Jennifer Smith

There was a disturbing item in the news on Thursday. A 7 year-old boy was struck by a hit-and-run driver while riding his bike on Scott Boulevard near the new P.L. Robertson Public School in south west Milton.  The boy was ok - just cuts and bruises - and apparently the car and driver have been identified.

Ask anyone who lives in that neighbourhood - including Ward 8 candidate Zeeshan Hamid - and they will tell you that it was only a matter of time before this sort of accident occurred.  Why?  Take a look at Scott Boulevard.

Scott is supposed to be a 'collector' road like the one I live on (Commercial St.).  And yet it is as wide as or wider than 'arterial' roads like Ontario or Main.  But unlike those roads, there are no lane markings or parking spaces, no stop lights except at Derry, hardly any stop signs, and large sections don't even have a centre line.

Small wonder then that some people use it as a high speed bypass.  Even on narrower collector streets like Commercial, speeding is a constant problem, and especially worrisome because these streets tend to have schools and parks on them.

The issue of speeding and road safety came up on my street a few years ago when the town was reviewing the reduced speed limits in school zones.  Staff were arguing that the 40 kph zone for J.M.Denyes - which starts literally at the foot of my driveway - was unnecessary because, although many children use the Commercial Street side to go in and out, the school technically fronts onto Thomas.  And so they recommended increasing the speed limit on that section of Commercial up to 50 kph.

I was shocked.  Since I moved here in 1994, I've lost track of the number of accidents, near-misses, and killed pets I've witnessed just from my front door.  In fact, just last month my next door neighbour's daughter's car was struck coming out of their driveway and got spun around into ours. She was eight months pregnant, but was very lucky and wasn't injured.


I wrote a letter to the Champion at the time, describing the various accidents and incidents and making my case for keeping the school zone. It got a very positive response in the neighbourhood, inspiring one young girl to start a petition to keep the school zone.  My councillor at the time, Mark Curtis, called and asked if I would speak to the Community Services Committee as a delegate, which I did.  I put together a lovely presentation, complete with photos of sightlines and a map showing the locations of all the incidents I was aware of.  And in the end, Council decided to keep the school zone in place.

Chalk one up for community action!


In the process of researching my little presentation, I learned a great deal about traffic calming measures and discovered that, while reduced speed limits can help if they are enforced, they cannot work alone.  And 4-way stop signs really don't help either - despite the suggestions in my letter - as they belong only at intersections of streets of equivalent size and traffic volume.

What works best for discouraging speeding is either physically or visually reducing the width of the street using trees, centre medians, 'bump-outs' between street parking areas - even bike lanes. Zeeshan has an excellent blog post discussing these and other methods which I suggest you go and read.

Think about it.  When you are driving, aren't you naturally inclined to slow down on narrower streets, or if there are parked cars on one or both sides?  Don't you make certain assumptions about how fast you should be driving based on the width and openness of the street, regardless of the speed limit?

While in an older neighbourhood like mine such measures must be retrofitted in where they don't exist, in new areas there is no excuse for the Town not to require developers to incorporate them as these streets are designed and built.  And yet, they hesitate.  As Zeeshan pointed out in his comments to Council recently, the current wording of the amended Official Plan says that the Town will "support" developers incorporating traffic calming measures - not "require" or even "encourage".

But even under these lax guidelines, there are still supposed to be standards for road widths that, as far as I can tell, Scott Blvd simply doesn't adhere to.  According to the Town's own criteria, a collector road like Scott should be between 10.5m and 14.4m curb to curb.



Scott Boulevard is, according to this satellite image, over 16 metres wide - wider than any collector road; wide enough to warrant a landscaped median.

Wide enough to be dangerous.




It would have cost very little for the developer to make Scott Blvd narrower and incorporate bump-outs like those on Holly Avenue on the east side of town.  But why should they unless they are given some incentive to do so?  And of course fixing the problem now that the Town has assumed the road will cost far more, which probably means that it will never happen. 

From a table of road standards to a little boy on a bike. I can't think of a better example of how seemingly dry and technical planning and engineering decisions have consequences, real and direct, on the people who live in this town.  We need a council with the foresight and common sense to anticipate these issues before they turn into expensive mistakes or, worse, a senseless tragedy.

