Mile Hill Road

My wife and I live on the corner of Main Street and Dumfries, next to what surely must be the most abused 4 way Stop in Paris.
We are avid walkers, and one of our routes is up King Edward street, down Laurel road and through Lions Park. We have been astounded at the amount of work and money that must have been spent on that road, which basically ends in a park and parking lot. What was the necessity of that.
Mile hill on the other hand is a through and necessary route that serves so many people in this area, Surely widening it enough to put a proper and safe side walk in would not be in the realm of the cost of Laurel Street.
The presentation at the meeting just does not cut it. More research need to be done
RC.

Proposed Mile Hill Road One-Way Conversion & Active Transportation Improvements


My wife and 2 small children have lived on Mile Hill Road for about 6 years. We are opposed to the County’s proposal to convert Mile Hill Road into a one-way and introduce a multi-use path on the remaining portion of the road for a number of reasons.

The proposal has identified that the key reasons this change is required is for improved, safety, traffic calming, increasing active transportation accessibility and preventing cut-through traffic.

Improving safety for pedestrians & cyclists
I believe the proposed change will attract more users and more types of transport. I believe the change will attract more cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders, in-line skaters, scooters, and other recreational activities and modes of transportation.

I believe the change will attract an increase in serious competitive cyclists, runners and other competitive sports on the route from beyond the borders of the County of Brant that will use the route as a training ground for their competitive sport. These users are not going for a leisurely stroll or bicycle ride. They are professionals in their sporting field and they will be pushing their limits in every imaginable form around the exciting curves this road and designated multi-use path will provide.

It will also attract more youngsters on the route that will want to use the path for tobogganing, skateboarding, in-line skating or other recreational fun activities and the municipality should consider how this will be managed or policed. Not to mention the liability factors to consider when a ‘recreational path’ is created, it’s assumed it will be safe for all users, in all seasons.

The proposed change will result in increased volume and mixture of motor vehicle traffic, cyclists, pedestrians, rollerbladers, scooters and other forms of recreational and transportation modes, on a narrow street with no physical safety barriers, on a steep hill, with many sharp blind curves, unprotected steep banks on the side and lined with trees all the way down. I believe that the new volumes and mixture of uses will result in a more dangerous street.

The one-way for motor vehicles will result in higher motor vehicle speed as there is no oncoming traffic to worry about. The cyclists will be able to travel down the hill at a higher rate of speed then they currently do as they will be given a false sense of security with the designated path. Other forms of recreational transportation and activities will travel down the hill at a high rate of speed due to the false sense of safety created. Pedestrians, families, dog-walkers and runners will traverse up and down the hill in a care-free manner (maybe 2-4-wide) due to the false sense of security created by the design. As the proposed change will be further mixing fast moving cyclists, rollerbladers, and other wheeled activities on a path with pedestrians, pets and motor vehicles without a physical safety barrier – I believe the proposal will actually result in a more dangerous street for all users. There’s a better solution.

Increasing active transportation accessibility to nearby destinations
We need to ask - What nearby destinations are they accessing/connecting to via Mile Hill?

There is already accessible routes protected by physical barriers for pedestrians and cyclists to safely travel newly reconstructed Powerline Road, Rest Acres Road, King Edward and Laurel Street, down to Lions Park and on to nearby destinations

The County of Brant has already done a great job of creating safe active transportation routes for residents living in the South Paris new developments of Mile Hill area and behind the Sports Complex, as these considerations were required in the redevelopment on the streets impacted. Six-foot to eight-foot-wide walking paths separated from the streets have been installed on Powerline Road from Mile Hill to Rest Acres and all the way North down Rest Acres to King Edward and then a nice sidewalk newly installed down Laurel Street to Lions Park on to beautiful paths to the downtown core or along the Nith River to Barkers Bush.

In fact; Using Google Maps – The best and most direct route for a pedestrian to walk from a home on Jenner Drive (behind the Brant Sports Complex) to the Paris Post Office at 139 Grand River St. N., is through the Mile Hill development to Rest Acres Road, on to King Edward, down Laurel to Lions Park and over the river to the downtown. Estimated walking time is 57 minutes compared to 62 minutes using the route down Mile Hill Road. Google does provide Mile Hill Road as a secondary route, however it is expected to take longer.

I understand that increasing active transportation in communities is an initiative across all of Canada and I do believe that we need to continue to find ways to do a better job of designing communities to support active transportation to benefit the public’s health, reduce road congestion and greenhouse gas, among other things. And I also believe that the County of Brant is doing an excellent job in leading the way in this area.

However, this must be achieved through practical means. A large focus should be placed on the new projects and initiatives on a go-forward basis. This is proven to be the most practical way to achieve the broad community change required. It is typically quite expensive and less practical to try to achieve this goal through adjusting the current infrastructure that is already in place. It is not feasible to believe that we will be able to adjust every street in Paris to improve the design to support active transportation. In fact, this proposed change will actually increase active transportation on Mile Hill Road and deliver those users to the bottom of the hill onto streets (Washington, Old Mill and Hillside) that have no sidewalks, road markings or other safety design features to safely handle the increase in active transportation users.

Traffic calming/safety benefits of narrowing the roadway
What traffic calming devices or strategies are being proposed, narrowing of the roadway to reduce speed? The road is already quite narrow and users typically travel 30-40km/hr over the 40km/hr speed limit. Further narrowing to what the lanes already are, would be near impossible.

Converting the road to a one-way will give motor vehicle traffic a false sense of security and increased speeds will result as there will be no concern for on-coming traffic.

