At the Rothesay all-Candidates meeting, several candidates argued that\u00a0something had to be done about the traffic mess created by the Rothesay Commons development. One candidate, who, coincidentally, voted for the project at Council last February, went so far as to point out that a child running out between parked cars on the Common side of Gondola Point Road was an accident waiting to happen. If that candidate was right, then the delay in dealing with the problem is irresponsible if not negligent.<\/p>\n
During the tortured debate around the Common project, a lot was said about the parking issue and potential for traffic congestion. At the time, project cheerleaders, including councillors, dismissed\u00a0the warnings and pushed on with the development.<\/p>\n
The\u00a0Council\u00a0ignored the fact that the site was not compliant with the Rothesay zoning bylaw. If\u00a0the bylaw had been respected, then a building permit would not have been issued without an acceptable arrangement for off-street parking<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In getting to an approval in 2016, the town short-circuited its own planning process and rules. The issuance of the development permit was appealed as soon as\u00a0permits were issued in the spring of\u00a02016. That was\u00a0before construction was started. <\/strong><\/p>\n The\u00a0matter is still awaiting\u00a0a decision by the New Brunswick Appeals Board. If the Appeals Board decides the development did not follow the law, then the parking issue will be a well demonstrated problem that\u00a0the Planning Advisory Committee will have to deal with.<\/p>\n Ironically, part of the argument that was made at the appeals hearing, was that this was\u00a0a planning nightmare. That is being reinforced daily as\u00a0the traffic mess that was predicted\u00a0continues to grow.<\/p>\n With the clear knowledge that they have created a higher risk situation, it is quite unbelievable that the Town remains so derelict in it’s duty to correct the situation beyond the\u00a0feeble\u00a0attempt to slow traffic to a crawl on Gondola Point Road.<\/p>\n So what’s to be done?<\/strong><\/p>\n First, the low cost measures:<\/p>\n Town staff should enforce the existing traffic bylaw! That bylaw already restricts parking on the Common side of Gondola Point Road. For the cost of a few no-parking signs, the danger of the potential accident described at the all-candidates’ meeting\u00a0would be significantly reduced. In getting the parked cars off Gondola Point Road, Council will also be giving a boost to bike\u00a0safety as\u00a0the normal practise in other municipalities of no parking in bike lanes isn’t being enforced for the bicycle lanes around the\u00a0Rothesay Common.<\/p>\n The narrowed portion of Church Avenue should also be made no-parking. Thought should also be given to making both sides of Gondola Point Road no parking during higher traffic\u00a0periods, e.g. 08:00 – 10:00 am and from 4:30 – 5:30 pm weekdays. Council should also look at\u00a0creating residents’ parking zones as is done in other municipalities where there is a shortage of on street parking. The town bears some responsibility to those residents who are now having to deal with this collateral damage.<\/p>\n The more expensive solutions:<\/p>\n Since last spring when the Almon Lane and Peters Lane upgrades first surfaced, it was rumoured that the Town was looking at making Church Avenue one-way to accommodate diagonal parking to better serve the increased use of Rothesay Common.\u00a0To do that meant the diverted traffic from\u00a0Church Avenue would have to be funnelled over to Almon Lane.<\/p>\n Of course no one on Council wanted the multi-million dollar cost of remediating a problem created by the “Rothesay Common Upgrade” project, to be\u00a0added to the cost of that project, so all connection between the two were\u00a0flatly denied.<\/p>\n We’ll have to see who was being transparent, when all is said and done. One thing is clear. The Almon Lane\/Peters Lane alterations will fit in nicely if the Town spontaneously arrives at the Church Ave. solution…<\/p>\n For those keeping tabs on what the Commons development will ultimately cost, this particular parking solution will be\u00a0more that the $2.5 million already spent on the Common “Upgrade”.<\/p>\n In any event, the additional parking created is still on-street and won’t meet the increased demand unless the town limits the size of organized events using the Common facilities.<\/p>\n I haven’t mentioned the option of parking at the Catholic Church or the parking at businesses near the Common.<\/p>\n For those who continue to volunteer the Catholic Church, they should remember\u00a0that a tragic fatality occurred in that parking lot recently.\u00a0\u00a0The congregation may\u00a0be reluctant\u00a0to accept the liability of opening their parking lot to the general public, notwithstanding that it is already well utilized for church events many times a week.<\/p>\n Short of turning the remaining Common green space into a parking lot or\u00a0curtailing the number of users who use the facilities and who drive themselves to the site, there is no cheap or easy solution to parking around\u00a0the Common. If the lack of parking limits this site to those who get to it on foot, then that\u00a0makes this a very expensive neighbourhood facility.<\/p>\n Such is the underlying\u00a0folly of this development, sited where it is. It should be a lesson to Councillors to\u00a0think again before they pursue pet projects and ignore words of caution from those around them.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n