would be funny to move the "N" to the beginning and apply the designation all the way south.

Now, please excuse me while I take London's very own National Highway from Lambeth to Second Street, so I get get to Fanshawe College. I may take a lot longer than I normally would, because I'm just following Google's directions!

[Wharn]

Speaking of Google Maps, has anyone seen the latest aerial imagery for London? It was taken sometime in Spring or Fall, and it looks like shit. Literally. Every single forested area in the city is a shade of brown, and so is the Thames River. The South Branch is particularly brown. To add insult to injury, a lot of the recent construction projects aren't even finished yet, adding yet even more bare brown landscape. It's hideous.

[haljackey]

Huh, what do ya know, Google actually updated the imagery for London!

Google Earth is telling me the date it was taken was April 29, 2011. That's why it looks crappy... snow has melted but the trees and vegetation haven't blossomed yet.

London's prior imagery was on May 2, 2006, so at least it's consistent in terms of the 'look' of the city. :P

[manny_santos]

Some moron thought it would be funny to put the name "County Road 2" on the National Highway (former Highway 2) through London. And the Highway 4 routing, at least along Wharncliffe Road, now has flowerpot symbols. There has never been a County Road 4 signed along this route.

The only evidence I have ever seen of a supposed "County Road 2" through London was on a Rand McNally map of the city, which is where I think the Google Maps operators in California use for its Canadian information.

[Wharn]

Some moron thought it would be funny to put the name "County Road 2" on the National Highway (former Highway 2) through London. And the Highway 4 routing, at least along Wharncliffe Road, now has flowerpot symbols. There has never been a County Road 4 signed along this route.


It's a bit hard to have a county road through a single-tier municipality that is politically separate from the county.

Stay tuned next week as Fanshawe Park Road is renamed National Highway 22.

[MolsonExport]

Anybody check to see if swastika gardens is still with us? Hyde Park and Fascist drive.

[MolsonExport]

^fuck it is still there! I just checked. Hyde park aerials date from no more than half a year ago.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=hyde+park+ontario&hl=en&ll=42.990264,-81.364982&spn=0.002955,0.004801&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=42.894906,78.662109&hnear=Hyde+Park,+Middlesex+County,+Ontario&t=h&z=18

[Wharn]

I notice the shit-map conveniently ends right around Swastika Gardens' neighbourhood.

[Snark]

1) The new aerials on Google are provided by the City. They paid a contractor to have it re-flown last April, and are the same imagery as is on the City's web site. Typically, urban municipalities have their city re-flown every 2 - 4 years for GIS purposes.

2) Why image in April when everything is still dead? Simple: if you are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for aerial photography, wouldn't you want to see more than 50% of the surface of the ground in those images? The images are useless as an analysis tool unless a user can see everything. Foliage looks nice, but ruins the technical value of the images. Aerial photography of urban areas in the Spring is common for this reason.

3) Why still the swastika? The old dead Nazi lived in the township and the City isn't going to pay for that. Hyde Park is in the city and thus was imaged - Colonel Klink was not. Everyone will have to wait 'till the County re-flys its territory (usually once every 10 years), or Google gets new material from an alternate supplier.

[K85]

So if I hire a plane to do this, I could have it sent to the city and thus to google probono? (hypothetical)

[MolsonExport]

I hadn't thought of the (probable) stitching together of new/old images. That old nazi fuk has been pushing daisies for about a year, but his swastika looks as fresh as ever....so fresh, that I reckon it is indeed the original image.
I hope so. It bothers the hell out of me. I am married to an Asian and naturally have biracial children. Having such a giant symbol of racial hatred (even if inverted to 'ostensibly' represent the hindu circle of life as opposed to nazism) less than two kms from my home (I live in the land of Liver and Onions)...

nothing that some gasoline and a match wouldn't fix.

[haljackey]

Oh look at Bradley and Wonderland: http://g.co/maps/fysjc

And Wonderland/401: http://g.co/maps/ffda5

[K85]

I am confused by the above post

[manny_santos]

I am confused by the above post

I think his point was that certain proposed road re-alignments that are associated with the Wonderland/401 interchange have already been added as actual roads.

The only point I can glean from the Bradley Ave comment is that it has been drawn in as "planned". I actually was the one who added that, but of course using the old imagery.

[K85]

Ah, when I clicked the links, they opened up, but didn't open up right. Both just showed the roads, and only the roads.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Looks like the city might be trying to bring red light camera's to busy intersections.

Mayor sees red on lights

"If you're irked by drivers who blow through intersections long after amber has turned to red, take heart.

Mayor Joe Fontana is ready for a crackdown.

Fontana says the installation of red-light cameras, like the one at right, or remote radar to catch speeders could be a part of a new city strategy to improve traffic safety."

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/03/10/19486536.html


With so many morons out on our streets, and the seeming de facto acceptability of late red runners and turns, as much as its a money grab might be needed to slap some sense into drivers.

[haljackey]

I recall there was something similar to this implemented in Texas.

Speed cameras were set up at various locations on freeways and took pictures of your license plate and measured your speed. If you were speeding, you were fined. A speeding ticket is sent to your house, much like how Highway 407 ETR sends you a bill if you use the highway without a transponder.

This 'money grab' was eventually canceled due to public outcry and other reasons (I believe it was somehow unconstitutional). Something similar might result from London's plan.

[Kokkei Mizu]

Red light and speed cameras are very common in Edmonton. They don't seem to be going anywhere. They're a good money maker for the city.

Also, on the topic of Google Maps, looks like they've updated the map itself to reflect official changes. (for example, look at the roads in Innovation Industrial Park or any new neighborhoods)

[go_leafs_go02]

Toronto has red light cameras, Brantford does too.

Not a big deal if you ask me. Speed cameras are a completely different story.

[manny_santos]

I recall there was something similar to this implemented in Texas.

