193 Agenda Item 7.0

Transcription

1 193 Agenda Item 7.0

2 194

3 195

4 196

5 197

6 198

7 199

8 200

9 From: Jen Gubatan Sent: Thursday, July 06, :47 PM To: Tom Muench Subject: Concerns on Yonge/Bernard KDA Planning Study and Recommended Street Network Dear Honorable Councillor Muench, I am a resident of Newmill Crescent and we are original owners of the home, a home in which I grew up in. I remember being bused to St Robert's High School (as it was the only catholic high school in the zone) and picking up students on their farms off of Leslie Street when it was a two-lane, hilly, gravel road. So I have first hand knowledge of the increase in population within Richmond Hill and the development that came with all this growth over the last 30 years. First and foremost I would like to thank you, Councillor Muench, for being available to residents in Ward 2 and listening to our concerns. As a long-time resident of Richmond Hill, I am disappointed in the recommendations put forth by the planning committee and the Secondary Plan Transportation Considerations from BA Group. I am not opposed to the Yonge/Bernard KDA (growth & change is inevitable) but I am opposed to recommendations that will deeply impede the quality of life for me and my neighbours in Ward 2, specifically but not limited to the Newmill/Elmpark/Oldhill/Justus area. I was fortunate to attend the Committee of the Whole meeting on July 4, 2017 and echo the same traffic grievances and concerns as my neighbours. The AM and PM rush hours going southbound on Yorkland St. are horrendous. Wait time is at best 2 minutes per car waiting to turn on to Yorkland St. from Newmill Crescent. I have, on occasion, resorted to going eastbound on Newmill Crescent only to turnaround on a neighbours driveway so I can secure a spot in queue. A video I captured after I returned from the meeting on July 6:46 pm is 1:13 minutes which is the length of time it took for 3 cars to turn left from Newmill Crescent to Yorkland St. Please note this was not peak rush hour and I'm not too sure when the first car arrived at the stop sign. Alleviating traffic on Yonge Street and connecting West KDA to East KDA with the proposed Link G to Link A (with a stop light in front of Justus Drive) does not help the traffic woes of the residents on Newmill Crescent and Elmpark Court, whose primary exit route to the main arterial streets are through Yorkland St. May I suggest a multi-way traffic light intersection (forgive me, I don't know the proper terminology) servicing Justus/Newmill/Retirement Home and Link A similar to a traffic light in Toronto's Mount Pleasant and Lawrence Avenue intersections (see Figure 1). While this seems very complicated, I thought I'd throw some food for thought in case it 201

10 hasn't been put forth. I would much rather wait for several directional traffic light changes knowing that I will be able to turn left safely onto Yorkland Blvd without getting t-boned. At the very least, don't you think a "Please do not block intersection" sign should have been implemented years ago? I know requests for a stop sign have gone unnoticed, since we still don't have a stop sign. Figure 1 - Intersection at Mount Pleasant and Lawrence Avenue, Toronto; 5-6 traffic lights. Has anyone considered opening the bottom of Newmill Crescent to Elgin Mills? A rightturn only off westbound Elgin Mills might help my neighbours to the east? See figure 2. It doesn't do me any good but it will give residents an access point minimizing the traffic through Yorkland and east on Bernard. 202

11 Figure 2 - Right turn only access from westbound Elgin Mills on to Oldhill St. If I take figures from the Transportation Report - townhomes have an "average occupancy rate of 3.00 persons and apartment dwellings have a rate of 1.45." (pg 16). Given this is the proposed type of residential units being built in the KDA the average is 2.23 persons per household. At max this is an increase of 10,481 people in the KDA (4,700 x average). Oh, but the data set used for analysis in the Transportation Report is based upon information from the 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS). If the TTS is conducted every 5 years then why aren't they using the data set from 2016? I'm not pitting East against West but there is a potential for 2730 residential units on the east side vs 1970 on the west. Judging from the Draft Preferred Development Plan, the goal is to divert traffic onto Yorkland St.; with the existing traffic adding an EXTRA 2730 units sounds unfathomable. And by the same concept, using figures from the Secondary Plan Transportation Considerations, "detached homes have an average vehicle ownership of 1.95 vehicles per household, whereas townhomes and apartment dwellings have an average vehicle ownership of 1.60 and 0.70 vehicles per household, respectively." (pg 16) At minimum this might be an extra 3290 (4700 x 0.7) cars on the road in the KDA; an extra 1911 cars in the east and 1379 in the west. It's A LOT. I suggest the council, town planners and all applicable parties drive down Yorkland St.. from Justus Drive to Bernard Avenue in the wee morning...the west-facing homes have 203

