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
Daily Points on Anglin Bay Site Traffic and Parking, #9
Infrastructure and Management Requirements for the LVEC

Beginning May 19th, 2005, Bruce Todd, who is supposed to be retired from a 40+ year career in traffic engineering, but nonetheless branded an "instant expert" by several pro-LVEC luminaries, none loftier than William Leggett, ex-principal of Queen's University, is briefing everyone about the field, pointing out "features" of the full Phase I Traffic and Parking Study prepared by CastleGlenn Consultants , who were hand-picked by Don Gedge for their "keen understanding of the Wellington Street Corridor" (pages 13 and 16 therein). 

Articles in the Daily Points on LVEC Traffic and Parking series

#1 - Concerns About the Content of Phase I (May 19)
#2 - No  Pedestrian Counts in Intersection Analysis (May 20)
#3 - A Discussion of the Two Adjacent Parking Lots (May 21)
#4 - Drop Off and Pick Up Mode of Access (May 22)
#5 - Display Maps (May 23)
#6 - The Anglin Parking Lot (May 24)
#7 - Reporting of Available On-Street Parking (May 25)
#8 - Determination of Mode of Travel (May 26)
#9 - Infrastructure and Management Requirements (May 27)
#10- Study Area and Study Data (May 28)
#11- Traffic Counts (May 29)
#12- Acceptable Walking Distance (May 30)
#13- Parking Availability and Key Factors (May 31)
#14- Clearance Time After an Event (June 1)
From: Bruce Todd
To: "Gedge, Don" <dgedge@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor S Garrison <sgarrison@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor R Downes <rdownes@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor L Foster <lfoster@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor G Stoparczyk <gstoparczyk@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor B Pater <bpater@cityofkingston.ca>, Mayor H Rosen <hrosen@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor G Beavis <gbeavis@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor K George <kgeorge@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor G Sutherland <gsutherland@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor F Patterson <fpatterson@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor E Smith <esmith@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor S Meers <smeers@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor B George <bgeorge@cityofkingston.ca>
CC: "Hickey, Sheila" <SHickey@cityofkingston.ca>, "Baldwin, Derek" <dbaldwin@thewhig.com>, gwallace@cityofkingston.ca

Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 08:31:16
Subject: [KCAL] LVEC Traffic & Parking - Item #9    

Infrastructure and Management Requirements for the LVEC

Traffic & Parking Report Phase I by Mr Arthur Gordon of CastleGlenn Consultants should have presented a listing of all the roadway and peripheral infrastructure that is likely to be needed for a proposed LVEC on the Inner Harbour site, but it failed to do so.

As well as a listing of needed roadwork, parking supply upgrades, enhancements to pedestrian facilities, etc, the report should have presented a cost estimate for this work.

Why? Because that information is needed to fully cost out the project. Why? Because Planning Committee needs to know that up front in their deliberations of the feasibility of the project? Why? Because Planning Committee has to decide whether these additional costs, NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BUSINESS PLAN, would be a tolerable and reasonable risk to the taxpayers of the city, or whether these costs would UPSET THE PROJECT.

Right now, Planning Committee has NO INFORMATION to go on. The information on infrastructure costs for an LVEC have not been presented to them in Phase I of this report. I think it would be absolutely irresponsible if Planning Committee took a "who cares, let's deal with it later" attitude to the costly details associated with the proposed LVEC, but only partially alluded to in the Traffic and Parking Report.

I don't intend on presenting a full picture of the infrastructure and management work for the proposed LVEC. But I will touch on some aspects.

WELLINGTON STREET EXTENSION

It is now well established that an extension of Wellington Street is required to provide emergency and other special services for this venue. What is not known, perhaps, is the rationale of the degree of permanency to which this extension should be built. Should the roadway be built to final standards now, years ahead of the actual need for the roadway without an LVEC in this area, or built to temporary standards until the final design is actually needed within the city's road system? What would be the financial loss if a temporary roadway was constructed now, and then torn up in five or six years time? Surely, two paved lanes, constructed to endure expected traffic, and drainage considerations are a minimum requirement. But the bottom line is that there is an LVEC cost here. Otherwise, the Wellington Street extension would not be built for a minimum of five to seven years, or maybe much longer. THE REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.