Speed cameras were set up at various locations on freeways and took pictures of your license plate and measured your speed. If you were speeding, you were fined. A speeding ticket is sent to your house, much like how Highway 407 ETR sends you a bill if you use the highway without a transponder.

Not just Texas - Ontario had "photo radar" for a brief time in 1994-1995. Mike Harris promised to scrap it if he was elected Premier, and indeed one of his first acts as Premier was to scrap it.

As for London and red light cameras, anything to help the city make money while attempting to improve road safety is something I am in favour of. One of London's biggest traffic problems - which I rarely have seen in other North American cities, including Toronto and even in the wild traffic of Mexico City - is that Londoners don't stop at red lights when turning right. I have been almost hit so many times by these drivers that I lost count years ago.

Another potential solution is to outright ban right turns at red lights at certain intersections. I'd give drivers notice through the media that this will be implemented at undisclosed intersections after six months if there is not a noticable improvement.

[go_leafs_go02]

London is the worse for people turning left after the advanced left turn signal has gone off. I've seen 3-4 vehicles go through after the light has turned yellow.

[go_leafs_go02]

Another potential solution is to outright ban right turns at red lights at certain intersections. I'd give drivers notice through the media that this will be implemented at undisclosed intersections after six months if there is not a noticable improvement.

That likely would have to be done via the Province. Doubt regions or Cities can implement laws like that (unless they signed every single intersection)

[manny_santos]

That likely would have to be done via the Province. Doubt regions or Cities can implement laws like that (unless they signed every single intersection)

You might be right...but can a municipality not implement it one intersection at a time?

The last time I was in Sudbury (1995) I noticed some intersections had this.

[go_leafs_go02]

You might be right...but can a municipality not implement it one intersection at a time?

The last time I was in Sudbury (1995) I noticed some intersections had this.

They could definitely do that, but to have a blanket law without signage in place would violate the Highway Traffic Act. You'd need likely 8-12 signs per intersection (2-3 per direction), and you can just see how many signs would be necessary.

[Wharn]

Red light cameras would be a great idea for this city. They have them all over the place in Toronto, and I've noticed that there are far fewer red-light runners at these intersections than there were a few years back. Now, I'm not nearly as enthusiastic about speed cameras and photo radar in general, because it is nothing but a money grab. Running red lights is far more dangerous, not to mention it's a serious violation of other drivers' right-of-way.

London is the worse for people turning left after the advanced left turn signal has gone off. I've seen 3-4 vehicles go through after the light has turned yellow.

London isn't the worst, trust me. This is practically a daily occurance in Toronto, people will always try to get through the intersection at any cost and it's not uncommon to see three cars moving through after the turn signal has expired. My favourite are the people who try and beat oncoming traffic by bolting through just as the light turns green (with no advanced green).

My favourite London move, though, are people who proceed through a red light upon seeing the green left-turn signal. I've seen this happen twice here, but never anywhere else. No excuse for that, just pure inattentiveness.

That likely would have to be done via the Province. Doubt regions or Cities can implement laws like that (unless they signed every single intersection)

Toronto has several intersections where you're not allowed to turn right on a red. Even London has a few along Hamilton Road. I think the city is well within its bounds by restricting right turns on reds at certain intersections.

[go_leafs_go02]

Toronto has several intersections where you're not allowed to turn right on a red. Even London has a few along Hamilton Road. I think the city is well within its bounds by restricting right turns on reds at certain intersections.

They can certainly do it where ever they want with signage, they just cannot enact a regional traffic law that blankets everything without it being provincial.

[Wharn]

They can certainly do it where ever they want with signage, they just cannot enact a regional traffic law that blankets everything without it being provincial.

I thought we were debating the legitimacy of specific signage... my mistake. You're right, you need the province to create a regional traffic law of any kind- I would imagine if London wanted to reduce the default speed limit from 50 to 40, they would also need to appeal to the province for that.

[manny_santos]

The Free Press mentioned yesterday or the day before that the City is going ahead with expropriating lands along Southdale Road for widening between Wonderland and Wharncliffe.

Has there been a definitive announcement when this widening is actually going to take place?

[MrSlippery519]

The Free Press mentioned yesterday or the day before that the City is going ahead with expropriating lands along Southdale Road for widening between Wonderland and Wharncliffe.


That is long over due, I must have missed the mention in the free press. I would hope it happens sooner than later as there is nothing in the way along that stretch.

[Whisper09]

The Free Press mentioned yesterday or the day before that the City is going ahead with expropriating lands along Southdale Road for widening between Wonderland and Wharncliffe.

Yes Finally!! Ever try turning onto Notre Dame from Southdale (making left) at 5-6. Good freaking luck. People are stupid and block the intersection all the time when it goes red.

I was thinking that if they just extended Bradley, Southdale wouldn't be as bad as it is. But it's good to hear they are at least thinking more about widening it. Needs a good repair too.

[haljackey]

The Free Press mentioned yesterday or the day before that the City is going ahead with expropriating lands along Southdale Road for widening between Wonderland and Wharncliffe.

Has there been a definitive announcement when this widening is actually going to take place?

It was supposed to happen this year, but pushed back to 2013 due to budget cuts.

Same goes with Commissioners between Wonderland and Warncliffe. I think that begins in 2015.

There are no major widening projects taking place this year.

[Whisper09]

There are no major widening projects taking place this year.


Fanshawe Between Highbury and Adelaide??

[haljackey]

Fanshawe Between Highbury and Adelaide??

The Fanshawe and Highbury intersection is being expanded. Fanshawe Park will be just widened just east of it and Highbury just north of it as part of the project.

I hardly consider this a widening project... maybe just a minor one.

