Google
Kingston Concerned About the LVEC
Currently known as the "KROCK Centre"
Formerly the "Kingston Regional Sports and Entertainment Centre" or KRSEC
Formerly the "Large Venue Entertainment Centre" or LVEC
Home   News
Major issues with the
Place D'Armes / Ontario Street Intersection, #4
A conflict of Philosophies

At the end of October 2007, Bruce Todd identified several major issues with plans for the Place D"Armes / Ontario Street intersection. This intersection is adjacent to the LVEC.

Bruce Todd's points about the Place D"Armes / Ontario Street Intersection

#1 Peer Review
#2 Availability of information prior to a Public Meeting
#3 Telling the Public Why the Intersection has to be Reconstructed and Signalized
#4 A conflict of Philosophies  
#5 Baffled by Words
#6 Road Reconstruction/Rehabilitation
#7 Impacts of Various Traffic Scenarios  

To: Councillor M Gerretsen , Councillor B Glover , Councillor D Hector , Councillor R Hutchison , Councillor J MacLeod-Kane , Councillor R Matheson , Councillor L Osanic , Councillor S Meers , Councillor E Smith , Mayor H Rosen , Councillor L Foster , Councillor S Garrison , Councillor V Schmolka

Cc: "Morris, Malcolm" , "Laubenstein, Glen" , Deanna Green

Subject: October public meeting re Ontario Street at Place d"Armes - Major Issue Number Four

A conflict of Philosophies
= = = = = = = = = = = = =

On the one hand, the city attempts to persuade the public that the automobile cannot any longer rule the road - that increased automobile use is nonsustainable.

Yet the city wishes to introduce two more traffic movements at the subject intersection - left turns from Ontario Street northerly to Place d'Armes westerly, and through movements from Place d'Armes easterly to the Lasalle Causeway - when these two moves have been accepted by motorists as needless and nonexistent in this community for years.

It is common practice within the traffic engineering community that when a specific area is experiencing traffic problems, certain moves may be deemed prohibited by the municipality for reasons of safety and promotion of smoother traffic flows. In this case, two traffic movements, heretofore not part of the road system, and easily worked around by local motorists, are proposed to be instituted, with, in my opinion, feeble or no reason at all. In fact, the reason I remember given is that it provides "more options for motorists". So much for squeezing the motorist out of his car!

Another conflict deals with cyclists.

It was presented to the public that cyclists were noted making some unsafe movements as they entered or crossed Ontario Street, and as a result, changes to the intersection were necessary.

What wasn't mentioned was that cyclists are vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, and that they have no right to travel the wrong way into an intersection, and the public should not be expected to pay for improvements to intersections where improvements are the result of persons disobeying the rules of the road.

The city has done a very poor job at convincing the public that a million dollars has to be spent at this intersection to accommodate a handful of pedestrians each day.

Bruce.