municipality of chatham-kent infrastructure and ......victoria avenue is identified in...

Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Infrastructure and Engineering Services

Engineering and Transportation Division

To: Mayor and Members of Council

From: Chris Thibert, P.Eng. Director, Engineering and Transportation Date: May 14, 2020 Subject: Victoria Avenue Infrastructure Renewal, Community of Chatham

This report is for the information of Council. Background In September of 2018, Council awarded the engineering consulting services for the Victoria Avenue Infrastructure Renewal project (RFP R17-334) from Thames Street to McNaughton Avenue East to R.C. Spencer Associates Inc. for an amount of $285,890. The consultant was required to provide a detailed design package (construction ready) including a phasing proposal for the reconstruction of the existing infrastructure and preservation of existing natural amenities along Victoria Avenue. The Engineering and Transportation Division identified the subject project as part of the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 Capital Budgets. It is the intention of administration that the project continue to receive Capital funding in 2021 and 2022 so construction activities associated with the project can then proceed in multiple phases occurring in future years as budget permits.

Comments

The main attributes of the Victoria Avenue Infrastructure Renewal project include:

Sewer separation,

Providing a dedicated storm sewer with private services,

Watermain replacement, and

Road resurfacing Throughout the years, administration has received several complaints pertaining to Victoria Avenue, which include:

Lack of active transportation facilities (bike lanes)

Lack of AODA sidewalk compliance

2

Victoria Avenue Infrastructure Renewal Community of Chatham

Excessive speeding, stop sign/safety compliancy at Gladstone Ave., Stephenson Ave.; poor alignment of intersecting streets

Lack of left turn lanes at both Grand Ave. and McNaughton Ave. East (widening to add turning lanes)

Poor drainage - curb and gutter repair and replacements required In an effort to achieve optimal cost savings by grouping everything together under one project, administration and the consultant proceeded with a design and options that addressed all of these concerns under one project. As a requirement of the project, a Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on Thursday, February 20, 2020 at Sprucedale United Church on Victoria Avenue. The purpose of the PIC was to present draft concepts and options to the public for input with another PIC to follow later in 2020 presenting final plans. A total of 73 residents attended. A number of slides were presented that highlighted works being proposed along with options for consideration such as the multi-use trails, a traffic circle at Gladstone Ave. and Stephenson Ave. and intersection improvements at Grand Ave. and McNaughton Ave. A copy of the slides provided at the PIC are shown in Appendix A. The public had an opportunity to provide comments at the PIC by using either the provided comment sheet or by sending an email to administration and/or the consultant. Chatham-Kent received approximately 100 comments (in addition to the large volume of comments through social media and phone calls) from residents expressing their concerns and opinions. A summary of the comments received are attached as Appendix B. Overall, the majority of public support the main attributes of the project, which include the underground infrastructure works and road resurfacing. Per most consultations, residents fronting the project expressed concerns for cost and impact on their property both during and after the completion of the project – primarily modifications to “private side” sewers. A number of themes were noted within the comments received:

Trees impacted by the project and overall tree preservation

Concerns about the location and/or addition of a multi-use trail as well as sidewalk location

Concerns about the volume of traffic, need for traffic calming and the addition of the proposed traffic circle at Gladstone and Stephenson

Intersection improvements by way of left turn lanes at Grand Avenue and McNaughton Avenue

Street lights and natural heritage impacts of the project

Victoria Avenue Trees As a requirement of the project, the consultant retained a third party professional arborist to review all of the trees within the project limits and within the Municipal right-of-way. The purpose of this investigation was to provide the Municipality with a report that summarized

3


recommendations for tree preservation and maintenance, independent of this project. The report identified the future removal of nineteen (19) trees due to safety concerns, in addition to a number of trees requiring maintenance such as trimmings and brushings.

It is the intention of the Municipality to continue to monitor the trees along Victoria Avenue and take proactive measures as required in accordance with this report and future investigations.

At the PIC, a draft concept of the Victoria Avenue Infrastructure Renewal project was presented that identified three (3) trees proposed for removal as a result of the project. Two (2) of the trees are small young trees in close proximity to the roadway that may be able to be relocated or if not, easily replaced with similar trees following construction. Several discussions took place at the PIC advising of the safety issues identified with the 19 trees that were not related to the project scope. It is one of the main goals of the project to protect and preserve the trees as much as possible and to maintain the natural coverage and characteristics of the corridor.

Active Transportation – Multi-Use Trail, Biking Facilities and Sidewalks

Victoria Avenue is identified in Chatham-Kent’s Cycling Master Plan and provides connectivity for north of McNaughton to downtown Chatham and is one of the most scenic and shaded routes for active transportation.

An off-road multi-use trail was presented as a safety proposal designed to keep bicycle traffic and motorized wheelchairs off the arterial road. The new 3.0m wide multi-use trail is located adjacent to the traveled roadway throughout the entire length of the project. The location of the trail was selected to have the least impact to trees and natural heritage elements along the corridor all throughout. The three (3) trees identified in the section above were as a result of these proposed multi-use trails. Also, multi-use trails were a preferred option as they would serve as a dual benefit replacing the need for sidewalks along Victoria Avenue as well.

From the comments received, there was opposition to the location of these trails being adjacent to the roadway, however, there remained strong support for some form of active transportation. There were several comments that did not support any form of active transportation as well. The concern was that the trails would be too close to traffic presenting safety issues for pedestrians walking in addition to dodging bicycles along the same path. Although the trails would have been designed with sufficient widths to help alleviate these concerns, administration investigated another option which is to incorporate bike lanes within the roadway.

Taking into consideration both sides of the argument, administration recommends proceeding with 1.5m wide bike lanes on both sides of the road (within the road) along Victoria Avenue from McNaughton Avenue to Thames Street. This will connect to the existing bike lanes north of McNaughton Avenue and provide connectivity to downtown Chatham.

Worth noting is that the proposed cross section and overall road width of Victoria Avenue south of McNaughton Avenue will not be as wide as Victoria Avenue north of McNaughton Avenue. Also, this proposal will only impact two (2) trees instead of the three (3) originally presented and these two (2) trees are the smaller young trees identified in the section above.

4


With this recommendation to include bike lanes within the roadway, the existing sidewalk is to remain in its current location. The sidewalk is in fair condition and will not be replaced as part of this project. However, the Municipality will continue to monitor the sidewalk and replace when warranted in the future and in accordance with the Municipality’s sidewalk replacement program. At that time, the sidewalk will need to be replaced to current AODA standards which will include widening from its current 1.0m width to at least 1.5m (or whatever the required standard will be in the future).

Traffic Calming and the Proposed Traffic Circle at Gladstone and Stephenson As part of the project, the consultant was required to produce a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify areas of improvement based on current and future traffic needs along Victoria Avenue. The TIS focused on all of the intersecting streets as well as the performance of Victoria Avenue as a whole taking into consideration recent traffic counts/studies and collision records.

As per the TIS, the intersection of Stephenson/Gladstone and Victoria appear to be functioning in an acceptable manner from a traffic perspective. However, the existing geometric offset between Stephenson and Gladstone Avenue is less than desirable and may be complicated at times due to the proximity of the pedestrian crossing point just to the south. In addition, stop sign and speed compliancy remains an on-going problem in the area.