Links:
http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Road_Construction/Construction_Administration/Fanshawe_Highbury2012.htm
http://webmap.london.ca/RoadConstruction/Query.aspx?LAYER=PLANNEDSITES&KEYID=S13-1&TYPE=Planned%20Roadwork&SITE_ID=S13-1&NAME=&KEYNAME=SITE_ID&Z1=4&SCRIPTVER=Public&APP=../RoadConstruction/Query.aspx&WIDTH=400&HEIGHT=600&LAYERURL=
http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Road_Construction/Letters/s13-1.htm

[manny_santos]

It was supposed to happen this year, but pushed back to 2013 due to budget cuts.

Same goes with Commissioners between Wonderland and Warncliffe. I think that begins in 2015.

There are no major widening projects taking place this year.

That's unfortunate - Commissioners, Southdale, Hyde Park, and Oxford (west of Hyde Park) all are in desperate need of widening. I wonder how much the current transportation situation is costing London's economy, in terms of wasted gasoline, and delays in delivering goods. That's a number we almost never hear about when we hear about London transportation improvement project proposals.

I really wish that London forced developers to finance widening projects at the time developments take place, which is what other Canadian jurisdictions such as Halton Region do. The only case I'm aware of where this ever happened was when Wal-Mart and/or SmartCentres was asked to finance the widening of Fanshawe Park Road between Hyde Park and Wonderland. They, along the residential developers in the Hyde Park area, should have been asked to finance the widening of Hyde Park Road, and even Gainsborough Road. Of course, now it's too late, but it's something London needs to look at for the future. I know it's something Vic Cote argued in favour of when he was with the City of London.

[haljackey]

It almost makes too much sense.

I guess low density residential development isn't enough to spur costly widening projects in the city's eye. That will deter developers as it will increase their costs and ultimately push housing prices up. Good planning, but bad economics (in the short term).

The only reason Southdale is 4 lanes around Wonderland is because of that big box development. It got 4-laned east of Wonderland when the Loblaws went in, and widened in the west when Home Depot got built. While this may help push more traffic through the intersection, short 4 lane sections don't do much to reduce traffic congestion... Long stretches are needed.

It's a known fact that London's poor road (and transit) system have had a dynamic effect on this city's economic and population growth.

[Wharn]

So Google fixed the Highbury Avenue N/S confusion, butfor some reason all of it is now labelled as part of "Ontario Hwy 126". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Highway 126 has been gone for more than 20 years. So where the HELL are these Google people getting their information? Are they all still using the 1987 Ontario Road Map, or do they just have some obsession with resurrecting dead highways?

[go_leafs_go02]

Maybe the province is re-uploading all the provincial highways from the 1990s?

Would love to see that happen to be honest :)

[manny_santos]

So Google fixed the Highbury Avenue N/S confusion, butfor some reason all of it is now labelled as part of "Ontario Hwy 126". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Highway 126 has been gone for more than 20 years. So where the HELL are these Google people getting their information? Are they all still using the 1987 Ontario Road Map, or do they just have some obsession with resurrecting dead highways?

When Google Maps first launched back in...2004, or whatever it was, they had Highway 126 marked on the map as if the highway still existed. It disappeared a number of years later. Highway 135 was also marked.

When I first started using Google MapMaker, they did have Highbury classified as "Ontario 126" internally, but only as an "obscure name". This means it was not supposed to show up on the map, but still be found in the right place should someone search for it. Obviously someone thought it would be funny to make it an active name that would show up.

I would really like to know where they get their information. Not one published map I've seen in the past 20 years has mentioned Highway 126, anywhere.

I might also add that I returned to MapMaker under a different name, but I've been focusing on Mexico City and some of the surrounding area. I'm running into the same problems there with the same Google Reviewers as I did in Ontario. There's a highway north of Mexico City, which is the principal alternative route to a toll freeway, which Google Maps had marked as a Minor Artery and with no highway number. The highway is part of the federal network, I personally drove it less than a month ago and can vouch for the highway number posted (132), and official government documents show it as such. I promoted the whole thing to a National Highway (particularly as Directions refused to use most of that route if trying to avoid the toll highway), but good old Google Reviewer Nancy (who has been responsible for some of the mess in London) went and changed everything without any explanation. Some of it was even changed to a Local Road. I've stepped away once again, after I reported Nancy's changes for abuse with some harsh words for Google. Google Maps is an absolute disaster in Mexico right now, and I basically told them that if they even want to compete with Bing Maps (which has a far more accurate map), they need to let people who know the area make changes without interference from people in California who have never been to the area.

If such a major highway is a combination of a Local Road and a Major Artery, I don't know how in hell London's Florence Street can be a National Highway.

I'm honestly starting to think that Google doesn't even care about its mapping product.

[Wharn]

Maybe the province is re-uploading all the provincial highways from the 1990s?

Would love to see that happen to be honest :)

I'd like to see the return of a coherent, province-wide numbering scheme with local maintenance. For example, Highway 7 would once again be contiguous across Ontario, but all the currently downloaded parts would continue to be maintained by the municipalities.


I would really like to know where they get their information. Not one published map I've seen in the past 20 years has mentioned Highway 126, anywhere.

I've stepped away once again, after I reported Nancy's changes for abuse with some harsh words for Google. Google Maps is an absolute disaster in Mexico right now, and I basically told them that if they even want to compete with Bing Maps (which has a far more accurate map), they need to let people who know the area make changes without interference from people in California who have never been to the area.

If such a major highway is a combination of a Local Road and a Major Artery, I don't know how in hell London's Florence Street can be a National Highway.

I'm honestly starting to think that Google doesn't even care about its mapping product.

Bing Maps isn't perfect either (Highway 2 still exists along Dundas, Florence and York Streets, and Wharncliffe is still Highway 4) but for Christ's sake, at least they got the Highbury N./S. separation right, and at least they classify the appropriate parts as an expressway!

Google really needs to shut down this Nancy person. She's not just screwing up London maps, she's screwing up maps all over the world. To be honest, she sounds like one of those pseudo-intellectual soccer moms who's convinced that Babby's First Atlas is correct beyond any doubt.

