Pleasantview Traffic Calming Trial


The traffic calming pilot project began in Pleasantview this week. There have been a few questions about the pilot and the measures that have been installed, which I hope to answer here.

Speeding and shortcutting along 106 Street through Pleasantview has been an issue that many in the community have been grappling with for quite some time. Community members have been working on this issue for over a decade, and have worked with the two previous Councillors before me.

When I came through Pleasantview during the election,  speeding and shortcutting, especially along 106 Street, was what I heard about the most at almost every door. This compelled me to make the commitment to the community that I would support the Pleasantview Traffic Committee, the Community League, and work with our Transportation Department to try and find an effective solution to this issue.

106 Street was never designed for the amount of vehicles that are currently using it; on average, roughly 8000 vehicles travel along 106 Street north of 53rd Avenue everyday, which is a roadway designed for 5000 vehicles; over 40% of this traffic is considered to be shortcutting. Additionally, speed studies have shown that 59% of vehicles travelling on 106 Street travel over the posted speed limit of 50 km/hr.

The trial measures to be installed aim to divert some of this traffic from the community, as well as discourage speeding along 106 Street.

The measures are not permanent. They are being installed on a trial basis, and will be monitored on a regular basis for their effectiveness. Additionally, other areas throughout the community will be regularly monitored. This additional monitoring will aid in determining whether or not the trial measures are affecting other roadways throughout the community. If it is determined that the trial measures are not effective, and are negatively affecting other roadways throughout the community, they will either be adjusted or removed.

If you would like more details about the trials measures, please visit this link. Mostly importantly, feedback on this project is being collected on an on-ongoing basis for the duration of the trial period. I would encourage you to please email pleasantviewtraffic@edmonton.ca with your feedback so that it can be recorded as a part of the project.


Showing 27 reactions


Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2016-02-05 11:24:11 -0700
    EDM Journal – Thur Letter to Editor

    As a community league executive, we oppose the removal of the Pleasantview trial traffic calming measures on 106th and 109th Street.

    In 2013 we were encouraged by then-Councillor Don Iveson to pursue the expression of interest. We are mystified at the decision-making process that saw the measures abandoned in less than six months. Councillor Michael Walters said in his blog on March 27, 2015, “In order for measures to really have an impact, we need to see this pilot through for the two years allotted. By following through, we will be able to see the longer term outcomes as drivers adjust to the pilot measures.”

    The elimination of the project appears to have largely been politically driven. We intend to prepare a history of this process to ensure an accurate record and as a resource for other communities who are trusting in the community traffic programs that the City is continuing to engage in.

    Tony Slemko, president, Pleasantview Community League

    Wow ‘King’ Slemko, Seriously?
    While I had no problem with a Committee proposing solutions to traffic volumes in Pleasantview, I take Major Umbrage at your holier than thou attitude. The whole process was Seriously Flawed, especially with both yourself and the non-representative, non-elected ‘Stealth’ Traffic committee – that most of the Community had NEVER even knew was established, somehow getting Council (you listening? Councillor Walters & former Councillor – now Mayor – Iveson) to Override the standard process of getting Community support and Ramming the changes down our throughts Against the wishes of a Clear Majority of Community residents. Approx >75% against per last April presentation of the proposed measures that were implemented in July.

    The standard process was for proposed solutions to be voted on by the community, but Council Ovverrode this, wtf? I also take Serious Issue with traffic Volumes Increasing on 105th Street, where I live, by a Whopping 300% for a mere 40% reduction in 106St traffic!! We voiced this concern numerous times last year but nobody from City or Community League would listen, not to mention the Secretive non-representative Stealth Traffic Committee who did not even wish to be identified for fear of retribution for their idiotic stance that in No way was representative of the Community.

