Mile Hill Road

Widen the road and put in speed bumps
Painting lines is a waste of money
Paris traffic is bad now this will only make it worse
This will also inconvenience many people

RC

I do not agree with this
Please stop appealing to the bikers. I use this road everyday going to and from work.
Rest Acres is already too busy and adding more traffic will slow the people of Paris even more going to work and everyday life

JM

Strongly opposed to this solution

You cannot add speed humps cause it will slow down emergency response time. what about the extra travel down Rest Acres?
5 min longer response in not OK.

CS

Not in favour of the one-way proposal
I don't believe it is safe for bikes or people walking
Reduce the speed limit
as much as I believe in space for people walking or on bikes, Mile Hill is not the place for them with traffic

GC

Do you have data that shows traffic will slow down on a one way road?
There won't be head on car collisions but what about the cyclist or pedestrians who will be in danger?

MH

I don't see many bikers as i go up the hill
In my 20 yrs here i haven't heard of any accidents

KM

Thanks for the information on complete streets.
Thanks for hiring an external company who is neutral to this project, this way we get a fair view on the solution

The numbers of increased traffic and speeds is a problem
please don't put speed bumps they wreck cars
Thank you for braving the crowd who seem to be not to happy about it
Its good they can ask the questions, you can respond. keep up the communication

The need for emergency vehicles - 2-way? is important how will this be managed?
Has there been issues with pedestrians/cyclist in the past? or injuries?
The cyclist are they going to drive the same as cars? I wouldn't feel safe if they get to use the walking path where a pedestrian is going uphill and they are going downhill.
I see how this impacts many of the residents down the hill - they won't be happy
Benefits - could be illuminated more so we can be positive about

Tough Job
Thank you for your service

AC

Next meeting in actual evenings please for day workers, commuters please

JM

1) What is the data on pedestrian/cyclist use at present?

2) Why isn't there a cycling path on Powerline and Rest Acres?
Why wasn't that addressed when all the improvements were made?
Why can't the cycling loop go that way?

3)Traffic calming measures please
try this for two years before the more drastic measure of converting to a one way.

NC

Nothing in this plan does anything to slow traffic down
Slow the traffic down with speed cushions, speed bollard, seasonal speed bumps.
Keep slow (40 km/h) 2-way traffic
Manage the speed and the hill will be safe

ST

Safety trumps everything
I am in favour of the proposal, I would not use the road to walk or cycle in its current state.
I back onto Powerline Rd, I would love to see speed bumps along Powerline, drivers speed down Powerline coming and going to Mile Hill
I would love to hear the outcome of a "Fence/Barrier" for the homes that back onto Powerline (those residents on Masters Ln). If no changes are made to Mile Hill, as mentioned, the traffic will increase along Powerline. Surely it must be a no brainer that a barrier must be erected along Powerline (for those residents along Masters Ln)
So frustrating that this still has not been decided upon
If we get approved for automated speed enforcement put it on Powerline

PW

I live at the bottom of Mile Hill & fully agree with how dangerous it is.
After all the building in this area surely there must have been plans in place
before for new roads to cope with excess traffic or has this been the plan all along?
The noise in the summer with all the motor bikes up + down is horrendous!
This plan will make this worse - Just divert the traffic elsewhere

SC

I keep hearing this is a done deal. Use Rest Acres Rd for walking/biking
Get speed under control
Speed humps
You need lanes for more cars not less
Do it right this time

DT

There must be a better way than what has been proposed so far....Thnik about it!

UT

County should have had a member bring microphone to all speakers, very poorly managed that way.

I am strongly opposed to the changes on mile hill road.

From attending the information session it is clear this is not an appropriate solution. As learned in the information session, there is a limited amount of data supporting if there is even a significant amount of pedestrian use on this road.

There has not been enough data collection validating cyclists and walkers on this road and its daily use. Especially in the cold winter months when cyclists and walkers are present in an even more limited amount. I live at the bottom of mile hill and very rarely see people using this road for cycling and walking. Before making drastic changes and inconveniencing everyone in the neighborhood do we not want to ensure our data is in alignment? Why are we inconveniencing an entire town for a select few individuals who would like to use a road unfit for walking and cycling even with the proposed changes?

I suggest looking at an alternative path designed for cyclists and walkers through the valley. This would be an all-around safer alternative to what is currently being proposed now.