[manny_santos]

Bing Maps isn't perfect either (Highway 2 still exists along Dundas, Florence and York Streets, and Wharncliffe is still Highway 4) but for Christ's sake, at least they got the Highbury N./S. separation right, and at least they classify the appropriate parts as an expressway!

Google really needs to shut down this Nancy person. She's not just screwing up London maps, she's screwing up maps all over the world. To be honest, she sounds like one of those pseudo-intellectual soccer moms who's convinced that Babby's First Atlas is correct beyond any doubt.

Yeah, Bing has a few mistakes in Mexico too; however, their road classifications there, and the accuracy of street names, are far superior to Google. The biggest difference is if you want to avoid Toll Roads. Bing has all of Mexico's toll highways properly categorized. Google has virtually none of them.

If I drew a map at the age of 6, it would've been more accurate than Google's product.

[haljackey]

Attended the London Transportation Master Plan meeting. By 2030, London will have 2 new bus routes and 2 new roads! Yay for progress and having the balls to implement such innovative proposals!

That is really all I have to report from the event.

[Kokkei Mizu]

What are the 2 new roads?

[MrSlippery519]

Any more details than that? That does not sounds all that great for a 2030 plan...adding 2 roads and 2 bus routes in 20 years?

I must be missing something here, because it sounds substantial by your post?

[haljackey]

Here's a pdf of the pamphlet I got yesterday if anyone's interested: http://www.london.ca/Transportation_Planning/pdfs/SmartMoves_MayNewsletter2011_forweb.pdf

So much for LRT and freeways, we get 2 'semi-express' bus routes (maybe BRT in the future), and a short extension of the VMP at-grade expressway in the east. They 'talked' about maybe building a VMP-like road in the west in like 50 years... no interchanges on either though. Road widenings/reconstruction will be selective at best. LRT 'may' be considered in later master plans.

...pathetic. I almost think I have a knack for this sort of thing because I live in a city that is so behind when it comes to transportation planning.


What are the 2 new roads?

Bradley extension from White Oak to Colonel Talbot and north and south extensions of the VMP.


Any more details than that? That does not sounds all that great for a 2030 plan...adding 2 roads and 2 bus routes in 20 years?

I must be missing something here, because it sounds substantial by your post?

I'm being sarcastic lol. This plan is pathetic. It's even more so when you compare this to KW and other Canadian cities.

[MrSlippery519]

I'm being sarcastic lol. This plan is pathetic. It's even more so when you compare this to KW and other Canadian cities.

Damn I was hoping I was missing something and the "2" roads were something huge lol.

Quite lame to say the least

[Wharn]

Here's a pdf of the pamphlet I got yesterday if anyone's interested: http://www.london.ca/Transportation_Planning/pdfs/SmartMoves_MayNewsletter2011_forweb.pdf

So much for LRT and freeways, we get 2 'semi-express' bus routes (maybe BRT in the future), and a short extension of the VMP at-grade expressway in the east. They 'talked' about maybe building a VMP-like road in the west in like 50 years... no interchanges on either though. Road widenings/reconstruction will be selective at best. LRT 'may' be considered in later master plans.

...pathetic. I almost think I have a knack for this sort of thing because I live in a city that is so behind when it comes to transportation planning.

To be fair, it would be difficult to feasibly implement LRT somewhere like London. The traffic patterns make it extremely difficult to build a coherent, navigable route, since it would involve trackage through the University campus, which is not exactly rail-friendly. But I definitely see your point, because they could at least try to determine where the feasible LRT routes would be, rather than just avoiding the topic completely. It also ignores the need to attract industry to London by providing appropriate transportation (read: VMP freeway), and it ignores key missing links in the road system (still no sign of the Gainsborough-Windermere bridge). At least the report acknowledges that the city's bike lane network has room for improvement, but I don't know why Queens Avenue and Western Road are listed as "priority routes" if they already have bike lanes.

Look on the bright side, though: Toronto is currently trying to implement traffic planning initiatives that will actively aim to make congestion worse (LRT boulevards, 40 km/h arterial speed limits), but London is taking a hands-off approach. Not as progressive as K-W or even Hamilton, but at least it's not utterly destructive.

[manny_santos]

To be fair, it would be difficult to feasibly implement LRT somewhere like London. The traffic patterns make it extremely difficult to build a coherent, navigable route, since it would involve trackage through the University campus, which is not exactly rail-friendly. But I definitely see your point, because they could at least try to determine where the feasible LRT routes would be, rather than just avoiding the topic completely. It also ignores the need to attract industry to London by providing appropriate transportation (read: VMP freeway), and it ignores key missing links in the road system (still no sign of the Gainsborough-Windermere bridge). At least the report acknowledges that the city's bike lane network has room for improvement, but I don't know why Queens Avenue and Western Road are listed as "priority routes" if they already have bike lanes.

Look on the bright side, though: Toronto is currently trying to implement traffic planning initiatives that will actively aim to make congestion worse (LRT boulevards, 40 km/h arterial speed limits), but London is taking a hands-off approach. Not as progressive as K-W or even Hamilton, but at least it's not utterly destructive.

If we ever have LRT in London, I think it will be on existing railway tracks, although those don't serve very many key points in the city aside from downtown. Railways do come close to UWO and Fanshawe, but not close enough; at this point the only way to reach either of them would be to build underground spur lines. Not impossible, but very expensive, although I think it would be cool to have subway stations on both campuses. Aside from that, the only major commercial, residential, or institutional areas served by the railways include Hyde Park/Oakridge, some parts of West London, some of the Dundas East area, the Western Fair District, Victoria Hospital, the Westminster neighbourhood near Pond Mills Road, and perhaps most importantly, London International Airport. Still, those are better than nothing (Ottawa's O-Train doesn't come close to serving the whole city), and such a system definitely needs to have connections to St. Thomas, Strathroy, Sarnia, Chatham, Ingersoll, and Woodstock.