    Try actually representing the views of the community as a whole, instead of just the 1% of residents on 106St that the trial one-way project benefitted, what about the rest of us who had to Suffer for 7 months with 300% Increased traffic volumes, detours to get around in roundabout ways through our own community, people blatantly ignoring signs (ie. Stop signs or one-way or school zone) because they were frustrated by idiotic changes. Our safety and that of our Children – who were afraid to even bicycle once these changes were in effect – was Seriously Compromised! Get a life Slemko.
  • commented 2015-12-05 12:01:00 -0700
    Agree with Don. But, we now live in a society dominated by a City Council, led by the likes of Mr. Walters. Bad policies will not be reversed. One has to save face! So, a mismatch of a compromise will be worked out , which will be worse that the previous bad policies.
  • commented 2015-12-02 17:24:03 -0700
    There have been polls taken in the past from Pleasantview residents and in these the majority did not want these so called traffic calming procedures carried out, and yet, they were. So, I am not sure what the point of any further meetings, or polls, or suggestions from residents would be, since we are not being listened to anyhow.
    As for those that say we should “try these out to see what happens”, I would say I don’t need to smash my finger with a hammer to know that it’s going to hurt. These were doomed in the first place. I feel for those that live just off 105 Street and 51 Avenue, as we have experienced the same problems farther west on 110 Street. As predicted by most (except for our city officials of course), blocking up 109 Street merely shifted traffic to the side streets, making them unsafe and promoting illegal driving activity. The city even used it’s precious police resources a few times to try to alleviate the problem but to now avail. Now, it is free again and unplugged and working as it should.
    I hope the city stops the silliness on 106 Street and opens it up to what it was before. A valuable collector road. There are several schools within a 10 block radius of that portion, and it must be frustrating for the parents to have find alternative routes to get their kids to and from school. The spill off into the side streets is inevitable. How the city could not foresee this is unfathomable. And for what? A few houses on a street.
    And now we have a neighbourhood where people have had relationships destroyed thanks to some ill-advised bureaucratic bungling.

    Sorry, speeders are going to speed, no matter what street they’re on. And if you want to fix the problem of increased traffic, do something about Calgary Trail and 111 Street. Routes that are meant for moving people quickly and en masse, rather than the quagmires they have become. 106 Street and 109 Street are NOT the problem, despite a few squeeky wheels.
  • commented 2015-11-19 19:32:31 -0700
    I note that a meeting has been called for the 26th of Novemeber. I hope the City, Mr. Walters and the Pleasantview Traffic committee, give due regard to the fact that all the changes have only made a bad situation much worse and unsafe for the community. The changes on 106th Street between 56th and 51 Avenue should be reconsidered.
  • commented 2015-10-02 12:34:44 -0600
    Mark, I could not agree with you more. Well said! You have captured the frustrations of your neighbors perfectly.

    In addition to your comments I would like to add that I can not believe that after three months we are still having conversations about the measure on 106 street. The measures were sold to us a trial to calm traffic in the neighbourhood. It is abundantly clear that the trial has failed. All it has done is pushed traffic over a block. If the city would only have kept its commitment to monitor volumes in mid September, they would have the hard evidence to demonstrate that traffic volumes have exponentially increased on 105 street and no calming has occurred.

    Additionally, I think Michael Walters needs to take a hard look at his role and how he interfaces with his constituents. I invited him to my house to observe the traffic volumes. At that time, he stated to myself and my neighbor that the trial would be considered a failure if volumes increased on other roads in the neighbourhood and that the city has collected baseline data at every intersection. As no monitoring or data collection has occurred since the measures were put in place, I feel his sentiments were insincere and disingenuous. At this point the city should have collected data and done the analysis. What we need from Mr. Walters is for him to take a firm stand with the city, and for him to hold them to their commitment. Additionally we need Mr Walters to stop supporting bandage fixes and insist that the city remove the 106 barriers which brings me to my next point.

    Mr. Walters office has asked me to identify neighbors on 105 street to form an advisory committee to work with his office, the city and the traffic committee. I have also been asked to join the community traffic committee to represent the concerns of 105 street. I have decline both of these invitations. What needs to be done has been stated numerous times – remove the measures on 106 street and stop empowering unrepresentive committees to make decisions on behalf of the neighbourhood.

    traffic volumes, speed and noise have not dissipated on 105 street. I may not send an email everyday, make a phone call or post on this blog, but my concerns are still the same. Traffic volumes and speed are at an unacceptable level on 105 street. I still get honked at by cars backed up as I buckle my son in his car seat, I get woken up throughout the night because of traffic noise, and cars are often backed up at 105 street and 51st ave. The only thing that has changed is my anger and my level of frustration.
  • commented 2015-10-02 09:10:02 -0600
    Dear One-term Mayor and Councillor,