At the meeting, it was described that emergency response times would not be drastically increased and only a "2-minute detour" would occur. I encourage the individuals who created this proposal to drive on these roads with the delays currently present and validate this timing as this is incorrect data. This will only increase if the closure of mile hill is approved.

Next, as we also heard at the meeting there are currently speed bumps present on emergency routes in Paris (Grand River St). Therefore, this incorrect notion should not have been provided to the public at the meeting as it is also false. I suggest decision-makers look further into the possibility of speed bumps or speed cameras to control speed. This would solve the issue at hand.

I lastly want to pose a question to the people who will make this decision on whether this change should be implemented. Well over 100 people came to this meeting yesterday to express their deep concerns with this proposal, and close to 600 signatures have been collected as part of a petition to stop this. Not to mention the negative comments under this post, emails that have been sent, and phone calls made also expressing concerns. I hope the decision-makers are not only listening but HEARING what the public is saying. There is a better way. Let's take some time and figure out the correct solution before making a bigger mess as a "quick fix". Is the County of Brant REALLY hearing the public? If so, the decision is clear.

Removed by moderator.

After attending the information session last night it is very obvious most people are not in favour of changes to Mile Hill road.
Our main concern is the impact of extra traffic cutting through other areas so people who live down the hill can head home.
Residents heading home will take the path of least resistance to get home which is north on Rest Acres to Daugaard then onto Court Drive down to Dundas.
We live on Court Drive and have seen a huge increase in the amount and speed of traffic since the road opened up and it will be worse with the proposed changes.
It is obvious these changes will negatively effect far more people than it will benefit.
So many are hoping that common sense prevails and these changes are not implemented.

Craig Mark

My Wife & I attended the Mile Hill meeting on Wed. evening Jan. 11 and we were also somewhat disappointed with the presentation. There appears to be a lack of data and based on assumptions with a focus on cheap and easy. In my experience, both professionally and personally, cheap and easy turns into costly and ineffective and in most cases makes the situation worst. The traffic issues and Mile Hill is only a fraction of the overall problems with traffic/pedestrian/bicycle issues throughout the town.
My Wife & I have lived on Charles St, for decades and have seen increased traffic, especially when canoers/kayakers/tubers our in town. I walk daily from the end on Hillside, up Main St Hill, Daugaart, Court, Laurel, Downtown, the Damn, SCJ trail to Firehall, across all bridges(pedestrian & Vehicle) Washington, Ball St. including all side streets and alleyways in between. But I've never walked or would even consider walking Mile Hill-in my view, it would be suicide. I walk with my 2 dogs and I always wear a high vis. vest and I've had several near misses with both vehicles and cyclists over the past couple years on roads, at intersections and on the trails by people, young and old, who were not paying attention, speeding and/or just being jerks. Having said all that, there are several streets that I walk regularly that have no sidewalks, some have been mentioned in previous comments, but the ones that are the most troubling are Catherine and Creedon streets at the Optimist park, which is used by many families with young children, baby carriages, teenagers, dog walkers etc. and can only be accessed by walking on the road, if money is going the be spent on improving safety and accessibility to public spaces that are used regularly, I suggest sidewalks on roads where people actually walk.
In addition, speeding is an issue everywhere I walk, but when it comes to Washington St, I suggest installing stop signs at all intersections from bottom of Mile Hill to the stop lights, this would also help with vehicles trying to pull out from Anne, Monk, Queen and Main streets and would be a speed deterrent. Furthermore, there were some assumptions made in the proposal, in that, down bound traffic would head down Rest Acres to King Edward, this is short sighted as both Duagaart and Court are now tied into Rest Acres and I have used both to access Dundas St. West to Chapel to Main to get to my home. This will become that next problem areas as eluded to at the meeting, once again, there are no sidewalks on Main, Chapel, or the east end of Dundas, all of which are used by pedestrians.
Furthermore, with regards to traffic down Mile Hill, there appears to be two types or groups of traffic; local(people who live in the south end) and transient(people driving either downtown or to head east across the river). Depending on the intended destination of these vehicles, there are potential issues that would be created by diverting down bound traffic either at the Dumfries St, or Washington St. stop lights which need to be considered as neither of those intersections are optimal for increased traffic, i.e., no dedicated Left/Right turn lanes at stop lights, poor traffic flow at Dumfries/Grand River St. South intersections.
In conclusion, I oppose the changes to Mill Hill and would strongly suggest that our tax dollars be spent on installing sidewalks on the many streets throughout this town that are used regularly by children, families, dog walkers, mobility scooters, etc. and would improve the safety and well being of many more residents than the proposed changes to Mile Hill could ever bring.
That My 2 Cents.
Take Care & Stay Safe

I have lived at 188 Mile Hill Road for over 4 years. I attended the community meeting on January 11th and I am very disappointed with the presentation and the money spent on consultants.