I think mass transit in London, if it ever happens, will be BRT, supplemented by a regional rail network, possibly connected with GO, connecting the aforemented communities with Downtown London and certain suburban locations. BRT will probably happen in my lifetime; regional LRT or HRT is likely much further away.

LRT (or BRT) boulevards are a bad idea if there is insufficient ROW. Spadina Ave in Toronto seems to function well with a streetcar line down the middle from what I've seen, but I know that many Torontonians complain about St. Clair Ave West since it got a streetcar line down the middle several years ago. Perhaps the best thing the TTC did was putting the northern terminus of the Spadina line underground, instead of having a congested above-ground station right at Spadina and Bloor. I have also seen BRT boulevards in Mexico City, but in most cases they function well as roads with very wide ROW were chosen, and 3 or 4 regular lanes each way still are in operation.

[haljackey]

I've always envisioned the CP line either combined with the CN line or rerouted around the city. That right of way, although slim, could be used for a busway or LRT. If right of way was purchased around it, a tight 4-lane expressway could go in, and it would be a nice fit since there are already some overpasses built for it.

The CP rail yard could be redeveloped into something cool as well.

[manny_santos]

I've always envisioned the CP line either combined with the CN line or rerouted around the city. That right of way, although slim, could be used for a busway or LRT. If right of way was purchased around it, a tight 4-lane expressway could go in, and it would be a nice fit since there are already some overpasses built for it.

The CP rail yard could be redeveloped into something cool as well.

I've thought about that, although it seems as though increasing freight traffic could make that a problem. CP has talked about putting a second track through London to accommodate increased traffic, and the new Sarnia Road bridge was built to accommodate this.

At best, I think that passenger rail on the CP line would have to share with freight, as is already done on the CP lines in the Toronto area which have GO Transit running on them (such as the Milton-Toronto line).

[Wharn]

If we ever have LRT in London, I think it will be on existing railway tracks, although those don't serve very many key points in the city aside from downtown. Railways do come close to UWO and Fanshawe, but not close enough; at this point the only way to reach either of them would be to build underground spur lines. Not impossible, but very expensive, although I think it would be cool to have subway stations on both campuses. Aside from that, the only major commercial, residential, or institutional areas served by the railways include Hyde Park/Oakridge, some parts of West London, some of the Dundas East area, the Western Fair District, Victoria Hospital, the Westminster neighbourhood near Pond Mills Road, and perhaps most importantly, London International Airport. Still, those are better than nothing (Ottawa's O-Train doesn't come close to serving the whole city), and such a system definitely needs to have connections to St. Thomas, Strathroy, Sarnia, Chatham, Ingersoll, and Woodstock.

I think mass transit in London, if it ever happens, will be BRT, supplemented by a regional rail network, possibly connected with GO, connecting the aforemented communities with Downtown London and certain suburban locations. BRT will probably happen in my lifetime; regional LRT or HRT is likely much further away.

Personally, I think the CP rail lines are a bad fit for mass transit, simply because they were never built to actually serve anything internally. When the railway was built, it was a bypass out on the edge of town. Furthermore, the heaviest transit users- students- would get nothing out of it. Haljackey's expressway idea would actually be more feasible (if CP ever decided that it wanted to re-route the tracks), but that presents its own logistical challenges (I'd like to see them sneak the highway through Richmond and Oxford).


LRT (or BRT) boulevards are a bad idea if there is insufficient ROW. Spadina Ave in Toronto seems to function well with a streetcar line down the middle from what I've seen, but I know that many Torontonians complain about St. Clair Ave West since it got a streetcar line down the middle several years ago. Perhaps the best thing the TTC did was putting the northern terminus of the Spadina line underground, instead of having a congested above-ground station right at Spadina and Bloor. I have also seen BRT boulevards in Mexico City, but in most cases they function well as roads with very wide ROW were chosen, and 3 or 4 regular lanes each way still are in operation.

All good points, all true, but be very careful mentioning that anywhere else on SSP. You musn't upset the Cult of Transit City.

London has serious issues with ROW allocation. Hardly any streets can be expanded beyond 4 lanes, and that makes it difficult for any mass transit infrastructure to be installed. The only "central" East-West road that could accomodate anything is Oxford Street, and even there you would have to make the traffic lanes narrower and get rid of the central left-turn lane. Other corridors, like Richmond and Wharncliffe, are completely unusable, which is unfortunate since they have some of the heaviest transit traffic.

[manny_santos]

I saw some reports on another website that the Google Streetview car has been spotted in Hamilton and Windsor. It has been three years since Southern Ontario was done, so the timing is good to get imagery updated where things have changed.

They'll get the shock of a lifetime when they try and drive London's Very Own National Highway and they realize how poor of a cross-town route it is today.

[manny_santos]

London has serious issues with ROW allocation. Hardly any streets can be expanded beyond 4 lanes, and that makes it difficult for any mass transit infrastructure to be installed. The only "central" East-West road that could accomodate anything is Oxford Street, and even there you would have to make the traffic lanes narrower and get rid of the central left-turn lane. Other corridors, like Richmond and Wharncliffe, are completely unusable, which is unfortunate since they have some of the heaviest transit traffic.

Richmond, north of Oxford, can be expanded. If mass transit were implemented on Richmond south of Oxford, it would have to be converted to one-way southbound traffic with northbound traffic having to use another street. Wellington would seem like a natural fit, but there is the issue of the area around the CP tracks.

[DB_in_Cbus]

Richmond, north of Oxford, can be expanded. If mass transit were implemented on Richmond south of Oxford, it would have to be converted to one-way southbound traffic with northbound traffic having to use another street. Wellington would seem like a natural fit, but there is the issue of the area around the CP tracks.

Really disappointing that London's "master" plan is so utterly weak... but expected.