Speeding is an issue on every street in Paris, across Canada and beyond, that we continue to battle. Yes, speeding is an issue on Mile Hill Road, however, I do not think this new design is going to solve the speeding issue on this short stretch of local road and think that efforts could be better focused on other streets with higher incidents of accidents and increased rates of speed.


Preventing cut-trough traffic from on-going residential development in the area
The proposed changes will increase additional cut-through traffic on different routes, such as Daugaard Ave, Dundas St W., Chapel St, Main St, Queen St, Dumfries and Catherine St for daily users that would now no longer be able to travel South down Mile Hill to get home. Effectively just moving the issue to other small streets and neighbourhoods increasing the danger on those streets.

I assume there is a large reduction assumed on Washington Street, however don’t forget that with this change daily users will actually increase their number of trips on Washington Street because they are unable to travel South on Mile Hill Road to access their home and Washington Street will need to be travelled more often than those users currently do.

If Washington St safety is also an issue, which it should be – let’s complete the sidewalks down there where needed to improve pedestrian safety with the increase traffic flows Washington is experiencing due to new development. We need to remember that with new development and growth – every street in Paris will see an increase in traffic to some degree. That doesn’t mean we need to eliminate effective routes of travel or start creating one-ways, etc. Let’s figure out how we can handle the increased volumes.

Reasons for screening options out
It was communicated in the County’s public notice of this proposal that full/partial closure of the road and traffic calming devices to reduce speed were screened out as viable options and not feasible due to Mile Hill Road being an emergency route and the regular use of the road by emergency services. As a resident on the road for 6 years, I can attest that the OPP do regularly (at least once per week) use the route to respond to high priority calls with full emergency lights and sirens activated. I have however, never witnessed the OPP responding in this manner travelling South, up the Mile Hill Road. They 100% of the time have been travelling North, down Mile Hill Road anytime I have witnessed this. Therefore this proposal would effectively elimate this route as an Emergency Route as well.

More extensive corridor reconstruction – Not feasible due to budgetary constraints. I 100% agree – it would cost a fortune in engineering and reconstruction to widen the road to accommodate active transportation.

Do nothing – Do not accommodate pedestrians & cyclists on the road – Does not support the Complete Streets policy which includes ensuring the “comfortable and safe movement of all road users to accommodate all ages and abilities. I do not believe that the intent is to implement the highest standard of this initiative, as proposed here on Mile Hill, on every single street in the County – and if it is we have larger problems.

The public notice states “The County had previously reviewed these various options to improve active transportation on the corridor.”
It doesn’t state that various other options were reviewed with a different objective in mind or lens to look at the issue through, such as making the street safer. I’m wondering if there was any previously reviewed options centered around safety, rather than improving active transportation on this street.

It appears the sole objective of this project was to improve active transportation on Mile Hill Road. I think that we need to take into consideration that it just might not be practical to achieve, or safe for that matter. And weigh the effort vs the reward or result at the end, if this project moves forward. Having Mile Hill Road ‘proposed’ as a future Active Transportation Route in the Official Plan and Master Transportation Plan may have been done without full analysis, consideration or due diligence of the situation and potential safety and traffic flow impacts. I think it’s important that we step back and consider the facts that we now have – yes, maybe it was a good idea – but maybe it’s just not practical or feasible, so let’s not force it just because it was a good idea or proposal. Not all ideas work out once further explored and we need to understand that that’s ok.

As previously mentioned, I think the mode for implementing broad community strategies such as ‘Complete Streets’ should have a primary focus on new road development/improvement projects. Projects that are being undertaken on existing streets/roads for strategic reasons other than to implement Active Transportation alone. This provides the most cost effective way to implement such policy, as it’s not feasible to assume that it’s practical or even possible to implement all policies of the Complete Streets initiative on every single street throughout the County.

The July 2021 draft Official Plan includes the following policies for Complete Streets (Section 9.1 of the draft Plan): “i. For the purposes of implementing the County of Brant’s transportation system, the principles of complete streets shall be used in the design, refurbishment, and reconstruction of roads…” To my knowledge, or at least this project has not been presented as an existing strategic project to reconstruct Mile Hill Road and then through such project we will consider the Complete Streets policy and apply that to the project. Rather, I believe this is a new project simply to force the Complete Streets policy on a stretch of road that really it is not practical to do so, as discussed, for many reasons.

We must also consider that on-going and future planned commercial and mixed-use development in the Rest Acres Road area will provide further improved access to various commercial options for residents of South Paris without having to walk/cycle to the downtown core.

Regarding maintenance costs to consider - Complete Streets policy also states;
“The following policy objectives are integral to the County of Brant successfully adopting and implementing the Complete Streets Strategy. Complete Streets in the County should be: Appropriately maintained for all seasons: Ensure that maintenance standards enable year-round mobility for all road users. This could include developing a priority winter maintenance network for pedestrian and cycling networks that exceeds the requirements set out in the Municipal Act.”
(Phase III: Supporting Strategies TMP Update, Section 3.3 Recommendation-Policy Objectives, Page 19).