Here are my issues:
1. Southbound one way is surmised to cut traffic down because the second north bound lane is eliminated. I am not sure that is a proven fact. Are there statistics or facts to support this premise. The one way will slow the traffic down. I am sure when people know ongoing traffic is eliminated the same speeds will be maintained. As acknowledged by Brant County and the Mayor and Council members-as Mile Hill Road exists now - there is no will to make police enforce the speed limit and there is no will to make other slowing speed alternatives work. Therefore, people will do what they want without impunity. That is a direct contradiction to your safe roads program. People need a deterrent and a one way street is your answer?

2. Encouraging pedestrians and cyclists to officially share Mile Hill Road with designated lanes may fulfill the goal that all residents in Paris have access and the right to use public roads. However, everyone seemed to agree that Mile Hill is a narrow, winding road with blind turns and that speeding cars are creating a dangerous situation. A one way street, without speed enforcement and mixing pedestrians and cyclists is not really a good mix or increases safety. Supposedly less cars (not proven fact) still speeding on a one way with pedestrian/cyclist traffic is creating a dangerous situation. My grave concern is that this will create unnecessary contact with cars and people on a narrow and winding uphill road and cause an eventual fatality. As a witness to the type of vehicles that travel on this road - not only cars and pick up trucks use the Road, but regularly by tractor trailers (53’), work trucks with long trailers (all kinds of trades), couriers and Brant County vehicles of all sizes. The OPP are regular users of the road - in both directions. These vehicles are not going to stop using the road because it’s a one way street.

3. On a personal note, I am concerned about maintaining our home. We need propane delivered to our home and they can only deliver by heading down Mile Hill Road northbound so they can back into my driveway and be able to get back on the road safely. This will be compromised and I would like this addressed.

4. Instead of choosing the most economical option - painting some lanes on the road- choose the most logistically safe situation for all residents. Create an elevated walking path in the slope of the hill. Were those expensive consultants allowed to explore every alternative or only the cheapest? Spend the money and do it properly if safety and access to all residents is truly the model. Paris needs Mile Hill available as a two way street-but keep people safe by spending a little more money and creating a more appealing trail. Maybe in hindsight the green space allocated at the top of the hill (adjacent to the upper sub division) should have been larger to accommodate this urgent need identified at council in 2003? If mistakes have been made in the past councils, to the present council please find the will to fix it and do it the right way now.

5. I am a witness to the existing pedestrian and cyclist usage on Mile Hill Road. There are maybe 10 people I see walking the Hill on a regular basis. The cyclists are usually serious riders and pose dangers for others as well (pedestrians)..They would be safer using the lane as a car does - which is what most do already. The point I am making is that the Hill is a challenging trek and not a path attractive to most people to either walk or ride. Sometimes, accommodating the minority by claiming that it is more safe now because of a painted lane on a road - may in reality still be an unsafe situation. There needs to be a true assessment whether this is a safe alternative for the minority of people interested in walking the Hill - while at the same time displacing the majority of people and the Paris community at large by denying a viable alternate route to downtown and the Highway. Paris is a growing community and maybe all roads in Paris should not be designated for multi-use especially due to the unique and limiting design of Mile Hill Road. If Mile Hill Road is truly the road to redevelop then no one should be inconvenienced. Spend the money and make a separate and truly safe walking path for people and casual cyclists. I would like to see the cost of that proposal. The hardcore cyclists should use the car lanes because they travel just as fast as cars do on this road. Sometimes the right decision is the hardest to execute.

6. As a Brant County resident, I expect that the people who chose to run for Public Office and work for County Services should explore all options, whether it is the easiest to implement or a long term project to make the County better for everyone and not creating inconvenience to anyone. More solutions can be explored and we expect more than 17 slides and it can’t be done and it’s not my fault attitude. You are affecting our lives with your decisions and it seems to me you all need to take this more seriously. Do not continue with this trial until you can present costed out alternatives/choices to the community. One choice presented to the community is not acceptable.
Julie Malecki