Even if they don't want to widen that stretch of Richmond, they can at least get parking off of the street, something that would likely do a whole lot to improve traffic flow.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Even if they don't want to widen that stretch of Richmond, they can at least get parking off of the street, something that would likely do a whole lot to improve traffic flow.

:tup: I've been saying that a while. It makes sense having parking at certain times (weekends, even daytime before rush hour) but it's utter stupidity to have cars rush hour parked on Richmond. Plenty of side streets to park and walk without making downtown a zoo.

I just saw the plan, pretty pathetic as has been said earlier BRT instead of LRT and that is only contingent on senior level funding, no plans of interchanges in VMP.

There are some glimmers of hope. Calls for Wellington to be 6 lanes from the 401 to Horton is a huge surprise IMO. Oxford to be 6 lanes from Richmond to Hyde Park are also interesting. Both those would undoubtedly require serious expropriation, and huge infrastructure investments (2 new bridges and an widened overpass) though would be a huge relief to traffic. Unfortunately that sorta leads me to believe that they won't happen but always nice to plan.

[haljackey]

...And isn't Richmond's on-street parking a relatively new thing?


Anyways, looks like the city is going along with putting roundabouts on Sunningdale. I think it's a good call, as vehicles here travel at high speeds. Roundabouts will slow them down.

_vyuVn6dFb4

[manny_santos]

There are some glimmers of hope. Calls for Wellington to be 6 lanes from the 401 to Horton is a huge surprise IMO. Oxford to be 6 lanes from Richmond to Hyde Park are also interesting. Both those would undoubtedly require serious expropriation, and huge infrastructure investments (2 new bridges and an widened overpass) though would be a huge relief to traffic. Unfortunately that sorta leads me to believe that they won't happen but always nice to plan.

There have been calls to widen Wellington to 6 lanes from the 401 to Horton since the 1970s. The biggest problem with Wellington is north of Baseline Road...that could be more controversial than the Horton West extension. The rest of Wellington can be easily widened.

Oxford can easily be widened west of Platt's Lane, but east of there, like Wellington, expropriation and demolition would likely need to take place.

[Wharn]

So I got a response from Google regarding my report on the erroneous road naming around London. Here's what they had to say:


Thank you for reporting this problem. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the problem you reported isn't easy for us to fix at this time.

We did want to let you know that we've escalated your report to the appropriate engineering team. Even though we don't have an immediate fix to your problem, please be assured that we're working hard for a resolution.
Thanks for helping us to improve Google Maps!

To borrow the phrase of the ancient philosopher Clarksonius, HOW HARD CAN IT BE? All they need to do is shift around a few names and reclassify an arterial! Does this actually require an engineering degree? I think Google's success has just made them arrogant and complacent, much like Apple and Toyota. Anyways, moving on...

Richmond, north of Oxford, can be expanded. If mass transit were implemented on Richmond south of Oxford, it would have to be converted to one-way southbound traffic with northbound traffic having to use another street. Wellington would seem like a natural fit, but there is the issue of the area around the CP tracks.

It can't really be expanded, at least not without removing all the trees along the street or having the road within 10 feet of everyone's doorstep. I agree with calls to remove parking along Richmond Street; furthermore, I'd like to see stiff fines for delivery vehicles that block the road during rush hour.

[manny_santos]

To borrow the phrase of the ancient philosopher Clarksonius, HOW HARD CAN IT BE? All they need to do is shift around a few names and reclassify an arterial! Does this actually require an engineering degree? I think Google's success has just made them arrogant and complacent, much like Apple and Toyota. Anyways, moving on...

If you think it's bad in London, you should see what it's like in one part of Simcoe. Go to the intersection of Highways 3 and 24...it's a MESS. It has been that way since November 2011.

And you're right, I think Google has become extremely complacent. In one of my notes to them about the behaviour of some of the Google Reviewers, I basically told them that they can't care very much about their product if they keep erasing legitimate edits.

It can't really be expanded, at least not without removing all the trees along the street or having the road within 10 feet of everyone's doorstep. I agree with calls to remove parking along Richmond Street; furthermore, I'd like to see stiff fines for delivery vehicles that block the road during rush hour.

Ah yes, the delivery vehicles...they are particularly bad close to Dundas Street. All too often I've been on a bus that has gotten stuck behind one of these trucks at 4:30pm.

Removing all the trees along the street and having the road within 10 feet of everyone's doorstep may be the sacrifice we have to make in order to improve transportation in the city. I'd rather see that than demolition of houses. In other parts of the world it's very common for the right-of-way between houses and a street to be less than 10 feet.

[Pimpmasterdac]

There have been calls to widen Wellington to 6 lanes from the 401 to Horton since the 1970s. The biggest problem with Wellington is north of Baseline Road...that could be more controversial than the Horton West extension. The rest of Wellington can be easily widened.

Oxford can easily be widened west of Platt's Lane, but east of there, like Wellington, expropriation and demolition would likely need to take place.

I've known & seen the plan/schematics to widen Wellington to 6 lanes from 401 to Horton, just very surprised that the city would revive the plan. IMO its a great plan, since it would significantly help traffic and be a huge infrastructure upgrade.

I live near that area and it would be a major undertaking, specifically the area from Baseline Road north. Houses/Businesses on one or both sides of Wellington would need to expropriated. A lot of them are run down or very poorly maintained so no significant loss IMO, but controversial undoubtedly. Just the sheer scope of that plan surprises me, plus either an expansion of the Thames Wellington Rd. bridge or a new one would need to be built since it can't handle 6 lanes as currently.

Same with Oxford St. again this plan calls for major expropriations from Richmond to Platts Lane, and again would need either an expansion of the Oxford St Thames Bridge or an entirely new one (even though it was reconstructed a few years ago) as well as a new CN overpass west of Wonderland.

