ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: February 12, 2003
Author/Local: F. Lin/871-6445
RTS No. 03058
CC File No. 3058
Meeting: March 11, 2003
TO: |
Standing Committee on Transportation and Traffic |
FROM: |
General Manager of Engineering Services |
SUBJECT: |
Arbutus Gardens Community Amenity Contributions (CACs)-
|
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the construction of the traffic calming measures and cycling improvements be approved, as detailed in this report and as shown in Appendix C.
B. THAT the estimated cost of $174,000 for the implementation of the traffic calming measures and cycling improvements be provided from Streets Basic Capital Order # 30005848- Arbutus Gardens.
C. THAT the Streets Operating Budget for Horticultural Maintenance be increased by $800 and the Traffic Operating Budget for Signage be increased by $325, without offset, commencing in 2004, for the maintenance of the new traffic measures.
POLICY
· In May, 1997, Council approved the Vancouver Transportation Plan that emphasizes the need to mitigate the effects of traffic in local neighbourhood areas and to give priority to streets and neighbourhoods where traffic impacts are most serious.
· In July, 2002, Council approved the allocation of the Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) from the rezoning of 1925 West 33rd Avenue (Arbutus Gardens) to neighbourhood traffic calming measures and cycling improvements to ameliorate the impacts of the development on the surrounding community.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval for the construction of the following traffic calming measures and cycling improvements in the vicinity of Arbutus Gardens:
· Speed humps in the 1900-2000 blocks of W.37th Ave. (between Laburnum St. and E. Boulevard) and in the 2100-2300 blocks of Eddington Dr. (between Yew St. and Haggart St.).
· Corner bulges at the intersections of Trafalgar St./Oliver Cr. and King Edward Ave./Alexandra St.
· A raised crosswalk and a set of mid-block bulges in the 4100-4200 blocks of Marguerite St. (between King Edward Ave. and Nanton Ave.)
· Traffic circles at the intersections of Pine Cr./W.36th Ave. and Trafalgar St./W.39th Ave.
· Cyclist push buttons at the intersections of Maple St./W.41st Ave., Nanton Ave./Arbutus St., and Nanton Ave./Granville St.
BACKGROUND
Arbutus Gardens is located on the northeast corner of Arbutus St. and W.33rd Ave. In 1998, a redevelopment application to amend the CD-1 zoning of Arbutus Gardens was approved to increase the number of rental dwelling units from 302 to 750 units. To ameliorate the impacts of the development on the surrounding community, Council directed in July 2002 that a portion of the CAC funding collected from the redevelopment be allocated to neighbourhood traffic calming measures and cycling improvements.
DISCUSSION
In the vicinity of Arbutus Gardens (the area bounded by Granville St., Mackenzie St., W. 41st Ave., and King Edward Ave./W.23rd Ave., as shown in Appendix A), City staff havereceived concerns from residents, school staff and police officers, about the existing traffic conditions at a number of locations. Staff have since reviewed the traffic and safety conditions at each location, short-listed the locations, and proposed, as part of this project, traffic calming and cycling improvements at ten locations.
In September 2002, surveys were sent out to affected residents to seek their opinion on the proposed traffic calming measures. Three proposals (curb extension on Trafalgar St. at Alamein Ave., and traffic circles at Angus Dr./W.39th Ave. and Valley Dr./McMullen Ave.) were removed due to the low response or approval rate received from the residents.
Three new locations were subsequently identified as potential candidates to receive improvements. Surveys were sent to affected residents between October and November of 2002. See Appendix B for the survey results and Appendix D for the survey comments.
The following provides a summary of the proposed measures and recommended locations (see Appendix C).
Speed Humps
Speed humps are recommended in the 1900-2000 blocks of W.37th Ave. and in the 2100-2300 blocks of Eddington Dr. The humps would reduce the high vehicle speeds recorded on both streets (44km/h on W. 37th Ave. and 48km/h on Eddington Dr.), which are located adjacent to schools and have a posted speed limit of 30km/hr. The proposed humps are supported by more than 79% of the survey respondents.
Corner Bulges
Two locations adjacent to schools are recommended for corner bulges, including the King Edward Ave./Alexandra St. and Trafalgar St./Oliver Cr. intersections.
A single bulge is recommended on King Edward Ave. (southwest corner) at Alexandra St. The bulge would reduce the width of the eastbound travel lane on King Edward Ave. from 7.4m to 5.0m, which would still appropriately accommodate motor vehicles and bicycles. Affected school staff (Little Flower Academy) were contacted and no concerns were expressed about the proposed bulge.
Corner bulges are also recommended at the Trafalgar St./Oliver Cr. intersection to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians and students of Trafalgar Secondary School. 80% ofthe survey respondents supported this proposal.
A single bulge was originally proposed at the intersection of Trafalgar St./Alamein Ave. but was removed from the proposal due to the low survey response rate (20%).
Raised Crosswalk and Mid-block Bulges
A raised crosswalk and a set of mid-block bulges are recommended in the 4100-4200 blocks of Marguerite St. At the proposed raised crosswalk location, school patrols are currently set up to assist school children (Shaughnessy Elementary School) crossing Marguerite St. The proposed measures would significantly improve the crossing conditions on Marguerite St.
