Part 2: Committee Reviews Bridge Street, Parking, and Rural Road Concerns — 06/24/2026

While the first part of the meeting focused on the issues themselves, the discussion also revealed where committee members and councillors stood on several important transportation concerns. Nearly every item concluded with unanimous support to either receive reports or move recommendations forward, but the conversations leading up to those votes highlighted different perspectives on enforcement, infrastructure, and future planning.

Bridge Street, Picton: Strong Support for Further Action

The most active discussion of the evening came from the request for traffic calming on Bridge Street in Picton, where multiple residents shared concerns about speeding, pedestrian safety, truck traffic, and growing development.

After hearing the public comments, committee members discussed what could realistically be done. Kevin Morris questioned whether the road fell under municipal or provincial jurisdiction before staff confirmed that the 50 km/h section is under County control. Morris also suggested that enforcement may ultimately be more effective than simply lowering the posted speed limit, arguing that drivers often ignore speed reductions if they are not enforced.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Shadi supported looking beyond enforcement alone. He suggested investigating gateway treatments at the entrance to Picton, including highly visible pavement markings and electronic speed feedback signs to better signal to drivers that they are entering an urban area where slower speeds are expected. Committee members generally agreed that visual reminders could complement enforcement efforts.

The committee chair also added personal observations as a resident of the area, explaining that pedestrians often have to cross Bridge Street in locations without designated crossings, especially during winter when one sidewalk is not cleared. The discussion highlighted concerns about school children, active transportation, and increasing numbers of people walking through the neighbourhood.

Councillor Sam Grosso questioned why the issue has remained unresolved for many years, suggesting it may be time to treat Bridge Street separately from the larger Town Hill discussions. In response, staff proposed carrying out an initial investigation before determining whether the location qualifies under the County's traffic calming policy.

Councillor Janice Maynard then proposed directing staff to prepare a written report instead of simply providing a verbal update, noting that the issue involves several interconnected concerns and deserved a more detailed review. Councillor Grosso seconded the motion, and the committee voted unanimously in favour.

King Street, Picton: Improving Access for Seniors

The committee showed unanimous support for improving parking access outside Community Care for Seniors on King Street.

Earlier in the meeting, Councillor Bill St. Jean spoke in favour of the proposal, saying it would help seniors reach essential services in an area where parking is already limited. Councillor Kate MacNaughton also expressed support and suggested that if opportunities arise in the future, the nearby right-turn lane could potentially be reviewed to create additional parking without affecting traffic flow.

When the formal report came before the committee later in the meeting, members raised no objections. They voted unanimously to recommend that Council amend the parking bylaw and bring the bylaw amendment forward at the next feasible Council meeting.

Wellington and Sophiasburgh: Requests Received, More Review Needed

The request concerning West Street in Wellington generated a shorter discussion. Shadi suggested that changing the area to a loading zone instead of a parking restriction could offer a practical solution for musicians and visitors using the nearby venue.

However, Councillor Kate MacNaughton explained that permanent parking changes require amendments to the County's parking bylaw and should be supported by a staff report that also considers neighbouring properties. With no motion to request additional work, the committee voted only to receive the request.

On Foster Road in Sophiasburgh, committee members learned that County records already list the road as having a 60 km/h speed limit, although signage appears inconsistent depending on the direction of travel. Shadi asked whether warning signs or speed display signs could help reduce speeding, but members agreed that correcting any existing signage would likely be the first step before considering additional measures. The committee voted to receive the request while staff verify the existing signs.

Ameliasburgh, Athol and Other Rural Roads

For previous requests involving County Road 14 near Bishop's Lane and County Road 32 at Shannon Road, staff reported that existing signage already meets engineering standards.

The committee chair questioned whether extending lower speed zones or improving vegetation maintenance could improve visibility. Staff responded that speed studies and sightline reviews did not identify deficiencies requiring additional changes, although Operations confirmed that roadside brush clearing would continue as part of regular maintenance. After discussion, committee members voted to receive both reports.

The committee also unanimously supported recommendations to install new streetlights at the intersections of County Road 8 and County Road 17 in North Marysburgh and County Road 4 and County Road 30 in Hallowell before forwarding those recommendations to Council.

Transportation and Safety

Because this was the committee's final scheduled meeting of the current Council term, members also reflected on what they hope future committees will continue.

The committee chair encouraged future work on active transportation, safer walking and cycling connections, transit improvements, and making downtown Picton more pedestrian friendly. Sam Grosso suggested that a future committee examine extending the reduced speed zone along County Road 3 near the growing brewery area because of increasing summer activity.

Shadi identified the Bridge Street and Town Hill corridor as one of the County's highest transportation priorities, saying it brings together nearly every transportation challenge facing Prince Edward County.

Members ended the meeting by thanking one another for their volunteer service and encouraging residents to become involved in future advisory committees and the upcoming municipal election.

What This Means for the Locals

For residents of Bridge Street, this meeting represents an important step rather than an immediate solution. A formal staff report will now examine the corridor in more detail, giving residents another opportunity to see potential options for improving safety.

For seniors and families using Community Care for Seniors, the committee's recommendation moves improved short-term parking closer to becoming reality, pending Council approval.

Residents in Wellington, Sophiasburgh, Ameliasburgh, Athol, North Marysburgh, and Hallowell also saw their concerns discussed publicly, even where no immediate changes were recommended. In several cases, staff will continue monitoring conditions or verifying existing infrastructure.

More broadly, the meeting showed that many of the transportation issues raised by residents are expected to continue into the next Council term. While some requests resulted in recommendations moving directly to Council, others will require additional investigation before any decisions are made. The next Traffic Advisory Committee will inherit several ongoing files that could shape how roads, pedestrian spaces, and traffic safety evolve across Prince Edward County in the coming years.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:20:56. 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.