Part 2: Traffic Safety Decisions, Key Road Concerns, and Committee Direction — 11/01/2023

This article continues the coverage of the Traffic Advisory Committee meeting, focusing on who spoke, how motions were handled, and how decisions were described as affecting different parts of the County. Instead of just listing updates, this section gives a clearer picture of how discussions unfolded and what actions were taken during the meeting.

Early business moved smoothly, with Phil Dawson putting forward the motion to approve the agenda, seconded by Councillor Sam Grosso, and it carried without issue. The committee then moved on to adopt the September 27, 2023 minutes, which were brought forward by Kevin Morris and again seconded by Councillor Sam Grosso. These opening steps were straightforward, but they helped set a steady pace for the rest of the meeting as the committee moved into more detailed discussions.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap>

Street naming task team discussion

An update from the Street Naming Task Team was presented by Kevin Morris, which led into a broader conversation about how new roads should be named. Janice Maynard raised concerns about the use of people’s names, pointing to reconciliation considerations and the possibility that names may not always age well or may need to be changed later on. Staff clarified that while current policy does allow for naming after individuals, the task team is actively exploring other options and will flag any concerns clearly when recommendations are brought forward. This discussion ties into future development across the county, where new roads will continue to be created and named.

County Road 32 and Shannon Road

One of the more detailed discussions came from resident Justin Williams, who spoke about ongoing safety concerns at the corner of County Road 32 and Shannon Road. He described multiple incidents where vehicles have left the roadway, including near misses involving his children and damage to his property, painting a clear picture of how serious the issue has become for those living nearby. Committee members asked follow up questions related to visibility, the presence of roadside trees, whether stop signs had previously been installed, and what level of speed reduction might help.

OPP staff provided context by confirming that there have been five recorded collisions over the past ten years, including at least one involving alcohol. While the numbers may seem limited over a long period, the repeated nature of incidents raised concern. As a result, the committee directed staff to return with a preliminary verbal report focused on signage and overall safety at the intersection. For residents near Shannon Road, especially families living close to that curve, this means the issue is now formally on the radar and under review.

Old Milford Road near Kingsley Road

Concerns about Old Milford Road were brought forward by Councillor Phil St-Jean, who spoke on behalf of residents experiencing increased traffic in the area. He pointed to a combination of factors, including Base31 activity, tourism, new housing developments, and the growing presence of recreational vehicles, all contributing to higher traffic volumes. Resident Amanda Buchanan added to this by highlighting safety concerns around school bus zones, cyclist activity, speeding well beyond posted limits, and confusion at the Kingsley Road intersection where right of way is not always clear.

Following discussion, Janice Maynard moved a motion directing staff to complete traffic data collection along with a full written report, which was seconded by Councillor Sam Grosso and carried. This step is important because it moves the issue beyond anecdotal concerns and into measured data, giving residents a clearer path toward possible solutions based on actual traffic patterns.

Massasauga Road near Marsh Road

Resident Maureen Trovo raised concerns about difficulty exiting her driveway along Massasauga Road, pointing to speeding vehicles and limited visibility as ongoing challenges. In response, Janice Maynard suggested that adding signage, such as a hidden driveway warning, might be more effective than physical measures like speed humps. Staff noted that while the road technically meets required sightline standards, that does not always reflect how

safe it feels for residents dealing with daily traffic conditions.

The committee agreed to request a preliminary verbal report to further review the situation and explore possible options. For residents along this stretch of Massasauga Road, particularly near curves, this means their concerns are being acknowledged and will be looked at more closely.

County Road 49 and Sydney Shore Lane

Another major concern came from resident Steve Stanek, who spoke about conditions along County Road 49, including blind curves, heavy truck traffic, noise, road conditions, and frequent near misses. The discussion was supported by OPP data showing around 200 collisions over ten years, with approximately 30 occurring near the high shore area, many of them related to weather conditions.

Given the scale of the issue, the committee directed staff to prepare a verbal report reviewing signage, passing zones, and potential short term safety improvements. While no immediate changes were made, this step signals that the situation is being taken seriously and that further review is underway for residents along this corridor.

Other locations and decisions

Several additional areas were also brought forward during the meeting, including Wilson Road, Cherry Valley, Mary Street, Talbot and Curtis Street, County Road 10 and Chapman Crescent, County Road 7, and Bridge Street in Picton. Rather than going into the same level of detail, these were handled based on urgency, with some being received for information, others deferred, and several assigned verbal staff reports.

In many cases, these requests overlap with ongoing studies or broader traffic planning efforts, which means they may take longer to come back with clear recommendations. Still, these discussions help determine which issues move forward right away and which are addressed through longer term planning.

Committee name change decision

The idea of renaming the committee was presented by Kelly McGilvery, who explained the reasoning behind shifting to the name Transportation Advisory Committee. Both Kevin Morris and Janice Maynard supported the change, seeing it as a better reflection of the committee’s scope. Councillor Sam Grosso raised some concerns about timing and process but did not oppose the idea.

The committee ultimately voted to forward the recommendation to council. While this change would not affect the committee’s actual responsibilities, it could shape how residents understand its role and how they choose to engage with it.

Final votes and adjournment

All motions during the meeting were carried with no recorded opposition, keeping decisions consistent across the agenda. The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m., with the next meeting scheduled for February 28, 2024. Overall, the discussion covered a wide range of local traffic concerns, with several areas now moving forward into further review, data collection, and future reports.

What this means for residents

A lot of the issues raised in this meeting came directly from residents, which shows that local concerns are making their way into formal discussions. While most items did not lead to immediate changes, several roads, including County Road 32, Old Milford Road, Massasauga Road, and County Road 49, are now set for further review through staff reports or data collection.

For residents, this means the next steps are more about gathering information and looking at possible solutions rather than quick fixes. In some cases, that could lead to new signage, safety adjustments, or longer term traffic planning decisions. It also shows that areas with repeated concerns or higher collision data are being prioritized for follow up.

Overall, the meeting reflects a process where community input leads to review, and review leads to future decisions, even if the results take time to fully play out.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:26:05. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.