Speedvale Avenue Construction

I am writing on behalf of the Speed River Cycling Club - Guelph’s premier road and gravel cycling club.

Our perspective here is from that of the cyclists with collectively the most riding hours and kilometers in the region.

As it would be ludicrous to expect someone who doesn’t drive an automobile to design auto routes, it is equally ill-advised to have someone design cycleways who isn’t a passionate and frequent user of them - input from the cycling groups is paramount here and should be heeded.

We are very pleased to see the addition of MUPS in this plan.

However, we feel there is a grave oversight or miscalculation with the narrowing of the MUPs on the bridge and their change in surface to concrete. The narrowing particularly creates a situation for conflict.

It is unlikely that the majority of the city’s cyclists will dismount and walk on the bridge portion of the MUP, when cycling to and from it is permitted at both ends.

To disregard that reality is engineering problems and conflict into the design. We request that the proposed sidewalks be made into MUPs wide enough throughout the duration of the bridge to match the MUPs on either side. Anything less suggests that the cycling component of the bridge design is either an afterthought or seen to have little value.

We have yet to see the road where drivers are requested to get out of their vehicles and push them for some duration before getting back in and carrying on. Expecting compliance of all cyclists to do that in this situation is misguided and a recipe for conflict. Design for success from the beginning and better results will follow.

We also strongly support the input from G2G and GCAT to build the underpass on the west side of the Speed River, and loop a path back up from the underpass pathway to the MUP on the north side of Speedvale. We also concur with GCAT’s request to widen the proposed underpass.

Sincerely,
Meg Thorburn
Board of Directors, SRCC

G2G, the Guelph to Goderich Rail Trail, is a non-profit charitable organization whose mission is to complete a multi-use Rail Trail from downtown Guelph to downtown Goderich. We have been working with Guelph Parks department, Economic Development and many other stakeholders towards that end.

The intersections of Speedvale Avenue, the TCT and the Speed River Trail are all vital component of the G2G trail network. As you know this has been both a dangerous and contentious crossing for years with its misaligned trail entrances, irregular curb heights and peculiarly located controlled crossing.

We applaud the undertaking of the work at this part of Speedvale Avenue especially with the addition of MUPs.

However, we strongly believe that the Speedvale bridge underpass is paramount to the success of this overall plan, crucial for Speedvale traffic flow and the personal safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

Although there has been contentious debate about the associated expense to reconstruct the supporting embankment wall on the northwest side of the Speed River to accommodate a connecting trail, we believe a better option has been overlooked.

In the drawing showing the detailed street plan for Speedvale construction, a blue and black checked pathway is shown heading north and slightly west along the Speed River bank to River Side Park. We believe this does not need to be the case. This path should come from under the bridge and become a ramp circling counter clockwise back up to street level and connect into the MUP. This would eliminate much of the need for the reconstruction of the river embankment wall.

We feel a well-designed and functioning underpass and access paths addresses the connections for so many users, avoids conflicts of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, and reduces the false safety assumption that all road vehicles stop when the traffic signals dictate.

We have walked this site for a northwest ramp and the site lines and natural landscape seem to accommodate this option well. According to historical photography, the majority of the current area is landfill.

The less pedestrians and cyclists need to use a controlled crossing the safer they are and the better traffic flows in turn which reduces fuel consumption. That is a win on many levels.

There is a ramp on the southwest of the underpass plan; there should be a ramp on the northwest side as well.

Sincerely,
Lorenz Calcagno
Chair | G2G – Guelph Trailway

My main concern is crossing Speedvale safely. Traffic along this section is too fast. Many times drives have sped through the red light at the fire station. A safe zone needs to be created. I endorse the suggestions made by Martin Collier through Residents for a Safe Speedvale.

Bike lanes NEED to be extended to Marlborough and a add a traffic light.
SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN. THIS IS A BUSY PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.
The underpass needs to be a priority.

My main concern is crossing Speedvale safely.
A "Safe Zone" which slows traffic at the bridge where many pedestrians and cyclists cross on the TransCanada Trail is absolutely required.
At a minimum extend bike lanes to Marlborough and add a traffic light.
The underpass needs to be a priority.