To accommodate the proposed improvements, the driveway on the west side of Marguerite St., immediately south of the proposed bulge, would need to be modified. Staff have worked with the affected resident to ensure that the ingress and egress of vehicles would be maintained. Nevertheless, the proposed traffic measures are supported by the majority of the survey respondents (75%) and the Shaughnessy School Traffic Safety Committee.
Traffic Circles
Traffic circles are recommended at the intersections of Pine Cr./W.36th Ave. and Trafalgar St./W.39th Ave. to calm the relatively high volumes of traffic (daily volumes of 1,300 and 1,500 vehicles respectively estimated on Trafalgar St. and Pine Cr.). The circles would also increase the safety of the intersections as the number of potential conflicts would be reduced. More than 61% of the survey respondents supported the proposed circles. The majority of the respondents who did not support the proposals indicated that traffic circles are less safe and more inconvenient compared to other types of intersection control, i.e., 4-Way and 2-Way Stops. Although the benefits of traffic circles are well-documented in the literature, staff would continue monitoring the traffic conditions following the implementation of the circles.
Two other traffic circles were originally proposed at the T-intersections of Angus Dr./W. 39th Ave. and Valley Dr./McMullen Ave. but were removed due to the lack of support (less than 33%) from the adjacent residents. Residents were mainly concerned with issues related to vehicle maneuverability and parking around the circles.
Cyclist Push Buttons
The existing pedestrian signals at the intersections of Arbutus St./Nanton Ave.,Granville St./Nanton Ave., and Maple St./W.41st Ave. are recommended to be retrofitted with cyclist push buttons. These improvements would assist cyclists crossing Arbutus St., Granville St., and W.41st Ave.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION
Funds of approximately $174,000 for construction of the traffic-calming measures and cycling improvements have been provided by Arbutus Gardens as part of their CAC requirements (currently in Streets Basic Capital Order Group CA3EA5MC- Order # 30005848- Arbutus Gardens). The following provides a breakdown of the cost:
Speed Hump- W.37th Ave.- 1900-2000 blocks $6,000
Eddington Dr.- 2100-2300 blocks $8,000
Corner Bulge- Trafalgar St./Oliver Cr. $40,000
King Edward Ave./ Alexandra St. $20,000
Mid-Block Bulge and Raised Crosswalk-
Marguerite St.- 4100-4200 blocks $66,000
Traffic circle- Pine Cr./W.36th Ave. $13,500
Trafalgar St./W.39th Ave. $8,500
Cyclist Push Button-Arbutus St./Nanton Ave. $4,000
Granville St./ Nanton Ave. $4,000
Maple St./W.41st Ave. $4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $174,000
In addition to the cost of the capital improvements, there would be increases to the Streets Operating Budget for Horticultural Maintenance ($800) and the Traffic Operating Budget for Signage ($325), without offset, starting in 2004.
CONCLUSION
The traffic calming measures and cycling improvements, as detailed in this report and as shown in Appendix C, are recommended based on the traffic safety benefits and the support from the affected neighbourhoods.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A
STUDY AREA
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
TABLE A. SURVEY RESULTS
Traffic Measure & Location |
No. of Surveys Distributed |
Response Rate |
Approval Rate |
Disapproval Rate |
Neutral |
Speed humps- W. 37th Ave. (1900-2000 blocks) |
21 |
67% |
79% |
21% |
0% |
Speed humps- Eddington Dr. (2100-2300 blocks) |
160 |
28% |
82% |
11% |
7% |
Corner bulges- Trafalgar St./Oliver Cr. |
33 |
45% |
80% |
7% |
13% |
Corner bulges- King Edward /Alexandra St.* |
N/A | ||||
Corner bulges- Trafalgar St. /Alamein Ave.** |
5 |
20% |
100% |
0% |
0% |
Raised crosswalk and bulges-Marguerite St. (4100-4200 blocks) |
8 |
50% |
75% |
25% |
0% |
Traffic circle- Pine Cr./W.36th Ave. |
32 |
56% |
61% |
33% |
6% |
Traffic circle- Trafalgar St./W.39th Ave. |
73 |
56% |
68% |
32% |
0% |
Traffic circle- Angus Dr./W.39th Ave.*** |
11 |
100% |
27% |
64% |
9% |
Traffic circle- Valley Dr./McMullen Ave.*** |
139 |
57% |
33% |
61% |
6% |
* A letter was sent to the affected school staff (Little Flower Academy) and no concerns were expressed about the proposal.
** Deleted from the project list due to the low response rate. May review as part of Phase Two of CAC.
*** Deleted from the project list due to the low approval rate.
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
APPENDIX D
SURVEY COMMENTS
Speed Humps- W.37th Ave.(1900-2000 blocks)
Approval
2. Please add one or more speed humps east of Laburnum to slow traffic as it proceeds down hill towards the stop sign at Angus.
4. Speeding is commonplace, in spite of presence of school.
6. Strong support. With only two speed humps in these locations cars will still speed through both crosswalks to the school.
8. Good idea.
10. This is a good idea as there is speeding on this hill even during school hours. There is also increasing U turns in the middle of the block. I do not know if U turns are illegal or not, but they take place every day.
12. Long overdue. Perhaps should also have humps starting a block east of Laburnum. Sometimes racing is done late at night. Many offenders are school kids during school hours.
14. Excellent idea.
16. Why stop at just two? Perhaps one at 2041 W. 37th and one at 2011 W. 37th Ave. I support this 100% and add special thanks to whoever made this suggestions.