Halton Healthcare Services made a presentation to Council last night to update everyone on the status of the Milton District Hospital expansion.  It was very informative, and clarified not only the situation with the Province but also the next steps that need to be taken by this council as well as the next.


The urgent need for the hospital expansion is perhaps the one issue which unites every single resident, councillor and candidate in Milton. No one who has spent any time in the emergency room recently or who has been forced to travel to Oakville for even the most minor procedures would deny that need.  And as Colin Best pointed out last night, with Milton continuing to grow at the rate of five families per day, every year we are forced to wait makes the situation that much more dire.

But we know that already.

I've been hesitant to blog about the situation with the hospital because there has been very little original to say on the subject.  Yes, it must be expanded. Yes, we must wait for approval and funding from the province. Yes, we must continue to apply pressure.

However, we have now reached a point where important decisions need to be made.  Here's the situation:

- After much delay, the Province of Ontario will be undergoing a 10-year capital review process starting in 2011, in which they will select and prioritize capital projects, including hospital construction, for the next decade.  They were going to start this year but have delayed in order to save money to reduce the deficit.

- The Province will be announcing projects for the first 2 years of this 10-year plan in next year's budget. It is imperative that Milton be on that list, because even if we got the approval today it would take at least 5-6 years for the expansion to be completed.  By that time our population will be well over 100,000.  If we have to wait for the next round, our hospital services will simply collapse.

- The Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure is taking the lead in this process, with other ministries including the Ministry of Health each contributing their own prioritized 'wish lists'.  This preliminary phase started about a month ago, and will continue for the next two months.

- The Ministry of Health is looking for several things in assembling its priority list including evidence of support from the community, support from the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN), and a commitment from local government to pay it's share of the cost.  The Friends of Milton Hospital has supplied the first with the tens of thousands of postcards signed by local supporters, and the Mississauga/Halton LHIN has sent a letter to the Ministry urging them to make Milton's hospital expansion it's highest priority.

The financial commitment for the 'Local Share' is problematic because there is no way to establish even an estimate of the total cost until we get a commitment from the Province.  And even if we could come up with a number, it would be unwise to reveal it at this stage.  The Halton Healthcare representative likened it to walking into a car dealership and saying, "Here's how much I have to spend - what kind of deal will you give me?"

What we do know is that the municipality is expected to contribute 10% of the 'bricks and mortar' cost, and 100% of the equipment, including everything from MRIs to bedpans.  This typically works out to about 20%-30% of the end total.  For a rough comparison, costs for the Joseph Brant Memorial redevelopment project in Burlington are being estimated at $300 million, with their council recently committing to a local share of $60 million.

Councillor Cindy Lunau, who has been extremely active on this file and who had brought HHS to council last night via a special motion, was prepared to make a second motion that would have amounted to a commitment to make a financial commitment.  It read:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town of Milton will endeavour to assist Halton Healthcare Services in raising its local share component of the costs of the expansion and redevelopment of Milton District Hospital;

AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Milton will research and identify potential funding mechanisms to assist Halton Healthcare Services in raising its local share including but not limited to:

a) requesting the Ontario government to reinstate development charges that would contribute to funding the cost of the expansion and redevelopment program; and
b) including a special tax levy on the municipal property bill in the 2011 budget considerations;

AND FURTHER THAT the value of the Town of Milton’s contribution to Halton Healthcare Services local share commitment will be determined once planning for the expansion and redevelopment of Milton District Hospital has advanced to the point where there is agreement with the Province of Ontario.

Apparently the notion of a tax levy caused some concern, so it was agreed to defer debate on the motion until the next regular Council meeting on June 28th.  Until then, both Town staff and members of the public are encouraged to weigh in on the matter, especially regarding options for funding mechanisms.  One additional idea has already been put forward, which is to use the GTA pooling funds that are being redirected back to the Region and the Town but are still being collected.  Those funds are currently being used to chip away at the Town's $10 million infrastructure deficit that I believe was incurred when we started borrowing money from Mattamy to upgrade our roads.


After the meeting, a reporter asked me what I thought a reasonable dollar figure would be for the Town of Milton to contribute to the hospital expansion.  My response was, "Whatever it takes".

