Mile Hill Road

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

This is a case where you are comparing apples to oranges when discussing and presenting the issues.
(1) Regarding the complaints and concerns expressed about speeding - we live on Ann Street and we regularly discuss the speeding in our area with our neighbours- in addition to the excessively loud vehicles. This proposed change to Mile Hill is NOT going to address the speeding issue. Unfortunately the irresponsible and disrespectful actions of a few drivers, impact the many when it comes to speeding, and to my knowledge there is no system or process available that will mitigate or eliminate a speeding issue.
(2) Bike and pedestrian access from our area to the arena, is a totally separate issue, and, as I stated last night, I do not believe anyone is against ensuring full accessibility for everyone. However, providing pedestrians and cyclists with designated access can be done via pathways, walkways etc. whereas a vehicle is restricted to a road! I would like to see a review done by the county to provide access on a designated pathway/trail from our area to the top of the hill NOT using Mile Hill road. Even if it meant stairs (as is done many places on the escarpment) to provide access, the amount of land required to build a path is substantially less than having to expand a roadway. The location of a trail system does NOT have to include roads - as is evidenced by numerous trails in the county and contiguous regions. Perhaps pedestrians and cyclists may be required to go a little further to access this alternate trail, but again, is the goal to provide access OR provide the easiest route for pedestrians and cyclists?
(3) there are some points and comments made by both the citizens and the county that simply are not valid. When comments are made about dark and foggy evenings, or the presence of deer - unless the entire road is going to have lights installed and a fence to prevent wildlife from the area, these issues will not change. Combine the darkness with a road that has numerous curves and blind corners, this safety issue will always be present. That is why the majority of people who drive the Mile Hill abide by the posted speed limit, and drive anticipating "something" is always around the next corner.

I TOTALLY DISAGREE with your intent to implement this as a pilot project in Spring of this year. You clearly heard from residents in this area that they are not in support of the proposal for Mile Hill road. Let vehicle traffic use the road! look for trail/path alternatives to provide the link between the top of the hill and bottom of the hill.

Thank you to the County of Brant for holding open forums like this. And thanks to the people of Paris for caring enough to attend last night’s meeting. I agree with the lady who called for Automated Speed Camera Enforcement to be implemented on Mile Hill Road in an effort to reduce speeding. I understand it is within the jurisdiction of the municipality if it is deemed a “community safety zone”. The revenue gained from this could be used to construct a truly long lasting solution to accommodate both two-way traffic and bicyclists/pedestrians in the manner of the Sherman Cut in Hamilton. How about instigating the cameras on Grand River Street North as well?

To say this is frustrating would be an understatement. As someone who lives at the bottom and uses the hill twice a day, I do not understand this "proposed" change. I fully support making changes to improve and promote outdoor activity, but this is not the location for it. A steep hill on the edge of town that basically has zero demand for walking / biking. As a 38 year resident, I can count on one hand the number of people I have seen walking on the hill. Biking and walking for that matter would add an unnecessary hazard to the hill with all of the tight turns.

Being offered an opportunity to have a say in this situation when the construction has already been scheduled is also frustrating.

I strongly disagree with the proposal of adding a walking/ cycling trail on Mile Hill Road. For the following reasons:
1. The right to the enjoyment of my property.
2. The right to privacy
3. The County of Brant using EA Schedule A+ process
4. Lack of planning and accessibility
5. Decreased property value

I will expand on the items above.
1. The right to the enjoyment of my property
The majority of the property owners and residents of Hillside Ave., accept the fact that persons traveling at 40kms could have a quick glance into our outdoor living spaces. The addition of a walking/cycling trail on Mile Hill will allow individuals to slowly walk and film/photograph without the knowledge of the residents. I have a pool which I will lose access to without people regularly having a full view of us. The steep slope allows a full view of many of the properties.
2. The right to privacy
The County is asking residents to accept that individuals will have a full view of not only our outdoor living spaces but inside our homes. Many homes have primary bedrooms and kitchens on at the back of the houses yet now people will have 24-hour-a-day access.
3. The County of Brant using EA Schedule A+ process
The County should have been required to use a Schedule B vs a A+. Based on the fact this change unfavorable has already impacted the neighborhood with the cutting of many trees and will require additional construction.
4. Lack of planning and accessibility
This is not an improvement. The County to creating a walking/cycling trail to nothing. Washington Street/Hillside does not have sidewalks. Therefore, they are not increasing active transportation accessibility to a destination.
5. Decreased property value
A key point in the purchase of my home was quick access to 403. I work in Hamilton. Now I will not be able to sell my home with this feature. In addition, my pool is no longer usable as individuals will be able to watch/see everything.