18. The proposed humps are far spaced - should another be installed at 2019? Is it safe to install humps on a cycle route particularly on a hill when cyclists pick up speed?
Disapproval
1. Set up more radar traps and get speeders that way. The cyclists, skateboarders, rollerbladers, and others freewheeling down to 37th. Using CAC funds for this purpose is a misuse of the funds. The speed humps are more a frustration than a calming device and I am a walker and transit user than a motorist. Both of us are against speed humps in general.
2. 37th Ave becomes relatively very dark at night. Therefore it would be very unsafe for drivers and cyclists if the speed humps are installed. I'd rather have the City install more street lights than speed humps.
3. I am sick of all these traffic obstructions. I suspect those who want speed humps are the same people who pick up their kids from school triple parked and letting their kids run all over the street. Bit of a joke really.
Speed Humps- Eddington Dr. (2100-2300 blocks)
Approval
1. A further problem is the 3-way stop sign at Eddington and Valley which is routinely ignored by some drives.
2. Speed Humps would be appreciated on Valley Drive too.
3. It's About time! We live on Eddington Drive near Valley Drive. The cars come down Eddington east direction and don't stop at the stop sign. Cars slow down but rarely stop.
4. We would like to suggest that speed humps also be installed in front of the playground at Valley Drive and McBain. This is a playground for young children - pre-school age. It is hidden away from drivers. In spite of the 30K signs - no one slows down. I have even been passed by cars doing 30K. Speed humps are a great idea.
5. From Arbutus, along Eddington then to Valley Dr .has been a thorough-fare to the west side. I would like to see a traffic island on Valley from Eddington to King Edward Blvd. to further discourage this cross-town traffic on a residential street.
6. We often observe excessive speed through intersection Eddington/Haggart. The proposed hump for 2300 Block Eddington should therefore probably be closer to this intersection.
7. I think this speed hump addition should also include Valley Dr. from Eddington to King Edward. This is a short-cut route for many east-west commuters on both sides of Valley Drive and for the pedestrian traffic from Prince of Wales School.
8. Although I no longer drive, I am affected by the traffic hazards along Eddington, through my use of Handy Dart vans and taxi services as well as by hazards presented to friends visiting me when they come and go by car.
9. We support the installation of speed humps 100%.
10. Speed is dangerous here. We live at Arbutus Manor and we use walkers and wheelchairs which makes it very difficult when cars are speeding - very frightening.
11. Stop sign on Eddington & Valley Drive is often missed. The tree should be trimmed or a larger sign put in place. School kids just seem to ignore the sign and go right through.
12. It is a very good idea to install speed humps on Eddington Drive Now when people drive on Eddington Drive they think they are on race tracks, so humps will slow them down. They will also respect people walking, especially the seniors living at the Arbutus Manor. We support the idea very much. Install the speed humps as soon as possible.
13. Very, very important and required now. I have seldom observed worse or more dangerous, careless drivers anywhere! They speed, turn in mid-road, don't stop at stop signs, and that's just for starters. Any cop on a school day can ticket drivers by the barrel in the block between Yew and Valley, on Eddington and facing a school and a senior's home. No Exaggerations!
14. Cars speeding on Eddington often ignore the stop signs at the intersection of Valley Drive and Eddington. This is very dangerous for many elderly people. Speed humps would at least slow down the cars.
15. I do not think this plan will stop drivers speeding through the stop sign on the NE corner of Eddington/Valley Drive. Many drivers turn right at the intersection - speed up rather than stop. Humps, as I have indicated on your map, would slow down these dangerous drivers.
Neutral
1. The area between Valley Drive and Haggart is totally congested with double parked cars because of school kids being dropped off and picked up so I see no need for speed humps - except between Yew and Valley Drive
2. I am not aware of or disturbed by speed or noise on this street and I have good hearing.
3. It would be helped if at least one speed hump is on Nanton St and one other one Yew St.
Disapproval
1. Very much oppose to these humps being installed. Biggest problem is cars not stopping at the stop signs at corner of Valley Drive & Eddington and double parking during pick-up time at the school.
2. You have already ruined streets such as Pine with no good reason. Instead of wasting my money please fix the pot holes on West 33rd Ave.
3. Waste of money!
4. Speed humps should be in back alley from Brakenridge to Yew (running east).
Corner Bulges- Trafalgar St./Oliver Cr.
Approval
1. I'm in favour of the curb extension but people will still run the stop signs. How about a no drop-off area around the school? Park and walk the children in to the school area or people could just learn the rules of the road.
2. A sidewalk on the south east side of Trafalgar would reduce the number of street crossings for school children and others living east of Trafalgar on King Edward Ave and other streets to the south. I have lived here for 46 year and have often thought of the "missing" sidewalk.
3. Paint X-walks on road to highlight the crossings.
4. A tree in front of 2704 Oliver Crescent blocks drivers' vision of corner traffic.
Neutral
1. I believe there will be a serious accident with the cars racing from the school parking lot and turning right at Trafalgar. I thought you were going to put speed humps in along Oliver Crescent. Also, 5 houses are rented so you will not get replies. I have lived in this house for 50 years (owner).
Curb Extensions- Trafalgar St./Alamein Ave.
Approval
1. Its good to reduce heavy traffic load in school zone however, before starting a new project it would greatly able appreciated if you can finish the incomplete road construction in the area first (pics enclosed).