Now, tourism’s “The Grand River Loop & Paris/Falkland Loop” – knowing the safety concerns of the road, I’m having a difficult time understanding the rationale behind designating Mile Hill Road as part of these tourism branded Cycling Routes that is already being actively marketed to the public through maps, signs and other modes of communication.
a. Where did the idea to designate the road as part of the GR Loop originate from?
b. What process was carried out to officially designate these routes?
i. Did it require Council approval from the beginning?
ii. Was there an Environmental Assessment required or completed to ensure the impacts of the change were highlighted?
iii. Were there traffic studies completed, are they available?
iv. Was it circulated to all Departments for comment prior to it being designated as a cycling route?
v. What was the feedback received from Emergency Services, Roads, Legal and Planning when presented?
vi. What other routes were considered and were there any safer options explored and why were they excluded?
I’m afraid, to me – it seems this current proposal to “Fix” Mile Hill Road, has somewhat stemmed from this previous designation that’s sole purpose is to increase cyclist traffic on a dangerous street. I propose that a better for cost effective and overall efficient solution (and for the safety of everyone) might be to adjust the designated route back to the newly developed multi-use paths on Rest Acres Road that we did such a good job on creating. Let’s use them! Not intentionally divert pedestrians and cyclists down a narrow twisty dangerous road.

There are so many reasons that we oppose this proposal and believe that it is not the right solution for the residents of the County, town of Paris and other users of the roadways – we believe there are better solutions. More efficient and effective solutions. I could go on and on, but I won’t. I think these are the key points along with the questions presented at the Public Meeting, which I have also attached for your reference below.

Thank you for taking the time to read about our concerns. We look forward to working together through a better solution.
Questions for Public Meeting:
2. How was the NEED for this change measured?
a. Do you have data on the current cyclist & pedestrian volumes how many people will be positively impacted by the proposal?
b. In March 2022 reported in the Administration & Operations Committee Report that the proposed change had came about as a result of “received comments from the public about improving pedestrian & vehicle safety”. How many comments from the public were received on the topic? Are these available?
c. What’s the anticipated pedestrian/cyclists traffic volume increase on the Hill with this change?

3. As the initiative has stemmed from the Administration & Operations Committee can we get some more details on this committee?
a. What’s the objective of the committee?
b. Who Chairs or did Chair that Committee at the time of this proposal?
c. Who are the other participants or committee members?
d. Do you think there were any potential conflicts of interest?

4. What is the estimated cost of the project?
a. The March 2022 report estimated $30,000, I was told about $50,000 by a senior manager in Roads, however the CTV News report stated that the County was yet to determine an estimate on cost – with construction scheduled to commence about 90-days out, should we not have a rough estimate on what this project might cost?

5. Grand River Loop & Paris/Falkland Loop – knowing the safety concerns of the road, I’m having a difficult time understanding the rationale behind designating Mile Hill Road as part of these tourism branded Cycling Routes that is already being actively marketed to the public through maps, signs and other modes of communication.
a. Where did the idea to designate the road as part of the GR Loop originate from?
b. What process was carried out to officially designate these routes?
i. Did it require Council approval from the beginning?
ii. Was there an Environmental Assessment required or completed to ensure the impacts of the change were highlighted?
iii. Were there traffic studies completed, are they available?
iv. Was it circulated to all Departments for comment prior to it being designated as a cycling route?
v. What was the feedback received from Emergency Services, Roads, Legal and Planning when presented?
vi. What other routes were considered and were there any safer options explored and why were they excluded?
c.

6. What is the proposed width of the multi-use path?
a. There may be safety issues with cyclists riding in both directions 2 or 3 wide with the multiple blind corners and mixing that with pedestrians and other modes of transportation.

7. Have the private residential entrances been considered and specifically how traffic in and out of these driveways may impact cyclist/pedestrian safety on the blind corners?

8. Are there any other forms of transportation/traffic that the changes are expected to attract to the road? And how will these be managed?
a. Inline skaters, scooters, skateboarders

9. The proposal has been presented as a Test and “Pilot”, which can be easily reversed. I’m not a huge fan of ‘pilots’, as I think they’re wasteful and believe the work should be done upfront to ensure we’re making the right decision in the first place, but;
a. What are the reservations – why is it not presented as a permanent solution?
b. How long is the Pilot scheduled to run?
c. What measurements will be collected at the end of the Pilot period?
d. What would those measurements look like to deem the project a failure or success to make the change permanent?
Is there a solid plan in place to effectively manage and see the ‘Pilot’ through or is it just smoking mirrors to try to soften the message?
10. How will the proposed change affect road maintenance in the winter months?
a. Will the Multi-use path be maintained and usable in the winter months?
b. Any increased liability to the County should someone get injured on the new path and it not be properly maintained?
c. Is there any anticipated increase in costs to winter maintenance on the road?

11. I know there was a 2019 speed study completed and I believe there was a 2022 study completed – are the 2022 results available, and can you speak to the results of these studies?
a. Speak to the location? Just South (about 60m) of the worst blind corner
b. 2019 Identified that the 85th percentile of motorists travelling North & South were 63km/hr and 69km/hr respectively. 30km/hr over the speed limit – we can assume many were 40km/hr over, which I believe would be considered stunt driving – very serious offence with serious consequences
c. Speeding was immediately identified as an issue in 2019 – What actions were taken or considered after this study was completed?
d. Was OPP notified of the results – at what point would we notify or request radar maybe?