    Thank you for the wonderful Failure of the Flawed Pleasantview Community Traffic Management Plan [CMTP] process. A spectacular exercise in ignoring the voting public and sidestepping the established rules for such measures. And nor can you blame this on the previous council Mayor Iveson, as you tried to do with the North-LRT debacle, as you were clearly a member of that previous council and our Ward 10 representative.
    Thank you for avoiding the democratic process and removing the requirements for pre-trial and post-trial community-wide votes’, tho i am completely baffled as to how removing the requirements for pre-trial and post-trial community-wide votes . . . give the community a greater role in guiding the process’ as removing this requirement and shoving the changes down our throats does exactly the opposite. Nor is this in anyway alleviated by the (stealthily selected) so-called Pleasantview Volunteer Traffic Advisory Committee [PVTAC], who other than head PVTAC spokesperson Stuart Tate, have remained anonymous as they rightly fear the backlash from their community who they do not democratically represent. As a sixteen-year Pleasantview resident i never heard of a call for members for the PVTAC to select Traffic Modification measures, as i would have volunteered, and then expected a Community vote on measures from a varied selection of options put forth for vote.
    Thank you for the spectacularly flawed One-way 106 Street measure, which was Not supported by a Clear 75% of residents who showed up to the farcical 30 April 2015 Information session – which presented the defacto decision on what had been selected, without any input from the majority of residents other than the secretive PVTAC. At the information session when Community members expressed our concerns about diversion of traffic from 106 St to 105 St our concerns were ignored and requests for Speed Bumps, similar to those on 109 St, to be installed by the park spaces on 105 St (a Street not utilized by Edmonton Transit) were dismissed by the Traffic Engineer present with the explanation that the City prefers not to utilize this anymore.
    Yet …, the 30 Sept 2015 Edm Sun notes “traffic calming measures – like speed humps / bumps – being introduced in Crestwood, Ormsby Place, Ottewell and Newton should be in place by mid-October.” What the heck kind of duplicitous game is the City playing here? Total dishonest Bullcrap!
    The One-way 106 Street measure Blatantly Ignores the wishes of a clear 75% majority (per 30 April 2015 information session feedback) of Pleasantview residents (some 4,229 people in over 2,000 residences per 2005 City stats) and clearly caters to just the 41 households (18 Seniors appartments in one building and 23 house residences – approx half of them 1/2 duplexes) or just over 1% of Community households living alongside the one-way stretch from 53 Ave to 56 Ave, plus the hundreds of Mount Pleasant Cemetery residents who must have actively campaigned for such an ill-advised One-way Traffic Modification so they could rest in peace and quiet.
    NOTE: The Intersection-Modification at 51 Ave and 106 St is enough of a measure to reduce outside traffic through Pleasantview, but the One-way 106 St measure is ridiculous overkill and just diverts traffic down 105th St, just as we stated would happen at the farcical 30 April 2015 Information session. {Although, I hope you are using cameras to catch violators as I have personally witnessed vehicles proceed into the turn lane at 51 Ave when coming North up 106 St, then proceed to illegally zip straight though the intersection whilst recklessly endangering traffic and continuing North up 106 St as before the intersection-modification.}
    Thank you for turning the one-way portion of 106 St into a residential route, vs its designed role as an Arterial route.
    Thank you for turning both 56 Ave and my portion of 105 St (South of 55 Ave) into a busy Arterial route, vs its prior design life as a nice quiet Residential road.
    I now get to enjoy the constant roar of traffic and watch impatient drivers race along 105 St at speeds that make my Child no longer want to ride his bicycle in the neighborhood for fear of being hit by these speeding vehicles, nor am I comfortable with him riding a bicycle in this neighborhood anymore.
    {As an aside, the ill-thought placement of a bike-route down the narrower portion of 106 St, vs the nice open area of 111 St with large grass medians that could hold a bike lane well away from traffic, makes zero sense! Especially with the removal of the 106 St bike route South of Whitemud freeway.}
    Thank you for ending my nice pleasant Sunday mornings as I now get to ‘enjoy’ the constant roar of traffic down my formerly peaceful residential front Street that has turned into a major Arterial route – not its designed purpose.
    Thank you for ignoring concerns about the four-way intersection at 105 St and 55 Ave, with N-S stop signs. While already a concern due to people recklessly blowing through these stop signs without stopping, now the higher volumes of traffic and higher speeds make this a major area of concern. This intersection has already been the scene of a major accident since CMTP implementation by a violator broadsiding a car legally proceeding along 55 Ave. I have personally witnessed dozens of vehicles proceed through the intersection North-South without stopping at the Stop signs, why does the City just not get this??
    From the lack of response to Community concern, other than on the other side of 106 St in the upper-scale part of the Pleasantview neighborhood where similar concern led to the ill-conceived and unnecessary Median at 109 St and 54 Ave (as shown by the City’s own studies which were refenced at the information session) – just North of the triple speed bumps along 109 St, being hastily removed, I guess its who you know in this city, and not just what makes sense, that makes rapid change happen.
    Unfortunately, i am not sure that even a preventable serious death / dismemberment accident at the 105 St / 55 Ave intersection would make the intransigent city administration reverse this ill-conceived One-way 106 St traffic modification.