Mid-Block Bulge & Raised Crosswalk- Marguerite St- 4100 - 4200 Block.
Approval
1. I propose to the topping of the chestnut tree and the other tall trees on the block so the extreme amount of falling leaves in the fall would be eliminated to the minimum to avoid the great danger of falling for the children and elderly who are handicapped like ourselves. I would appreciate your notifying the Park Board's attention. Thank you for your kind attention to the above matter.
2. Excellent idea! With two children of our own attending the school we see a great need for a proper crossing. At least twice a day Marguerite is full of cars and children - a dangerous combination. In addition, numerous cars travel on Marguerite at speeds well in excess of the speed limit. Next, the fact that a significant number of cars travel a breast on King Edward where it is only single lane needs addressing.
Disapproval
1. Traffic is congested on Marguerite St. during school hours as it is. To create a crosswalk would only slow traffic on the block making it impossible to drive through. As now it is impossible to get out of one's driveway during rush school hours. Perhaps a drive-thru at the north end of the school be developed for picking up and dropping off students. (see diagram enclosed)
Responses from Shaughnessy School's Traffic Safety Committee
1. As the organizer of our school's Traffic Safety Committee (Shaughnessy Elementary), I have taken the liberty of making copies to pass on to some of our concerned parents. We hope this "community" effort will help to bring about a safer traffic situation around our school, and other schools in Vancouver.
2. Very good idea will be much more safer for the students to cross and for drivers to be more cautious and must stop at the crosswalk humps.
3. I think that the addition of the raised crosswalk will definitely slowdown cars and therefore be much more safe for the pedestrians. Drivers here go way too fast!
4. Could consideration be given to no stopping/no parking areas on Marguerite St.? I fully support this installation, however the area already is a "bottleneck" at 8:55 am and 3:00 pm. Perhaps stricter enforcement of the no parking/no stopping areas would be asolution.
5. This street desperately needs a solution like this. The plans would benefit in two ways. Slow cars down as well as make it much safer for the heavy pedestrian traffic by increasing visibility.
6. I think its very important especially with regard to how much traffic there is along King Edward The speed with which the flow of traffic is traveling!! Lot of people trying to take short cuts through the different neighbourhoods.
7. Actually, my first choice would have been to make that block a pedestrian walk but this looks pretty good too - a sensible improvement.
8. As a teacher at Shaughnessy school, I support this measure to enhance the safety of our students.
9. My wife and I believe that the installation of a raised crosswalk is indispensable in front of all school crossings. I also suggest that there should be more warning signs to reduce speed on Marguerite.
10. I think the resident in #4211 may have to get his driveway enlarged on the south side. I also think it will be necessary to make Marguerite St. a one way street or prohibit parking on one side or the other.
11. The proposed raised crosswalk will definitely improve the safety of the students. Have you considered any traffic measure at the corner of Nantan Ave. and Marguerite St.? As there often causes traffic jam and back up during school pick-up time.
12. I have seen and used the said curb extensions back in England and in particular, near my daughters school. They do work and create a safer environment for children to cross.
13. This is essential. We have tried to teach kids to cross at the corners and at the makeshift, supervised crosswalk at this location. Marguerite is an extremely busy street twice a day -9 am & 3 pm. But with current set-up, the west side of our crosswalk is a gully, making it hard for the patroller to see over parked cars (esp.. SUVs), and also it turns into a lake onrainy days).
14. At morning, lunch and afternoon drop-off/pickup times, Marguerite St is very congested. Cars pull in and out of parking spots, their drivers often watching their own children crossing the playground. It is alarmingly likely for an accident to occur in these circumstances. Curb extensions will make it much safer for children to cross and will make cars more visible to pedestrians, who are now often stepping out from between parked vehicles.
15. I wish that stronger actions would be taken in regard to the illegal parking outside Shaughnessy school between the hours of 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm. I have never seen any tickets by police officers handed out to the violators and it is clearly posted NO PARKING ZONE. It increases the dangers for the children.
Traffic Circle- Pine Cr. and W. 36th Ave.
Approval
1. Great Idea. Could we please also have a traffic circle at 36th & Angus?
2. We would like a circle at 35th & Pine also. There is an increase in speeding up the hill since you put speed humps on Maple and cut-through traffic is intense during rush hours.
3. Yes, we think it's a great idea and solution to the noisy, speeding cars. Thank you, Thank you!
4. A smaller traffic circle rather than a bigger one.
5. We would have preferred speed humps along Pine Crescent between 33rd & 37th. However, a traffic circle is a good compromise.
6. Could we try some new approaches to making these things attractive?
Neutral
1. I have lived in this area for over 40 years and I am not aware of any problem at this intersection since the stop signs were installed. Before that we had a number of accidents at that corner. Also, if a traffic circle is justified at this intersection, why are they not necessary at virtually every intersection in the city?
Disapproval
1. No. No. No. No. No !!!!! The current stop signs at 37th & Pine for north south traffic slows the cars down to a stop - sometimes.!!! Also, sometimes at 36th & Pine. They should all be stop signs.
2. There already is a stop sign going north/south. Enough is enough with these stupid traffic circles. Residential areas are becoming more of a concrete jungle instead of peaceful green areas and in our opinion are not calming devices.
3. You have made Angus the bicycle route then created speed humps on Pine, now a traffic circle. All traffic (cars) are now using Angus. Fine planning! There is a stop sign at 33rd and 37th. There is little traffic on 36th. No one knows who has right of way at traffic circles, and you are making it even more difficult for all traffic. I suggest you use your funds to re-pave 33rd which is a horrible mess.