Reasons for the change:
1. Improving safety for vulnerable road users (pedestrians & cyclists)
a. What other routes were considered for the Grand River Loop, are there safer options?
b. When the road was designated as the Grand River Loop this further contributed to the safety concerns
2. Traffic calming/safety benefits of narrowing the roadway
a. What other less disruptive and lower cost traffic calming initiatives have been tried?
b. Why or why not have other options been tried first?
c. The road lanes are already quite narrow and speeding is an issue. What is the current width of the lanes and what will the new width of the narrower one-way lane be? Is further narrowing even physically possible?
d. What is the anticipated speed reduction with further narrowing?
e. I think other less disruptive traffic calming initiatives should be explored first
3. Increasing active transportation accessibility to nearby destinations
a. Is it truly increasing active transportation within the community > Or is “Route” the issue?
b. If the route was adjusted to a safer option (say Rest Acres) would that not create the net result in active transportation options in the community?
c. What “nearby destinations” would users be accessing at the bottom of Mile Hill? Could they be accessed via a safer route?
d. Have you considered the future growth of commercial services and options that will be available on Rest Acres in the next couple of years?
e. I was curious, so went on Google Maps and asked for walking directions from Jenner Drive to the Post Office downtown and quickest preferred route provided is up Rest Acres, not down Mile Hill – so I started wondering why and here’s why;
i. It’s longer, but faster by 5 mins – why?
ii. It’s the easiest, with the least amount of changes in elevation
iii. Bonus – it’s safer with the 6ft walking paths already in place
f. When I then looked for the cycling route – it only provided one route – up Rest Acres – which would again be the best route.
4. Preventing cut-through traffic from on-going residential development in the area
a. As mentioned – the change will just shift the ‘cut-through’ issue to other neighbourhoods in behind the Pioneer
b. Traffic flow decreases on Washington will be offset ‘some’ by increased use by residents that live on and below Mile Hill



I am really confused – Is this proposal truly as it’s presented, all about safety and increasing accessibility to active transportation – OR is it as it appears to me; a result of a tourism initiative that designated and effectively and intentionally pushed cyclist traffic to a dangerous road without due diligence, complete process or even considering safer routes?


IR

I would like to start by saying I am opposed to the proposal. I feel that if the plan does solve any problems it will be creating multiple new ones. There is a lot of good points made in the other posts below that I wonder if were even considered when drawing up the plans. I would request that further investigation be completed to address the concerns raised. Although, I do agree with most, it appears the decision to move forward has already been decided. I am a resident on Daugaard Ave and had raised concerns with the county several years ago about the speed of the few cars that travelled down the road past the park at that time. I had seen many kids run across the road without looking and even saw a car flip in front of the park. That was before the extension of Daugaard to Rest Acres and now with the proposal, the risk to children playing in the area is even greater. Btw. I had requested they put up signs to slow traffic to show children playing but was told at the time that would make too many signs. Has anyone driven down Rest acres lately?
Another concern I have is the additional traffic that will turn right off Daugaard onto Dundas and eventually travelling down Main Street hill. There is no sidewalks to get there and it is already dangerous for pedestrians to walk down the hill. Throw a little water or ice on the road and increase the traffic and the risk is even greater.
Perhaps time to go back to the drawing board?

I was most distressed to receive a letter advising of a proposal to make Mile Hill one way. I do not remember receiving and news of this possibility in the past for discussion with the public. The tone of this letter indicates this is already decided even though the description, "proposal" is used. I thought we live in a democratic society?

The 1st reason states: public safety for vulnerable users. I have lived at the bottom of Mile Hill for 10+ yrs and used it for much longer, but remember no accidents on the hill. My husband works at Dragonfly on Hwy 24 and there have been at least a dozen deaths at that intersection. why are we not focusing our time and resources on fixing a known public safety problem and not on a potential threat that might happen one day? Also cyclist and pedestrians have alternate routes to use. They do not need to take this route. We are increasing the "Convenience" for a handful to "Inconvenience" the majority. This is a road, not a bike path. Cyclist and pedestrians would not use the hill in inclement weather, so not on rainy days or cold fall/winter/spring days. We will inconvenience an entire section of town 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year for a handful of good weather days when someone who does not live in this neighbourhood might want to cycle the hill.

The 2nd reason provided is "Traffic calming". If a handful of drivers are going too fast, why are we punishing an entire neighbourhood? I believe if the 2-way traffic is eliminated, drivers will actually go faster. We should add speed bumps instead.

The 3rd reason, "Increasing active transportation accessibility". What about the accessibility for people who live on Mile Hill? They can see their houses from Powerline Rd but will have to drive an extra 2-3km to the end of Rest Acres down Hwy 2, down Washington and back up Mile Hill to get home from the 402? What is more accessible and for whom?

The 4th reason, "Prevent cut through traffic". I believe streets are created to move people from point A to point B, is that not the point of a road?

In a time of concern for global warming and record breaking gas prices, this project will increase the commute for many people by as much as 20km or more per week/

The letter states all roads must ensure "comfortable and safe movement of all road users to accomodate all ages and abilities". there are many roads in Paris that are not safe for cyclist and pedestrians. how many people have been struck in the crosswalks downtown? again, why are we not dealing with know problems instead of spending tax dollars on a possibility of a potential threat for a handful of users in good weather at the inconvenience of the entire neighbourhood every day?

I beg you to reconsider this unsubstantiated plan.

BP

First off, I will state that I am not in favour of making Mile Hill one way.

I did attend the meeting on Jan 11/2023 and believe a lot of good points were made as to why it should stay as it is. I also believe that Mile Hill does not fall under the “Complete Streets”policy.

While I sympathize with the people who want it one way, I simply say times have changed. Yes the traffic has become heavier., due to more housing, traffic circles and even GPS which tells people to take it as a shortcut. Perhaps we’ve reached a point where bikes and pedestrians should not be allowed to use Mile Hill.