Opportunity exists for the Municipality of Chatham-Kent to reconfigure this intersection and implement a traffic circle to separate out non-ideal conflicting turning movements. The implementation of a traffic circle will afford the spin-off benefits of:

Traffic calming (speed reduction) along the corridor

Reduce speeding concerns as speed control (traffic calming) is much more effective through design as opposed to speed limit changes, stop signs or Police patrol

Provide an opportunity to add to the historical beauty of Victoria Avenue by permitting the planting of flowers or vegetation in the centre of the circle

Continual movement and better flow of traffic (less stop and go) thereby reducing greenhouse emissions

Proven to reduce collisions and improve safety; accidents are primarily angled collisions and not the severity of injuries exhibited in t-bone or head-on collisions

Reduces wait times for minor streets intersecting main streets (Gladstone/Stephenson onto Victoria)

There is a growing trend to use traffic circles throughout Ontario and Canada due to their efficiency, low maintenance and inherent safety benefits. From the comments received, there was minor support for this proposed traffic circle but it also apparent that this is a relatively unfamiliar traffic design for most residents.

Due to the large volume of comments received highlighting continual concerns of speeding traffic and the need for traffic calming or reduced traffic volumes, administration is continuing to recommend the traffic circle at the intersection of Gladstone/Stephenson and Victoria which will address these concerns.

5


Intersection Improvements at Grand Avenue and McNaughton Avenue As recommended in the TIS, intersection improvements at both Grand Avenue and McNaughton Avenue are being proposed as part of this project. This will include widening of Victoria Avenue at both the Grand Avenue intersection as well as the McNaughton Avenue intersection to accommodate new left turn lanes.

From the comments received, the majority of the residents are in favour of these left turn lanes and therefore administration will continue to recommend them as part of the project.

Street Lights and Natural Heritage

From the comments received, there were concerns raised regarding the existing street lights being “removed” as part of this project. This was a misconception with the project as the options presented at the PIC did not identify street lights to be removed but only slightly relocated to accommodate the proposed works.

As part of the consultant’s design team, a professional natural heritage specialist was hired to ensure features such as the street lights, as well as any other heritage/historical features, are preserved and maintained throughout the project. This will include consultation and continuous communication with Chatham-Kent’s Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC).

There were also requests to continue with the decorative ‘historical’ lighting north of Amelia Street to McNaughton Avenue This will add to the overall heritage and beautification of Victoria Avenue that administration is proposing to support as part of this project.

Summary of Design Intent and Next Steps

The goal is to have the entire project complete and tender (shovel) ready in the event that any potential federal or provincial funding becomes available.

Per the Municipality’s project timeline, the following is the current plan pending any alternative direction proposed by Council:

June 2020 to September 2020 – Proceed with detailed design of entire project with the following design intent:

o Continue with the main attributes of the project, which include sewer separation, installation of a dedicated storm sewer with private services, watermain replacement, road resurfacing and curb and gutter to improve road and boulevard drainage.

o Include 1.5m wide ‘in-road’ bike lanes along both sides of Victoria Avenue from McNaughton Avenue to Thames Street

o Leave the existing sidewalk in its current location with no proposed work on it at this time.

o Include the traffic circle at Gladstone/Stephenson and Victoria Avenue.

6


o Widen Victoria Avenue at Grand Avenue and McNaughton Avenue to include left turn lanes.

o Continue with decorative streetlights along Victoria from Amelia to McNaughton.

September/October 2020 - Present new design to the public at the second PIC.

November 2020 to April 2021 – Submit project approvals to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP).

May 2021 to August 2021 – Finalize Tender and Specification Packages.

Fall 2021 – Tender Phase 1 (as budget permits) for construction in 2022.

Fall 2022 – Tender Phase 2 (as budget permits) for construction in 2023.

Financial Implications

Funding required for the Victoria Avenue Infrastructure Renewal project will come from a combination of the following in addition to any available provincial or federal grants if applicable.

Capital Budget

Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, Combined Sewer, Watermain, Roads, Curb & Gutter Lifecycle

Project cost estimates will be calculated once the project design is finalized.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

____________________________ ____________________________ Chris Thibert, P.Eng. Thomas Kelly, P.Eng. Director General Manager Engineering and Transportation Infrastructure & Engineering Services

Attachment(s): Appendix A – PIC Presentation Slides February 20, 2020 Appendix B – Summary of Public Comments

REF: P:\RTC\Infrastructure and Engineering\I & ES\2020\4239 Victoria Avenue Infrastructure Renewal community of Chatham

VICTORIA AVENUETHAMES STREET TO McNAUGHTON AVENUE EAST

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL PROJECT

Professional EngineersOntario

C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s

Windsor: 800 University Ave. W.- Windsor, ON N9A 5R9Leamington: 18 Talbot St. W.- Leamington, ON N8H 1M4

Chatham: 49 Raleigh St. - Chatham, ON N7M 2M6

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTREVICTORIA AVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL PROJECT

THAMES STREET TO McNAUGHTON AVENUE EASTFebruary 20, 2020

SPRUCEDALE UNITED CHURCH493 Victoria Avenue

Chatham, ONN7L 3B4

PROJECT CONTACTS:Mr. Chris Thibert, P.Eng.Director, Engineering and TransportationMunicipality of Chatham-Kent315 King Street WestChatham, ON N7M 5K8Phone: 519.360.1998Email: [email protected]

Mr. Stephen Jahns, P.Eng.Associate/Chatham-Kent ManagerRC Spencer Associates Inc.49 Raleigh StreetChatham, ON N7M 2M6Phone: 519.365.9212Email: [email protected]

Appendix A

VICTORIA AVE.VICTORIA AVE. VICTORIA AVE.

McN

AUG

HTO

N A

VE. E

McN

AUG

HTO

N A

VE. E

MAT

CH

LIN

E 1







VICTORIA AVE. VICTORIA AVE.

MAT

CH

LIN

E 1

MAT

CH

LIN

E 2







VICTORIA AVE. VICTORIA AVE. VICTORIA AVE.

STEP

HEN

SON

AVE

.

GLA

DST

ON

E AV

E.

AMEL

IA S

T.

MAT

CH

LIN

E 2

MAT

CH

LIN

E 3







VICTORIA AVE.

MAT

CH

LIN

E 3

MAT

CH

LIN

E 4

MAT

CH

LIN

E 4







FOR

EST

ST.

FOR

EST

ST.

SELK

IRK

ST.

SELK

IRK

ST.

VICTORIA AVE. VICTORIA AVE.

MAT

CH

LIN

E 5

MAT

CH

LIN

E 4







VICTORIA AVE.G

RAN

D A

VE. E

.

GR

AND

AVE

. E.

JAM

ES S

T.

MAT

CH

LIN

E 5

MAT

CH

LIN

E 6

VICTORIA AVE.







BART

HE S

T.

GRANT ST.

DOVE

R ST

.

THAMES ST.

THAMES ST.

MAT

CH

LIN

E 6

VICTORIA AVE.







EX. H

YDR

O P

OLE

SAN

D S

TREE

TLIG

HTS

±6.1m

BOULEVARD

±3.6m

SOUTHBOUND LANE

1.2m

CONCRETESIDEWALK

±4.5m

BOULEVARD

±5.5m

BOULEVARD

±3.6m

NORTHBOUND LANE

±4.5m

BOULEVARD

WES

T R

.O.W

.

EAST

R.O

.W.

1.2m

CONCRETESIDEWALK

CO

NC

RET

E C

UR

B

CO

NC

RET

E C

UR

B

CL

3.0m3.3m

SOUTHBOUND LANE

±8.4m

BOULEVARD

3.0m

ASPHALT

3.3m

NORTHBOUND LANE

±8.0m

BOULEVARD

WES

T R

.O.W

.

EAST

R.O

.W.

CL

0.66

m

0.66

m

CONCRETESEMI-MOUNTABLECURB AND GUTTER

CONCRETESEMI-MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

PATHWAYASPHALTPATHWAY

50mm HL-3 ON50mm HL-4 ON250mm GRANULAR 'A'

50mm HL-3 ON50mm HL-4 ON

250mm GRANULAR 'A'

50mm HL-3 ON55mm HL-4 ON55mm HL-4 ON350mm GRANULAR 'A'

TYPICAL NEW CROSS-SECTION(McNAUGHTON AVE. TO AMELIA ST.)

