16.POLL RESULTS: PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC ON EARLSDALE AVENUE, FROM OAKWOOD AVENUE TO THE LANEWAY, FROM ONE-WAY TO TWO-WAY - WARD 28, YORK-EGLINTON.

City Clerk

May 7, 1998

 Purpose:

 To show results of a poll conducted of residents on Earlsdale Avenue, between Oakwood Avenue and Glenholme Avenue, regarding the above proposal.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 None.

 Recommendations:

 For consideration and direction of York Community Council.

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 Clause 7(y) embodied in Report No. 2 of the York Community Council.

 York Community Council, at its meeting held on February 18, 1998, directed that residents on Earlsdale Avenue, between Oakwood Avenue and Glenholme Avenue be polled to determine interest regarding this matter.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 The following is a breakdown of residents polled based on the number of replies returned:

 Total No. Polled:69

No. of Replies Received:13 or 19%

No. of Replies Not Counted:0

No. of Replies in Favour:0

No. of Replies Not In Favour:13 (100%)

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

 Comments from residents are attached hereto as Appendix 1.

 Conclusions:

 As noted above, the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are not in favour of the proposal to change the direction of traffic on Earlsdale Avenue, from Oakwood Avenue to the laneway, from one-way to two-way.

 Contact Name:

 Steve Brown, Operations Services - Traffic Division

394-2655

394-2758 (fax)

 or

 Valerie D=Alessandro, Assistant Committee Secretary

394-2522

394-2803 (fax)

 Appendix 1

Page 1

Poll Results: Proposal to Change the Direction of Traffic on Earlsdale Avenue,

from Oakwood Avenue to the Laneway, from One-Way to Two-Way

 Comments from Residents:

 Not In Favour:

 (a)There is too much >non-resident= parking now because of the church at Earlsdale and Oakwood! Two-way traffic would only aggravate vehicular congestion and further inconvenience residents and our visitors/guests.

 (b)Changing the direction of traffic on Earlsdale from Oakwood to the laneway from one-way to two-way will create much confusion and increase the likelihood of accidents at the intersection. Such a change will cause more traffic, not less, as the street is not wide enough to accommodate parking and directing two-way traffic. Moreover, such a proposal is not for the benefit of residents of Earlsdale, but instead for retailers on Oakwood. Such a proposal isn=t only unfair, but also dangerous, considering that there is a park across the street from the laneway which is full of people and children in the summer, coming and going. After consideration of these facts, we hope that the direction of traffic will remain as it has in the past.

A solution for the retailers to access the laneway is to open the fence on the north side of the laneway on O=Leary. This will maintain one-way traffic on both Earlsdale and O=Leary, as well as in the laneway for easier accommodation and a safer one as well.

 (c)Street is already congested with parking due to church services on both sides of the street. Also, may be dangerous with children exiting and entering park to play.

 (d)I am opposed because I feel that this will cause a bottleneck, especially when there are functions at the church when cars are parked on both sides of the street, albeit illegally. Also, delivery vans at the store narrow the road. Safety is also a factor as children from Rawlinson School cut through the parkette and cross Earlsdale to go north on Oakwood.

 Cars also park on both sides of the street when people are making use of the Food Bank at the church. I really feel you would be opening up a can of worms if you made this area two-way. Cars attempting to make a left turn from Oakwood onto Earlsdale would find it difficult, and with the bus stop at Peter=s, would tie up traffic on Oakwood Ave.

 I realize it is an inconvenience for people who have to go all the way around the block to get into the laneway, but I feel in the long run many more people would be inconvenienced, were this permitted.

 Please, don=t make this change.

 (e)Enclosed please find a petition that has been signed by the residents of Earlsdale Avenue, between Oakwood and Glenholme Avenue. The residents are clearly opposed to any change in traffic direction on Earlsdale Avenue, particularly since it does not benefit anyone on this street, but rather the business owners on Oakwood Avenue.

 By changing the traffic, you are increasing the risk for traffic accidents involving pedestrians, and we already have more than our fair share of extra traffic congestion, particularly due to the church at the corner of Oakwood and Earlsdale.

 100% of the people that were home signed my petition against changing the traffic direction, and I feel our wishes must be respected.

 Should Council proceed anyway and disregard this petition, then I am demanding that a public meeting be held before any decision is made to proceed with altering the direction of traffic.

 (Petition signed by 30 residents was attached to this letter and is on file in the Clerk=s Office). (f)This is a family street with children, not a high-volume access to the DVP. Outrageous -- meant to serve small business interests. (g)That corner of the street is always jammed because people park on both sides of the street. Only one lane is available now. There is no room for two-way traffic at that corner.

 (h)This proposal is ridiculous. No one in their right mind would grant such a proposal, if not to accommodate two or three people who are too lazy to drive around. If these two or three residents want easier access to the laneway, why then don=t they enter off of O=Leary St. since that street is one-way west of Oakwood.

 I propose that they enter off of O=Leary. That street doesn=t get much traffic volume.