That might seem a bit simplistic, but there can be no other answer.  Of course we must be cost conscious as we develop this project, and of course we must be creative in finding funding mechanisms that will lessen the blow and spread the cost as fairly as possible.

But in the end it will cost what it costs, and we must do whatever must be done.  Because balking at the cost just because it will probably involve some form of tax levy will cause the entire process to grind to a halt, and that is simply not an option.

Even now, delaying passage of Ms. Lunau's motion may have put us in jeopardy.  As I mentioned, Burlington has already made an even more concrete commitment, and it's unclear what the likelihood of  both projects being approved will be.

The bottom line is, the hospital expansion will be expensive, and whether the money comes from the Town, the Region, the Province, the developers, or some combination of all of the above (and yes, even the slots), it will ultimately come from us, the residents of Milton.


Just to put these huge sums into perspective, our current population is approaching 90,000 and will most certainly be over 100,000 by the time construction is underway.  If the local share turns out to be around $60 million, and if that cost was spread over the six years it's likely to take, and if every penny of that cost had to be paid directly out of our pockets (which it certainly would not), it would work out to $100 per year for six years for every man, woman and child in Milton.  I would guess that the real figure will be closer to 1/4 to 1/3 of that.


As several people pointed out last night, it's unfair that the Province is making us jump through hoops to adhere to their timetable while they are free to delay and delay, but it is what it is and we must jump through their hoops if we are to get what we need.  Whining and delaying will only make approval that much more unlikely - and, if granted, more expensive.

Time to show some political courage.  Time to put up or shut up.  Time to ask, what's your hospital worth to you?

____________________________________

MORE COUNCIL NOTES:

Further to this rather long post, there were a couple of other items on last night's agenda I wanted to mention.  First, a motion by Greg Nelson, apparently supported by residents, to allow parking on the north side of Queen Street was defeated three to seven (only Nelson, Day and Best in favour - Boughton spoke against). This was due largely to opposition from the Fire Chief who convincingly illustrated how difficult parked cars would make it to set up an aerial truck with its stabilizing 'out-riggers' deployed on such a narrow street.

My question would have been, why would you need an aerial truck on a street full of two-storey houses? But then of course, it wasn't my motion.

Then there was Rick Day's infamous motion, which you may have heard about and which I encourage you all to read here.  I'm not going to get into that too much right now because a) I'm not running in Ward 1, and b) the Mayor thankfully put a stop to it even before it was read, ruling it 'out of order' because it went beyond Council's jurisdiction.  I will say how pleased I was to see an absolutely packed gallery full of proud Miltonians, old and new, ready to argue against this thing.

Mr. Day has gained a reputation as something of a court jester on Council, but this isn't funny any more.  Not funny at all.  Please, if you know anybody who lives in Ward 1 (the southeast rural ward), pass the link along to them.  They have a right to know.
_______________________________________

UPDATES:

The Town of Milton has removed Mr. Day's motion from their website (updated update: it's just been moved to here).  Happily, I had already downloaded it and have now posted it here.  Also, the Halton Compass has a front page story (written before the council meeting), which quotes large segments of the motion and accompanying essay, and includes a written response from the Halton Multicultural Council.  Check Jan Mowbray's blog for more responses.

On the issue of aerial fire trucks on Queen Street, I put the question out there and have actually received an answer!  Apparently the aerial trucks are preferred for narrow streets because they allow the firefighters to hose down the blaze from a safer distance. Fair enough. I'm glad I asked.

There was an article in the Champion last week about rail police ticketing trespassers cutting across the CP rail tracks at Court Street. It was all part of Rail Safety Week, aimed at educating the public and preventing tragic accidents.

The constable doing the blitz stressed how important enforcement was, given the apparent difficulty in physically preventing people from crossing there.

“Enforcement is our main deterrent,” said Const. Ron Morrison of the Canadian Pacific Police Service.

He was one of two CP officers stationed at the CP tracks on Court Street North to watch for people crossing the tracks, or walking along them, to get from one side of Court Street to the other — a known shortcut.

There are two wire fences to block access to the tracks, but a hole has been cut in one, and pedestrians can walk around the other.

“People get complacent and lazy and think it’s easier to cut across,” said CP’s Randy Marsh. “You can put up all the signs you want. To keep it (trespassing) under control is a daily job.”