SCALE = 1 : 75

TYPICAL EXISTING CROSS-SECTION(McNAUGHTON AVE. TO AMELIA ST.)

SCALE = 1 : 75

±5.7m

BOULEVARD

±3.6m

SOUTHBOUND LANE

1.2m

CONCRETESIDEWALK

±4.8m

BOULEVARD

±5.6m

BOULEVARD

±3.6m

NORTHBOUND LANE

±4.8m

BOULEVARD

WES

T R

.O.W

.

EAST

R.O

.W.

1.2m

CONCRETESIDEWALK

CO

NC

RET

E C

UR

B

CO

NC

RET

E C

UR

B

CL

WES

T R

.O.W

.

EAST

R.O

.W.

CL

TYPICAL NEW CROSS-SECTION(AMELIA ST. TO FOREST ST.)

SCALE = 1 : 75

TYPICAL EXISTING CROSS-SECTION(AMELIA ST. TO FOREST ST.)

SCALE = 1 : 75

3.0m3.3m

SOUTHBOUND LANE

±8.4m

BOULEVARD

3.0m

ASPHALT

3.3m

NORTHBOUND LANE

±8.0m

BOULEVARD

0.66

m

0.66

m



CURB AND GUTTER

PATHWAYASPHALTPATHWAY


50mm HL-3 ON50mm HL-4 ON

250mm GRANULAR 'A'


TYPICAL NEW CROSS-SECTION(McNAUGHTON AVE. TO AMELIA ST.)

SCALE = 1 : 75

STREET LIGHTINGRELOCATED PER

FINAL DESIGN

STREET LIGHTINGRELOCATED PERFINAL DESIGN







±5.4m

BOULEVARD

±3.6m

SOUTHBOUND LANE

1.2m

CONCRETESIDEWALK

±4.1m

BOULEVARD

±6.0m

BOULEVARD

±3.6m

NORTHBOUND LANE

±4.4m

BOULEVARD

WES

T R

.O.W

.

EAST

R.O

.W.

1.2m

CONCRETESIDEWALK

CO

NC

RET

E C

UR

B

CO

NC

RET

E C

UR

B

CL

3.0m3.3m

SOUTHBOUND LANE

±7.7m

BOULEVARD

1.8m

CONCRETE

3.3m

NORTHBOUND LANE

±9.0m

BOULEVARD

WES

T R

.O.W

.

EAST

R.O

.W.

CL

0.66

m

0.66

m

SIDEWALKASPHALTPATHWAY

115mm CONCRETE ON250mm GRANULAR 'A'

TYPICAL NEW CROSS-SECTION(FOREST ST. TO GRAND AVE.)

SCALE = 1 : 75

TYPICAL EXISTING CROSS-SECTION(FOREST ST. TO GRAND AVE.)

SCALE = 1 : 75



CURB AND GUTTER




FINAL DESIGN


±6.3m

BOULEVARD

±3.55m

SOUTHBOUND LANE

1.2m

CONCRETESIDEWALK

±4.1m

BOULEVARD

±5.8m

BOULEVARD

±3.55m

NORTHBOUND LANE

±3.9m

BOULEVARD

WES

T R

.O.W

.

EAST

R.O

.W.

1.2m

CONCRETESIDEWALK

CO

NC

RET

E C

UR

B

CO

NC

RET

E C

UR

B

CL

WES

T R

.O.W

.

EAST

R.O

.W.

CL

TYPICAL NEW CROSS-SECTION(GRAND AVE. TO THAMES ST.)

SCALE = 1 : 75

TYPICAL EXISTING CROSS-SECTION(GRAND AVE. TO THAMES ST.)

SCALE = 1 : 75

3.0m3.3m

SOUTHBOUND LANE

±7.9m

BOULEVARD

1.8m

CONCRETE

3.3m

NORTHBOUND LANE

±9.0m

BOULEVARD

0.66

m

0.66

m

SIDEWALKASPHALTPATHWAY

115mm CONCRETE ON250mm GRANULAR 'A'



CURB AND GUTTER




FINAL DESIGN








THAM

ES S

T.

5th STREET

VICTORIA AVE.

STEP

HEN

SON

AVE

.

GLA

DST

ON

E AV

E.













PROBABLE PROJECT PHASING

PROBABLE PHASE 1 OF PROJECTVICTORIA AVENUE - THAMES STREET TO GRAND AVENUE

PROBABLE PHASE 2 OF PROJECTVICTORIA AVENUE - GRAND AVENUE TO McNAUGHTON AVENUE

PHASE 2A - GRAND AVENUE TO AMELIA STREETPHASE 2B - AMELIA STREET TO McNAUGHTON AVENUE







PROBABLE PROJECT SCHEDULE

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE 1 20 FEBRUARY 2020COMMENT PERIOD 20 FEBRUARY - 13 MARCH 2020REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED 16 MARCH 2020 - 20 MARCH 2020DISCUSSION WITH CK RE: COMMENTS 23 MARCH 2020 - 27 MARCH 2020DETAILED DESIGN 30 MARCH 2020 - 31 AUGUST 2020PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE 2 10 SEPTEMBER 2020SPECIFICATIONS AND TENDER DOCUMENTS 31 AUGUST 2020 - 25 SEPTEMBER 2020SUBMIT FOR APPROVALS 31 AUGUST 2020RECEIVE APPROVALS 6 MOS MOECC + 2 MOS CK = 1 MAY 2021TENDER PHASE I (SUBJECT TO BUDGET OCTOBER 2021AND APPROVALS)CONSTRUCTION PHASE I SPRING / SUMMER 2022TENDER PHASE II OCTOBER 2022CONSTRUCTION PHASE II SPRING / SUMMER 2023

Appendix B

Mun. Address CommentVictoria Avenue ‐Does not want any trees removed.

‐Upset with lack of parking for her home.Victoria Avenue ‐Concerns with keeping the character of the street.

‐Does not understand the need for a new bike path when there is a lack of bike traffic.Also when there is already currently sidewalks. ‐In favour of the roundabout as it would limit the speed which traffic travels on andoff Victoria Ave. ‐Concerns with the removal of 100 plus year old trees.

Victoria Avenue ‐Not in favour of tree removal as it will not protect pedestrians.Victoria Avenue ‐Opposed to the sidewalks being too close to roadway.

‐Changing the layout of the road will change the park like, historical setting. ‐Safety concern for pedestrians ‐Approves of the left hand turn lanes being added. ‐Opposed to the roundabout at Gladstone and Stephen as it takes away from thecharm of the street. ‐Would like to see data about bicycle use. ‐Need to come up with another plan.

Victoria Avenue ‐Only part of the project that is agreeable are the left hand turning lanes that are being added. ‐Feels the rest of the suggestions are unnecessary. With little concern for aesthetics and history of the street.

Victoria Avenue ‐Concerns of the removal of heritage streetlights. ‐Opposed to the sidewalks being too close to the roadway. Poses a safety concern. ‐Lack of bicycle traffic on Victoria. Does not warrant a bicycle lane. ‐Will the taxpayers be paying for the cost of the project? ‐Does not want to change the aesthetics of the street currently.

Victoria Avenue ‐Glad to see curbs put in along Victoria. As there are problems with no curbs west of Victoria Ave at Forest St. ‐Not in favour of roundabout.

