Lost on Longwood?

Councillor Brian McHattie, 

City of Hamilton

RE: Longwood Road Environmental Project Report Notice of Project Completion

Dear Councillor McHattie,

I am writing on behalf of Transportation for Liveable Communities (TLC) to voice our extreme dissatisfaction with the notice of completion for the Longwood Road environmental project report.

The City of Hamilton has a unique opportunity to seize on McMaster University’s expansion into Longwood Road and the potential to attract numerous young professionals who can further invigorate the Kirkendall neighborhood. Such young professional have made it loud and clear that they seek to live and work in lively communities where they can walk and bike.

Despite the assertion in the city report, there are no solid MTO plans in the near future that involve widening highway 403, according to the MTO’s “Southern Highways Program 2012 to 2016.” Planning for such a project would not even begin until after 2016. 

Disappointedly, the city’s plan for Longwood Road uses future highway widening as reason to create a people-hostile 5-lane highway on Longwood, with inappropriate accommodation of pedestrian and cyclists. Moreover, the plan effectively is to do nothing in the foreseeable future despite latent demand which requires immediate accommodation of safe pedestrian and cyclist routes.  

  

Our vision for Longwood Road is simple, sensible and feasible: wide sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the road, from its start at Princess Point in the north to its terminus at similar people-friendly facilities on Aberdeen Ave. Only such a plan would accommodate the people who wish to live and work in Kirkendall and the McMaster Innovation Park. In our vision, we could readily travel by foot and bike between the Innovation Park and neighborhood destinations at all directions, including Westdale and McMaster University.

We find it absurd that, even though the motivation for the Longwood Road environmental project was “a need for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access and improved safety along the existing corridor” (quotation taken from the project Problem and Opportunity Statement), it has resulted in a backward conclusion reflecting mid-Twentieth Century car-centric thinking that fails to adequately address the Problem and Opportunity statement.

Giving that the notice of completion makes it clear that we have been blocked from appealing with a part II order, TLC intends to take other available democratic actions to advance the local cause of sustainable transportation. Such actions will include wide broadcasting of the fact that plans for the major transportation corridor to the McMaster Innovation Park are anything but innovative. We hope to find allies in the McMaster community including McMaster Innovation Park so that the best interests of this new facility are served by a multi-modal transportation network.

Sincerely yours,

Randy Kay

CC 

Dr. Patrick Deane, President, McMaster University

Mr. Zach Douglas, President and CEO, McMaster Innovation Park

TLC is a citizen-powered advocacy group formed in 2000 that seeks to improve conditions and infrastructure that supports and actively encourages healthy and sustainable transportation modes, including walking, transit, cycling and car pooling.

FRID REPLY

The City of Hamilton response to TLC concerns about transportation issues associated with the McMaster Innovation Park development.

RE: City of Hamilton
Frid Street, Schedule C
Class Environmental Assessment

Dear Mr. Dukas:

On behalf of the City of Hamilton, we would like to thank you for providing comments to PIC #2 for the above-noted study.

During and following PIC #2, the following comments were noted from the public:

• Improve accessibility for pedestrians;
• Consider “Safety First”;
• Provide for designated bicycle lanes;
• Provide landscape/urban design boulevards;
• “Do it right the first time”; and,
• Retain and provide accessibility for Historic Power Plant.

In response to these comments, the City of Hamilton indicated that the preferred design alignment and cross-section for the Frid Street extension be modified to take into consideration comments provided by the public during the Public Consultation process.

For the existing section of Frid Street between Main Street and Chatham Street, the 23m right-of-way (ROW) identified in the Kirkendall Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan (TMP) remains as this is an existing developed area.

For the new section of Frid Street between Chatham Street and Longwood Road, the City and landowners have agreed that 26m right-of-way be provided to incorporate designated bike lanes, sidewalks on both sides and wider boulevards as requested by the public.

In the Schedule C Environmental Study Report (ESR), the following typical cross-section for the existing section of Frid Street between Main Street and Chatham Street (23m ROW) is as follows:

• 2 wide travel lanes at 4.25m per lane to accommodate a signed bike route;
• 3.5m centre-turn lane providing safe vehicle access/egress to businesses;
• 3.0m boulevard, both sides, allowing snow storage and separation between pedestrian and vehicles;
• 1.5m sidewalks, both sides; and,
• 1.0m available for urban/design landscaping treatment to be determined during detailed design.

For safety purposes, the preferred alignment does not provide for on-street parking.

Pedestrian access/crossing will be provided at intersections.

