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
#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 Six
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I said earlier that no reason was given for proceeding to "signalize" this intersection and divert traffic coming off the Lasalle Causeway from Ontario Street to Wellington Street. But a comment was made why reconstruction of this intersection had to be done.
We were told at the public meeting that part of the reason for the reconstruction of Ontario Street at Place d'Armes was to accommodate future development of the North Block area.
My retort was that reconstruction of roads is done typically at the time when, or just after, new development actually occurs. I also added that no one had predicted that a new Sports and Entertainment Facility would be built on part of the North Block, so how could anyone predict a road system for an unknown type and extent of development that might take place years down the road within the remaining three-quarters of the North Block?
The answer I got from Malcolm Morris is "perhaps that should change". It's like saying one plus one equals two, not three, and getting a reply that perhaps that should change! What a flippant thoughtless remark. Is this what the citizens of Kingston should continue to expect - expenditures on roadbuilding years before development has been agreed upon? Keep in mind that this city has already led us into a concept of "dispersed parking", a concept which is undefined and unaccepted in the traffic engineering world.
I questioned why two extra moves were being added to an intersection, which moves have never existed for years, and that this didn't conform with the city's own belief and statement that it can no longer cater to the increasing demands by motorists for reasons of unsustainability. Well, again, we have a contradiction, in that we should be building up roads even though we have no concrete reasons to do so yet.
I ask people to reflect on these new, undefined, and unstudied approaches in the transportation field that the city of Kingston seems willing to venture into, and tell us by you vote in council if you approve.
Citizens are watching your reactions.