4. No need for a circle as there is no traffic east/west on W. 36th. There is a stop sign north/south on Pine at 36th. You need to put in speed humps on Pine at least between 36 & 37th. I have a 5 year old and it is very dangerous. People are flying through the neighbourhood, probably to avoid using Arbutus. Once again there is no need for a circle as there is virtually NO traffic east/west on W. 36th. Come here for 5 minutes and watch the speeders.
5. The problem is twofold. First, cyclists use Angus Drive, which is the most westerly street until Arbutus, if you exclude Pine. A traffic circle will only encourage cars onto Angus and that is not what bike routes should have to put up with. Secondly, Pine is a narrow Street and a traffic circle there will be very hard to drive around.
Traffic Circle- Trafalgar St. and W. 39th Ave.
Approval
1. I strongly support a traffic circle in this intersection - cars go along 39th at very, very high speeds - it seems to be a shortcut to avoid 41st. With no stop sign from McKenzie until Larch speeds really get high! We have small children and this is a serious concern on this block.
2. Many drivers seem to treat 39th Ave like a freeway. Sometimes I'm sure they are traveling well over the speed limit. There is no stop sign between Larch and McKenzie for 39th Ave. traffic so some people treat it like a freeway. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic in the area - seniors, children, etc. and I'm afraid that sooner or later someone will be hurt. A traffic circle at 39th & Trafalgar is just what we need to slow traffic and make it safety.
3. Since the traffic circle was installed on 37th and Trafalgar the traffic on 39th has increased and drivers are speeding down our street. If a traffic circle will be effective in slowing and decreasing traffic we are in favour.
4. I was almost hit by a vehicle running the stop sign when I drove through that intersection one time.
5. We are delighted to read this notice. The cars speed down the road between McKenzie and Trafalgar. We have small children and hence this worries us in terms of their safety. What about speed humps in addition?
6. The only possible concern I have is when the fire trucks comes down 39th Ave on occasion.
7. Anything short of a traffic light that slows traffic will be helpful.
8. We very strongly recommend traffic "speed humps" between 41st and 39th on Trafalgar along with the "T" circle at W. 39th and Trafalgar.
9. Yes, please, as soon as possible. If a traffic circle doesn't work, let's try speed humps.
10. The traffic circle would be much better than the present stop sign. In addition to it, however, it would help a lot to have either speed humps on the portion of Trafalgar from 41st to 39th or the widened curbs at 41st. Even though folks have to stop at 39th, they still speed up Trafalgar from 41st. We have at least 8 children under the age of 10 on this section of Trafalgar ad their safety is of concern.
11. While we support the traffic circle, it will do little to slow the traffic coming off 41st on to Trafalgar to 39th. This double block is very wide and a great deal of traffic exceeds the speed limit. The street needs to be narrowed in a couple of places, just like has been done very effectively on 37th. This would discourage vehicles from using Trafalgar as a shortcut around Kerrisdale, and slow the local traffic. As it currently exists, the street is very dangerous to the numerous children who play on this block.
12. Widening the street at 41st & Trafalgar and/or speed humps are an absolute must! This street is used as a highway from people coming off 41st Ave and teenagers making shortcuts to 37th or 33rd Ave.
13. Why is Trafalgar, between 33rd and 39th one of the few streets still with uncontrolled intersection, i.e., no stop signs.
14. Great idea, it's about time we did this.
15. We definitely need some calming on 39th between Trafalgar & MacKenzie. A traffic circle should help but a 4-way stop would be more effective in our opinion.
16. I am a resident at 2718 W. 39th Ave. living approximately one house west of the intersection in question. I have never found the intersection, itself, a problem as it is controlled with stop signs on Trafalgar. However, I must say that I have noticed that some drivers travel along 39th Avenue travel at what I would consider an unsafe speed in a neighborhood where small children play. I suspect the problem comes about in part because the portion of 39th Avenue between Trafalgar and Elm streets tends to widen (or that is the perception as often there are no vehicles parked on either side of the street), and to the west of Larch, W. 39th Ave. is downhill.
For the purpose of slowing traffic along 39th Avenue, I am in favour of a traffic circle, or alternatively, perhaps the erection of stop signs on W. 39th Avenue to create a four way stop. I expect a four way stop would have the same effect of causing traffic to slow as would a traffic circle and is perhaps the less expensive alternative than constructing a curbed round-about, though I suppose it would not have the same aesthetic appeal as a garden round.
On the issue of going the route of constructing a traffic circle, I would note that I have observed that at the times the neighbouring church (at the NW corner of 39th and Trafalgar) has services, drivers seem to park very close to the corners of the intersection. My concern is that vehicles have enough room to access the round about during times of this parking congestion. Of course, I have taken no measurements or anything so this may really be a non-issue. It may also be that the erection of the signs that indicate no parking from here to corner might be used. In any event, my intention is only to bring the issue of the Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday parking patterns to your attention for consideration.