The following typical cross-section for the new section of Frid Street between Chatham Street and Longwood Road (26m ROW) is as follows:

• 2 travel lanes at 3.5m per lane;
• 3.4m centre-turn lane;
• 1.8m designated bicycle lanes on both sides;
• 1.5m sidewalks on both sides;
• Minimum 3.0m boulevards on both sides; and,
• Curbs and property buffers.

It is noted that the centre-turn lane is provided for safe access/egress to proposed development and in the case of the section between Longwood Road and the McMaster Innovation Park (MIP) access road; back to back left turn storage is provided.

No on-street parking is provided along this section of the Frid Street extension unless it can be aesthetically provided within urban design techniques approved by City of Hamilton staff.

Similar to the northern portion of Frid Street, pedestrian access will be provided at all intersections.

In order to provide protection and access to the Historic Power House, the edge of the road right-of-way is located 4m south of the Historic Power House south wall. This roadway grade at this location will require a retaining wall to be constructed at the edge of the road right-of-way. The retaining wall height provides the opportunity for a pedestrian access from Frid Street to the second storey of the Power House connection to a proposed tourist catwalk system within the Power House.

From the Kirkendall Neighbourhood TMP, this project was identified as the “Frid Street Extension”, in which this project name has been carried forth.

For further detail on the Project Team’s review of the comments provided by you are provided on attached Table 1.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact myself at 905-546-2424 Ext. 2732 or lskrypni@hamilton.ca or Jack Thompson, MRC at 905-823-8500 or jthompson@mrc.ca

Yours truly, Lorissa Skrypniak, MCIP, RPP
Public Works Senior Project Manager

cc. Randy Kay, TLC Jack Thompson, Project Manager

FRID FLIP

May 5, 2008

Mayor Eisenberger and Councilors
City of Hamilton


Dear Mayor and councilors,


I am writing on behalf of “Transportation for Liveable Communities” (TLC), a working group of the Ontario Public Research Interest Group (OPIRG) at McMaster University.

TLC members are alarmed that the construction plans for the McMaster Innovation Park at the Kirkendall neighbourhood include a road that shows little attention to pedestrian and cycling, and instead serves the car to the detriment of active transportation.

We are referring to plans presented at Public Information Centre (PIC) # 2 for Frid St extension on April 1, 2008 and on the internet at the “Frid Street Extension Municipal Class EA”. What we saw at the PIC were plans in striking contrast to formerly articulated plans for “Greenspace, pedestrian and cycling links connecting the site to larger open space networks” as indicated in the Kirkendall neighbourhood traffic management study.

Where, indeed, is the Kirkendall neighbourhood traffic management study emphasis on “Integrated urban transportation systems which promote non-auto travel modes, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation”?

TLC requests that the Mayor and councilors instruct city staff to dramatically re-design the plans so that principles established in earlier public consultations are respected. We further request that the modified plans be subjected to additional public consultation.

Details like continuous sidewalks on both sides of the road, 2m-wide marked bicycle lanes on both sides of the road, and narrow (3.5m) road lanes for cars, median trees, and traffic calming pedestrian enhancements such as curb bulb outs at pedestrian crossings should be part of the design. We also question the need for the middle turn lane for automobiles for the entire length of the planned roadway.

The design should embrace opportunities to introduce traffic circles at the section between Chatham and Longwood to help reduce automobile speed and enhance the community feeling of the McMaster Innovation Park.

The intersection of Frid and Chatham should have 90 degree turning radii and curb extensions. The current drawings suggest wide turning lanes that promote speeding by turning vehicles. An alternative may be a traffic circle.

Finally, we request that, according with the spirit of the Kirkendall neighbourhood traffic management study, the name of the project for the connecting road between Chatham St and Longwood Rd will be Chatham St rather than Frid St. This would emphasize the connection of the McMaster Innovation Park to the residential neighborhoods on its east side.

I should note that TLC members and local residents are upset about the current plans and will consider further public and other actions if our reasonable requests are not met.

TLC members look forward to hearing from you about design changes.

MIP STRIP

April 13, 2008

Ms. Larissa Skrypniak
City of Hamilton

Dear Ms Skrypniak,

RE: TLC Comments on Frid St extension PIC #2

I am writing on behalf of “Transportation for Liveable Communities” (TLC), a working group of McMaster’s chapter of OPIRG (Ontario Public Research Interest Group).

TLC members have thoroughly examined the information provided at the PIC # 2 for Frid St extension and found the proposed design unacceptable because it is in stark contrast to the explicit transportation guiding principles for the Kirkendall neighbourhood traffic management study, which clearly highlight “Integrated urban transportation systems which promote non-auto travel modes, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation”.

