Recommendation: That, on the recommendation
of the Director, Roads and Transportation, the following actions be taken with
respect to the Veterans Memorial Parkway noise improvements:
a) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to introduce a 2014 Budget item for
the Veterans Memorial Parkway Noise Berm Improvements in the amount of
$300,000;
b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to conduct a noise study upon
completion of the Veterans Memorial Parkway Noise Berm Improvements; and,
c) the
report dated April 22, 2013, presentation and communications with respect to
the Veterans Memorial Parkway Noise Study BE RECEIVED.
it being noted that the Civic Works
Committee (CWC) received the attached presentation from the Director,
Roads and Transportation with respect to this matter;
it being further noted that the CWC
received the following submissions with respect to this matter;
a) a
communication dated April 14, 2013, from L. Johnston, Unit 35 – 217 Martinet
Avenue;
b) a
communication from K. Tyndall, 39 – 217 Martinet Avenue; and,
c) a
communication dated April 15, 2013, from M. Wilkinson, 49 Moreau Crescent;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
N.
Sauter, Argyle Community Association, 204 Tremont Road – advising that he
would be speaking on behalf of C. Dodds, 248 Simpson Crescent as she was ill;
advising that the noise barrier is a priority for the Association; indicating
that 2,000 residents along the Veterans Memorial Parkway are exposed to
excessive traffic noise; advising that the noise attenuation study only
sampled four locations; indicating that an additional 1/2 metre of dirt at a
cost of $300,000.00 will not solve the problem and that a local contractor has
said they complete a wall for $800,000.00 less than the City’s estimate;
requesting that Council carefully use logic to find an acceptable solution
and not throw away $300,000 on a bandaid solution.
·
M.
Facey, 151 Martinet Avenue – stating she has been an area resident for 13
years and the issue is not every day traffic but truck traffic which has
increased dramatically; enquiring how testing in one location at the far end
of a residential complex can possibly indicate results for all 17 properties;
inviting Council to visit the location; indicating that the traffic can be
seen from the second floor of the residence so there is a need to break the
line of sight between the second floor and the traffic; stating that the berm
does not take care of the first floor of the residence, let alone the second
floor; stating that heavy trucks travelling at 80 km feel like small
earthquakes and questioning the effects on the structural integrity of the
homes in the area; noting that the berm will not stop the vibrations;
recommending that a more pleasing option than a weedy berm be erected to
honour our veterans; indicating that the noise level will continue to
increase as area businesses grow, the issue is not going away and the costs
to rectify will only increase as well; and stating that the residents live with
this every day and deserve a better solution than a bandaid berm.
·
J.
Thibodeau, 112 Selkirk Street – stating she regularly visits Simpson Crescent
and is often required to halt backyard conversations due to the noise level;
indicating that the traffic is only 50 feet away from the residence’s back
fence; stating that road speeds, brakes and motorcycle traffic create
significant noise; indicating the community was promised a noise barrier and
it has not been delivered; questioning why areas like Cheapside, with traffic
travelling at lower speeds and volumes, have noise wall barriers; indicating
that this is a unique situation; and requesting that Council do the right
thing and install a noise wall barrier and not a bandaid solution berm, which
is currently ineffective.
·
D.
Garner, 15-511 Admiral Drive – stating she is a concerned citizen who has
remained silent to date; suggesting that Council is hearing but not
listening; stating that the berm is not effective; indicating that new
business will increase traffic and noise; asking if Council is meeting their
responsibilities and questioning why they would not want to improve the
quality of life for their citizens; indicating that noise walls have been
built in other neighbourhoods with less traffic and noise; indicating that a
promise of a noise wall was made 10 years ago; stating that the noise makes
it impossible to use the backyard and open the windows; stating that a berm
and trees have been installed but is not working; requesting that Council
keep their promise and build the wall.
·
C.
Dodds, 248 Simpson Crescent – stating she would be reading a letter on behalf
of K. Schnittker, 252 Simpson Crescent; indicating that the quality of life
is affected and doors and windows have to remain shut; noting that there is
extremely heavy traffic and the continuous hum of heavy trucks and airbrake
noise doesn’t allow sleep with open windows, therefore, increasing air
conditioning costs and decreasing the housing value; suggesting that an
increased dirt pile and trees will not work; and indicating that she doesn’t
want to think East-end residents are treated differently, because the East-end
residents are as important too.
·
K.
Tyndall, 217 Martinett – providing comments as outlined in the attached communication;
advising that she was representing all residents of 217 Martinett; suggesting
that their concerns have been disregarded; indicating that increasing the
berm is nothing more than a cheap band aid solution and does not solve the
issue; stating that they are not prepared to put up with the noise and
requesting the City acknowledge and treat the 4-lane highway with truck
traffic the same as other areas of London with 2 lane residential traffic
where noise walls have been installed; advising that prior to the road
widening they were assured they would receive a noise wall, and are now being
told there is no record of this; stating that windows and doors can not be
opened and air conditioners need to be used due to the noise; stating that
prospective buyers like the houses but not the noise; stating that it is
proven that noise is detrimental to human health; and requesting that Council
approve an effective noise wall.
·
M.
Wilkinson, 49 Moreau Crescent – providing comments as outlined in the attached
communication; and indicating the tests do not reflect peak hours, but the
average, which doesn’t make sense; and expressing frustration that some
neighbourhoods need and get noise walls while his neighbourhood does not.
·
G.
Sunstrum, 151 Martinet Avenue – suggesting that Council has a responsibility
to provide a quality of life; indicating they have a tough decision to make,
and that $650,000 was spent on a light show, shown 10 minutes twice a night
for a week and $150,000 on planter pots for visitors for 1 week and yet
Council is not willing to invest in a noise wall for lifetime residents;
requesting Council to make the appropriate decision to support taxpayers.
·
R.
Banks, Design Concrete Systems, 3278 Colonel Talbot Road, Lambeth – stating
he was asked by the residents to speak; indicating he had done some research
on the installation of walls and that the estimates don’t jive; that in the
past a competitor had a monopoly on the business; indicating that his company
could complete the job more reasonably with a savings for the installation of
the wall option of between $800,000.00 and $943,000.00.
·
E.
Matichuk, 37-217 Martinet Avenue – playing an audio soundtrack of the traffic
noise taken from her second floor bedroom window, located above the berm, at
11:30 pm; pointing out the difference between car and truck traffic noise;
stating that the vibrations from the large truck traffic shake her glassware;
suggesting that the proposed increase to the berm will not solve these issues;
and indicating support for area residents.
it being noted that L. Munds, 28-511
Admiral Avenue, was not in attendance to speak to this matter. (2013-T04A)
|