SIDEWALKS

The present proposal is to construct a 5-metre (16-foot) sidewalk southerly along the east side of Wellington Street from the LVEC to Bay Street, and a 3-metre (10-foot) sidewalk along the west side of Wellington Street from the LVEC southerly to Bay Street. These would connect with existing sidewalks of only 1.5 metres (5 feet) wide and create a situation where pedestrians would likely be driven into the roadway and create safety concerns as well as confound traffic movement within the roadway and from the connecting Anglin and OHIP parking lots. Sidewalks need to be widened from the intersection of Wellington and Bay Street southerly (perhaps to Queen Street or further) and westerly, and the effects on existing general parking, the feasibility of coning of road sections into three-lane sections, etc., need to be addressed and assessed. THE REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF MAJOR INTERSECTIONS

I am particularly concerned about the number of pedestrians that may be crossing busy intersections such as Wellington at Barrack Street, Wellington at Queen Street, Wellington at Princess Street, and Wellington at Brock Street, as people try to access the various parking lots along Queen Street (Springer, Byron, King at Queen, Drury), between Queen Street and Princess Street (Angrove), at Brock Street (Hansen Garage), and points and parking lots further south. The report FAILS TO ADDRESS THESE FOUR MAJOR INTERSECTIONS, and ignores measures to provide for the control of and safe pedestrian crossings of these street which now give the right-of way to traffic flows crossing expected major pedestrian flows, or are controlled by traffic control signals

It is ironic that the busiest street in the downtown system, Princess Street, which dissects and bisects the overall parking area for the LVEC has been COMPLETELY IGNORED IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.

See my Item #11 on Sunday for more concerns about intersection analysis.

DOUG FLUHRER PARK

The proposed LVEC building and the associated north parking lot consume completely the existing parking area for the Doug Fluhrer Park. It is not likely that park visitors will be allowed to use the north parking lot any time they wish to come and park. There will be LVEC events, and parking in the north lot will be restricted. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a parking area for the Doug Fluhrer Park. This consumes more of the park greenspace, and this fact of further devouring the existing park is NOT ADDRESSED IN THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING REPORT, PHASE I. What costs and impacts are associated with this?

REVAMPING AND MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING PARKING LOTS

Take a look at the FLOOD OF RECOMMENDATIONS on page 77 of the report, suggesting ways of managing existing parking lots because of an LVEC on the Inner Harbour -

- developing traffic operations strategies
- developing traffic operations monitoring programs
- developing parking operations and circulation strategies
- developing a parking monitoring program
- setting up advance sales
- booking parking stalls
- setting up payment arrangements
- collecting payments and fees
- staffing parking lots
- setting up communications between parking lot operators
- setting up links to existing radio stations
- setting up signage at parking lots
- setting up shared parking agreements with private owners

What a mountain of management bureaucracy here. Did you know that it cost over seven thousand dollars a year just to manage a few market booths on the Market Square and keep the books up to date? Can you imagine the yearly management costs to set up and maintain the parking scenario across the downtown in order to service the proposed LVEC on the Inner Harbour?

GENERAL ITEMS

Add to the previous list of bureaucratic red tape, the following from page 77 -

- a transit integration strategy
- a transit monitoring program
- a pedestrian strategy
- a bicycle operational strategy
- a loading service strategy
- a transportation security strategy
- an emergency services strategy

All of these - to be devised, designed, set up, managed, documented, audited, and paid for, year after year. And all because one person in this city, Mayor Harvey Rosen, wants us to pay for a $40 to $50 million LVEC on the Inner Harbour, and nowhere else!

Bruce.

P.P.S. Feedback notes (excluding congrats) to date - from local citizens = 17 ; from city hall, council, or other = 1


Page 77 of the plan:


 

 

Articles in the Daily Points on LVEC Traffic and Parking series

#1 - Concerns About the Content of Phase I (May 19)
#2 - No  Pedestrian Counts in Intersection Analysis (May 20)
#3 - A Discussion of the Two Adjacent Parking Lots (May 21)
#4 - Drop Off and Pick Up Mode of Access (May 22)
#5 - Display Maps (May 23)
#6 - The Anglin Parking Lot (May 24)
#7 - Reporting of Available On-Street Parking (May 25)
#8 - Determination of Mode of Travel (May 26)
#9 - Infrastructure and Management Requirements (May 27)
#10- Study Area and Study Data (May 28)
#11- Traffic Counts (May 29)
#12- Acceptable Walking Distance (May 30)
#13- Parking Availability and Key Factors (May 31)
#14- Clearance Time After an Event (June 1)