OTA says City of Thunder Bay should re-think new truck route
TORONTO, Ont. — The Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) voiced its opinion on a new designated truck route passed by Thunder Bay City Council. The OTA says the new route will undermine safety rather than strengthen it.
“OTA believes that Council’s decision to create a new truck route will not improve safety for the citizens of Thunder Bay. It appears City Council made a policy decision with many unintended consequences that will negatively impact road safety and traffic flow – particularly for local commuters on Hwy 11/17 between Red River Road and the Harbour Expressway, as well as the area of the Village of Kakabeka Falls,” said OTA president Stephen Laskowski.
In 2018, the OTA suggested the City of Thunder Bay consider utilizing the new provincial powers granted to municipalities to designate these areas as community safety zones, thereby giving the city the authority to lower vehicle speeds as well as the option to introduce photo radar.
Although there appears to be varying traffic collision statistics bandied about, the OTA said the official collision data used to prepare the municipal truck route report to the City of Thunder Bay shows that the five-year average for collisions involving commercial trucks where the truck driver is at fault is 1.8 collisions per year on Arthur Street and three collisions per year on Dawson Road.
“Although we would like to see these numbers reduced to zero, based on current truck volumes in this area, these collision figures would seem to indicate that the creation of a new truck route is not necessary. If the issue is speed, then designating the appropriate areas along Dawson Road and Arthur Street as community safety zones makes the most sense and the best way to directly tackle the problem,” added Laskowski.
OTA is asking council to not ratify the motion, thereby delaying the implementation of the proposed new truck route, until there’s proper consultation with stakeholders involving a more comprehensive statistical, safety, traffic flow, and legal analysis of this proposed alternative truck route.
Have your say
This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.
-
It makes no sense for trucks to use 102 with all the cars going and coming to County Fair mall and several traffic lights
Pulse take note that most motor vehicle fatalities involve trucks
For once, the city council is hearing the people’s voice.
There is a lot more involved than just the “people moving out this way”
And may I ask, what the heck does OTA (Toronto)know about our needs?
And wasn’t the Harbour extension built specifically for a truck route ? There certainly isnt much traffic on it, generally, and only one light!
Intersection of 102 and 11-17 has at least 4 or 5
One question nobody is talking about in public, why should municipal tax base have to pay for increased road maintenance costs due to truck traffic that provides no benefit to the community?
Very unsafe to force additional trucks onto this stretch of the so called expressway, as long as there are lights at the intersections. Eliminate the lights, build the overpasses, build the proposed cloverleaf, that was considered so many years ago.
Highway 102 has always been a highway used by trucks. Just because people move out that way and don’t research their driving route doesn’t give them the right to move truck traffic to another backyard.