One other thing. Having spent time living in Edmonton, where several large and multilane traffic circles are utilized, I am well familiar with the rules involving right-of-way in traffic circles. However, I have noted that many drivers do not seem to follow the rules as I understood them that is that traffic through the circle is one way, counter clockwise; vehicles approaching the circle are to give way to vehicles approaching from the drivers left; and a driver already traveling in a traffic circle has right of way over any driver intending entry. I am wondering if the right-of-way rules, as I understood and applied them in Edmonton perhaps do not apply to these small neighborhood circles. Are you able to shed any light on this issue, or is it better directed either to the VPD traffic division, or ICBC?
Disapproval
1. I found traffic circles most cumbersome. It doesn't help to ease any traffic congestion and in fact, hinders the smooth flow of traffic.
2. Yes, the stop signs currently in place on Trafalgar at 39th Ave. are looked upon by far too many drivers as "suggestions" at best. However, a traffic circle in their instead will not solve the problem of scofflaw motorists.
My experience with other traffic circles in this neighbourhood lead me to speculate that drivers who don't stop at stop signs are equally reckless at side circles; I've seen more people cut to the left of the circle islands to execute their left turns than I can count.
Traffic law states that a vehicle approaching a stop sign at an intersection is required to come to a stop (as they say on airplanes, "a complete stop") prior to continuing through that intersection, correct? So, just enforce the law that's already on the books. We have stop signs on Trafalgar at 39th, we have a law requiring motorists to heed these signs, what's the problems?
Lack of manpower on the police force, you say? Hey, you put one cop at Trafalgar and 39th for a week, ticketing every driver who fails to stop at those two stop signs, and the City will collect so much money in fines you'll be able to hire ten new cops by Christmas.
Don't waste time and money changing the intersection, rather, do a better job punishing those who ignore the laws presently governing its use.
3. Please set four-way stop signs at intersection.
4. Could you please forward any information on who has the legal right of way for all the traffic circles that have been installed.
5. A great inconvenience for local residents.
6. I would like to see the intersection replaced with a 4-way stop sign.
7. The residents complaints - one the corner of 39th Ave & Trafalgar is the church, the church parking lot and 2 of the houses near the corner are owned by private citizens. Our block is 2 blocks long and I feel it would only benefit the church. Also, our street is used by the local fire hall to avoid the excessive traffic on 41st.
8. A 4-way stop it better.
9. I think the intersection is fine the way it is right now. Adding a traffic circle would not be convenient for cars going along Trafalgar since there is already one traffic circle onTrafalgar St. and 37th Ave.
10. I would prefer a 4-way stop sign (turned down a couple of years ago) but a traffic circle at that corned wouldn't be a good idea because of the church and the parking problems caused by it. The present stop sign is fairly good.
11. I use the W. 39th/Trafalgar St. intersection 2-3 times per day during the school year. I have yet to see anything that would suggest a problem with this area. I find it very safe. On the other hand, the next two intersections north of 39th on Trafalgar have no stop signs causing me to avoid this area as I find it unsafe.
Traffic Circle- Angus Dr. and W. 39th Ave.
Approval
1. Suggest 38th & Angus. Traffic circle as well please. As this is at the top of a hill it is hazardous in winter with vehicles at excessive speed here especially.
2. It is safer for pedestrians (esp. children) walking on Angus Drive This street has relatively heavy traffic in this area.
Neutral
1. What are the other traffic calming measurers you might recommend?
Disapproval
1. The City needs to figure out how to direct the area of traffic. People are using streets intended for neighbourhoods for commuting.
2. From our observations re traffic circles installed around our neighbourhood, drivers tend to speed until they arrive at the traffic circles, e.g. the cement post. Was knocked downfrom a speeding car at 37th & Marguerite. We would like to suggest 2 sets of stop signs, installed between 40th & 37th to warn cars. Slowing down all the way between 41st & 37, not just at the traffic circles.
3. Strongly disagree as traffic circles don't slow traffic. People try to go faster around. Would make use of our driveway difficult. Kids cross from our driveway to 39th and circle would reduce disability. Circle would destroy look of Angus Drive - a pretty street. No parking available for my guests, general loss of property value. My experience with circles at 51st & Yew St. did not work then. Put in a speed hump. 27th & Maple did not work.
4. We think speed humps along Angus Drive are a better option.
5. As Angus approaches 41st I feel that cars are traveling at an appropriate speed.
6. Cuts down on visibility. Children cross to school. Near private driveway which involves backing on to Angus. Not necessary.
Traffic Circle- Valley Dr. and McMullen Ave.
Approval
1. I believe such a circle would make a big difference in the volume and speed on Valley Drive.
2. Any deterrent for cars from 25th Ave to Eddington would be welcome. Speeding cars to the school are particularly dangerous for the many elderly walkers in this area.
3. We need a speed hump just north of the stop sign at Valley Drive and Eddington. Most drivers going west on Eddington and turn right at Valley Drive don't even slow down.
4. Hurrah!
5. Extensive traffic from school and speed make a residential area unsafe - some thing has to slow traffic as the young people train on this street for driving licenses making it more dangerous as other speed.
6. Answering a previous questionnaire about speed humps on Eddington St., I suggested that Valley Drive was a speedway for many commuters and speed humps would reinforce a traffic circle on McMullen.
7. We are 100% in agreement with the traffic circle. The soon the better!
8. The traffic on Valley Drive has increased considerably during the past three years. Also, there are many speeders. A traffic circle will help to slow them down and perhaps even reduce the traffic.