    Again, Thank You for the spectacularly flawed One-way 106 Street CMTP debacle that Community members had zero say in, other than non-representative secretive PVTAC members.

    Regards,
    Completely frustrated Pleasantview Resident,
    Mark Romanow
  • commented 2015-09-30 10:15:24 -0600
    Who thought this was a good idea? Absurd.
  • commented 2015-09-17 16:26:47 -0600
    Mr Johnson Well said!
  • commented 2015-09-17 14:39:57 -0600
    109 street barriers pulled!!!! Alright!!! Now when are you going to do something about the East side of Pleasantview? The real question is, who lives on 109 street that has the ability to pull strings to create change. Apparently 105 street is not a problem with either speed or traffic volumes. Maybe it’s because the traffic counting and speed control measures that were promised have not been installed to collect data. It is time the city focuses on what the changes to 106 street has done to this community and remove these measures once and for all.
  • commented 2015-09-11 09:26:12 -0600
    Dear Michael Walters and Michael’s blog users. I woke up this a.m. to find a note on my truck that states " Why Don’t you park on the other side of the street? You make it difficult for cars to pass, making it a one-way street. Thanks. Your Neighbour." First I will address this neighbour. Thank you for your concern, but if you are in fact my neighbour you would know that there has been a ridiculous increase in traffic and speeds down 105 street since the changes to 106 and 109 street, and you would also know that nothing has been done by the city to address this situation and calm the traffic down 105 street. My vehicle is not parked in any violation of city bylaw, and before the changes on 106 street, I parked my vehicle in the same place and did not receive any complaints or experience any issues. Since these changes I have also had to call the police because of vehicles driving over my lawn. I have seen speeders pulled over in front of my house, and I have witness more traffic accidents in one month than I have seen in 6 years in this community.

