Part 2: Residents Press Traffic Advisory Committee on Safety as Policy, Process, and Lived Reality Collide - 06/25/2025

This was a long and densely packed Traffic Advisory Committee meeting, driven almost entirely by public safety concerns raised directly by residents. From start to finish, the discussion centered on traffic speed, pedestrian safety, and the broader question of neighbourhood livability.

The meeting opened with minor technical issues, but quorum was confirmed and both the agenda and previous minutes were adopted without issue. There were no formal deputations, but four registered public commenters each tied to specific agenda items, quickly set the tone. What followed was less about abstract policy and more about lived experience.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Residents Speak: Safety as a Daily Reality

The first speaker, Christine Durant of the Macaulay Village Neighbourhood Group, addressed ongoing concerns on London Avenue in Picton. She described a residential street with a high concentration of children and seniors, where speeding vehicles and failure to stop at signs have created repeated close calls. Her message was direct: the street feels unsafe, particularly for children and those with mobility challenges. Residents are asking for traffic calming, with speed bumps and improved lighting identified as immediate priorities.

Next, Gordie McDonnell, who lives along Loyalist Parkway near County Road 27, shared a series of alarming incidents. Multiple vehicles have left the roadway and entered his property, including near misses involving a propane tank and parked vehicles. While one incident occurred during winter conditions, others happened in clear weather. His concern was not property damage, but the safety of his family especially children and grandchildren. Photos submitted in advance reinforced the seriousness of the issue.

The third speaker, Kate Lavender, delivered one of the most urgent and emotionally charged comments of the evening. Living on Main Street in Picton near Shire Hall, she described a significant gap in pedestrian infrastructure: there is no safe crossing between Paul Street and Johnson Street. As a result, families, seniors, and visitors are forced to cross fast-moving traffic without protection. She recounted personal experiences with aggressive drivers and emphasized that the nearest crosswalks are nearly a kilometre away. Her request was clear, install a crosswalk or four-way stop now, before someone is seriously injured.

Her husband also spoke briefly, noting that previous construction slowdowns had actually improved both traffic flow and safety, and that similar measures such as four-way stops, have worked effectively elsewhere in Picton.

The final speaker, Adelaide Utman of Westwind Crescent in Wellington, described a neighbourhood undergoing rapid change. What was once a quiet subdivision now has dozens of young children, yet traffic behavior has not adjusted. Speeding often by residents themselves has become routine, leaving families feeling unsafe even under supervision. She and her neighbours are advocating for seasonal speed bumps, arguing that signage alone has proven ineffective.

Committee Response: Empathy Meets Constraint

Following public comments, the committee formally received the submissions and moved into agenda items that closely mirrored what residents had raised.

Across all discussions - London Avenue, Loyalist Parkway, Main Street, and Westwind Crescent - a clear pattern emerged. Residents are asking for immediate, visible safety measures: speed humps, crosswalks, stop signs. Committee members and staff, however, are bound by warrants, technical criteria, budget limitations, and provincial standards that often lag behind lived reality.

This tension defined the meeting.

Keeping Momentum: Verbal Reports as a Tool

For London Avenue, the committee explored traffic calming options, including temporary speed humps. Staff explained that installations depend on criteria such as speed, volume, and roadway design, but also noted that implementation can be relatively quick once approved. Rather than deferring the issue until the new Traffic Calming Policy is fully in place, the committee chose to request a verbal staff report at a future meeting.

This decision is significant, it reflects an effort to keep momentum and avoid having the request lost in longer policy or budget cycles.

A similar approach was taken for Loyalist Parkway, where staff indicated that guardrails are unlikely to meet warrant thresholds. However, additional signage, reflective measures, and other mitigations could be explored. Again, the committee requested a verbal report, signaling a willingness to look beyond standard responses.

Main Street: A Structural Challenge

The discussion around Main Street in Picton revealed a deeper, systemic issue. Staff confirmed that pedestrian considerations were part of the recent reconstruction, but also noted constraints related to Town Hill, merge lanes, and warrant requirements.

Committee members openly acknowledged the “chicken and egg” problem: if a crossing feels unsafe, pedestrians avoid it. But without sufficient pedestrian volume, data does not justify improvements. The result is a feedback loop where unsafe conditions persist because they are underused.

While no immediate solution was identified, the recognition of this gap marked an important moment. It highlighted the limitations of relying solely on historical data to guide future safety decisions.

Westwind Crescent: Limits of Intervention

For Westwind Crescent, the discussion focused on whether infrastructure solutions are appropriate in what is essentially a closed residential system. Concerns were raised about unintended consequences of speed bumps and the limitations of signage, particularly given provincial restrictions on “children at play” signs.

In this case, the committee chose to receive the request without further action at this time, an outcome that reflects the limits of current tools, even in the face of clear community concern.

Policy Progress and Broader Shifts

Beyond individual cases, the meeting included several broader developments.

The committee endorsed the new Traffic Calming Policy, a significant step toward consistency. Historically, requests have been handled on a case-by-case basis, often leading to frustration and perceptions of inequity. While the policy does not guarantee outcomes, it provides a clearer framework for how requests will be evaluated and prioritized moving forward.

There was also a move toward collaboration on an Active Transportation Strategy, recognizing that many of the issues raised go beyond traffic flow. They are about walkability, child safety, aging in place, and the ability to move through communities without fear. Kelly McGillivray and Councillor Sam Grosso were appointed as liaisons to work with the Environmental Advisory Committee on this initiative.

Additional items included a request for warning signage on Downs Avenue, verbal updates on County Road 7 and South Big Island Road, and a supported bylaw amendment for a loading zone on Elizabeth Street in Picton intended to prevent delivery trucks from damaging a historic overhang and obstructing traffic.

What This Means for Residents

For residents, the outcome is mixed but meaningful. No one received an immediate speed bump or crosswalk that night. But their concerns were heard, documented, and, in several cases, advanced rather than dismissed. The committee demonstrated empathy, caution, and a willingness to push where possible, even within tight constraints.

This meeting showed the Traffic Advisory Committee functioning as intended but also exposed its limits. It made one thing clear: traffic safety in the County is no longer just an engineering issue. It is a quality-of-life issue. Residents are not asking for studies, they are asking for safety.

Children crossing streets. Seniors hesitant to walk. Vehicles leaving roadways. Aggressive driving in residential areas. These are not hypothetical risks; they are daily realities. The committee’s role, increasingly, is to navigate the gap between those realities and the systems designed to address them. Until those systems evolve, progress will continue to be incremental.

But the tone of this meeting suggests something is shifting. Residents are speaking up more forcefully, and the committee is responding with greater urgency. The expectation is changing. People are no longer willing to wait quietly for something bad to happen before action is taken.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:45:053. 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.