In summary, I understand the need for a challenging hill in Paris for people to walk and cycle. I would suggest Laurel Street. The County should invest the money to create a public trail in this area. Sidewalks and trails exist at King William Street and at Lions Park. This is a real destination; the gateway to downtown. The new residents can walk down Rest Acres to King William cross at the crosswalk and down Laurel Street. Lots of parking and places for people to rest. In addition, no residents have backyards that will be negatively impacted.
I would suggest that Mile Hill not be available for vulnerable road users. The steep slope and conditions of the homes do not allow for it. Residents should be encouraged to use Laurel Street to access downtown Paris.
Traffic calming could be achieved with regular police present. The speed traps used on Powerline have been very effective. They can apply that to Mile Hill. Regular police presence will also prevent cut-through traffic.

One way roads actually increase speeds and cause more severe safety potentials. That's why many cities and towns are changing back to two way streets. Why are we so behind ? No matter what the outcome of this proposal is, you still need to do something to slow the traffic down , especially at the top of the Hill. Nothing in this proposal slows traffic down. Slow the road down !
Not every street is meant to have pedestrian/bike paths. We already have several places around town that support active living. What do you think the big paved pathways are for on Rest Acres Road.

Thank you for this discussion. I think this is a great opportunity to improve safety for all residents in this area. I understand the inconvenience that it may have on a few folks, myself included, however I think it's an important change for the greater community and especially because of the increase in the amount of users of that road. It's clear that traffic has increased since the development of the Rest Acres corridor. We should be encouraging walking and cycling between the upper corridor and our established areas towards downtown, and especially towards the river.

My one suggestion would be to consider a two way portion at the very top of Mile Hill Road where there are 5 or so homes that may benefit from tw0-way access to their homes, but transition to one-way for the remaining portion down the hill.
I’d also question if being a one-way road without other traffic calming interventions would actually lead to further speeding without the need to watch for oncoming traffic. Are other traffic calming opportunities like speed bumps being considered?

While the changes may not be ideal, we recognize the need for them and appreciate the County taking the steps to improve this road within the limitations that apply to it. We look forward to seeing how this is implemented and making use of the updated infrastructure.

I've been a resident in this area of town for 17 years. I use the hill twice a day to go to and from work. Never have I had an issue. Isnt the clear solution to this, no pedestrian or cyclist traffic allowed? The simple and obvious choice here. There are a ton of options in this town and county for such activities. The county has spent so much money already on roads sidewalks trails ect. No one needs to walk or cycle the hill. People do need to drive the hill for work commutes. Not sure if anyone else has noticed but this town has a severe grid lock problem. Taking away an entry/exit route does nothing but add to this problem. Use our tax dollars more effiantly. Am i the only 1 that sees it this way really?

I think something absolutely needs to be done to Mile Hill to make it safer. I am wondering why and what considerations were given to the flow? Specifically choosing a southbound as the one-way (vehicular traffic flowing up the hill) vs a Northbound flow (flowing downhill into Paris)? I personally think Northbound flow for one way would be much safer for the following reasons:
1. The other lane will be used by pedestrians, including skateboarders and cyclists (some) taking a thrilling ride. Cars flowing down (Northbound) in the same direction as these fast-moving pedestrians may never cross paths. However, as the direction of vehicular traffic that is proposed to go up the hill (Southbound) there is much more likelihood of these two types of transportation meeting up and both types may very well cross into the wrong lane on one of those tight curves. Causing potential injuries. (Fatalities?)
2. In the winter, I'd prefer to go down Mile hill in icy conditions rather than up. I think many drivers would agree that going up an icy road is unfavorable and poses more danger.
Again, what (safety) considerations were identified to propose a southbound one-way vs a northbound one-way?
My second thought was that at the top of mile hill where it flattens out for 150 meters or so and there are 4 or 5 residents on the east side and one on the west side; I would hope that that the final section would be 2-way traffic flow. And the only people going south would be those very last residents for only 150-ish meters. from the electrical box to the stop sign.
Yes to one way (less traffic, slower traffic) BUT no to Southbound. Yes to Northbound, into the town traffic flow.

