A year and a half since it was first approved, the Town of Collingwood’s traffic-calming policy is drawing criticism as residents are saying the steps needed to get vehicles to slow down in their neighbourhoods are too much.
During Monday (Dec. 12) night’s development and operations standing committee meeting, councillors received a report on the effectiveness of the policy, and voted on changes to the policy as recommended by staff. However, some residents who gave deputations and at least one councillor pointed out flaws in the policy that have bubbled to the surface in the past year.
“I feel that we need a more pro-active traffic-calming policy, rather than reactive,” said resident Kate Hobson. “I feel that the onus is on individual citizens to come forward, create petitions and get signatures, rather than the town itself recognizing issues and implementing strategies.”
Hobson said she had tried to follow the eight-step process to get traffic calming on her own street, which begins with a formal petition signed by at least 51 per cent of residents on a street requesting traffic-calming measures.
“It is arduous. If you have a full-time job, there’s no way to get it done,” she said. “I live on a tree street and it’s amazing sometimes how fast people can drive.”
Collingwood’s traffic-calming policy was first green-lit by council in June 2021.
Under the policy, residents must take a series of steps before traffic-calming measures will be considered in their neighbourhoods. First, a formal request with a petition must be received supporting traffic calming measures. Following the petition, the road in question must meet five criteria: It must be considered a local road (collector roads could qualify on a case-by-case basis), it must have a daily average traffic volume of 900 vehicles, be at least 220 metres long without stop signs or traffic signals, have a grade below six per cent, and cannot have been part of a traffic calming request in the last five years.
If those requirements are met, staff will then conduct a speed survey.
Data collection will then take place to study traffic volume, collision records, pedestrian activity, and site-specific information. Then, staff will create a preliminary design that would be reviewed by emergency services, transit, and town operations for review and comment. The community would then be notified and preliminary designs shared.
Then, the measures would be built with notices sent to residents and posted publicly.
The policy states the exact traffic calming measures implemented in an area would be determined on a case-by-case basis and could include speed humps, speed cushions, extending curbs to narrow an intersection or create an s-shaped curve on a street, installing centre medians, using a mini roundabout in an intersection to slow through traffic, adding on-street parking and non-physical measures such as pavement markings, signage, and increased speed enforcement.
During Monday’s presentation, Director of Public Works, Engineering and Environment Peggy Slama said only one resident petition had been received in 2021 – for Second Street – however the speed survey revealed that the speed of the majority of vehicles was 51 kilometres per hour, while the speed limit is 50. As such, traffic calming for the street was found to not be warranted.
In 2022, only one request was initiated, for Stanley Street, however Slama’s report notes residents are still in the process of gathering their petition.
Also in 2022, five locations were selected for temporary traffic calming measures, with 15 temporary speed cushions, bollards and associated signage installed on sections of Findlay Drive, Peel Street and Cameron Street, with future long-term projects planned for those sites.
During Monday’s meeting, resident Jeanette Beck also spoke, calling on Collingwood to look at traffic-calming policies in other municipalities to help inform their own.
“We’re told (by the town) the issue is the speed of the traffic,” noted Beck, adding that traffic volumes should also be taken into account.
“(Other communities) actually involve the community in making design decisions,” she said. “There’s a lot more conversation back and forth. There are so many different ways of doing traffic-calming. This is an oversimplified policy.”
“I hope you take a more rigorous deep-dive into this policy. We deserve better,” said Beck.
During council discussions, Coun. Kathy Jeffery said she receives regular correspondence from residents with complaints about various streets and intersections across town.
“I’ve told a couple of people about (the traffic-calming policy) and they weren’t aware of it,” said Jeffery. “Maybe we need to up our game in terms of engagement and communication to residents, because otherwise, how do we assess if the policy is working?”
Coun. Christopher Baines agreed.
“I hear your pain in engaging with the public process,” said Baines to the speakers.
Coun. Deb Doherty said she wanted more public consultation before she would vote in favour of any changes to the existing policy.
“We could make this policy so much more robust if we would just start with that,” she said.
Doherty pointed to a specific paragraph in the policy with which she took issue, that states: “The safety of our pedestrians and cyclists was an important consideration when determining traffic policy but should be balanced with the need for the efficient movement of goods and services.”
“It seems to me that the safety of cyclists and pedestrians should supersede the movement of good and services,” said Doherty. “I’m not happy with this report.”
At the end of Monday’s discussion, council voted unanimously in favour of receiving the update, and voted 7-1 (Coun. Deb Doherty opposed) to make minor changes to the policy that roads can be considered for traffic-calming every three years (previously it had been every five years), and lowering speed exceedances that would trigger a calming application.
Jeffery put forward an amendment to have staff create a communications piece on the policy and schedule public consultation in the new year to gather resident feedback on the overall policy, which was passed unanimously.
Coun. Brandon Houston was absent from the meeting. The decisions will need to be ratified during the next regular meeting of council on Dec. 19.