    I am increasingly getting fed up by the way these traffic changes have been tearing this community apart. I once lived in a community where I chatted with my neighbours about the weather, now I call the police on people, I have angry conversations with my neighbours, city councillor and with city staff, and I receive passively aggressive notes from people because they to want an outlet for their frustration regarding these ridiculous changes. I have also witnessed neighbours protesting in unconventional ways including blocking the road way at 1:00 a.m. in the morning and people counting and video taping traffic. Enough is enough, it is time the city address the issues on 105 street that were created as a result of the changes on 106 street and 109 street.
  • commented 2015-08-25 15:11:42 -0600
    Ms. Ross – as a user of the 106 St bike lane, I offer that these changes are moot. The bike lanes were sufficient prior to the changes and I can think of no benefits other than the lack of cars stopping in the bike lane in front of the daycare (not a big deal). As a driver of 106 St, mostly since I need to access Pleasantville from Erminskine (not shortcutting), these changes are mindblowingly frustrating. I sincerely hope that in the end the street gets put back how it was, for everyone’s sake. Save for the few complainants that should know better. In my experience, this stretch of 106 St was the safest in terms of traffic flow, and really not that backed up. Mountains were made of mole hills, and the result is an epic fiasco.
  • commented 2015-08-16 11:27:33 -0600
    Dear one term council Mike Walters: You have backed a seriously flawed plan to reroute traffic in Pleasantview. Traffic from 106 St is now diverted over to 105 Str. We stressed this fault at the information session, but did you listen? Increased amounts of traffic and excessive speeds down 105 St is now a very serious concern. No more bike riding in our neighbourhood, it’s just too dangerous for our children….thanks to this ridiculous plan. And…..this situation is about to get more serious once school commences and all these parents with children attending Mt. pleasant school drive in and out of our neighbourhood twice daily. We also want to take issue with your office sending someone out to monitor traffic between 1 and 3 pm. Lowest period of traffic during the day. Yupe that’s really useful information! Please wake up and realize, much like the bad bike route installations from previous years, this rerouting of traffic in Pleasantview is not a solution but rather a debacle.
  • commented 2015-08-15 17:35:27 -0600
    3 weeks after the closure of 106 st I come back from vacation to find nothing has changed on 105 st & 52 ave cars still blocking the streets even a accident Thursday night Aug 13 around 6 pm. Today Aug 15 around 3 pm walked to 106 st & 51 ave still seeing cars going north thru 51 st ave even a taxi cab. Walked north along 106 st to 56 ave came across 3 people riding bikes on the side walk asked them to use the bike lane they swear at me and went on there way. Before going on vacation say a young lady riding her bike on the bike lane on 106 st & 54 ave one hand steering the other holding a cell phone texting what about distracting driving for bikes.The city needs to but 106 st back the way it was. A letter of concern was sent June 4 to MR.WALTERS & ANDREW SIGGELKOW showing that 83% of homes & 99 % of condos east of 106 st opposed this change.They both said the changes were going ahead as planned What a mess there will be when school goes back in Sept 8. Global news July 30 has my home video of what has happened to 105 st street.106 st & 53 – 56 st graveyard on one side maybe 15 homes on the other when there are hundreds of homes along 105 st ..benefits do not out way the negatives There doing this to make 106 st safer what about use on 105 st
  • commented 2015-08-15 11:47:38 -0600
    Could not agree more with the concerns expressed by Ms’s Perreira, Zohar and Ross. This is the situation when the roads are so quite with summer holidays! It would be nice to hear from the people who made this “wise” decision their thoughts?
  • commented 2015-08-15 07:03:15 -0600
    The portion of road that was closed has a graveyard on one side which makes me wonder if the deceased were complaining….and those with houses on the other side, knew when they bought their houses, that 106St was a main route. Seems that the only ones benefitting from this closure are those using the bike lane!
  • commented 2015-08-14 22:30:56 -0600
    This is an absolute mess and has not solved anything. I live on 105 Street (and 56 Ave) and the traffic on my street has increased so much over the past couple weeks that you need to wait to get through since there is parking on both sides of the road. Most of the time there is not even room for two vehicles to drive side by side opposite directions on the street. 105 Street was not designed for this much traffic and how the people who planned this didn’t think of that is beyond me. Close 106 and send the traffic to 105 – makes sense. There is constant vehicles turning onto 105 by the newer condos and it’s hard to see if there are vehicles coming on 105 Street by this intersection because of all the vehicles parked on the street. You literally have to drive out onto the street to see if it is safe to go across or turn. I’m curious to know how many accidents are going to come out of this.
    I can’t imagine what it will be like once the snow comes or when school is back in in a few weeks.
    It feels like we are on an island now. That was the main road to get in and out of Pleasantview and now the traffic has just been diverted to side roads that can’t handle this much traffic. And what’s with driving down 109 Street now and the road just ends…smack dab in the middle big barriers just out of nowhere.
    I hope someone will see some sense and put 106 Street back the way it was.
  • commented 2015-08-13 16:32:57 -0600