I don’t consider it a waste of resources to have a police officer sit on Mile Hill. A motorcycle officer could hide very nicely and another officer at the bottom can give the ticket as well as watch for people who do not stop at the stop sign ( bikes included)

I was disappointed that the “moderator” as I’ll call him, could not provide data for the number of cyclists/ped that use Mile Hill. I don’t think there is that many except, perhaps in summer..which brings another point. Most bike/ped paths (rail trails) are not cleared in winter. Will the same apply to Mile Hill…clear only the driving section?

As for people that believe Washington St will get less traffic, I disagree. If I cannot come down Mile Hill then I am forced to drive around and come down Washington to get to my residence . This will also apply to small delivery trucks. More traffic, not less.

My other concern is e bikes and scooters. Will they be on the cycle/ped side or because they have a motor will they be with the cars. Will they be allowed to go both ways. What if a motorcycle turns off his motor and coasts down? I know that’s a crazy thought but we live in strange times.

It is a dangerous and curvy road and speed is definitely a factor, but cyclists will go faster than the cars . One way will not improve safety.

Slightly off topic…Better lighting is needed at Mile Hill and Powerline and also along Mile Hill. Cyclists and pedestrians MUST have lights and wear reflective clothes.

If we proceed with your current proposal, I feel it will only prove to be a temporary fix and does not fully or properly address the current and future needs. I would strongly suggest looking more closely at re-construction, even though the current cost of the project may be (X) amount of dollars, the future cost (ten years) from now when it will be considerably more necessary at a cost of (XXXX)dollars. I believe the growth around the 403 highway and Rest Acres Rd intersection will be at least 3 times more then the current residential, commercial, and industrial development. we must look and plan to the future as well as our current needs.

AJW

Thank you for holding the information session regarding Mile Hill Road (MHR) on January 11, 2023. I would like to provide my response, comments and suggestions regarding the plans that were presented.

First and foremost, I agree that something must be done to improve the safety of MHR as, in its current format, it is dangerous for all users. I live on the road, and I see it every day. However, I am very concerned that the proposed approach does not solve the problem and will create new ones.

Based on your presentation, I understand your guiding principles to be:
• Complete Communities,
• Complete Streets, and
• Brant Safe Streets.

Based on the information presented, I am not convinced that the proposed solution will meet these goals as it relates to those that are directly impacted by the changes (i.e., local South End Residents and those that live on MHR). Specifically:

• Emergency Response Times: Emergency response times will increase by 4 to 7 minutes for all Emergency Services that originate from south of Powerline Road, depending on where you live in the south end.
o I live in the middle of MHR, and it would increase response time by 6 to 7 minutes. This is unacceptable.
o Any changes put in place cannot decrease emergency service levels. Service levels must, stay the same or increase, but never decrease.
o The Health & Safety of South End residents is being put at risk and is in complete contradiction to the Complete Streets goal of improving “public health” and promoting “livability by improving the safety” for all people.

• One-Way = Speedway: The conversion of MHR to one direction could in fact make the road more dangerous:
o Speed levels could in fact increase, as the risk of oncoming vehicles will be eliminated. For those inclined to speed, they can now drive faster as they don’t have to worry about oncoming traffic.
o Inviting additional vulnerable users like “walker, hikers and bikers”, mixed with the increased speed of one-way traffic is a mistake. The risk of injury or death will increase, not decrease.
o Although this might fit within the Complete Communities goal, it does not meet the stated objectives of the Complete Streets or Brant Safe Streets mandate of, improving “public health and safety” and improving the “safety of all road users”.

• Rumble Strips = Noise Pollution: The proposal to add Rumble Strips as a means of traffic calming cannot be allowed to happen:
o Rumble Strips are specifically designed to create noise and vibrations such that a driver, inside of a car, can hear the sound and feel the vibration should they veer slightly from the desire path. The noise pollution created will be significant and unbearable for those that live on, or near MHR.
o It is important that no changes are made that will impact the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring homes, yards, and outdoor areas”.
o For those of us who are lucky enough to live on, or back onto, MHR, the constant sound of vehicles running over the rumble strips will be intolerable and cannot be allowed to happen.
o The use of Rumble Strips would be in complete contradiction to:
 Complete Communities – does not meet the needs of all residents.
 Complete Streets – does not “improve public health and promote livability”.

• Impact on Wildlife – The use of traffic calming measures such as rumble strips may have an impact on wildlife – specifically Bats.
o Has the County performed any Acoustic Bat Monitoring Tests to confirm that the sound created by rumble strips will not affect local bat populations or any other wildlife?
o Acoustic bat monitoring is routinely done during construction projects, in bat populated areas, to ensure that bat populations are not affected by construction sounds and vibrations. Before Rumble Strips are even considered, a thorough study must be completed.

• Bikers Ride in Groups, not in rows: It is very unlikely that the bikers that use MHR will use the designated path. Serious bikers that train, ride side-by-side in groups, not in single file. They will consume the full driving lane.
o The majority of bikers that use MHR are advanced, serious bikers that use the road to train on.
o As a serious biker mentioned at the meeting, in the downhill direction, it’s not uncommon for bikes to reach 60km/h. This presents a very dangerous situation if bikes are side-by-side, in a group, going downhill with oncoming traffic and pedestrians.
o The goals of Complete Streets will not be met.