The Speedvale “virtual open house (VOH)” ends tonight (April 4) so the Residents for a Safe Speedvale (RSSA) is submitting our final comments for the public record:

1) Consultation:
• Staff took more than 5 years to post new and detailed Speedvale information for the public to consider and then provided only 9 business days for a response (due to Good Friday).
• City of Guelph communications staff advertised the VOH on p. 13 of the Guelph Tribune on March 18 and posted info once to the City’s Facebook account and twice to the City’s Twitter account. The last post was March 25.
• After RSSA requested Mayor Guthrie and most council members to use their own websites and social media channels to inform the public of the VOH, only Ward 2 Councillor Rodrigo Goller did so. Unfortunately, his e-newsletter was only sent out on the afternoon of April 2 giving his subscribers 2 days to respond.
• Given that Speedvale is one of the city’s most expensive capital projects (increasing from $11.5 million to $14.7 million in 2015 to minimum $19.2 million in 2021), RSSA is very concerned that staff were not willing to answer our budget question posed on March 22: What is the final or estimated cost for Speedvale Avenue road and trunk sewer reconstruction (between Glenwood and Manhattan Court)? Please break out project budget lines for: (1) private property land expropriation; (2) hydro relocation; (3) cutting down 37 mature trees; (4) consulting; (5) road resurfacing previous to 2021; (6) road resurfacing from 2021 to 2023; (7) trunk sewer; (8) other expenses not identified in 2021-2023 capital budget.

For the above reasons, we have asked staff to extend the VOH to at least April 8.

2) Road Design:
• The city considered active transportation along Speedvale Avenue in Phase 1 but more as an afterthought than a priority. This is troubling since they decided in 2015 to override city cycling policy dictating that all major road reconstruction include safe bike lanes. A road diet (3-lane) design would have done this for half the $19.2 million cost and would have improved quality of life for Speedvale residents and businesses on many levels.
• Since the road diet design was ignored by staff and council, the RSSA’s “safe zone” design will solve the majority of Speedvale-specific road surface/traffic/safety/equity issues that the Guelph Coaltion for Active Transportation, David Atkinson and others have listed – the more space for cyclists and pedestrians, the better. (See https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10159008133792463&set=p.10159008133792463)
• We wholeheartedly agree with the GCAT that the Speedvale multi-use paths must be extended from Riverview Drive east to Marlborough Road. As mentioned in our earlier comments, an activated traffic light must also be installed at Marlborough and Speedvale.
• We don't agree with David Atkinson’s suggestion for a traffic signal be installed at Riverview as a replacement for the existing crosswalk and new Marlborough traffic light. Riverview Drive and Speedvale is a T-intersection which may only have limited benefits to those residents living to the north of Speedvale. The Marlborough location benefits citizens living and working north and south of Speedvale + has the added benefit of slowing westbound traffic moving towards the "Safe Zone".
• We agree with GCAT that the loop at the west end of the new bridge should be included as soon as possible.
• It is unfortunate that phase 2 does not consider active transportation and only provides “improvements” to vehicles. We hope this changes by the time the work proceeds in 2023 or 2024.

Please see our previous comments of March 22 and 24 for more information or feel free to contact us at safespeedvale (at) gmail.com.

Sincerely,
Residents for a Safe Speedvale Avenue
https://www.facebook.com/groups/safespeedvale

I am unable to comment at length, as I would normally do, because I recently fractured a bone in my left hand and another in my right elbow, so keyboarding or even texting is difficult at the moment. Therefore I would simply like to fully endorse the comments of Marty Collier, on behalf of Residents for a Safe Speedvale Avenue. Maggie Laidlaw

Dear Ike,

As a cyclist and pedestrian, from my point of view, the major problem with Speedvale Avenue is crossing from one side to the other to access the TCT and Riverside Park trail. The existing traffic light and narrow traffic lanes on Speedvale are, in my estimation, not safe. I don't and never will travel Speedvale Avenue on my bikes, bike lanes or not (although I think they are needed). But, it would be nice to easily and safely cross Speedvale in the vicinity of the Speedvale bridge and Riverview Drive. The Earl/Emma Bridge will not solve this problem. I wouldn't use it as it will make no improvement to the Speedvale crossing problem. I've once thought a pedestrian/cyclist underpass crossing north/south beneath the Speedvale bridge would be a great idea, however, I no longer consider it so. As with the EEB, it would be a place for vandalism, a convenient dumping ground and too hidden to be safe for users. Also, we must consider what impact, if any, it will have on the springtime flow of the Speed River.

