August 29, 2001

 

To: Brian Edey, Transportation Planner

 

Cc: Mayor Bell and Council
Rick Zerr, Director of Planning, Engineering, Parks and Regulator Services

Donna Howes, Assistant Manager Transportation

Gavin Joyce, Municipal Engineer

 

Re: Solution to Riverside Speed Hump Installation Issue?

 

 

Thank you for your Aug 29th response (File 8620-30/06) to Riverside Area residents Aug 20th letter to council.

 

I will not respond point for point to your letter, but would like to comment on two points you made. In addition, I would like to make a suggestion that would allow the district to proceed with plans to address the ongoing safety issues, (i.e. move forward) but yet to make minor revisions to the plan with the goal of ensuring that it is effective and that the effectiveness can be measured and acted on.

 

Comment:

 

1) The district is claiming that it is proceeding with the support of the RCMP. In the public meetings, the RCMP position on this issue was clear they simply would rather spend their precious resources on matters of higher public concern. They were clear that they don't enjoy ticketing what are generally law abiding citizens commuting through their own neighborhood. While I respect the RCMP's choice of priorities, if they have are unwilling or unable to enforce local traffic regulations, then the district should look to other means of enforcement, possibly using the existing traffic/parking bylaw enforcement staff.

 

2) The letter implies that the views of residents on the lower part of Riverside as expressed through their votes have more value than the opinions of the residents further north. This is dangerous, undemocratic principal I wonder if residents of Deep Cove water front properties votes were given more weight in the last election after that controversial Waterfront Plan was put to the public? The district should be acting on the assumption that all residents who take time to be involved in the process are acting with the best interest of the community at large in mind.

 

Instead of debating issues further, I would like to make a suggestion that would allow the plan to move forward at the same time address the issue of lack of sufficient public support for the plan and the means used to foster and measure support.

 

Suggestion:

 

DNV transportation proceed with the plan to install 4 speed humps on Riverside drive with the following amendments to the plan:

 

  1. Temporary humps be installed. The transportation industry has devised alternate products such as rubber speed humps that are not permanent. Rubber Speed Humps are humps formed from rubber ramp sections bolted to a steel connector plate and anchored into the roadway using lag bolts. The size and markings are the same as asphalt humps. They can be used for temporary or permanent installations. See http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/planning/advance/RTCP/RTCPalthump.htm for more information about these products.

 

  1. That prior to the installation of the humps, that the district agree to mail all residents in the affected area informing them that, in an attempt to more adequately measure the effectiveness of speed humps, that installation will proceed as proposed but only on a x day trial basis (where x is to be determined) rather than a permanent basis. Suggest x = 120 days.

 

  1. After y days (say 90 days) that the district conducts another survey that measures the effectiveness of the "trial" safety program. As part of that survey, residents will be asked if the program does effectively address the safety issues and then be given the opportunity to vote for two clear choices namely:

q       the discontinuation of the speed control program or

q       the extension of the trial period indefinitely.

 

  1. That the results of that survey be published to the public through another mail out.

 

  1. If more than 53.5% of the residents oppose the extension of the program and would like to explore other means of speed control, that the district re-open the public process to again re-evaluate safety issues and solutions. This time, the entire process should be open to all residents, not just those that support one side of the issue.

 

Sincerely,

 

W. Schuurman

On behalf of residents of Riverside East.