Victoria Avenue ‐Safety concern over path being too close to the roadway. ‐Concerns over amount of tree coverage for shade and quality of life. ‐Concern over cost given the low volume of bike and pedestrian traffic. ‐Would like to see existing sidewalks being utilized. One as a bike lane, and the other for pedestrians. ‐Snow will make sidewalks unusable as snow will be pushed onto sidewalk. ‐Moving the sidewalk will impact the aesthetic of the street. ‐Concern over service vehicles parking on proposed bike path/sidewalk. ‐Leave sidewalk where they are. ‐Not in favour of one bike lane between Thames St and Grand.

Victoria Avenue ‐Project not needed. ‐New bike path not needed due to low bike traffic. ‐Would rather designate an existing sidewalk for bikes, and the other for pedestrians. ‐Not in favour of tree removal. ‐Wants to keep trees for aesthetic and historical reasons.

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM‐KENTRCS PROJECT NO.18‐800

VICTORIA AVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ‐ PIC #1 (FEBRUARY 20, 2020)

Mun. Address Comment ‐Removing boulevard poses safety risk for pedestrians. As path will be too close to the roadway. ‐Concerns for snow removal as the snow will be pushed from the road onto the sidewalk. ‐As sidewalk snow removal is now the responsibility of the homeowner, that will create more work for the homeowner.

Victoria Avenue ‐Outraged with the lack of concern and compassion for the heritage and history of the street. ‐Concerned about safety for pedestrians being so close to the roadway. Especially in the winter. ‐Concerns for snowplough pushing snow onto the new proposed bike/walking path. ‐Concerns drivers will easily drive over the semi‐mountable curbs over frustration. ‐Concerned about the ecosystems that will be destroyed in the process of tree removal. ‐Adding more concrete will create a heat zone and post a threat to remaining trees. Which is in direct conflict with the cities current Climate Change Declaration. ‐The amount of digging involved can disrupt the roots of many trees outside of the additional 16‐19 proposed to be removed. ‐Have traffic surveys been done in regards to the roundabout? ‐Against the proposed roundabout. ‐Feels funds can be repurposed to the Erie Shore Drive crisis. ‐Concerns over economical impact to the homeowners on Victoria Ave. ‐Suggest to go ahead with the infrastructure plans but to return Victoria Ave to its current state.

Victoria Avenue ‐With the low traffic on Victoria Ave, a roundabout is not needed. ‐How many trees have to be cut down for this project to happen? Will they bereplaced? ‐Concerned with keeping the aesthetic of the street intact. ‐How much will it cost residents?

Victoria Avenue ‐ Moving the sidewalk to the edge of the roadway is a bad idea.‐ Pedestrians will be too close to traffic creating a dangerous condition.‐ Low profile curbs will not protect pedestrians from errant cars.‐ Asphalt is not historically correct (concrete is more pleasing surface). ‐ Is this to be a shared bike lane? Nothing shown on plans.‐ Care will use the path to pass on the right.‐ Snowploughs will make path impassable in Winter. Slush will be a problem for pedestrians‐ Leave sidewalks where they are.‐ Plans unclear as to what will happen with existing trees. Mature trees provide shade and beauty.‐ There are spots where trees were taken down and not replaced. Need more information on native and pest‐free varieties.‐ Extend history lighting to McNaughton.‐ Conservation of historic yellow bricks beneath asphalt road should be considered. Create tourist opportunities with exposed brick road.‐ Changing sewers is great; destroying beauty of street is unacceptable.‐ Please have oral presentation at next meeting.

Victoria Avenue ‐Are speed limits to be reduced to 30 or 40 km/h? ‐Concerns with sidewalks being too close to roadway. ‐Would rather sidewalks be further from the roadway.

Mun. Address CommentVictoria Avenue ‐Concerned with path being too close to the roadway.

‐Safety concerns for pedestrians. ‐With the stop sign at Amelia St being removed, How is this intersection going to be controlled? ‐Would like the current sidewalks be upgraded to a bike/walking path, but keep the boulevard. ‐In favour of the turning lane being built at the corner of Grand Ave and Victoria Ave Due to being a dangerous intersection. ‐Appreciative for the consideration shown for relocating the historic streetlights.

Victoria Avenue ‐After completing the sewer upgrade, return Victoria Ave to its present appearance. ‐No roundabouts ‐Concerns for bike path. Will be littered with overturned garbage containers weekly, also adding the pathway will cause damage to most mature trees. ‐No healthy trees to be cut down. ‐An arborist should be consulate to mitigate the damage by the construction. ‐Any tree removal should be replaced with a sapling of the same species and as mature as possible.

Victoria Avenue ‐In favour of the infrastructure renewal. ‐Concerned with the plans for destroying the beauty and ambience of Victoria Ave. ‐Safety concerns with putting the sidewalk/bike lane so close to the roadway. ‐Suggests to leave the sidewalk where it is. Increase the width of the roadway by 1.0‐1.5m on each side to give an already narrow street more width. This would include the guttering and a non semi‐mountable curb. ‐Concerns about tree removal. Too many tree removals will result in ecology concerns and animal life within these trees. ‐Believes construction can dig around root system and have an arborist trim, and dispose of dead branches to help save more trees. ‐Believes roundabout of such a small diameter will not be a viable solution to "calming" traffic. ‐ Suggests speed‐bumps with a low, curvature so as to not damage vehicles.

Victoria Avenue ‐Keep stop signs at Amelia. ‐Not in favour of roundabout. ‐Would like minimal impact on existing trees. ‐Plant replacement trees for the ones removed. ‐Keep expanding roadway on westside between Amelia and Gladstone. ‐Provide a designated place to park when driveways are not accessible during construction. ‐Explain security plans. ‐Give residents the right to replant trees on boulevard with Municipal help. ‐Concerns over garbage collection during construction. ‐Will wood from cut trees be available to residents?

Victoria Avenue ‐Slide 3 is preferred option. ‐Removing trees would destroy the character of the neighbourhood. ‐Wants to keep historic streetlights. ‐Not in favour of roundabout or installing speedbumps. ‐Concern over extra cost to homeowner as stormwater does not go into sanitary sewer. Understands a Fog Test will be done. ‐Concerns over security for parking their vehicles during construction process. ‐Expressing concerns to Councillor Michael Bondy. ‐Would like to have a community liaison onsite.

Mun. Address CommentVictoria Avenue ‐Safety concerns with the widened roadway and bike path being too close.

‐Concerned with removal of trees as it is part of history and the beauty of the street. Removal of trees will also take away shade coverage for the street. ‐Add traffic lights at Stephenson and Victoria as opposed to the roundabout. Homeowners on that corner will find this less invasive. ‐Was there a bike study done? Does not see a massive increase in bike traffic by adding bike lanes. ‐Who will be responsible for snow removal as the snowploughs will push more snow onto the boulevard areas. ‐What is the anticipated cost?

Victoria Avenue ‐Safety issues with pedestrians walking so close to the roadway. ‐Concerned with the tree removal. As there will be a lack of shade and will take away from the history and ambience of the street.

Victoria Avenue ‐Would like to keep the trees. Some of the trees that may be removed due to agecould be saved by trimming and removal of the weak spots. ‐Does not agree that bicycles and walkers should share the same pathway. Has been dangerous in the past for them. ‐Pathway being too close to the roadway seems like an accident waiting to happen. ‐Would like sidewalks to remain and if bike lane is necessary, to keep it separate. ‐Trees give provided shade and home to many birds and animal varieties. ‐It is important to care and maintain the trees, they should not be removed for thesake of a combined bicycle/walking path. ‐The roundabout would provide confusion with vehicles trying to take a left on Stephenson coming from Grand Ave. ‐Possibility of vehicles ending up in peoples lawns when unable to make the turn because of speed ‐Homeowners would experience lights in their windows at all hours due to the roundabout. ‐In favour of sewer upgrades.