If the Speedvale bridge is being replaced perhaps it should be widened enough to provide a west bound bike lane on the north side (along with a standard curb-faced sidewalk), and an east/west dedicated cyclist/pedestrian corridor on the south side running from the TCT to at least Delhi Street where a full traffic light is already in place. This will eliminate the need for the Emma/Earl bridge and still provide multi-use from Delhi Marlburough and points east. I have noticed that a lot of motorists travel from Riverview Drive to Speedvale (and vice versa) although I have no hard data and only my observations to back this up. The dedicated cyclist/pedestrian corridor would be properly marked for each use and be completely separated from vehicular traffic. It would be easily maintained all year, easily policed and the cost easily incorporated into the Speedvale Avenue reconstruction project. Some shifting northward of the bridge and traffic lanes might be required and some expropriation of land along the south side of Speedvale to accommodate the dedicated corridor if road widenings are not already intended.
A proposed traffic light a Riverview Drive would also allow for the elimination of the present pedestrian activated light at the east end of the Speedvale bridge and improve vehicular movement to and from Riverview Drive. In my opinion t's a natural mid-block light location. A rejig of the present Riverside Park pathway away from a direct link to Speedvale Avenue and to slip behind the fire station to Riverview Drive and then to the Riverview/Speedvale intersection would be required. Pedestrians and cyclists would cross at this point to the dedicated cycling/pedestrian corridor and motorists would be able to turn onto and from Riverview Drive.
Thanks for the opportunity to make comment on this project
Best,
David Atkinson

I was reading the plans for the construction on Speedvale and didn’t see whether pedestrians would still be able to cross the river during the bridge closure in 2022. It is a heavily trafficked area for pedestrians and the alternative route adds a very long detour (either through riverside park or up delhi to almost Eramosa). The proposed pedestrian bridge at Emma would be a great alternative, but I’ve read it is still under review with not set date for construction.

Thanks so much,
Meredith Grant

Dear Mr. Umar:

The Guelph Coalition for Active Transportation (GCAT) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to increase the quality, quantity and safety of active transportation in Guelph. We serve as the collective voice of active transportation users in Guelph, with members and followers now numbering over a thousand.

We wish to make some comments, ask some questions and make some suggestions regarding the Phase I Speedvale Avenue improvements taking place between Manhattan Court and Glenwood Avenue:

Comments:

GCAT wishes to acknowledge the excellent consideration that has been given to pedestrians and cyclists in the design of these improvements. Thank you.
GCAT is very pleased to see the proposed cycling-safe, protected intersection of Speedvale Avenue and Woolwich Street. The cycling facilities at this intersection appear to be similar to those at the intersection of Stone Road and Gordon Street, which GCAT believes function well. It will also make a much safer alternative for cyclists making left turns at this intersection.
GCAT is very pleased to see the addition of the multi-use paths on the both sides of Woolwich Street north of Speedvale Avenue, and on the east side of Woolwich south of Speedvale. If we’re not mistaken, these paths are off the roadway and are protected by curbs and gutters. These additions close the short cycling network discontinuities that had previously existed and which had forced riders to share roadway space with motorists without protection.
GCAT is pleased to see the extension of the multi-use path along the east side of the GJR track leading from Speedvale Avenue to just south of Gemmel Lane. This is a much safer alternative for pedestrians and cyclists who wish to travel westbound and then northbound. GCAT is pleased to see the slight jogs in the multi-use paths on the north and south sides of Speedvale Avenue at the rail crossings which allow cyclists to cross the tracks at a much safer perpendicular angle.


Questions:

Recognizing the limits of this project’s scope, do the multi-use paths along Woolwich Street north and south of Speedvale Avenue continue for any distance? For example, a bi-directional multi-use path on the east side of Woolwich extended north to the intersection with Marilyn Drive would enable a safe, enjoyable route to the Evergreen Senior Centre and Riverside Park West from the Riverside Park East trails. Together with a multi-use path on the west side of Woolwich, it would also offer a safe route to the Trans Canada Trail through Woodlawn Cemetery and the Woodlawn multi-use path with many opportunities for shopping and dining, etc. Additionally these multi-use path extensions would also enable safe alternative routes to the Guelph section of the Guelph to Goderich Trail (G2G) that GCAT is currently working on with the City Parks Department. Multi-use path extensions would also offer an alternative safe route to all of the above if the future Speedvale Bridge underpass is closed for various reasons like maintenance or flood conditions. Finally, for those users who simply want to walk or bike to the Speedvale/Woolwich plaza the combination of the multi-use path and the protected intersection will now encourage active transportation as it is direct and safe. When our TCT/ATN Trail South has not been winter-maintained, for example, this combination also offers bikers a safer alternative to the bike lanes on Woolwich leading to our Downtown. Ideally the multi-use paths should extend north all the way to Woodlawn Road for safe access to businesses in the Wallmart plaza and the Canadian Tire plaza. The area on the east side of Woolwich Street from Speedvale Avenue is ideal for multi-use paths since there are fewer driveways, making it safer. We also ask that consideration be given to extend the multi-use paths east on Speedvale Avenue as far as Marlborough Road if space permits to provide access to residents and businesses in this area to the Emma to Earl Street Bridge or the TCT trails, etc.
Although we are pleased to see multi-use paths along Speedvale Avenue west of Riverview Drive, we note the narrowing at the bridge that results in a cycling network discontinuity and, inevitably, conflict between pedestrians and cyclists in a very restricted, potentially dangerous space. While the proposed bridge deck sidewalk is wider than that on the existing bridge, due to the guardrail, there is no escape path for cyclists and pedestrians in the case of conflict. Left unchanged, this design forces all of the safety compromise onto pedestrians and cyclists, the most vulnerable right of way users, and none onto motorists whose way through is completely unimpeded. This is both inequitable and potentially dangerous. Is it possible to increase the width in this area in order to continue the multi-use path across the bridge span? Is there no other solution to this problem, including sharing the safety compromise equally among all road users?
From consultation with Sustainable Transportation City staff we understand that the concrete sidewalk on the bridge deck cannot be considered a multi-use path because the surface is not asphalt. This really must be addressed because cyclists would be required to dismount since they may not ride legally on sidewalks. As the rest of the bridge deck is paved with asphalt for motorized traffic, why cannot the area used by pedestrians and cyclists be similarly paved? If not this, can the surface be painted with a permanent surface coating to permit legal cycling?
GCAT has noted the annual problem of road and sidewalk snow plows throwing windrows in opposite directions, often making the existing bridge and sidewalk impassable to both pedestrians and cyclists. We hope that consideration is given to increase the width as previously mentioned but also to providing areas for snow storage for the larger trail snow clearing machine particularly on the South side of the bridge. The current situation leaves much to be desired as snow is dumped from street plows onto the bridge sidewalk making it impassible and unsafe.
With the improvements being made, GCAT anticipates higher volumes of westbound cyclists coming off of Riverview Drive onto the multi-use path on the north side of Speedvale Avenue. Riverview Drive will become an ‘active transportation collector road’ serving the entire neighbourhood to the north and east. From the perspective of westbound motorists it may appear that cyclists southbound on Riverview Drive are about to ride out dangerously onto the Speedvale Avenue roadway. Is it possible to solve this problem by extending the multi-use path northward in a wide radius around the corner at Riverview Drive and continuing it at least until the driveway into the fire station parking lot? This would offer a much safer route for cyclists and pedestrians using Riverview Drive to access the new multi-use path. Currently cyclists using the roadway are forced to ride around parked cars at the end of Riverview Drive, then dismount and walk to the crosswalk (or ride illegally on the sidewalk.)
We note the addition of a capacity for a sidewalk underpass on the west end of the bridge span. As you know, GCAT has advocated for years for a continuous trail on the west side of the Speed River both north and south of Speedvale Avenue and under the bridge. Anticipating that the connecting trails will be built in the future, is it possible in the current project to provide pedestrian and cycling access to the bridge underpass from the new multi-use path on the north side of Speedvale? Unless this access to the underpass is provided, residents and users of the Riverside Park East trails would continue to be required to use the crosswalk, disrupting the flow of traffic and, for cyclists, dismounting, since otherwise they would need to detour to the pedestrian bridge further north in the Park (requiring dismounting again.) Surely this is an undesirable option considering the huge investment in the Speedvale Avenue Project to increase capacity well into the future. With much more active transportation usage this problem will only increase in time. We hope that our suggestion of a loop from the underpass on the north side of the bridge that connects back up onto the multi-use path and bridge sidewalk be examined before and during the bridge replacement. This will enable a much earlier solution to actually opening the underpass to users as the current plan of waiting until the west side retaining wall is replaced we understand to be anywhere from 10 to 20 years or more into the future. Access to the underpass from the north side of Speedvale Avenue is in line with the reports from the consultants’ recommendations and examination reports on the condition of the West retaining walls.

Additionally, the sidewalk underpass width is only 2289mm compared to the bridge deck width of 3200mm. Can this be widened to at least 3200mm to reduce conflict for pedestrians and cyclists, especially due to the added concern of security underneath the bridge? We realise that there is a compromise on the clearance height between the surface of the underpass sidewalk and the bottom of the bridge ceiling due to the average water level of the river. However given that bicyclists will ride on the underpass, perhaps consideration should be given to increasing the clearance height.