9. I have been a resident at this location since Aug 1961. For some reason students ride to school instead of walking. It has , through the years, caused a parking problem and an increasing traffic problem every morning and every mid afternoon Monday to Friday. Most of these people ignore the traffic signs, road humps and traffic signs reduce thru traffic and a traffic circle will discourage traffic and will make students walk to school and reduce the number of cars everyday.
10. Good suggestion to help reduce speed at the intersection.
11. Good idea.
12. In view of the fact that the intersection of McMullen east of Valley Drive and the intersection of McMullen west of Valley Drive are off-set, I think there should be no traffic circles (see attached sketch). Furthermore, it is my impression that the amount of thru traffic has increased considerably as drivers try to avoid being delayed by the lights at Arbutus and King Edward. Append some suggestion for mitigating this problem.
13. 2101 McMullen IS NOT part of Arbutus Gardens. We are west of Arbutus and Arbutus Gardens are east of Arbutus. 2101 McMullen is Arbutus Village. Which intersection did the City take their measurements on? This notice makes no sense to us.
14. Unfortunately many of the residents of 2101 McMullen (apartment) oppose the traffic circle which is in keeping with their opposition to any change! The speed of the cars going from King Edward to Eddington and back is BAD at any time of the day. The City might also make some money by observing the number of cars who do not stop at the 3-way intersection stop sign of Eddington and Valley Drive.
15. It would help to slow down the excessive speed of a number of drivers coming or going from Prince of Wales School.
16. It is certainly time something is done! The traffic from and to Prince of Wales School is incredible, not to mention the speed at which the cars drive! It is a corridor where an "accident is waiting to happen".
17. This is an excellent idea.
18. Some remedy for the serious traffic problem at the intersection of Valley Drive and King Edward is long overdue. If this traffic circle is the only solution then so be it.
19. All for it! There is a tendency to speed on this section of Valley Drive.
Neutral
1. Don't feel it will slow the traffic down . The road there is so narrow. Don't see how a traffic circle will help.
2. A traffic circle could cause confusion delay and accident because McMullen is not directly through at Valley Drive The school drivers don't seem to obey diving rules now (make U turns, double park etc.) Probably some of the problem at this intersection would be relieved if the resident of the big house (1st one west side) stopped parking 5, 6 & 7 trucks and cars in front on Valley Drive.
3. Perhaps you should consider no parking zone on both sides of the street around the proposed area.
4. Personally, I would prefer speed bumps rather than a traffic circle.
Disapproval
1. I feel very strongly against this proposal. Valley Drive is quite narrow and most often has cars parked on it requiring slow careful driving for our owners at Quilchena Estates and other drivers to reach Kind Edward. A traffic circle would make it more hazardous. Perhaps a few tickets handed out would solve the problem.
2. Speeding on Valley Drive is not, in my opinion, a problem.
3. I would prefer the use of speed humps.
4. A traffic circle would not work well at this location as McMullen does not go straight through so it is basically a 3 way corner.
5. The car speeds are already impeded by parking on Valley Drive (4300 block) on both sides of the street. In fact, most of the cars/trucks/vans belong to one neighbour. These cars are inclined to speed in the alleyways. The new stop sign on McMullen and Valley Drive as on nearby streets should reduce speeds and make the drivers aware of oncoming traffic. No traffic circle is needed.
6. This is not a cross intersection road exactly and there are always parked cars beside the street. When Prince of Wales school dismiss, there are lots of cars going through this street will become busier than before. The noise and air pollution will affect the quality of our living environment. Therefore, I don't support the traffic circle at Valley/McMullen.
7. Because it is useless.
8. Definitely opposed. The traffic circle proposed serves no purpose but rather, creates more problems. The evidence is weak and unsubstantiated. It should not be based on one citizens response. Eddington and Valley Drive should be checked. Drivers do not acknowledge the stop sign - they often ignore it and drive right through.
The proposed traffic circle is not required. I don't believe you have sufficient evidence(only one respondent I was told) to warrant a traffic circle. Speed is not a problem! Traffic volume only occurs when the adults drive their teenage children to school at Prince of Wales.
The 2,700 cars/day quoted I do not believe. Four hundred maybe! If you remove the children being driven (which is a parent problem) then possibly there are 100 cars. However, the traffic problems in this area are at King Edward and Valley Drive and Eddington and Valley Drive. Check these locations.
Since we moved into our house February 1965 there has never been an accident, mishap, injury or death at the corner of Valley Drive and McMullen Ave.
The proposed traffic circle will in itself create problems with ambulances, fire trucks and large service vehicles.
More evidence should probably have been obtained before this survey was proposed. There are other intersections far more serious in this area.
9. I do not support a traffic circle. Why inconvenience a senior group of people because traffic is increasing everywhere . Do not impede traffic in the middle of a block - it's hard enough to get about in our city. I really object!
10. The complains of "residents' about congestion at the corner of McMullen and Valley Drive has two causes (1) The irritating practice by residents on the west side of Valley Drive of parking several large commercial vans opposite the driveway of McMullen Ave onto Valley Drive which does indeed restrict space to turn (2) The incapability of the complainants to drive in these conditions, not because they are elderly (which they are) but because they are rotten drivers. As the shared owners at this particular corner my wife and I do not welcome the prospect of having a traffic circle directly next to us, the noise, pollution and not being attractive . Were it not for these inconveniences we would welcome any device that would rid Valley Drive of the aforementioned vans, which are an abomination to the whole neighbourhood.
