Part 1: Cycling Safety, Rural Road Concerns, and Picton Parking Debate – 02/25/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 25
- 5 min read
The County’s Traffic Advisory Committee met virtually on Wednesday, February 25, 2026, to work through a packed set of public requests and staff updates tied to road safety, signage, and parking. The meeting opened with Councillor Kate MacNaughton, Council and Committee Coordinator, guiding the committee through the early procedural steps and the annual leadership selection.
MacNaughton ran the election portion and then passed the chair’s role to the newly elected Kelly McGillivray, Chair, after nominations closed with no competition. The committee also appointed Shadi Hagag, Vice-Chair, again with no other nominations put forward. With leadership settled, McGillivray moved the meeting along quickly, including adopting the previous meeting minutes and confirming there were no pecuniary interest disclosures.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
During announcements, MacNaughton shared that the County’s transit strategy task team had wrapped up its work, with a presentation already delivered to Council by Transit Coordinator Vincent Detournet and the project consultants. The point was simple: that piece of work had crossed the finish line, and the committee could expect it to shift out of task-team mode and into Council’s broader implementation space.
Cycling safety takes the spotlight
The meeting’s deputation came from Rob Legge, speaking on behalf of PsychoPEC, a cycling advocacy group. Legge framed cycling safety as more than a recreational issue. He described it as a combined road safety, infrastructure, and economic development concern, especially in a region that attracts cycling visitors and also has residents who would ride more if they felt safer.
Legge’s requests were practical and specific. He pointed to Share the Road signage as a relatively low-cost starting point, then emphasized the importance of designing safety in during major rebuilds, naming Highway 49 as a major opportunity. He also criticized partial shoulder resurfacing, describing how ridges and loose material can create real crash risk for cyclists. McGillivray asked directly what action he wanted from the committee, and Legge came back to signage as the most immediate ask, especially on popular routes and narrower county roads.
Committee discussion stayed grounded in the County’s reality of limited budgets and a huge road network, but members also showed interest in focusing on the most dangerous corridors rather than trying to solve everything at once. McGillivray also noted that an active transportation committee was already in the works, and suggested Legge could be contacted to participate.
Three public comments, three very different problems
The audience comments section brought three local concerns into the room.
First, Justin Williams returned to the committee about the intersection of County Road 32 and Shannon Road, describing repeated incidents of vehicles leaving the roadway and damaging property. He described recent crashes, including one where a driver fled and another where a vehicle got stuck in snow after striking a building. He suggested changes like raising or enlarging signage, and raised guardrails as a last line of defense. Committee questions focused on whether a stop sign would actually help, given the pattern of “straight-through” crashes, and staff noted guardrails would not meet requirements for that location.
Next, Tim Langford spoke about County Road 14 near his home, describing multiple incidents where vehicles failed to hold a curve and ended up in yards, with speeding described as a major factor. He flagged pedestrian safety as his biggest worry, especially in summer when people are outside more.
Finally, Councillor Nieman provided background on parking on Picton Main Street near the hospital, explaining how restrictions had existed historically, signs were removed during construction, and the County later discovered the restrictions were never properly written into the by-law.
The committee works through requests
Once the agenda items began, the committee received a series of public requests and staff reports, often using the meeting to decide what needed follow-up versus what could be left as-is.
On Salem Road in Ameliasburgh, members discussed concerns tied to a section converted to gravel, including speeding and dust, plus a request to drop the speed limit to 40 km/h. The discussion leaned toward waiting, since staff indicated surface treatment was scheduled for 2026 and temporary signage was unlikely to make a meaningful difference.
On County Road 14, three related requests in the same stretch were handled together. The committee formally received each request and then recommended that Council direct staff to provide a verbal report covering the corridor, with attention to geometry, signage, and sightlines.
Back at County Road 32 and Shannon Road, the committee received the updated request and also recommended a verbal report to see whether any additional steps could realistically improve safety, acknowledging that code-compliant signage was already in place but incidents were continuing.
Other items moved faster. A request about illumination at County Road 15 and County Road 35 was received, with staff noting existing signage was reflective and the area already had lighting nearby. A wayfinding-style concern at County Road 16 and County Road 17 led to staff agreeing to check the signage and report back through the Clerk’s office.
Picton Main Street parking: report received, restriction not supported
The most detailed debate came with Report CLS-03-2026 about amending the parking by-law to add a daytime restriction on Picton Main Street between Division and Spencer. Staff explained signs had existed previously but were not enforceable because the restriction was never actually in the by-law. There was discussion about safety when exiting driveways, plus practical concerns about losing about 30 parking spaces, especially for homes without driveways and for home care visits.
In the end, the committee voted to receive the report, but did not support the clauses that would bring back the 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. restriction, meaning the status quo stayed in place.
Staff verbal reports wrapped up several older requests. At County Road 1 and County Road 2, staff said stop signs and warnings already met requirements and speed data did not raise concern. On Weese Road, vegetation had been cleared and visibility was no longer an issue. At Bethesda Road and Fry Road, signage and sightlines were described as adequate, and traffic volumes were low enough that an all-way stop would not meet criteria.
The committee also received the 2026 meeting schedule, noting upcoming meetings on April 29 and June 24, with the possibility of a special meeting later in summer if needed before the election period.
Key Takeaways
Cycling safety is staying on the table, with discussion pointing toward practical steps like Share the Road signage and using rebuild projects to add safer shoulders.
Several hotspots are getting a second look, including County Road 14 and County Road 32 at Shannon Road, where the committee asked staff to return with verbal reports and possible next steps.
The committee chose to leave parking rules unchanged on Picton Main Street near the hospital, receiving the staff report but not supporting a return to daytime parking restrictions.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:17:58. 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.
Comments