After lengthy delays, the contract for the resurfacing of Line 9, from 20 Sideroad to Lake Simcoe, is about to be awarded and “will commence shortly,” Innisfil Council was told on Wednesay night.
But before the work begins, council was asked to reduce the speed limit on Line 9 between 25 Sideroad and a point west of Ralph Street, from 50 kmph to 40 kmph.
Currently, travelling eastbound on Line 9, the speed limit is 80 kmph until the top of a hill approximately 590 metres from Ralph Street. There, the limit drops to 50 kmph – and remains 50 kmph, east of 25 Sideroad all the way to Lake Simcoe.
In addition to the reduced speed limit in the vicinity of Goodfellow Public School, council was also asked to approve a 60 kmph transitional zone, from 90 to 590 metres west of Ralph Street, to help motorists adjust.
Ward councillor Alex Waters had a number of questions for staff regarding the Line 9 road work.
“Residents are calling a lot, they’re emailing a lot, wanting to know if that’s going to be done by the end of the year,” Waters said. “Are they going to be stripping this paving right down and then putting a new coat on top of it, or is this going to be a ‘quick, slick’ paving?”
Calling the road condition “quite bad,” especially between 20 and 25 Sideroads, Waters said he was just concerned “if that’s going to be done as soon as possible.”
He was told that, “weather permitting,” the contractor hopes to complete Line 9 “from 20 Sideroad right down to the lake,” said Capital Engineering Leader Jessica Jenkins - at least with a base coat of asphalt this year.
In addition to resurfacing, the roadwork on Line 9 will include the creation of a 1.8 metre-wide paved shoulder on the south side of the road between Ralph St. and 25 Sideroad, which will serve as a shared pathway. A new pedestrian crossing is planned at Ralph Street.
Waters also had questions about the crossing.
“Is it going to be lit above? Will there be flashing lights?” he asked. “To just have markings on the pavement is, I think, very dangerous.”
Jenkins indicated that the crossing would be a “Category D” – with pavement markings and signage only, and no lights. “That’s why the reduction in speed,” she said.
“Once we see more development in the area, this can be converted into a crossing with lights and signals,” she suggested, but at present, “flashing lights are not warranted.”
Waters also questioned whether it was enough to just paint the walkway. “People are going to be parking there,” he warned. “Kids are going to have to walk on people’s grass or on the other side.”
Jenkins said that the town initially looked at sidewalks, but that “it would be extremely expensive,” due to the deep ditches beside the road, in the vicinity of the school. She again suggested that with more development, there would be an opportunity to create a more urban cross-section, some time in future.
“This is an interim solution to allow better active transportation to and from school, as well as in the neighbourhood,” she said, suggesting that education and stronger enforcement would “ensure that students are able to access this active transportation route.”
At that point, Mayor Lynn Dollin, noting that it was Waters’ first term on council, commented, “Let me tell you, that first you get complaints about a road being in such terrible shape for so long, and then as it’s being repaired you get tons of complaints about the noise and the dust and the length of construction – and when that’s completed, you’ll get complaints about how fast people drive, because it’s a smoother surface.”
“That’s why we need flashing lights,” said Waters.
Coun. Ken Fowler noted that engineering had discussed the feasibility of installing a post with a flashing light, to highlight the new location of the pedestrian crossing. He asked for an update.
Fowler was told that a light has not been considered, due to the short time frame to get the paving done this year. “We didn’t want to delay things further, doing additional investigations and having to find additional budget dollars,” Jenkins said. “We’d hate to see this project delayed further this year.”
When Coun. Fowler began to ask another question, he was reminded by the mayor, “We’re straying a little bit from the motion, which is to reduce the speed limit.”
Council unanimously voted in favour of the reduction in the speed limit.
The changes will require 12 new signs, at a cost of $200 each, for a total cost of $2,400.