    i am glad to hear that some people feel safer on 106 street and in their community. I agree that 106 street has become a pleasant street to enjoy walks with the dog and even to cycle down. We all want to feel safe to enjoy our neighbourhoods. What is just too bad is that as a result of the measures on 106 street, 105 street has become a busy street and that I now feel uncomfortable buckling my children into their car seats, walking my children and pets. On 105, the volume of traffic has tripled if not quadrupled, commuters speed and often honk at eachother as they pass on the narrow road way, on numerous occasions I have seen drivers disobey traffic signs including the stop sign on 55ave and that commercial vehicles and cabs continue to use 105 street a thorough way at all hours of the day and night. It is important to keep in mind that 105 street is residential street, not a collector street like 106 street. I keep hearing that we need to give commuters time to adjust to the new measures, and to reroute. I fear that this approach is lending to commuters viewing 105 street as a viable route that they will continue to use. With the commencement of school around the corner, I fear that the parents who drop and pick up their children at pleasant view school will have no choice but to use 105 street, only further contributing to the volume and potentially other associated traffic issues. Hiw long do we need to wait to see if commuters reroute?
  • commented 2015-08-13 11:29:53 -0600
    I am pleased that the traffic calming trial has been implemented. All the speeding and shortcutting made it very unsafe for pedestrians, especially during the afternoon rush hour. I feel much safer walking 106 Street now that the traffic volume is reduced. I understand that traffic on 105 Street is greatly increased. However, I believe it will take time for motorists to begin using other routes (e.g. Calgary Trail, 111 Street – roads that are designed to accommodate high traffic volumes). I won’t evaluate this trial based on the traffic volume on 105 Street today – it is too soon for that.
  • commented 2015-08-11 13:04:34 -0600
    I’ve had to divert from 111 St to 106 St due to the mess that the LRT and increased volume of traffic from Ellerslie development made of 111 St making it a bottleneck. I’m sure I am not alone. After living in the Ermineskin neighbourhood for almost 25 years, it has become increasingly difficult to get around. From ill thought out bike lanes to this dumb “project”, it is making this city very frustrating to live in. I just went to take my daughter to a City of Edmonton run summer camp at Pleasantview hall and had to go around the now closed 106 St to fine a total roadblock put up on 108 St making that road impassable as well! Is this the answer? To block off all the roads so no one is able to get around and has to drive around residential roads to try to get anywhere?!! I don’t think this is the answer and if you think this will make everyone ride their bikes, it is impossible as family people have children to transport and anyone with responsibilities does not have time for such leisure. This IS a winter city and needs passable roads for CARS to drive on. Wake up from your dream world and look around at what is really going on in the City of Edmonton and use logic to design our roads.
  • commented 2015-08-09 20:53:48 -0600
    To quote our councillor " The measures are not permanent. They are being installed on a trial basis, and will be monitored on a regular basis for their effectiveness. Additionally, other areas throughout the community will be regularly monitored. This additional monitoring will aid in determining whether or not the trial measures are affecting other roadways throughout the community. If it is determined that the trial measures are not effective, and are negatively affecting other roadways throughout the community, they will either be adjusted or removed.
    I expect that he will be true to his word. We have owned a home in the area since 1962. Mr. Walters will fix this, or he will not be our councillor after the next election.
  • commented 2015-08-09 14:00:28 -0600
    Further to Ms. Pereira and Mr. McCarthy’s comments, Mr. Walters assures me that these changes are here to stay for 2 years ( trial period, as he states!) And more importantly, have been made at the request of your PleasantView Neighborhood Traffic Committee! So, maybe you should find out who these wise people are and discuss it with them. I suspect they do not live on 105th Street or 56th Avenue. I hear you say NIMBY!
  • commented 2015-08-09 04:31:56 -0600
    Michael, As our councillor, will you commit to going to 56th and 55th avenues between 5 and 6 pm on a weekday to personally observe the results of this ill thought out plan? I understand that you had an assistant go there one week day between 1 and 3. This is the lightest volume time. On Saturdays and during the afternoon drive the volume is well over 100 cars per hour. Please inform us of the date and time you will be observing the traffic flow.
  • commented 2015-08-09 04:25:04 -0600
    I walked along 56 avenue between 105th and 106th streets 1 month ago and then again today. The traffic volume has increased from 5 cars to over 100. Most of these vehicles were travelling at too high a speed limit for a residential street. You say that 106 street was only designed for 5000 cars. How many cars were 56th and 55th avenues designed for? If you want to reduce the traffic on 106 street, then change it at 61st avenue. This would force the traffic to the roadways designed for this purpose, namely 111 street and 104th streets.
  • commented 2015-08-06 09:09:53 -0600
    I live on 105 street and these changes have a had a terrible impact on our street. Traffic from 106 has been diverted to 105. These measures may have calmed traffic on 106 but have increased the speed and volume on 105. this has been a terrible change.
  • commented 2015-07-30 21:07:23 -0600
    How about syncing the lights on Calgary Tr. and 111 St maybe people wouldn’t need to use 106 St. Another outrageous waste of tax dollars disappointed in you Mike
  • commented 2015-07-30 18:48:10 -0600
    👎👎👎 Bad call by the city,and all for all the wrong reasons. Traffic increase is a lame reason: the town is booming( sadly may face a hiccup here). Speeding: there are better ways to tackle speeding than pushing traffic from a low pedestrian volume street onto high pedestrian volume ( including children) residential streets. Do not waste tax dollars on a bad plan , which you will have to reverse again later ( Deja Vu) at a cost!!
  • commented 2015-07-29 07:34:19 -0600
    Super disappointed in this. I’ll let you know now. Unless there’s a police car monitoring 51 ave. I’m going to drive right on thru that intersection like usual. There’s a reason we avoid 111st and Calgary Trail. It’s a mess.