Ongoing Traffic Concerns

First, I want to echo the comments from Bonnie Moon. I am not sure that visitors are aware of this tab. I only noticed it just now, after several visits to the site, as there are so many links and documents attached that catch your attention. It is now a half an hour before submissions close and I have little time to add comments or alert others. Given this, I agree that the lack of response should not be viewed as a lack of interest and that many comments in the "Share your Thoughts on the Application" tab address transportation issues and should be taken into account. If the lack of response is a concern, then I suggest extending the engagement period for another week. I note that Belgravia was provided with three weeks for a recent engagement, while Windsor Park was provided with two weeks, so an extension would certainly be appropriate.

Second, I would suggest that the City have their website designers revise the current layout so that it is more obvious to visitors that they are being asked to comment on two issues. While those familiar with the website may believe this is obvious, unfortunately it is not obvious to a first time user of the site.

With respect to substantive traffic issues, I want to provide some quick commentary. My main points are as follows:

* I remain unconvinced that the serious traffic and safety risks attached to this 172 unit building, with 236 cars, can be 'mitigated' through some of the measures introduced here. To be clear, the most effective way to mitigate the risks is to build a lower density development of appropriate scale. This will inherently reduce the traffic risks.

* The location of this building directly across from an elementary school poses significant safety concerns. I have asked the City and EPSB planners previously about other elementary schools that have a large building of this size directly across. There seem to be few examples that anyone could think of. King Edward Park was an example provided but this development is not complete. The only other example I am aware of comes from the Board Chair of the Edmonton Public Schools who indicated that Keheewin School had a 'large apartment complex' built across from it some years ago. I will attach photos here to illustrate that the situations are not in any way comparable as this building is four storeys maximum, with far fewer units, in an L shape, with a wide setback. It is also directly across from the school playing fields, not the front door of the school, and with wide roads, adequate parking in front of the building, and importantly no drop off / pick up zone directly across from the building.

In fact, as we can see from this second photo, the front of the school has no large building in front of it at all. There is a small strip mall, set far back from the road, and there is a huge, well marked, pedestrian crossing, with flashing lights. Again, the streets in this development are actually four lanes wide with adequate room for parking in front of the school.

The third photo shows another condo in the other direction, but again it is far from the front entrance of the school.

I see no comparability between this situation and the situation in front of Windsor Park School. Again my view, is that the best way to mitigate the safety and traffic concerns is with an appropriate sized development.

With respect to the revised Westrich proposal, I would note the following comments.

* there are relatively few changes that have been made on traffic and safety issues. This shows clearly in the minimal amount of 'track changes' and I believe that is because many of the problems simply cannot be 'mitigated' due to the size of the development.

* the proposed upgrading of a 6 metre-wide commercial alley in Sec 10.1.a seems unrealistic when one imagines the volume and size of vehicles that will be trying to pass one another on a frequent basis. In the absence of clear empirical evidence that this has worked in other comparable situations -- which the City does not seem to have because they do not conduct pre-and post-development assessments -- I find it hard to believe the alley way solution is workable.

* with respect to the proposed signage, the yield sign is inadequate on 89 Avenue. Very young children are often walking on this street to school, twice a day, or even four times a day, if they go home for lunch. Sometimes they walk alone. A yield sign is insufficient. A stop sign is necessary, along with a radically reduced size of building.

* there is no discussion of how drivers will deal with the lack of any signage at the intersection internal to the alleyway. Presumably this is where a great deal of traffic will meet. I am sorry but it seems like "magical thinking" to believe that this will be safe or workable. Again, in the absence of empirical evidence showing this has worked in other comparable situations, I am completely unconvinced of this arrangement.

* it is simply hard to imagine that traffic will not back up the alley way as people try to turn on to 87 Ave. Can they turn left, legally? And how quickly will a left turn car back traffic up when volumes are high on 87 Ave? I can go on and on. Anyone who has tried to come out of this alley way, on to 87 Ave, has a right to question this arrangement.

* relatedly, the Pagnotta Windsor Terrace has a very unusual arrangement for commercial parking space. This was discussed at the last hearing for this development. It seems very possible that cars backing out of this parking space will create additional problems. This has not been addressed anywhere, nor do I know whether Pagnotta has been consulted about the Westrich building or the planned arrangements for the alley way. Below is a screenshot of the visual presented by planners at the last hearing for this development. As I understand it, the red area is roughly where the commercial parking space is imagined and represents the reduction from an earlier version of the building. There seems to be no awareness or discussion in the Westrich submission of the commercial parking for Pagnotta and how this will interact with alleyway traffic.

* there seems to be a belief that the two crosswalks on 118th and 119th Street will address safety concerns. The crosswalk on 118 St appear to be connected to the alleyway where high traffic volumes will be present. This seems ill advised. Likewise, the crosswalk on 119 St does relatively little to mitigate problems since drop off occurs primarily on the East side of 119 St. Is it imagined that cars will also park on the West side and children will walk down to the cross walk? I am afraid this is highly unrealistic. Children and parents will simply cross on the road, wherever they park. I see it every day. This is my concern with the developers belief that crowding on the 118 St drop off/ pick up can be mitigated by shifting traffic to 119 St. This area is already fully used. There is simply not room to have cars on both sides of the road, and room for traffic to pass through. Someone is going to get hurt.

* the plan for a concrete sidewalk on 119 St does nothing to address the real issue. The issue is congestion created at the front of the school, leading to pick up / drop off traffic being pushed to 119 St. which itself is already congested. Had the developer actually studied 119 St (they did not) they would understand this. I am sorry if this seems rude but I am incredibly frustrated with the lack of a serious analysis of this issue.

* there is absolutely no discussion of what else Westrich plans to do to support safety in the neighbourhood overall. They will be injecting 236 cars into Windsor Park, radically increasing traffic volumes.

Given these problems, I remain unconvinced by these changes. In my view, the only way to address traffic and safety issues is to build an appropriate sized development that is consistent with the City Plan and draft Scona District Plan.

I also want to add here that I make these comments about safety and traffic as someone who lost a young member of our extended family as a result of being hit by a car and has one close friend with a lifelong brain injury after being hit on 109 Street at a fully marked pedestrian crossing. Safety is a not theoretical issue. I believe there are inherent problems with the size and concentration of traffic associated with this development and that the inadequate arrangements will provoke frustration, road rage, and poor driving as a result. The best way to address these issues is with an appropriately sized building - and even then with enhanced safety and traffic calming measures.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.