Part 1: Rural Traffic Concerns Surge Across PEC as Committee Orders Targeted Reviews - 11/01/2023

The Traffic Advisory Committee met virtually and confirmed the meeting would be livestreamed and recorded. The agenda was approved, and the minutes from the September 27, 2023 meeting were adopted. There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest and no announcements at the start of the meeting.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>

Street naming task team update

An update was provided on the Street Naming Task Team. The team reported that several name submissions had been received, though fewer than hoped. Members are reviewing submissions and working on standards to assess whether names meet community significance criteria.

It was noted that the existing policy still allows for names of significant individuals, but there is active discussion about avoiding personal names due to long term reconciliation concerns. A youth hackathon focused on Indigenous and natural heritage names was also announced as a way to generate more ideas.

Public delegations and resident concerns

Several residents spoke about traffic safety concerns in different areas of the County.

Residents raised repeated concerns about speeding, poor visibility, dangerous curves, and increased traffic volumes linked to growth, tourism, and navigation apps directing drivers onto rural roads.

Key locations raised by the public included County Road 32 and Shannon Road, Old Milford Road near Kingsley Road, Massasauga Road, County Road 49, and other rural and residential roads.

Residents described vehicles leaving the roadway, near misses involving children, difficulty exiting driveways, speeding well above posted limits, and lack of clear signage at intersections. Some residents also raised concerns about cyclists, school bus zones, and seasonal traffic tied to Base 31 and tourist destinations.

Committee review of public requests

The committee reviewed 13 separate public requests, covering speed reduction, signage, traffic calming, data collection, no passing zones, crosswalks, and parking removal.

Rather than ordering full studies for every request, the committee focused on deciding whether each item should be received, deferred, or sent back to staff for either a verbal report or a written staff report, depending on complexity and safety risk.

Staff and OPP representatives provided factual input on collision history, enforcement limitations, road design standards, and what tools are realistically available.

For several locations, the committee directed staff to return with preliminary verbal reports, especially where concerns involved sightlines, signage, or speed transitions.

For Old Milford Road near Kingsley Road, the committee directed staff to complete traffic data collection and a written staff report, recognizing the complexity and seasonal nature of traffic patterns.

Some requests were received only, especially where existing conditions were already under review through other studies or where the issue was expected to change due to upcoming development.

Committee governance discussion

The committee discussed a proposal to rename itself from the Traffic Advisory Committee to the Transportation Advisory Committee. Members agreed the scope of work already includes pedestrians, cyclists, trails, and active transportation.

A formal rationale was approved and will be sent to council. Members emphasized that the scope of work would not change, only the committee name.

The next meeting was scheduled for February 28, 2024. The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. after completing all agenda items.

Key Takeaways

1. Residents across the county raised serious safety concerns, especially on rural roads with increasing traffic and poor visibility.

   
   

2. The committee focused on practical next steps, choosing verbal reports, written reports, or deferrals instead of automatic full studies.

   
   

3. A broader county wide discussion on speeding and road standards is coming, with a more comprehensive framework planned for future meetings.

---

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.