I have been a resident of Brant county my entire life, I have used mile hill as a route through Paris even before it bacme the over populated mess that it is today.. With the added houses, and all the round abouts, mile hill is the best way around.. Seems to me it would be easier to close the road to walking and cycling as yes it is narrow and winding. A one way street will highly impact the drivers of the community as it is a very long way around. The county of Brant is becoming more and more disappointing with their decision making.

The last thing we need in the town is less roads to get around town. By restricting this to one way traffic you are severely impacting the residents at the bottom of the hill. A cycling and walking path is not needed in this area. Walk along rest acres if you want to go for a walk on a path.
How about a stop sign at Washington and Ann st to slow down traffic in the area.
Speed humps along the route.
We need more roads not less.
Install sidewalks along Washington st where there are none for pedestrians.
Many alternative solutions.

Where is the data from the OPP to support this proposal? How many collisions take place on Mile Hill Rd? There are many traffic calming measures that surely can be applied before spending money converting Mile Hill to a one-way roadway. There are currently only three routes into/out of this area of Paris. It doesn't make a lot of sense to reduce the number of options for traffic to flow. Especially when there is such a desire to increase traffic flow through other areas of town (downtown especially) to meet the needs of our expanding population. To conduct a trial seems pointless and frankly a waste of tax dollars.

I have lived on Mile Hill Rd for 12 years now and have had various correspondence with members of the county regarding the speed at which people (including cyclist) travel on the road. The best we have done is add a couple more signs to the road and paved it to help speed up traffic. This proposal does nothing to make the road safer for anyone and it will cause more traffic problems in other areas of the community. The main problem on this road is the speed at which cars and bicycles drive.
Since I've lived on the Hill I have seen 7 cars wind up in the farmers field- now a subdivision at the top of the Hill at Powerline from travelling exactly the same way the county is proposing the one way is to go. Slow the Traffic down with speed Humps up top on Mile Hill (like the ones downtown) and slow the traffic down on the rest of the hill with seasonal speed bumps. You can maintain two vehicle traffic and slow it down for the seasonal users during the time when they would use it. I have seen people mention other solution's as well , all which could be more reasonable and more effective then this one way proposal.
Trial that, it will probably cost less too.
.

Isn't there a way we can achieve both keeping two-way traffic on the hill, providing some traffic calming measures like speed bumps or something, and a pedestrian/cyclist path? I know spacing is very tight but as a life-long resident of Paris who has lived my whole life not 2 minutes from Mile Hill and uses it multiple times a day to get to and from home, it would be EXCEPTIONALLY inconvenient for everyone living here to transition this to one-way traffic, especially given the amount of traffic that uses the hill every day and its proximity to the highway and growing commercial offerings along Rest Acres Road. Or could we not create some sort of alternate path up to the new subdivisions for cyclists and pedestrians to use? Maybe this could be accounted for as part of some of the new development up there. There seems to only be a couple of people who choose to walk the hill regularly that I've seen, and some more experienced cyclists in the Summer, so it seems extremely short-sighted to make such a drastic change for the thousands (or more) in favour of a few who want to traverse that steep of a hill. This just seems very impractical for everyone who lives in Paris, not just for locals. I would highly suggest we find an alternative option to help calm traffic without making this a one-way street.

Until 18 months ago I was a resident of Washington Street - the south end, near the bottom of Mile Hill. I drove the hill daily - multiple times per day actually. So, from the perspective of a former resident of the immediate neighbourhood I can say I’d be tempted to be frustrated with this change. I get it - it’s personally inconvenient for that small handful of the town’s population. That said, one of the reasons I was eager to move off the street was because of the volume of traffic combined with the speed that drivers are using to travel. Children aren’t safe walking, biking or playing in the area any longer for these reasons. Furthermore, I’m an avid walker and walk Mile Hill frequently - in both directions. I made the decision (begrudgingly) a few months ago to omit the hill from my walks as I no longer felt safe. Never would I allow a child to walk or bike the hill in its current state. While walking I REGULARLY watched drivers speeding up and down the hill with absolutely zero regard for cyclists or pedestrians.. Based on many of the comments on the various social media channels it’s sadly evident that some residents of the area are of the opinion that pedestrians have no right even being on the hill. A selfish and narcissistic perspective in my view. Some local residents of the neighbourhood appear unable to see the broader societal benefit that the changes would bring - for all exact reasons the change is being proposed. As a resident of the town for 50+ years I find it disappointing that some people can’t accept change and the new growth and development our town is experiencing. I hope the county isn’t swayed from the decision to move forward on this much needed change by a few vocal people who will be mildly inconvenienced on a personal level. I’m very supportive of this initiative.