Both of these plans are very gutsy, for a city that usual has no gall or balls, to make tough/controversial decisions. That alone makes me even question whether they will even come to reality but even staking that out at this point is substantial.

[go_leafs_go02]

I find it interesting they support widening Oxford to 6 lanes to Hyde Park. They just widened that section (Wonderland to Hyde Park) to 4 lanes literally 3-4 years ago (maybe a bit longer, but not by much more)

[MolsonExport]

^asinine to widen Oxfart to 6 lanes until Hyde Parkinglot until they expand Hyde Parkinglot Road.

[manny_santos]

^asinine to widen Oxfart to 6 lanes until Hyde Parkinglot until they expand Hyde Parkinglot Road.

^ Agreed 100%.

[haljackey]

Watched this today... pretty interesting stuff

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13967381

I think it could work for London if we replaced as many intersections as possible with roundabouts. It would also add to our city's image... this place is called London after all, a town named after a city with the most roundabouts in the world.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Watched this today... pretty interesting stuff

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13967381

I think it could work for London if we replaced as many intersections as possible with roundabouts. It would also add to our city's image... this place is called London after all, a town named after a city with the most roundabouts in the world.

I've been driving in the UK for 9 months now and can honestly say that the roundabout system here is so much better than the stop and go traffic light system in North America. Also, I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I believe there are far fewer accidents in this country. I never see any accidents. The only complaint I have is that roads here are quite narrow and often cars park on streets as many people don't have driveways.

I am not sure how you can convert a built up city with gas stations/Tim Hortons at every corner into a city that uses roundabouts because traffic has to flow well around the roundabout to make it work. It is easy to take new roads and put in roundabouts, but practically impossible in built up areas.

Also, are you sure London has the most roundabouts in the world? I was there yesterday and because it is so urban, it seems to have few roundabouts - at least in the central city area.

[manny_santos]

I personally dislike roundabouts on major roads. Why? If traffic signals are synchronized, then one can get from point A to point B on a single road faster with a string of green lights instead of being forced to slow down for every roundabout. In London (Ontario) for example, I've driven Oxford Street at off-peak hours and I can make every green light from Richmond Street to Sanitorium Road. My bigger concern with roundabouts is emergency vehicles being slowed down.

I have driven roundabouts in Hamilton and in Waterloo Region, and I personally didn't like them. I also find roundabouts to be a scary experience for pedestrians; I've experienced that first-hand in Mexico City.

[haljackey]

Take a drive down Highbury Avenue: London's only 'freeway'

rdMVv7geM48

More info in the video description.

[K85]

Gah I love those videos... I have an app on the phone to do it I just need to figure out the right fps...

[manny_santos]

Take a drive down Highbury Avenue: London's only 'freeway'

Google MapMaker says: N Highbury Ave, aka Ontario 126, is not a freeway! Mwahahahaha

[haljackey]

Gah I love those videos... I have an app on the phone to do it I just need to figure out the right fps...

I film the old fashioned way... with a camera. :P

I'm thinking of investing in a dashcam. Not only are they good for driving videos, they're also good for insurance purposes... unless it's your fault. :haha:
-Although you could try to get rid of the footage if you're the one at fault lol

[Wharn]

I film the old fashioned way... with a camera. :P

I'm thinking of investing in a dashcam. Not only are they good for driving videos, they're also good for insurance purposes... unless it's your fault. :haha:
-Although you could try to get rid of the footage if you're the one at fault lol

I actually recently had an accident where I was not at fault, but due to the lack of witnesses and the completely different story coming from the other guy, I'm likely going to be slapped with an insurance increase of some sort. I've been meaning to get a dashcam for a couple years, but just kept procrastinating and putting it off, now I'm motivated and I'm going to buy the damn thing.

[haljackey]

:previous:

If you want just a standard dash cam, they're pretty cheap. Also, there's an ap for that :P

I was looking around for a HD one but they sell for a lot of money. Found one on Ebay for $60 that normally sells for $400+ retail. It's 'new-ish' but I think I'm going to take my chances with it: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170789083412&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:CA:1123


If you invest in 'GoPro' sports/helmet cameras or something similar, they will work as well.

[Kokkei Mizu]

If you invest in 'GoPro' sports/helmet cameras or something similar, they will work as well.

That's what I use for my time lapse videos. You can purchase a suction cup and place it on your hood or on the outside of your windshield. It records great video/photos.

[haljackey]

London Road Projects recommended to be completed by 2030:

http://i.imgur.com/dzXBb.png

http://i.imgur.com/SBfY9.jpg

Source: http://www.london.ca/Transportation_Planning/pdfs/June2012_Executive_Summary.pdf

Sadface about VMP :(

[Pimpmasterdac]

Who knows, maybe with Fontana in hot water it'll pour cold water on VMP south extension?..

The only real surprise IMO is the city is planning on widening Riverside to 4 lanes, although not to Wonderland where it would be optimal. It was planned way in the early 80s and still nothing's been done. It would help take traffic off Oxford which gets real bad in-between Wharncliffe & Wonderland. As well expanding Oxford to 6 lanes will require some serious expropriation and bridge widening.

Better than nothing!

[MolsonExport]

I hope the sarnia expansion comes first. For the love of christ that road (between Wonderbread and Western) is pathetic, as is the intersection at Sarnia/western. I suppose linking Windermere-Gainsborough is off the plans (at least put in a bike lane that connects these roads for the many of us that bike to UWO).

[Pimpmasterdac]

Sarnia Rd has been planned to death (http://london.ca/Transportation/PDFs/SarniaEastNeighbourhoodMeetingDisplayBoards.pdf), London already has the plans set but are bickering with NIMBY neighbors about left turn lanes of all things. Currently planned to be expanded by 2017...

Western/Sarnia intersection needs a total overhaul ASAP. Won't be getting any better especially with new Ivey being built, Western Rd will be insane even moreso.