Victoria Avenue ‐Full support of the infrastructure portion of the project. ‐In favour of preserving existing heritage light posts and continuing replica light posts throughout the street. ‐Safety concerns for pedestrians being too close to the roadway. ‐Would like to see data that supports the need to add bike lanes. ‐Mountable curbs make it too easy for cars to veer into the bike/walking path. Endangering pedestrians. ‐Would like to keep all the trees as it shows the streets heritage and beauty. ‐Does not support either the proposed traffic circle nor the removal of a stop sign at Amelia intersection. ‐Would like to see low‐profile asphalt speed humps to deter speeding. ‐Public information session that was held created an unnecessary amount of uncertainty due to inconsistent messaging from various officials. ‐Future projects please consult stakeholders prior to design, present plans to everyone at the public information session.

Victoria Avenue ‐Lack of information around the inconveniences and costs to homeowners impacted by the sewer upgrade. ‐Will current home design have to be changed to accommodate separate sewerand greywater lines? ‐What are the costs and are the homeowners to bear them?

Mun. Address Comment ‐What impact will these changes have to water bills? Has this communicated or considered to impacted residents? ‐Will back‐flow valves be included as part of the sewer line upgrade? ‐Would the cost be assumed by the city or passed along to the homeowner? What information is available on this? ‐During construction, how will homeowners access their property? How long will access be limited? ‐What mitigation measures will be in place during construction to address dust, open holes and noise? ‐If the plans go through, where will residents put their garbage for pickup? Will the garbage collectors have to drive onto the paths to collect waste?

‐With recent laws about homeowners being responsible for salting sidewalks. Will homeowners have to assume the same responsibility for the multi‐use pathway? ‐Concerns with safety of removing the stop sign at Victoria and Amelia intersection.

‐Not in favour of the roundabout. If a roundabout is absolutely necessary, suggests considering Victoria/Dover/Thames intersection. Which is a serious safety concern. ‐Suggests a posted and enforced reduced speed limit, as well as speed bumps. ‐In favour of adding a crosswalk at Forest Street. ‐Plans show his property at 256 Victoria as having asphalt at the end of driveway between the street and sidewalk. This is incorrect. It is concrete. Has doubts about the ability to continue with the project. ‐Supports the need for an infrastructure upgrade, but disappointed in the lack of transparency with residents and impacted stakeholders.

Victoria Avenue ‐Agrees to new sewer lines, sanitary and storm sewers. ‐Believes everything else is a waste of tax payers money. ‐Some residents did not get notice of Feb 20th meeting. The meeting was disorganized and confusing. ‐Concerned the new bike paths will increase crime. ‐Does not want a repeat of the Capital Theatre mess or the destruction of Downtown in the late 70's.

Victoria Avenue ‐In favour of sewer upgrades. ‐Concerned with pedestrian safety. Multipurpose lane being too close to the roadway.

‐Concerned with preservation of the historical character of the street. ‐Would like to see as many trees remain as possible. For both aesthetic and ecological reasons. ‐Would like to return the sidewalks to the present state.

Victoria Avenue ‐Felt the initial meeting was unorganized and hard to follow. ‐In favour of infrastructure updates, but not at the expense of removing trees. ‐Concerns over losing the charm and historic appeal of the street. ‐Concerns with the roundabout being too close to the three‐way stop.

Victoria Avenue ‐Only in favour of the sewers being repaired and nothing else.

Victoria Avenue ‐Suggests properly maintaining the mature trees that Victoria Ave has instead ofremoving them. ‐This project does not align with the vision of CKPLAN2035. ‐Please invest in saving the trees, not destroying them. ‐Suggests doing the sewer upgrade and to restore the street to its current state. ‐CK has supplied zero data to support the roundabout. ‐Bike path is a great idea, but not on a historical street.

Mun. Address Comment ‐Installing a multi‐use asphalt path beside a vehicle lane is dangerous. ‐Restore the sidewalks as they are. ‐Protect the canopy coverage. ‐The revenue saved can go to many other areas in need across Chatham‐Kent. ‐Many unanswered questions. Taxpayers deserve input and for it to be values, not an afterthought. ‐Are special techniques going to be ensured so it is the least intrusive to the root system of all trees. Will this be a requirement of the contract? ‐Has heard by many to ensure backwater valves are included in the sewer upgrade. Will this be included in the upgrade? ‐Would like a proper public information sharing session so that misinformation and unnecessary angst can be avoided.

Victoria Avenue ‐Concerns with losing any heritage associated with the street if there are aboveground modifications. ‐Concerns with pedestrian safety if the bike/walking path is too close to the roadway. ‐In favour of separating sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Everything else is extra. ‐Suggests not doing any "extras" and redistributing funds for emergencies.

Victoria Avenue ‐Concerned the roundabout will interfere with their driveway and backing up their trailer. ‐Concerned about the noise and lights that will be shining into windows due to the roundabout. ‐Feels the roundabout will be dangerous being next to a cross walk. ‐Suggests a speed bump approach. City of Cambridge has used this approach with good success. ‐Bike path is a nice thought, but raises concerns for safety of pedestrians. ‐Wants to keep the character and heritage of the street. ‐Full support of the sewer separation portion, but would like to see the street returned to its current state. New curbs and lighting being the exception.

Victoria Avenue ‐Proceed with sewer separation work, but return the avenue to its existing layout. ‐Do not remove any trees whatsoever. ‐Utilize construction techniques designed to safe guard the root systems of all trees. ‐Install heritage style street lights to match the current ones along the southern portions of Victoria Ave to McNaughton. ‐Designate one of the existing side walks for a bicycle path and the other as a walking path. ‐Utilize the money saved to attend to other priorities the Municipality may have.

Victoria Avenue ‐In favour of infrastructure upgrades, but return the avenue to its existing layout. ‐Not in favour of roundabout. Suggests a less invasive way to slow traffic. ‐No tree removal whatsoever. Use construction techniques to safeguard the root systems of all trees. ‐Install heritage style street lights to match the current ones along the southern portions of Victoria Ave to McNaughton. ‐Use existing sidewalks. One for bikes and one for pedestrians walking. ‐Utilize the money saved to attend to other priorities the Municipality may have.

Victoria Avenue ‐Concerns about a 10ft walkway/sidewalk ‐Concerns of snow removal of the sidewalk as it is the homeowners responsibility. ‐Would the path be considered part of the roadway? Would snowploughs be responsible for the clearing of the snow?

Victoria Avenue ‐Would like sewer work to be done and the present street surface to be replaced. ‐Would like to extend the antique looking, historical street lights up Victoria Ave.

Mun. Address Comment ‐Very opposed to the bike/walking lanes beside vehicular traffic. ‐Concern for pedestrians being too close to the roadway without a safety buffer. ‐Against the roundabout at Gladstone Ave and Stephenson. ‐Safety concern for traffic at the roundabout as the lanes will narrow as traffic enters the roundabout. ‐Also concerned with traffic noise as vehicle speed coming out of the roundabout. ‐Concerns with the roundabout being too close to the pedestrian crosswalk.

Victoria Avenue ‐Suggests making the street one way. With the traffic going south to reduce theamount of traffic. ‐Concerns over speeding on Victoria Ave. ‐Would like more trees to be planted.

Victoria Avenue ‐Concerned with trees being removed outside her residence. As it adds value to her home and neighbourhood. Also home to migrating birds. ‐Would like specific tree outsider her home to remain by moving the expanded sidewalk or narrowing it at that point.

Victoria Avenue ‐Only in favour of the sewers being repaired and nothing else.Victoria Avenue ‐Concerns with the cost of removal and realignment of the steel fence.