• Access to Required Services: As discussed by others, we will also be impacted if the one-way proposal is adopted as needed service providers will not be able to safely navigate the road and our driveways with their trucks and trailers.
o Sewer, propane, garden, and trees services that we all need on a regular basis will be forced to drive forward, straight, into our driveways without the ability to turn around so they can drive out. As a result, they must blindly back onto the live lane of the road, with no ability to see oncoming traffic, bikers, or pedestrians, putting all at risk.
o We are at risk of our service providers denying service because of the dangers, yet we can’t heat our homes or flush our toilets without them.
o The goals of Complete Communities, Complete Streets and Brants Safe Streets will not be met.

The conversion of MHR, to a one-way road, will not be safer and does not meet your stated goals.

There are better solutions that should be tried before you consider the one-way option. I believe you should reconsider Traffic Diverting methods that will slow and reduce traffic like:
• Numerous Stop Signs and Traffic Humps on feeder road like Washington and Powerline:
o The slower and more inconvenient that you make it, the more traffic you will divert away from MHR.
• Traffic Humps on MHR in safe, straight and level areas at the top of the road.
• Police the speed of MHR.
I understand that you have considered these options and have rejected them as:
• speed humps slow emergency response – But not as much as making the OPP drive around Rest Acres to make it back to Race Street or my house at 188 MHR.
• It’s dangerous for the OPP to monitor speed on MHR – I am sure solutions can be found to this problem. A little more discussion may be required

Better, more effective options exist. The County must remain open to all options and do the homework required.


SM

I am strongly in agreement with the proposal of Mile Hill being one way with walking and biking lanes. I attended the meeting regarding the proposal and was amazed at the opposition. I live on Hillside backing onto Mile Hill. It is dangerous.

I am more than willing to listen to other alternatives, but none have been presented yet that outshine this solution.

- if any more trees die due to urban stress, there is a possibility of mudslides down the hill which would endanger our homes (already paid dearly for the last mudslide when curbs were being installed.

- since March 2022, I have witness 3 cars trying to do a u-turn near the bottom of the hill. This turns into a 12 - 18 point turn as it is far too narrow. I am amazed they did not end up in my backyard or get hit by unsuspecting traffic.

- speeding cars tend to take their half of the road in the middle. It's only a matter of time before a serious head on collision will occur.

- I do go 40 on Mile Hill. On the way home from the meeting I watched very carefully that I did go 40. There were no cars behind be at the top of the hill but one was tailgating me 1/2 way down (they had to be speeding to catch up to me). If I had to stop suddenly for a deer, they would have rear ended me. (I did have to stop for 3 deer about 3 weeks ago - they still exist to a lesser degree)

- if northbound traffic was routed through Rest Acres, especially non-local traffic, it would take them through a retail area and thus encourage support of the businesses already established.

- It was mentioned time and time again that drivers would be punished by having to drive around the area for the hikers, walkers and bikers who are few in numbers. The only reason they are few in numbers is that they don't want a death defying adventure. I have been here 19 years and remember all the walkers, runners and bikers. It is a beautiful road and should be enjoyed at a leisurely pace, not 60 kms/hr. I used to walk up and down the hill but have to jump into the bush when a car comes whizzing by.

- people used to walk up and down the hill picking up garbage that inconsiderate people would throw on the side of the road. Too dangerous to pick up the garbage now.

- I am concerned that if speed bumps are installed, when we do have a hard rain, they will divert the water over the curbs and into our yards and flood our basements

- The details regarding the extra time it would take someone to drive around Rest Acres was outlined as if the driver was coming to the bottom of the hill. How many people are actually trying to get to that particular point? This is just a passthrough for most people. Mile Hill and Hillside/Washington is not their destination to begin with!

- Many children and school busses stop along Hillside and Washington. Most of the vehicles using Mile Hill are speeding and many do not stop at the bottom of the hill. I remember one car crashing into the hill at the bottom when it missed the curve.

- There are far too many trucks that should not even be using this road.

- It was mentioned that diverting traffic to another area would increase the crime rate? I really doubt that this would be the cause. Higher population might be a factor but having a vehicle drive on one road instead of another is not a crime factor.

I love Mile Hill as much as anyone. I would miss being able to take it to get home as well. I think being able to take it one way is at least a compromise that is practical, safer and may possibly make people think about how lucky we are to have it at all.

-Overhead lighting top of Powerline Rd @ Mile Hill
- Put in 3 speed bumps on Mile Hill Rd (like the ones downtown)
- Paint the speed bumps and put up signs at each one
- Put signs at bottom and top for drivers entering both ends
- Paint lines on the road center & curb all the way
- Repaint the lines every 3 months so everyone sees lines clearly

AWM

First, I’d like to state that I’m vehemently opposed to this plan for the following reasons:

I. I attended the public meeting on Friday, 13th, 2023. The question that was asked regarding whether or not the final decision was made to actually go ahead with this work, the answer on several occasions was always a denial from the County’s representatives. However, upon reading the Mile Hill project notice on the County Web Site, it is evident that the decision has been made and the council meeting that needs to approve it is nothing more than a rubber stamp. I quote, “…Construction will take place between May 2023 and June 2023…” It does NOT say, 'Construction will take place upon acceptance and approval'.

II. Regarding increase in traffic. It is stated that current volume is relatively low at <2000 vehicles/day and that an increase in traffic is foreseen. I fail to see the logic in this argument as that majority of land along the East side of Rest Acres Rd. between the 403 and King Edward Street has been developed. There is no increase in development possible in the Washington St., Hillside Ave, and Race Streets. As such, I cannot believe that there will be any significant increase in said traffic.

