January 5, 1998

To: York Community Council

From: Ron W. Maurice, Clerk’s Department

Subject: Proposal for Traffic Calming Measures on Greenbrook Drive, Ward 27

Purpose:

To show results of a poll conducted of residents on Greenbrook Drive, with staff recommendations, regarding the traffic calming project (pinch points) on Greenbrook Drive and the turn prohibition at Greenbrook Drive and Trethewey Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendations:

For consideration and direction of York Community Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Clause No. 132.8 embodied in Report No. 15 of the Works and Parks Committee.

The Works and Parks Committee, at its meeting held on September 22, 1997, directed that the City Clerk conduct a poll of residents on Greenbrook Drive to ascertain whether or not to continue with the traffic calming project on Greenbrook Drive, and to further review the turn prohibition at the corner of Greenbrook Drive and Trethewey Drive, in light of the new traffic calming strategy.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The following is a breakdown of residents polled to determine interest in the above-mentioned proposal based on the number of replied returned.

Total No. Polled: 125

No. of Replies Received: 34

No. of Replies Not Counted: 2

Question #1:

I am IN FAVOUR of traffic calming on Greenbrook Drive and wish to see the project completed.

I am NOT IN FAVOUR of traffic calming on Greenbrook Drive and wish to see the present devices removed.

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 25 or 78%

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 7 or 22%

Comments from Residents:

In Favour:

(a) Speed humps should be continued to the end of Greenbrook towards Trethewey Drive.

(b) Traffic calming is a great idea, however, the contractors who built the devices did not follow the plans properly. The humps need to be much higher in order to slow down traffic.

(c) The number of speeding cars has been substantially reduced, making the street safer for all our kids.

(d) We have been told that the primary purpose of these traffic calming devices was to reduce the average speed of traffic. It seems, the drawings seen at the outset of the discussion on this matter appeared to show a much higher area at the "bumps". We feel that continuing these installations in accordance with those presently installed would defeat or substantially reduce the intended effectiveness of these devices. We would like to see these installations continued, but with and adequately increased height of the "bump" area.

(e) Minor design changes may be required to the height and span of the bumps to make them more pronounced! Presently they are effective for the majority of vehicles. There should be a sign at the top of the street to indicate that "Traffic Calming Devices Ahead - Drive with Care".

The trees in the traffic calming islands have not been "staked" to hold them upright and provide proper rooting! Also, the "tree guards" which were recommended from aesthetic and safety reasons (greater visibility) are not in place!

The island beds have not been planted -- we had recommended ground cover with fall bulbs.

The triangular island at the top of the streets needs to have depressed curbs or small ramps so that strollers can easily go onto the path. People with strollers now come around towards the roadway possibly creating a dangerous situation.

(f) Wee need "bumps" on the western part of Greenbrook also.

(g) Although we fully support the project, bumps are not high enough - no deterrent to speed. Having all devices on the south side induces speeding east/west which seems to be increasing - drivers speed with impunity. There is no radar presence for months, despite complaints to traffic control (lack of /shortage of officers).

(h) We appreciate the traffic committee’s excellent work. We would very much like to see this work completed with perhaps some additional height to the speed bumps to make them more effective. We also feel that it might be more effective to alternate side of the street and style of the islands - repeat the first triangular one a few places down the street.

(i) We support the traffic calming.

(j) Speed and volume have reduced. Please retain both calming devices we have a lot of children on this street.

(k) It is logical to complete this project. Since the installation of the 4 speed bumps cars now travel faster sown the street after they clear the last one. The only way to really slow down traffic is to add the remaining 6 speed bumps. We should look at changing the turn prohibition only after the additional speed bumps are installed.

Not In Favour:

(a) The islands are ugly and potentially dangerous. The "devices" are gentle and will not successfully control traffic speed. Trethewey East traffic still enters the park and turn back up Trethewey to go north on Black Creek. Dumb! Police supervision will still be required, though they might not respond until complaints increase or there is a serious accident.

(b) The traffic calming has not reduced speed on Greenbrook and has simply ruined the appearance of our street.

(c) Traffic calming has served no purposed except cause people to have near accidents in colliding with them. Leave those already in, but do not build additional ones. They are not pretty to look at, and take away from the general beauty of the street.

(d) Our opinion is that the traffic calming devices are not aesthetically pleasing and are not as effective as a "stop" sign or a "speed enforced by radar" zone. We do not wish to see further devices installed without extensive consultation with residents.

(e) In front of one family’s driveway you made this crazy thing. Planning is very poor - no vision. You could have selected lighted area for bump not a tree on the road. Remove it now.

The following is an overall breakdown of responses to Question #1, according to resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Question #2:

I am IN FAVOUR of the present turn prohibition at Greenbrook Drive and Trethewey Drive.

I am NOT IN FAVOUR of the present turn prohibition at Greenbrook Drive and Trethewey Drive and wish to return to the original prohibition from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday.

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 25 or 78%

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 7 or 22%

Comments from Residents:

In Favour:

(a) The only saving grace is the fact that present prohibition of turning onto Greenbrook from Trethewey is in effect. The police need to enforce this to the nth degree. I have seen many "Royal Taxis" roaring up the street "coming from the no entry at Trethewey and Greenbrook -- should we be letting the company know??

(b) I am in favour of the present turn prohibition with exception for residents.

(c) I would prefer the turning prohibition to be 24 hours/7 days per week. No exit/no entry.

(d) The turn prohibition has significantly cut down on the large volume of cars as well as the high number of trucks using our street.

(e) It is now a joy to walk up and down the street. There truly is a marked difference in speed and volume. The most common violators of the restrictions and speed limits are couriers and especially taxis.

(f) An alternative prohibition would be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday.

(g) Still a number of drivers ignoring no entry signs (ie. taxis, delivery vans, small to medium trucks).

(h) We support the no entry sign at the bottom of Greenbrook at Trethewey. It has made a wonderful difference in the volume of traffic. Hopefully this will protect the young children on the street.

(i) Please consider allowing turns from Trethewey on Saturday as well as now presently on Sunday.

Not In Favour:

(a) Could be "One Way Do Not Enter" from 7 to 9 a.m.

(b) Better still, remove original prohibition! Residents should have access to both entries in the face of heavy N/S traffic on Keele Street. If safety of children is as NB as traffic control, sidewalks on one or both sides of the street would be more effective in the long run. Children continue to play in the streets. Traffic continues to enter regularly from Trethewey.

(c) Prohibition of left turn should remain as 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., during peak hours.

The following is an overall breakdown of responses to Question #2, according to resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants: