Jay Rowland,      1070 Riverside Drive,           North Vancouver, B.C. Canada           V7H 1V5

E-mail: jayrowland@home.com                                                                         Phone #  (604) 929-8833


The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver                                          September 29, 2001

Parks & Engineering Services


Attention: Mr. Ken Krueger & Ms. Donna Howes


Dear Sir and Madame:


Re: Traffic Calming Measures on Riverside Drive


Thank you for your letter of September 25, 2001.


You indicated that the average speed drivers are going over the humps is closer to 40 km/hr.  I am dubious of that average speed based on my own observations and those of my neighbors.


As to the design of the humps, I would presume that the City of Vancouver would follow the same Transportation Association of Canada’s design guidelines when they constructed their humps on West 37th Avenue.  Yet they have a maximum speed posted at 30 km/hr, as does the speed hump zone on Bellevue Avenue in West Vancouver.  Riverside Drive has no sign listing a maximum speed limit in the hump zone.  I find this curious, particularly as you maintain that 40 km/hr is a reasonable speed.


You have not, however, addressed my main objection that having a speed hump located by one’s house causes a huge increase in traffic noise due to drivers gunning their car after they have passed over the last hump.  The noise is amplified as our homes are elevated above grade.  You dismiss my problem by saying you ‘anticipate this will diminish over time.’  It has not diminished and it is common sense that people will always go slower over a hump and then want to speed up once they have crossed over the last in a series of humps.  This noise will remain forever so long as this hump is located in close proximity to our houses!


I suggest you come over to see the situation yourself.  You will notice the increased noise as cars speed up as they go over the hump.  The noise drops considerably as they get up to cruising speed after a few seconds.  I am confident you would concede that moving the hump 150 feet south into the wooded zone would have a significant effect on the noise in our homes.


I did not want a hump installed near our home as I surmised it would cause unnecessary noise.  Your Department did not raise the issue of noise caused by humps during the public discussions nor in the written communications sent to homeowners.  As residents and taxpayers in this District we have the right to the quiet enjoyment of our homes.  This pleasure has been greatly diminished by placing a hump so close to our houses. 


Some drivers still speed going down Riverside until they meet the first hump by our houses.  They then brake hard causing screeching of brakes, crashing over the hump etc.  Drivers going up Riverside gun their car engines and speed off past our houses heading up the street.  Thus we are facing all the negative aspects of the humps without any of the anticipated speed control benefits.


What is particularly galling is that the hump could have been placed within the adjoining 140-meter wooded section.  This placement would bother no residents as there are no houses and the trees would muffle traffic noise.  There already is a hydro pole within the wooded section.  I am disappointed your Department ignored this obvious choice of hump placement, particularly when this point was made in the public feedback phase.


It is still not too late.  If there is still a community will to keep these humps, why not relocate the hump into the wooded zone where there already is a street light to illuminate the hump at night?  The argument to maintain regular intervals between humps seems weak, as I doubt whether drivers care if the distance between the humps is completely regular or not.


With respect to traffic noise, your suggestion that ‘this will diminish over time’ is patronizing, does not deal with the facts, and underestimates residents’ anger.  We will continue to lobby through whatever avenues are available to deal with our legitimate concerns.


In the meantime, I am asking your department to delay adding lights at the hump location near our homes.  However, if you feel that it is necessary to install lights, even in the face of growing opposition to the humps, please respect the following suggestion:


If lighting is to be installed by the hump at 1050 Riverside, please place the light on the EAST SIDE of the street (same side as the houses) so the light does not shine into the windows of our houses.  There already is a hydro pole installed by the hump on the East side.  I would consider the light pollution from an improper placement of the light as adding insult to injury.


Yours truly,






Jay Rowland

1070 Riverside             The following residents agree with the above statements:







____________________        ____________________        _________________________

Donald and Dona Coates          Roshan & Badru Thobani         Michael and Monica McAlduff

1050 Riverside                         1090 Riverside             1110 Riverside