III. As I pointed out in the Friday Public Meeting, that unless a person lived in a Cul-de-Sac, they would already have experienced an increase in traffic in their area, especially people who live in the Court and Daugaard sections, where we live. My wife and I moved here in Feb 2004 at which time both our streets ended in dead ends at the south end of the streets. Due to the extensions of both these streets, traffic along our street has already significantly increased. And there is NOTHING we can do about it.

IV. And now, with all due respect to the 5 families who live on the south end of Mile Hill Road, along the flat most section, it seems to be ok to inconvenience ALL the people along Daugaard and Court for ‘safety’ reasons. What about our safety? I occasionally drive down (northbound) on Mile Hill Road when I come from the 403 and need to stop at NoFrills before heading home. All the times the I have used this road, I can honestly say that I have never yet encountered a bicyclist or pedestrian along this road. So, if ‘Safety’ is an actual concern and not just an excuse to push this project, then I strongly suggest you sincerely consider the safety along our streets as there are many young children who live along the streets in our survey. Very much seems to me to be another “not in my back-yard situation”.

V. Your plan calls for traffic, (that used to take Mile Hill Road northbound), to travel along Rest Acres Road to King Edward, then to Dundas St. W, and right turn onto Washington St. I can say with reasonable certainty, that most traffic, where people are familiar with the area, will be taking the shortcut along either Court or Daugaard, and make their way down Main St. onto Washington Street. If, according to your numbers, ~2000 vehicles use Mile Hill daily, it would stand to reason that 1000 travel each direction. Then if half of these cars use Rest Acres, the other half will most likely cut through Court and Daugaard, which, if my math is correct would be 500 cars on Rest Acres, and 250 each on Court and Daugaard. Since most traffic would take place during 18 of the 24 hrs/day, that would loosely work out to an additional car every 4 minutes along our street

VI. As I also mentioned at the meeting, we have seen an increase in crime along our street. Just withing the last few weeks, my neighbour’s car across the street from us was broken into, and from what I’m led to believe, a car was stolen from a residence on Daugaard as well as recent break-ins on the West side of Rest Acres. Forcing more traffic through our neighbourhood is the last thing we need, nor want.

VII. Lastly, these days, since many people are concerned about air pollutants and climate change it makes no sense whatever to force people to drive an extra 1.5Km to the same destination. Let’s do the math:
1,000 cars/day travelling an additional 1.5km/day, (according to the County numbers, the Mile Hill Route is 2.4km, whereas the new detour route is 3.9km)
= 1,500 km /day of additional travel).
At an average vehicle fuel consumption of 10L/100km, that means an additional 150L of fuel is consumed daily.
This in turn means additional fuel consumption/waste of 54,750 Liters of gasoline/year at a cost of $76,560 per year for the people having to travel along the ‘new’ route. We can get down into the weeds and argue the assumptions but that doesn’t change the point I’m making.

Sincerely,
Johann Sitt
Daugaard Ave

I am very much against this proposal. I have lived on Race Street for 33 years and have never seen an accident on Mile Hill Rd. When working in Brantford I used Mile Hill Rd twice a day...I knew 33 years ago that it was a "drive carefully' road and drove accordingly. The issue here is speeding and I don't believe a one way road will reduce speeding. It will most likely lead to autos speeding up the hill and bikes speeding down the hill...accidents waiting to happen. We have lots of bike and walking paths. I would like to see more, but not on Mile Hill.

Let's deal with speeders through photo radar, speed humps and bollards if necessary. Contrary to what was said at the meeting, our MPP says that the County has the ability to designate Mile Hill and implement photo radar.

After attending the meeting that was so poorly advertised to most residents except for the people of the bottom of Mile Hill Road we are in total opposition to the changes proposed. The information presented was not complete as there were no statistics on how many pedestrians and bicycles that are currently using the road. How can you propose the need for changes without having the proper information. The fact that traffic will be travelling on the wrong side of the road going up the hill will only be an accident waiting to happen. The impatient driver's will start to pass on the pedestrian side and it will become more dangerous to use for all citizens.
There are many other path's that walker and biker's can utilize throughout Paris that are much more safe and well lit. You are proposed a change that will impact the many for the few.

Jespersen

One of the precepts of the efforts to change Mile Hill seems to be an effort to enable cyclists and walkers to more safely move between the two residential levels (the old South end and the newer South west end) of Paris.
Consider the following:
Strongly discourage the use of Mile Hill Road for walkers and bikers and provide a viable alternative pedestrian and bicycle pathway as follows:
a) retain Mile Hill Road as a two way vehicular road and ban or strongly discourage the use of Mile Hill by bicycles and pedestrians.
b) install a new foot-path from the NW corner of the intersection of Mile Hill and Washington directly west through the wood lot emerging in the back of the new subdivision under construction at the westerly extension of Daugard Street. This would require obtaining permission (or procurement of rights) from some private land owners to allow a path way to cross their unused wood lot. This walking foot path would also be a place where bikers could walk their bikes from the Rest Acres Road level to the Washington Street level without encountering vehicles. Due to the slope of the land, this pathway might require some steps. If required, the steps should be provided with a vee shaped track alongside the steps to enable bicyclers to wheel their bicycles up and down the staircase. There are lots of samples of this type of staircase on Hamilton bike paths.
At the Rest Acres end of this path, if access directly onto Daugaard is impossible, due to current building lot assigments; design the path to follow the rear lot lines of the new Daugard St residences toward the south, eventually joining up with the new park land that has been created on the South side of Rest Acres Road. (North east of the houses on the south side of Liorne Card Drive)
My initial field observation of this potential path route over the slope shows that there is an existing power line right of way heading east from the rear of the new houses on Daugard that could potentially be utilized for this pedestrian and bicycle pathway.
Greg Tanner

If we as a county are truly invested in making this road accessible for all users then save up the money for a longer period of time, get the developers to kick in some money , use some of the new development tax dollars and do it right, expand the road, anything is possible.
In the meantime please strategically deploy any traffic calming devices we can - Speed cushions, seasonal speed reducing bollards(flags) , seasonal speed bumps, whatever we can. And don't forget about the straight section at the top.

I have lived on Mile Hill Road for 12 years. In that time, I have had various communications with the County, the OPP, and have used the Brant Safe Streets Program to try to get the Traffic on the road slowed down.
Although I am glad that the road is finally getting some attention, this proposal is doing nothing to slow the traffic down. In fact, it will encourage higher speeds on Mile Hill Road and increase safety risk for home owners on this street.
Aside from of the many people this proposal will inconvenience it will also worsen already existing safety problems on Mile Hill Road, in the community as well as add traffic congestion towards downtown if it goes forward.
For starters, the proposal moves the vehicle drive lane to the opposite side of the road directly connecting to the majority of residential driveways in a position that people aren’t used to. It’s already difficult enough now to get onto the road against speeding vehicles. This proposal brings the speeding vehicles even closer.
All the houses on Mile Hill Road have fuel delivery of propane or oil. Some of the driveways are very difficult to navigate. These fuel trucks are not nimble and are loaded with flammable liquid. They need a fair amount of room to move around, and this proposal will reduce the space available. Are we stopping traffic for every fuel delivery for each house to maintain safety?
In a County Document from March 2022 (RPT-22-80 Possible Modifications to Mile Hill Road) it reports that the average speed in the Southbound Lane is 5km faster than the Northbound Lane. This Mile Hill Road proposal has selected that faster moving Southbound Lane to be one-way. This will only intensify the current speed issue as there are no speed limiting countermeasures proposed.
In my time on the Hill, I have also witnessed 7 cars land in the farmers field (now Houses) at Mile Hill Road and Powerline because they were driving too fast Southbound and couldn’t stop in time. There is likely no report of these as people scrambled to get out before the police showed up.

If you read recent information in studies on the safety of one-way roads you will find many cities and towns are returning to two-way streets because they are safer and slower moving due to the friction of two-way traffic. Nearby examples are Cambridge changing Ainslie and Water Streets to two-way, Kitchener changing Duke and Charles streets to two -way. Why are we moving back in time? As an added effect of one-way roads, they also have been shown to reduce property value - not happy about this.
One of the reasons for this change as written in the Mile Hill Road public notice is to include traffic calming benefits of narrowing the roadway. In the same public notice, you are also saying that you have screened out traffic calming elements as they are not feasible due to emergency services using this route. How is this speed issue going to be addressed?

The County Transportation Master Plan states that Speed Cushions are effective in reducing speeds and do not impact local access. These are like speed humps but have cut outs in them for larger vehicles like Fire Trucks. They are also fairly inexpensive to apply. Why aren’t we using these?

Also stated the Transportation Master Plan is that “Rumble strips” should not be used as a traffic calming measure especially in residential settings. Yet on this Mile Hill Road proposal we have rumble strips being used.

Nowhere in the Transportation Master Plan does it say that all streets need to be changed to accommodate “vulnerable users” – this road is unique and other roads in the area are already more suitable for vulnerable users. If we are trying to promote active living, what better way then to walk or bike all the way around up Rest Acres on a paved pathway.

By making this change to Mile Hill Road we will create worse safety issues for people living on and using Mile Hill Road and for those nearby neighbourhoods that will receive more traffic cut throughs because of this.

We have the tools available as laid out in the Transportation Master Plan to make the road safe for everyone, including vulnerable users and two-way traffic. Let’s start by slowing the traffic down and go from there.

We are not in favour

other speed reduction options: speed bumps, cameras,
could it be seasonal: 1-way in summer, 2-way in winter?
alternate bike/pedestrian access?

one way traffic may increase in speed because known to be one-way
been a southbound resident for 35yrs very obvious that Mile Hill is not safe for pedestrians.. so don't walk that hill!!
Rest Acres have paaved pathsways.


JP

How many complaints/request from pedestrians/cyclist have there been?
What is the estimated number of pedestrians/cyclist who will use this street
Mile Hill Rd is not a walking/cycling for most people - the hill is steep and really only for younger/advanced fitness users

Alternatives:
frequent larger speed bumps for speed control
Time of day one way usage - alternating up/down direction of one way traffic at different times of day

my thought is that this route doesn't warrant this level of effort for the small number of pedestrians/cyclist who will benefit
-also- cyclist currently share the road and will continue to do so for those whose abilities are advanced enough
-need increased "share the road" signage - reduced speeds are also needed
Photo radar???

JC

This road used by locally residents up and down
This will only increase traffic to other streets that lead southbound ie. Court Dr + Main St + Church St
Traffic will be worse/busier because of this closure

LE

You say its a solution when there is no problem the way the road is
I've lived on Race St for 28 yrs, never has there been an acident on the road, or any bicycles & very few walkers
You are doing this for bicyclist, give them another root
too much inconvenience to suit the few
another work situation

CH

I am an avid walker and I would not walk on Mile Hill Rd when it is converted
It would still be unsafe for walkers, Leave Mile Hill as it is