12 a minimum 2 cars parked on their driveway and one even has 5 cars! That short block alone, contradicts the 1.95 vehicles per detached home household. In Figure 14 - Recommended Street Network (pg 50, Secondary Plan Transportation Considerations) parcels SE2 and SE5 have a combined maximum of 575 residential units and a minimum of 425. If the Loblaws were to close and these residential units are developed, where is their access point? There is a potential for an increased cars (575 x 0.7) on the road. Will their entrance(s) face Yorkland St.? If it IS NOT then I suggest planners look very closely at Link B and Link A again and visualize the bottleneck. If their access points ARE on Yorkland St., then help us all - especially the residents on Newmill/Oldhill. A middle left turn lane along the length of Yorkland from Elgin Mills to Bernard will be CRUCIAL. Also, if Link A and G are recommended to be public collector streets, then shouldn't they at least be 4 lanes?!? Especially Link A - which is trying to divert traffic on to Yorkland. Personally, if I'm driving southbound on Yonge, I would much rather make ONE left turn on to Elgin Mills than go Left on Link A, Right on Yorkland and then Left on Elgin. More direct route = less time. Either way, bottom line is the added vehicular traffic will not help the residents in the Bernard KDA, especially east KDA and specifically residents off Newmill/Oldhill/Elmpark as it will be virtually impossible for us to get off our street without some traffic signal consideration. I don't think anyone wants to add time to my commute by driving around to Bernard via Oldhill so they can safely turn at a traffic signal at Bernard/Yorkland. "Under future total conditions, the east and west legs of the intersection are Link A and Link G, two collector streets that connect to Canyon Hill Avenue and Yorkland Street, respectively. As the two links provide primary access into the southern quadrants and provide an alternate connection across Yonge Street, traffic volumes along both collector streets are projected in the order of 500 to 700 two-way vehicle trips in the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. With the increased side street volumes, the intersection will operate under busy but acceptable conditions. With the increased side street volumes, the intersection will operate under busy but acceptable conditions." (pg 87, Secondary Plan Transportation Considerations) Where are these side streets located? Are they new side streets which I don't see on any map. Link G, Link A, Yorkland St. are collector streets. Existing side streets in the developed detached home neighborhoods of KDA West and KDA East will have the same volume and same, terrible traffic. So how is the addition of thousands of residential units and 500 to 700 two-way vehicle trips in the AM/PM peak hours on Link G and Link A ACCEPTABLE conditions on a these new two way shared lane that connects to Yorkland St?! I am dumbfounded. The rate that the community is growing has slowed over the years from 14% in 2011 to 5.1% in The Town of Richmond Hill predicted a population growth of 31,359 from 2011 to 2016 but the actual number is 9,148, 30% of what was predicted. Are these 204