Victoria Avenue ‐Not in favour of assuming any cost of tree removal or other renovations due to this project.

Victoria Avenue ‐As an avid cyclist, In favour of the bike lanes between McNaughton Ave and Thames Street. ‐Does not want bike lanes along St Clair St. as that road is dangerous. ‐Pleased to see very few trees will be removed, wider bike path/sidewalks andhistoric streetlights will remain. ‐In favour of the new mountable curbs and expanded intersections. ‐Easier to access other neighbourhoods with new paths. ‐In favour of the project.

Victoria Avenue ‐In favour of the least invasive renewal. ‐Pedestrians too close to traffic ‐Would like to see bike lanes and new pathway separated from the roadway. ‐Would like a promise to plant trees in replace of the ones being removed ‐Current proposal will make Victoria Ave unappealing with such a wideroadway/sidewalk. ‐Wants to keep historic streetlights. Would like LED lights for environmental concerns as well as cost savings for the city.

Victoria Avenue ‐Concerned that the bike paths will be under‐utilized as previous bike paths have been. ‐Wants to keep the character, beauty and charm of the street. ‐Not in favour for the roundabout. Would rather stop sign at Jackson Drive, speedbump at Ardleigh or Police to patrol to control speeding. ‐Concerns over north side of the street on Victoria. Often illegally passed by vehicles. ‐Adding a bike path would just allow for illegal parking, as it happens on other bike lanes. ‐Consider using speed bumps instead of tearing apart the street.

Victoria Avenue ‐Concerned with sloping gutters as it allows cars to mount curbs. ‐Concerned with widening the road as that will make cars travel faster. ‐Heritage street lights must be preserved. Would like replica lights to fill in for modern current lights. ‐Would like as many trees to remain as possible. Also, replace what was removed. ‐Not in favour of roundabout.

Zircon Place ‐ As a runner, asphalt is preferable over concrete.

Mun. Address Comment‐ As a cyclist, pavement is the only option.‐ No comment on the roundabout.‐ Overall, it looks like a good plan.

St Clair Street ‐In favour of the least invasive renewal. ‐Would like a multi‐use path located where the west sidewalk is currently located. ‐Reasons for location idea are for overall safety of cyclists/pedestrians, less invasive and much more appealing for the historic neighbourhood. ‐Would like to leave the eastern sidewalk where it is currently and to see a multi‐usepath located where the western sidewalk currently is. ‐Have the least amount of trees removed. ‐Would like a promise made to plant two(2) mature trees for every one large tree cut down. ‐Would like only Native Corolinian Trees. ‐Has a general concern with the plan. ‐Round about is a great idea. ‐Proposed upgrades would make Victoria Ave unappealing by having such a wide stretch of concrete and asphalt.

Ellwood Avenue ‐Does not want any trees removed or the historical streetlights. ‐Concerns over aesthetic appeal if trees are removed. ‐Would like regular trimming of trees. Also, replanting of trees prior to the life expectancy of the existing trees. ‐Not in favour of bike path. ‐Safety concerns for the bike path. Will get used for parking, package delivery, garbage and recycling trucks or anyone else wishing to stop. ‐Safety concern for children if boulevard is narrowed. ‐Concerns for quality of life if trees are removed. ‐Concerns with cost given the low volume of bike and pedestrian traffic. Would prefer existing sidewalk to be used as bike lane and other sidewalk for pedestrians. ‐Concerns for road spray and snow removal as it will all be pushed onto the sidewalks with proposed plan.

Woods Street ‐Not in favour of the tree removal. ‐Would like more trees to be planted as the current trees are quite mature. ‐Not in favour of roundabout. Will only speed up traffic on the street as the stop sign at Amelia will be removed. ‐Would like to use existing sidewalks. One for bikes and the other side for pedestrians. ‐Concerns of safety over bike path being too close to the road. ‐Avid cyclist. Finds bike paths that are connected to the road dangerous.

Henry O'Way ‐Not in favour for a new bike path. ‐Concerns for safety for sidewalk too close to the roadway. ‐Concerns for the aesthetics of the street. ‐Would like a meeting with a presentation. ‐Would like sidewalks to currently stay where they are. ‐Concerns with extra cost for residents if their home does not meet the Fog Test.

Ardleigh Drive ‐Stop signs should be moved from the corner of Victoria Ave and Amelia St, to Victoria Ave and Jackson Dr. ‐Traffic speed is too fast for pedestrians.

Gateway Track ‐Bike path is a good idea but not on Victoria Ave. Would like it along the river. ‐Replace dying trees with substantial sized trees. New trees should be planted each year.

Mun. Address Comment ‐With C‐K's initiative of planting 1,000,000 trees over 4 years, will decent sized trees be part of this project for replacement trees along Victoria Ave? ‐Would like a presentation. Would be more informative and beneficial.

Lydican Avenue Ext. ‐Not in favour of roundabout. Feels it would compromise the integrity of Victoria Ave and surrounding areas. ‐Understands the need for updating and renewal of infrastructure. Does not want aesthetic or historical significance compromised in the process.

Bearline Road ‐Against the plan to alter Victoria Ave in anyway. ‐Concerned with tree removal, roadway widening, and anything that alters the charmof Victoria Ave and its heritage.

McIntosh Avenue ‐Safety concerns with the bike path being too close to the roadway and speeding vehicles. ‐Against removal of trees. Suggest planting more trees.

Grand Avenue East ‐In favour of the sewer separation with storm water. ‐Against tree removal and altering Victoria Ave in any other way.

Tweedsmuir Avenue ‐In favour of sewer system. ‐Concerns for pedestrian safety, environmental concerns and historical significance. ‐Concerned over proposed bike/walking path being too close to the roadway. Currently an issue with speeding drivers on Victoria Ave. ‐Concerned with the roundabout. Lack of safety as it removes the only controlled crosswalk in the area, which is needed due to foot traffic. ‐Roundabout will not effectively eliminate the speed issue or traffic‐calming. ‐Suggest speed bumps or other alternatives that allow the boulevards and existing sidewalks to be maintained. ‐Concerned with the removal of the trees. As it is home to various species of birds, animals and insects. ‐Concerned that the history of the street will be compromised with the proposed layout. ‐Suggests to go ahead with the infrastructure plans but to return Victoria Ave to its current state.

Amelia Street ‐Safety concerns with the bike/walking path being so close to the roadway. ‐Understands the need to have some trees removed. ‐More pedestrians walking than biking.

Dartmouth, NS ‐Previously lived in Chatham and is concerned the street will lose its history andbeauty. ‐Concerned the properties on Victoria will lose value.

Baldoon Road ‐In favour of bike lanes, but not if that means cutting down the trees. ‐Feels it would be dangerous to have cyclists and walkers so close to the roadway. ‐Feels the roundabout is expensive and unnecessary. ‐Drives down Victoria several times a week for the beauty.

Bates Dr RR#1 ‐In favour of the sewer renewal.Morpeth ‐No changes to be made to the street scape.

‐No mature trees should be removed due to them being historic and adds character. ‐Need trees to help combat climate change. ‐Safety concerns for the pathways being too close to vehicle traffic. ‐Does not feel bikers and walkers should share the same pathway. Bikers make it more dangerous for pedestrians, especially being so close to the roadway. ‐Does not see a need for a bike path. ‐Suggest specialized signage in routing bike traffic appropriately if this project continues.

Mun. Address Comment ‐Suggests a four way stop at Forest Street and Victoria as a more cost effective idea. ‐Suggests adding an initial green left turn arrow on Victoria Avenue and McNaughton as a more cost effective idea. ‐Suggests the same approach at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Victoria Avenue.