11. Will cause traffic flow problems.
12. I think most people drive cautiously and in fact, the traffic circle would make it worse -especially for pedestrians.
13. I can't see a traffic circle helping to ease congestion. The street is only busy after school.
14. The proposed traffic circle would be a nuisance and not a benefit. The chief problem on Valley Drive is the congestion on King Edward when P.W. students are arriving in the morning or leaving in the afternoon.
15. Not a proper intersection! (T shaped). I have never seen a car speeding on Valley Drive in 16 years living here. It is not a thru street because of Prince of Wales School grounds.
16. Would it be possible for the City Police to drive by Prince of Wales school occasionally just to make their presence known? About 2:30 - 3 pm or noon. I am in complete agreement with our Council members that a traffic circle will just cause confusion.
17. This would be a waste of money! The volume of cars from the school would not decrease and speed control is not an issue. I, as a neighbour, would rather see the "no parking" "no stopping" areas enforced. The problem in the area of the school is pick ups and drop-offs and double-parking before and after school. I have no problem at McMullen and Valley during these times.
18. We do not experience speeders in this 4 block long area to King Edward. This would also interfere greatly with parking.
19. A poor location for a traffic circle and unnecessary. There are other locations where such a circle would serve a better purpose. If speed is a problem on this part of Valley Drive, enforcement of the posted speed limit would help.
20. A traffic circle would make turning left into the Arbutus Village complex very awkward for both residents and any service vehicles needing access. If you need to calm traffic, either ticket all of the teenagers speeding down the street or install speed humps. A traffic circle is an idiotic solution to the situation.
21. Not needed!
22. The road is not wide enough and emergency vehicle would have difficulty getting around it. Eddington Drive is the worst area for traffic tie-ups between 8 & 9 am and 3 - 4 pm when parents drop off and pick up their kids and they double park.
23. There is no room at McMullen! Put it 20 metres north at a real street. McMullen is a driveway. Have you seen it?
24. I think a traffic circle at this point would be a very stupid move and would make this intersection more hazardous than it is now.
25. It would just cause more congestion because of school traffic - trucks for Arbutus Manor & 2101 McMullen.
26. Will cause unbelievable difficulty for large trucks.
27. I am against the construction of a traffic circle at the (northern-most) intersection of Valley Drive and McMullen Ave. Irrespective of whether the circle is approved or not, on-street parking on the southern approach to the intersection from Valley should be prohibited in order to improve visibility and access.
The intersection at McMullen and Valley is actually two separate T-intersections. It is quite normal to find vehicles parked, sometimes bumper-to-bumper, on both sides of Valley immediately south of McMullen. When this is the case visibility can be severely restricted for vehicles entering Valley from McMullen from the east. At the same time Valley is reduced to single lane access. The addition of a traffic circle further north of this may exacerbate the existing problem.
Drivers heading north on Valley will have their attention focused on the traffic circle on their approach and may not anticipate the T-intersection preceding it because of the intersection's proximity to the circle. As mentioned earlier, parked vehicles will likely obscure the view of this intersection.
By the way, the inclusion of a diagram showing how the intersection will be transformed by the proposal would have been helpful. More specifically it would reveal how the "other" T-intersection would be affected.
28. This seems a very unnecessary installation. The new stop signs and the previous 3 way sign plus the park zone should be ample. I'm not sure there are other areas that have more timely problems that could be attended to.
29. Ridiculous. A waste of money. McMullen is a 2 ½ block long street. Why there? You could limit parking to the west side of Valley Drive and improve traffic flow. The proposed circle is only few yards from a 30 K park which slows traffic. Heavy traffic occurs only when Prince of Wales school lets in or out. We have lived here over 25 years and not experienced trouble with speeders.
30. We agree with all the comments and objections raised in the communications from our high-rise representative. In addition to what was said we believe it would really improve the flow of traffic along Valley Drive if parking along its length from 25th Ave to Eddington was restricted to one side only. The traffic circle presents a real obstacle to the free flow of traffic, largely restricted to 30 MPH.
31. It is extremely dangerous to have a traffic circle at Valley and McMullen. Too congested for traffic, emergency vehicles couldn't get in to the Arbutus Village where we have many elderly people. We should have NO PARKING on the east side of McMullen between West King Ed and Eddington. When the PW students zoom by the traffic can't proceed. At the intersection of Eddington and Valley Drive the majority of people, mostly students, don't stop at the stop signs. It would be beneficial to have police there to ticket these cars.
32. A better solution would be to have parking on one side of Valley Drive only.
33. Turning in and out of the most east side of McMullen Ave will be more difficult. Speed humps where the park is will probably help more.
34. This is totally unnecessary. I come and go every day at many inconsistent times and have never seen traffic speeding or even two cars meeting along the whole Valley Drive stretch. Quite the reverse - the few cars go slowly - stop signs at King Ed and south end of Valley do not give cars opportunity to speed. I suspect any complaints you may have come from McMullen residents who have tried unsuccessfully. There is a confusion of signs at the McBain/Arbutus walk meeting with Valley Drive. One sign 20 K - another 30. Yet traffic is not allowed on the pathway through the park. A children's playing sign is also there. That needs sorting.
35. I believe something is needed at Valley & 25th Ave but not where you have suggested. We'll never get out of our exit during school hours or rush hours!
36. Not needed.
37. Adding an island will cause more congestion around school hours/time.
38. There is not enough room and not enough traffic to justify such a plan.