IMO things they need to do. 1) grade separate the pedestrians, either above path or tunnel like their use to be from Saugeen Hall to campus. With the constant flow of students crossing turns are nearly impossible. 2) Ability to get onto Sarnia easier, whether double left/right turn lanes, widen Phillip Aziz, Connect Brescia Lane. Windemere-Gainsborough won't be connected unfortunately, same NIMBY cause but with money and influence.

[MolsonExport]

thanks for sharing the plans (links). very interesting.

[haljackey]

Edited the map to show my vision for LRT in black:

http://i.imgur.com/bbuIj.jpg

[MolsonExport]

^nice but does London Int'l airport have even remotely enough passenger volume to warrant a direct link, esp. since the majority will still drive/cab? I'd prefer (instead) a jog north to Masonville Mall and/or west to Oxfart/Wonderbread (huge pop density and retail, etc.). A cross-shaped two-line LRT, with oxfart/wonderbread to oxfart/hibury (line one) and Masonville-Downtown-White Oaks (line two). Maybe a single underground interchange station that dips south somewhat from oxfart, downtown.

[haljackey]

Perhaps the line could just end at Fanshawe College instead. Extensions from Fanshawe to the airport and UWO to masonville could be possible in the future. Train yards could be located by Wellington/401 or in the old rail yards by Dundas and Third Street.

[Wharn]

Not London-related, but more Google Maps general retardedness in Toronto: Bay Street is now apparently Regional Road 169. Not sure which asshat decided this would be funny but as an owner of an Android device, I rely on accurate Google maps, and this makes me a very unhappy customer.

[Whisper09]

Obama did it!

[manny_santos]

Not London-related, but more Google Maps general retardedness in Toronto: Bay Street is now apparently Regional Road 169. Not sure which asshat decided this would be funny but as an owner of an Android device, I rely on accurate Google maps, and this makes me a very unhappy customer.

You think that's bad, the entirety of Wolfe Island, south of Kingston, has disappeared from the map. The roads are still there, sitting in the St. Lawrence River. Last I heard, Hurricane Sandy hasn't sunk the island.

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=44.18245,-76.417809&spn=0.133689,0.338173&t=m&z=12 (the Short URL function isn't even working)

I blame Nancy and/or Nick C for both situations.

[Wharn]

You think that's bad, the entirety of Wolfe Island, south of Kingston, has disappeared from the map. The roads are still there, sitting in the St. Lawrence River. Last I heard, Hurricane Sandy hasn't sunk the island.

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=44.18245,-76.417809&spn=0.133689,0.338173&t=m&z=12 (the Short URL function isn't even working)

I blame Nancy and/or Nick C for both situations.

...how? Surely nobody did this intentionally, thinking they could get away with it?

[manny_santos]

...how? Surely nobody did this intentionally, thinking they could get away with it?

I forgot the emoticon to indicate sarcasm. :)

[go_leafs_go02]

http://www.am980.ca/news/local/story.aspx?ID=1814007

Wonderland Road Bridge (Guy Lombardo) closed due to structural issues, apparently it is on the verge of collapsing.

The bridge isn't even that old last I checked, 30 years or so?

[manny_santos]

http://www.am980.ca/news/local/story.aspx?ID=1814007

Wonderland Road Bridge (Guy Lombardo) closed due to structural issues, apparently it is on the verge of collapsing.

The bridge isn't even that old last I checked, 30 years or so?

The bridge was opened to traffic in 1978. It's the third-newest bridge in London, after the Horton Street and Oxford Street extensions. It's new enough that my parents remember the area before there was a bridge.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Its gonna be one big gongshow in the west end tomorrow. Springbank will be packed. Thankfully no commute for me in that area :D

But yea how does a 35 year old bridge have structural issues already!? This isn't Quebec, no political cement here. Hopefully its just a a big overreaction.

[go_leafs_go02]

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/11/08/guy-lombardo-bridge-closed-after-accident

Apparently the bridge was swaying considerably...

[sparky212]

http://www.am980.ca/news/local/story.aspx?ID=1814117

6-12 inches holy shit would not wanna be there

[haljackey]

That's crazy!

I don't use the bridge daily but I do plan to go from Westmount to Masonville tomorrow during rush hour. Warncliffe will be in bad shape.

[ssiguy]

I remeber when I was kid and the bridge was under construction. If you lived along Wonderland North you either had to go all the way down to Wharncliff or up to Byron to get over the Thames. I remeber coming in from Strathroy and we had to get to Westmount by the old Boler Road and then over to Viscount.

I don't know how the hell there could be structural problems the damn thing isn't that old unless it's not so much the bridge itself but rather the riverbed that is shifting.

[MolsonExport]

Could it get any worse? Auld Lang Syne bridge...perhaps the busiest stretch of road in the London metro. Wholly shit this is terrible.

[Snark]

The whole thing is very bizarre. It's a modern-design structure, was rehabed several years back, and is thoroughly inspected every two years at the least by an independent bridge engineering consultant (which is provincially mandated).

I thoroughly doubt that it was moving 30cm's though. Such flexture would cause severe damage to the structure that would have been obvious at the initial inspection following the complaints.

None of it makes much sense.

[go_leafs_go02]

The whole thing is very bizarre. It's a modern-design structure, was rehabed several years back, and is thoroughly inspected every two years at the least by an independent bridge engineering consultant (which is provincially mandated).

I thoroughly doubt that it was moving 30cm's though. Such flexture would cause severe damage to the structure that would have been obvious at the initial inspection following the complaints.

None of it makes much sense.

Bridges are designed to be somewhat earthquake and wind resistant.

If someone complained about the bridge, and it wasn't swaying, they wouldn't have shut it up. The fact they evacuated people out of their cars telling them the bridge could collapse means the swaying certainly was noticeable....

[MolsonExport]

LFP article on subject: http://www.lfpress.com/2012/11/08/guy-lombardo-bridge-closed-after-accident