Joanne Street ‐Project should be done with the least amount of above ground work as‐is possible for the least long term cost. ‐Do traffic surveys warrant a change to Victoria/Gladstone/Stephenson intersection? ‐Suggests that corner stays as‐is or put a four way stop. ‐As an avid cyclist, in favour of the bike lane. ‐Would prefer the sidewalks to not be disturbed or relocated if possible. ‐Would prefer hydro poles and streetlights not to be disturbed and leave them in their current locations. ‐No trees to be impacted or removed. Suggests an independent arborist to confirm if any trees are needed to be removed. ‐Suggests to replace the road and curbing to meet the latest municipal standards. ‐Keep cost to the tax payer in mind. Infrastructure repairs and upgrades should be done only when needed. ‐Concerns about tax hikes and price of water. ‐Suggests all councillors to rigorously challenge all spending to be fiscally responsible.

Joseph Street ‐Would like the trees that are to be removed to be marked before the process happens. ‐Would like the timeline for when the trees will be removed. ‐First suggestion is to leave the street width alone and just complete all underground work and return the street back to its original state. ‐Second suggestion is for the process of new services to each resident usingdirectional boring equipment. As to not disturb residents lawns. ‐Third suggestion is to look at the option of putting bike trails next to existing sidewalks. This will allow little to no disturbance to lawns.

Cook Street ‐Relocating the sidewalks next to the roadway would detrimentally affect the experience of the street.

Barrie, ON ‐The narrowness of Victoria is a nice feature because there is more landscape than asphalt. ‐Use existing sidewalks. One for bikes and one for pedestrians walking.

Paxton Drive ‐Concerned with the changes, other than necessary sewer maintenance. ‐Not in favour of the removal of trees. ‐Concerned with changing the aesthetics of the street. ‐Safety concerns of the sidewalk being closer to traffic.

Elizabeth Street ‐Project is not needed or wanted. ‐Waste of funds that could be better spent, like on Erie Shore Drive.

‐Not in favour of bike/walking path being too close to the roadway. ‐Does not want any unnecessary trees to be removed as the street will lose itsheritage and majesty. ‐Asphalt wide pathways will not fit the neighbourhood aesthetic. ‐Traffic calming can be maintained by keeping the 3 way stop at Amelia St. ‐In favour of the infrastructure work, but maintain Victoria street as it is currently. ‐Would like replica historic‐style lampposts added.

Wiltshire Drive ‐Who at 325 King had the authority to put this proposal forward? ‐What thought was given to the decimation of this beautiful tree‐lined street? ‐The timeline of this project seems like a costly 'in house' make work project. What is the anticipated in house labour cost for this effort?

Mun. Address Comment ‐Is there a provincially mandated minimum width requirement for bicycle 'trails'? ‐No matter their width ‐ are they being used? How many months a year? ‐Is consideration being given to Heather Loucks' letter/suggestion? If the answer is negative could you explain why? ‐Is there not a minimum radius requirement for a roundabout? ‐Is a roundabout really required at the intersection of Victoria and Gladstone and Stevenson? ‐There are 83 trees and 29 ornate street lamps on Victoria. How many trees and lamps will survive? ‐How many heritage homes are in this area?

‐Was shocked when inquiring about why the public meeting was held at Sprucedale United Church and not one of the churches within walking distance of the project.

Mr.Thibert stated "I didn’t know that. You must realize I'm not really very familiar with the area". ‐Notices very few people riding bicycles on Victoria. ‐Consider extending the existing Grand to McNaughton "Trail" on Sandys Street from Grand to Oxley then Orangewood north to Gregory Drive. This section of roadway appearswide enough to accommodate bike trails. This would better facilitate bikers who may wish to visit the O'Neil Preserve and/or Kingston Park. ‐Consider making "hand‐outs" easier to read. Such things as color differential, bolderprint and wider spacing. ‐Please justify the elimination of any old street lights or the beautiful mature trees on Victoria.

Smithfield Circle ‐Suggests a cost effective and environmentally friendly alternative to the project. ‐Pave the east or west hand sidewalk and make that the bike lane. ‐Would be a great pilot project to see if this type of regeneration would work on other streets.

Delaware Avenue ‐Feels there is insufficient traffic to warrant a roundabout at Gladstone and Victoria. Taxpayer money would be better allocated to other projects. ‐Roundabout would take away from the cultural heritage of Victoria Ave and be in conflict with various legislations and regulative policies, provincially and municipally. (See the Planning Act; The Ontario Heritage Act; The CK Strategic Plan; et al.) ‐Proposed pathway along Victoria Ave is an unsafe proposal. Concerned with the pathway being too close to the roadway. ‐Not in favour of the semi‐mountable curb and gutter. ‐Increasing the paved area from 9.6m to 11.5m will contribute further to run‐off rather than percolation of rainfall and snowmelt. This is environmentally unsound. ‐The restructuring of the street will create more traffic. Upgrade features to make it a safer avenue with moderate vehicular use. ‐Consent and approval of the people who are paying for this should be of importance when considering this proposed project.

Elizabeth Street ‐Disappointed that so many trees will be taken down to make room for bike paths and an unnecessary roundabout. ‐This proposal will change the feel of the neighbourhood and lose its heritage and charm. ‐The 6 million dollar estimate for this project could be used in many other ways to benefit the community.

Mun. Address CommentGlenwood Drive ‐Seems like an expensive and excessive approach to addressing infrastructure renewal.

‐This plan would destroy the ambiance of the neighbourhood. ‐Destroying healthy trees is completely unacceptable. ‐Roundabout is unnecessary. ‐Upgrade the infrastructure and then restore the area to its native state. ‐Does not want the same thing happening as what happened with the destruction of Harrison Hall. ‐Suggests that if Chatham‐Kent wants to be a heritage tourist destination, we need to maintain the heritage of the community.

Oakgrove Lane ‐In favour of infrastructure work, forgo everything else in the proposal.

Oakgrove Lane ‐Replacing the sewers and repairing/replacing light fixtures is necessary. The other items on the proposal will not enhance the current environment of the street. ‐Need to put a plan in place to replace trees that must be removed due to age.

Llydican Avenue ‐Proposed Victoria Ave road improvements are unnecessary, unsafe, and costly. ‐Sidewalks should remain. ‐In favour of sewer upgrades.

Briardene Street ‐Project should take into consideration the impact the total planned program of construction will have on the entire street. ‐Does not want to lose the original character and architecturally unique heritage of the street. ‐The northern section of Victoria has been widened and bike lanes added, which do not appear to be widely used by either bikers or joggers. ‐Significant increase in motor vehicle usage from outside the neighbouring streets, as drivers appear to be avoiding many stop lights on St.Clair Street. ‐Significant increase in vehicles exceeding the speed limit. ‐Not in favour of the roundabout. With most vehicles already exceeding the speed limit, this roundabout is not the solution. ‐The history of the street must be preserved. ‐Would like members to carefully examine all of the ramifications associated with the widening of the roadway and extensions.

‐How will this project add to, preserve and maintain the unique characteristics of this neighbourhood and the quality of life of its current residents, as well to all of the public? ‐Who and what are the major beneficiaries resulting from this project (which I am defining as anything other than replacement of sewers, sidewalks, roadway and required tree replacement? ‐Is it possible that property values over time would drop, if this became a high traffic area, along with declining property taxes? ‐Concerned about losing the charm and character of the street. ‐Not in favour for the roundabout. Would rather stop sign at Jackson Drive, speedbump at Ardleigh or Police to patrol to control speeding. ‐Concerned with past decisions Chatham‐Kent has made. Ex. Destroying Harrison Hall in favour of the downtown mall in 1980's. ‐Does not want the road to be altered. Please keep two lane roadway. ‐Does not believe this is a priority and Chatham‐Kent should focus on other infrastructure repairs around the city. ‐Concerns over tree removal and wanting to keep the street historical. ‐Would like removed trees to be replaced with larger replacements via a "tree grade". ‐Concerns about roundabout. ‐Would like a public meeting with a presentation to clearly outline the proposal.