13 high density buildings even necessary? Are residents who are moving in to or within Richmond Hill, single or couples and want to live in a smaller footprint? Traffic woes aside, I do applaud the efforts to create a well-connected system of pedestrian and cycling routes. However, I think it's imperative to have pedestrian routes that lead to larger green spaces not park or urban "squares". A square implies a parkette - small, grassy area with one park bench (see Beverly Acres Parkette). Actually, looking at the recommendations (page 33, Preferred Option and Policy Direction Report) these park squares are inconsequential - the footprint looks smaller than Beverly Acres Park. How about beautifying Dove Park, an under-utlized space, and making the pedestrian pathway more 'friendly'. Perhaps then, residents won't be so inclined to DRIVE to Crosby Park or Lake Wilcox. I think there is a misguided sense of what the three proposed park/urban squares will achieve because they are far too small to be effective. Maybe the planners can take a cue from The Shops on Don Mills where there is a good mix of retail and public space. While we are at it, can we please consider retail stores and restaurants that reflect the needs and wants of the community. Personally, I would rather drive to Main Street Newmarket or Main Street Unionville for a nice dinner and stroll. Is there a sense of what the landowner of the Loblaws property is planning? While I applaud the long term idea of reducing the # of cars on the road by improving transit, information from the Secondary Plan Transportation Considerations indicated that people will drive to destinations within 1.5 km just as much as someone who lives 5 km away. Why is this the case? Time and convenience. I'm likely not going to walk to Longo's to buy 6 bags of groceries no matter how accessible the pedestrian pathways are. Chances are I have several stops to make when I'm running errands and hopping on a bus or walking, in my opinion, is not time efficient. Also, no amount of improvements to rapid transit would allow me to arrive at work by 7:00am for a reasonable fee. My point? Adding collector streets, bike lanes, pedestrian paths, increasing bus service and adding routes won't improve traffic if 10,481 people or extra cars (from SE2 + SE5, have not taken into consideration NE1, NE2, SE1, SE3, SE4) are added to the Yonge/Bernard KDA. If the goal is create a vibrant Richmond Hill and ensure the Yonge/Bernard KDA becomes a key place and destination point within the town then I urge you to seriously listen to the feedback from the affected neighbors. Make sure there is enough infrastructure to accommodate the increase in population. Is 4,700 residential units necessary? Revitalize the older parks and maintain or add sports fields. Look at areas like Lake Wilcox and Crosby Park and consider what makes them popular. Then look at Main Street Newmarket, Main Street Unionville and Main Street Markham and see what retail is thriving and enticing to Richmond Hill residents. 205

14 As a long-time resident who is deeply affected by the current traffic in the Bernard KDA and the recommendations of the planning committee, I put forth the following considerations: 1. Re-evaluate the density and adjust the targets by using data from the 2016 Census Profile on The Town of Richmond Hill - population increased at a slower rate than predicted. Side note: Journey to Work data won't be released until November 29, 2017 (?!) 2. Consider a new multi signalized intersection at Link A/Justus/Newmill/Delmanor Retirement Home or at the very least a stop sign or a "Do not block intersection" sign. 3. Address the traffic signals on the major arterial streets and existing collector roads (Yonge/Elgin, Yonge/Bernard, Yorkland/Bernard, Yonge/Silverwood) and/or synchronize them for AM/PM rush hours. 4. Install an overpass on the CN rail on Elgin Mills and 19th Avenue. 5. Add a middle turn lane on Yorkland St. from Newmill to Bernard (or to Brookside) to accommodate the extra vehicular traffic from the proposed high-density dwellings. 6. Lengthen right turn lanes on major arterial streets (Yonge/Elgin, Elgin/Yorkland) 7. Add a right turn lane on southbound Bernard towards Silverwood to alleviate traffic from Richmond Hill High School. 8. Add a right turn lane on to Yonge/Silverwood/Brookside 9. Install a 3-way stop sign at Bernard/Brookwood - this intersection is so dangerous! 10. Add a right turn lane on Enford to Elgin Mills (Industrial Road & Enford are used as 'shortcuts' to/from Yonge/Yorkland/Elgin) 11. Consider a right turn only street entrance off westbound Elgin Mills to Oldhill (see Figure 2, above) 12. Re-evaluate Link A and the access to/from potential high-density dwellings - 4 shared travel lanes would be crucial IF the main goal is to alleviate traffic off Yonge Street. 13. Ensure that the location of the urban squares are sensible, usable and have a larger footprint. 14. Ensure pedestrian pathways are wide and well-lit. 206

15 15. Revitalize older parks and add new sports facilities - baseball diamonds, beach volleyball courts, soccer fields, etc. Sincerely, Jennifer Gubatan Resident of Newmill Crescent 207

16 208