The current plan as presented in the PIC is for a strip-mall like development that is anything but “Greenspace, pedestrian and cycling links connecting the site to larger open space networks” as indicated in the Kirkendall neighbourhood traffic management study.

TLC requests a dramatic re-design of the plans so they would follow the principles established in earlier public consultations. We further request that the modified plans will be subjected to public consultation in an additional PIC.

Specifically, we strongly object to the automobile-obsessed plans and request the following throughout all 3 sections of the road:

• A maximum of 2 automobile lanes, each 3.5 m wide.
• No middle turning lane for automobiles.
• Sidewalks at least 3 m wide on BOTH sides of the street at all sections.
• Marked bike lanes, at least 2 m wide on both sides of the road.
• Parking lanes only where it is safe.
• Curb extensions at any pedestrian crossings.
• A median landscaped with trees.
• A couple traffic circles at the section between Chatham and Longwood would help reduce automobile speed and enhance the community feeling of the McMaster Innovation Park.
• The intersection of Frid and Chatham should have 90 degree turning radii and curb extensions. The current drawings suggest wide turning lanes that promote speeding by turning vehicles. An alternative may be a traffic circle.

Finally, we request that, according with the spirit of the Kirkendall neighbourhood traffic management study, the name of the project for the connecting road between Chatham St and Longwood Rd will be Chatham St rather than Frid St. This would emphasize the connection of the McMaster Innovation Park to the residential neighborhoods on its east side.

I should note that TLC members and local residents are upset about the current plans and consider further public and other actions if our reasonable requests are not met.

TLC members look forward to hearing from you about design changes.


Sincerely yours,

Reuven Dukas, For TLC.

boxed in?

City fights big-box bid in Mac's Innovation Park TheSpec.com - Local - City fights big-box bid in Mac's Innovation Park

Dana Brown, The Hamilton Spectator (Dec 28, 2007)

The city is gearing up to protect its zoning of the area around the McMaster Innovation Park to stop a proposed big-box development.

Trinity Development Group Inc. has a conditional offer on about 15 hectares (37 acres) of land near the park, 10 hectares of which can be developed.

Trinity has a proposed automotive tenant for part of the land, but zoning would have to be changed before the store could go ahead.

The lands all fall within the West Hamilton Innovation District, which was specifically zoned to support the innovation park.

The district is roughly bounded by Aberdeen, the CP rail line, Main Street West and Highway 403. It encompasses the innovation park located along Longwood Road South.

"We, at this point, I think disagree 100 per cent with their concept," said Ward 1 Councillor Brian McHattie.

Trinity has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and a full hearing on the issue is tentatively set for February.

McHattie said the work the city has done in the district -- putting an interim control bylaw in place for two years to study the area and essentially freeze land use changes -- is tied into the province's Places to Grow Act.

The act stipulates that a certain percentage of residential development must be achieved through intensification and a certain number of jobs must be produced per hectare.

When complete, it's estimated the district could provide 1,500 well-paying jobs.

Al Fletcher, senior project manager with the city, said the concept plan Trinity presented to the city calls for about 325,000 square feet in retail space, about 101,000 square feet in office space and about 27,000 square feet of restaurant space.

As for the major automotive tenant?

"I've heard so many different rumours, I'm not sure what it is," Fletcher said. "When we asked them directly, there wasn't an answer."

Trinity is also the company responsible for developing an area around Clappison's Corners.

A call to Trinity Development Group Inc. for comment was not returned but the company lists Canadian Tire and PartSource as tenants at other developments.

McHattie said he thinks it's important to support the "BIA-style of retail" and that big-box stores tend to have a negative impact on neighbourhood mom-and-pop shops.

"The other thing that comes to mind is the traffic that would be generated by such a development," he said. "And we certainly don't have a lot of traffic capacity."

The McMaster Innovation Park was meant to be a vehicle to take research from the university and commercialize it, McHattie said.

The park recently announced the formation of an advisory board to help guide the relocation of CANMET-Materials Technology, the park's anchor tenant, from Ottawa to Hamilton.

The laboratory will be home to 100 top federal scientists.

A public meeting has been scheduled Jan. 10 to provide an update on the OMB appeal, with city staff present to answer questions. The meeting is set for 7 p.m. at St. Joseph's Church, 260 Herkimer St., in the basement of the parish hall. An OMB pre-hearing is set for Jan. 15.

dbrown@thespec.com

905-526-4629