Unfortunately, CP Rail doesn't appear to be concerned enough to actually repair the fence.


The article caught my eye because I had just recently spoken to a woman who lives near Court Street who admitted to using that shortcut herself on a regular basis. I'm quite sure that my son used it as well when he was attending W.I. Dick, along with most of his classmates. It's ill-advised and potentially dangerous, certainly, but it's also a natural thing to do given that both ends of Court Street come right up to the tracks there.



Another article in the Champion this week referred to a similar problem on the same rail line between Thompson and James Snow, where a pedestrian bridge has been considered and repeatedly deferred because of the projected $2.5 million cost. There was no mention of people cutting across the tracks, but looking at the satellite image it's almost as if they want people to cross there.



All of this got me thinking about how difficult it is to legislate human nature.

You can put up all the "No Trespassing" signs you want, but if people want to get from one side to another, they are going to cross - especially if there is a natural crossing with nothing but a torn fence to block it. Similarly, you can put up all the speed limit signs you want and police it 24/7, but if a street is wide and straight and unobstructed, people are going to drive at whatever speed feels natural.  If they prefer to walk on the side of the street with no sidewalk, you will find a worn path in the grass there. If they want a place to run their dogs off leash and there is a convenient area with a fence around it (like, say, the Fairgrounds), they are going to use it as a leash-free park.

I'm not preaching anarchy here - far from it.  If a few people are going where they shouldn't go and doing what they shouldn't do, that's an enforcement problem. But if a whole lot of people are doing it all the time - that's a design flaw.



In some cases, these 'unofficial' uses are harmless and can simply be ignored. In the case of the rail tracks, I believe a solution must be found for safety's sake. But in many cases, the simplest solution is often to make the unofficial official.

Are people using the Fairgrounds as a dog park? Section off part of it as a dog park, away from people's backyards. Are people tossing their trash on the ground in a certain spot? Put a trash can there. Are kids using a wall for graffiti? Turn it into a mural project. Are people speeding? Consider either physically or visually narrowing the street.

In the case of Court Street, I see three ways to approach the problem. One is the status quo: do the occasional blitz and then turn a blind eye to the gaping hole in the fence. Another is to get serious about blocking the route with a stronger fence that people can't just cut through, climb over or walk around. Razor wire may be involved.

The third solution is to simply accommodate human nature by providing a safe pedestrian crossing between Martin Street and Ontario.

I know, I know, you're thinking about that $2.5 million price tag. And yes, a pedestrian overpass is a monumental endeavour.  But a more sensible solution in this case might be a pedestrian underpass.



People are shorter than rail cars, which means you'd only have to make it about 10' high. And a grade separation already exists where Sixteen Mile Creek passes under the tracks. In fact, that creek tunnel is already used as an underpass by students from W.I. Dick. A dangerous one, mind you, because it is unofficial and therefore unlit and unmonitored.

Oh, and it's a flood channel.



Of course, I'm not an engineer. I honestly don't know how feasible such a thing would be at Court Street.  But if nothing else, the situation there illustrates the need to use some common sense to predict these issues and start incorporating the solutions into development plans from the very beginning - before the houses and the schools and the roads go in.

Our next opportunity to do so will be with the next phase of Milton's development in the Boyne Survey, the secondary plan for which is currently up for public review and comment.  Unfortunately, the current versions of that plan and the Official Plan Review have dropped or deferred plans for all potential pedestrian rail crossings.  And again, no one seems to have considered an underpass instead of a bridge.

Maps of the town’s trails system included in the draft official plan also don’t include two connectors across railway lines. The Town’s trails master plan had identified a pedestrian bridge over the CP railway line between Thompson Road and James Snow Parkway as well as one over the CN railway corridor along the Union Gas easement south of Derry Road...

... “In order for us to design a pedestrian bridge that crossed those tracks, it would have to be over two containers high and it would have to span four sets of tracks,” said Bill Mann, the Town’s chief planner.

“So when we revisited it, we felt it was more appropriate people use the roadway system including the Thompson underpass.”

It might be more appropriate on paper, but human beings are pretty determined to follow the path of least resistance.

I think they're going to need a bigger fence.