Mun. Address Comment ‐More details about tree removal and replacement. ‐Does not believe Victoria Ave is the most efficient location to divert sanitary from sewer. ‐Concerned about losing the charm and character of the street. ‐Not in favour for the roundabout. Would rather stop sign at Jackson Drive, speedbump at Ardleigh or Police to patrol to control speeding. ‐Concerned with past decisions Chatham‐Kent has made. Ex. Destroying Harrison Hall in favour of the downtown mall in 1980's. ‐Does not want the road to be altered. Please keep two lane roadway. ‐Does not believe this is a priority and Chatham‐Kent should focus on other infrastructure repairs around the city. ‐Concerned with losing the historic feel of Victoria Ave. ‐Believes it will affect real estate values if street is altered from current appearance and feel. ‐Believes other areas besides Victoria Ave. can benefit from repaving and roundabouts. ‐Would like more information on the explanation/reasoning for these changes. ‐Would like more information on why there is a need for additional turn lanes at McNaughton and Victoria and on Grand and Victoria. ‐Would like more information as to why a roundabout was chosen. What was the reasoning behind the decision. ‐Concerns with the close proximity of the bike path to the roadway. Safety Concern. ‐Concerned with the removal of the trees. Will take away the historical value of the street. ‐Removal of trees means less shade, not aesthetically pleasing and likely habitats for the animals. ‐Concerned with the removal and reinstall of the historical streetlights. Concerned they could be damaged or non‐functional after reinstalling. ‐Suggest widening the street by 4 feet max. ‐Against tree removal. ‐Suggests to install red light cameras to help with safety. ‐Against tree removal, bike path so close to the roadway. ‐Feels removing trees would not be Eco‐Friendly. ‐Not in favour of the project. ‐Avid cyclist. Does not see a reason for a bike path down Victoria. ‐In favour of fixing the storm sewer and sanitary pipes. ‐Suggests to widen the road avoiding any tree destruction. ‐Safety issue with having a pedestrian path adjacent to traffic. ‐Does not see a need for a bike path as they are not utilized anywhere else. ‐Not in favour of the roundabout. ‐Fix the sewer and sanitary pipes but return Victoria ave to its current state. ‐In favour of upgrades and replacement for sewage, drainage, curbs, gutters, and possibly street lighting. ‐Would like to keep the same unique character, appeal and history of the neighbourhood. ‐Concerned for the safety of pedestrians having the bike path and walkway tooclose to the roadway. ‐Does not agree with bike path, but if needed only widen the roadbed by 3‐4 feet to provide path on one side only. Notably the east side of the street. ‐Roundabout is unnecessary. Would suggest have low profile speed bumps to control speed.

Mun. Address Comment ‐Must be a separation between vehicular traffic and pedestrians. ‐Having the walkway/bikeway be asphalt would look cheap and unattractive for the heritage of the neighbourhood. ‐Does not want the removal of any healthy or salvageable trees. ‐Suggests maintaining at least 4 to 6 feet of boulevard on each side of the street providing a "safety buffer" from vehicular traffic. ‐Concerns over electrical lines and homes being affected. ‐Suggests that period style lamp posts such as those south of Amelia street, be installed from Amelia to McNaughton Ave. ‐Suggests the overhead electrical wires (which in wind and rain storms are "arcing" and sparking) need to be replaced. ‐Should install underground electrical services. ‐What is the anticipated cost? Would there be any cost to the homeowners for reconnection to the new sewers? ‐Does not want the sidewalk/bike path or the change in slope to the road. ‐General concern of previous fire hydrant being moved and poorly done.

‐Will taxes go up? What kind of increase did the north side of Victoria Ave have on their tax bills after moving fire hydrants were completed? ‐Safety concerns with sidewalk/bike path being too close to the road. ‐Suggests replacing the existing sidewalks and widening them. No harm to the trees. ‐No relocating hydro and lights. ‐What will happen to the remaining trees that are not removed when work is done? Root systems will be disturbed. ‐Hard to understand designs at meeting. Would like better understanding of what the new proposed plan will really entail. ‐Limit the tree removal to just the trees that are rotting or danger of falling. ‐Replant new trees where the old trees are removed. ‐Suggests doing what was done along Grand Ave. West, between Keil Drive and theSt.Clair College area. Repave the sidewalks, paint lines along the center, to indicate which side of the street bicycles and pedestrians alike should be travelling on. Should use cement or concrete. ‐Does not want to lose the charm or the historic feel on Victoria Ave. ‐In favour of infrastructure updates. ‐Should adopt a greener attitude to try and preserve as many trees as possible ‐In favour of the sewer work but with as little damage and change as possible to the beauty and charm of the area. ‐Disagrees with city council and the decision to allow this plan. ‐Not in favour of the project. ‐Does not want to see any trees being removed.Since an e‐bike is technically according to law to abide by the rules of the road same as a bicycle would they now be riding in the pathway just like a bike would instead of the bike lane that is presently used by many.I think we can all be sure that e‐bikes will use the proposed path. They certainly do on North Victoria which has a much smaller path than the idea being forwarded.E‐bikes meeting the appropriate requirements of the MTO (weight under 125kg, et cetera) could potentially use this new facility. That being said, Chatham‐Kent Council does have the ability to adopt policies prohibiting same. Please see the link below. https://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/driver/electric‐bicycles‐faq.shtml

Mun. Address Comment

The Traffic and Parking By‐Law 245‐2004 already includes restrictions, and POA Part 1 Set Fine, for Motor Vehicles operating on sidewalks, pathways, and footpaths. An E‐Bike is defined in the by‐law as a Motor Vehicle, and therefore restricted, as follows: ‐ The Traffic and Parking By‐Law, and the HTA, include definitions for "Motor Assisted Bicycles" and "Motor Vehicles". ‐ E‐bikes fit into the definition of a Motor‐assisted Bicycle (Section 101.34). ‐ Motor‐assisted Bicycle is included in the definition of a Motor Vehicle (Section 101.36). ‐ Motor Vehicles, including e‐bikes are restricted from operating on sidewalks, pathways, and footpaths (Section 704.01). ‐ To permit operation of e‐bikes on sidewalks, pathways, and footpaths, the by‐law would need to be amended to include an exception for this class of Motor Vehicle.Does this mean then there will be extra added on to the roadway to allow for these e‐bikes to be operated safely while on the road. I guess similar to what a bike lane would be.It is not our intention to add additional width to our roadways specifically dedicated to e‐bikes or motorized bikes. Right now our Traffic and Parking By‐Law permits the use of e‐bikes on our roadways in conjunction with vehicles and we trust that the public will respect this shared road arrangement and the safety of all users. This is typical with many other Municipalities as well.Our Traffic and Parking By‐Law currently does not speak to in‐road bike lanes (similar to Richmond St. or Victoria north of McNaughton) and if e‐bikes are allowed to use these facilities. As mentioned earlier our team is planning to update our By‐Law that will also focus on these types of facilities as well. Similar to other Municipalities, e‐bikes are allowed and even encouraged to use these in‐road bike lanes which is something we will investigate further.

4239 - Victoria Ave Infrastructure Renewal Community of Chatham4239 - Appendix A4239 - Appendix B

municipality of chatham-kent infrastructure and ......victoria avenue is identified in...

Documents