Thank you for providing the information about the improvements. On the whole GCAT believes that the needs of pedestrians and cyclists have been well met. Please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification of any of our comments.

We look forward to continuing to collaborate with City Staff on this and future projects. Thank you.

Yours truly,



Mike Darmon,
President, Guelph Coalition for Active Transportation

Dear GVIP1290 (sorry we can’t address you by your real name):

RSSA agrees that the city is "missing the mark not putting the underpass in now". Unfortunately, it will cost an additional $5.4 million which, to date, council hasn't been willing to spend. Instead, the 10-year capital budget only has $860,000 allocated to an "interim solution" that won't help vulnerable road users or slow down traffic -- it is just the status quo. See https://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/council_agenda_121718.pdf#page=51. While we would have preferred a road diet be installed between Woolwich and Stevenson, the “Safe Zone” between Marlborough and the west side of the Speed River bridge is the second best solution. It is far superior to the “interim solution” and complements the underpass if/when it is built. See https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10159008133792463&set=p.1015900813379246.

The Marlborough traffic light solves a lot – but only if the city and public agrees that Speedvale should become a safe multi-modal street that is welcoming to all road users, including property owners who live on it. Here’s why it is needed:
• The city has chosen to reconstruct Speedvale with wider lanes and unrestricted sight lines. This will induce more auto traffic, higher speeds and more noise. Shortening the distance between traffic lights will reduce these impacts, and facilitate safer vehicular ingress/egress from side streets, including Marlborough and Riverview.
• This traffic light, which would only be activated by push button or traffic sensors, gives vulnerable users a third and closer option to cross Speedvale safely (especially those who live, walk or bike in the neighbourhoods east of the river). The traffic light will substantially reduce jaywalking and cut time required for active transportation enthusiasts to go to/from Riverside Park – the main destination in this part of the city.
• The 170 meter distance between Delhi and Marlborough is further than (1) the distance between Suffolk and Norwich traffic lights on Woolwich (150 m) and between the Boathouse crosswalk and Albert Street traffic (120 m) – and those are 2 lane streets so traffic congestion is worse. Toronto, Montreal and London, Ontario have traffic light distances of less than 170 meters in mixed use areas that are similar to Speedvale.

Besides the multiple benefits mentioned above (that will encourage some drivers to walk or bike more often), the “Safe Zone” also eliminates the need for the proposed $2 million Emma-Earl Bridge -- along with the major environmental and security issues it presents. This $2 million could go towards the Speedvale Underpass and/or other active transportation priorities (e.g. “Safe Zone” installed at Eramosa Road and Trans-Canada Trail).

We are glad to discuss this more with you in person – and hopefully with city staff and council, too. Please contact us at https://www.facebook.com/groups/safespeedvale

You are really missing the mark not putting the underpass in now..putting a light in a Marlborough will solve nothing..there will be increased traffic jams just like there is now at Riverview. Having another light one block east at Delhi where its necessary is ridiculously too close..people are not going to walk all the way down from the bridge to the light at Marlborough. Sorry..I can't agree with your plans..tell me why you think this is a good plan..because I don't get it.

You are really missing the mark not putting the underpass in now..putting a light in a Marlborough will solve nothing..there will be increased traffic jams just like there is now at Riverview. Having another light one block east at Delhi where its necessary is ridiculously too close..people are not going to walk all the way down from the bridge to the light at Marlborough. Sorry..I can't agree with your plans..

Thanks for posting new information related to the $20 million reconstruction of Speedvale Avenue between Glenwood and Manhattan Court. The Residents for a Safe Speedvale Avenue (RSSA) has been waiting for this info for several years -- though we still have comments and continue to have questions that have not been answered. They are even more important given the COVID lens we must look at everything through.

In July 2015, staff and council were adamant that road and sewer reconstruction would get underway in 2017 so there wasn’t time to pilot a 6-month road diet on this 1 km section of Speedvale (http://chng.it/CL6ZkZBdvS). Had it become permanent, the street would have become a safer, multi-modal road for all ages and abilities while saving up to $10 million. The city also would have saved millions on land expropriation, burying hydro and cutting down 37 beautiful trees – we are waiting to hear how much has been spent on these activities but believe it to be in the $5 million range.

Staff and council have decided that Speedvale must be a wider, faster and less safe road that induces more car traffic and reduces active transportation choices. We are very concerned that the city is only “proposing sidewalks OR multi-use paths on both sides of the road”. Looking at the schematic (https://guelph.ca/.../PIC_PlanProfRoll-SPEEDVALE_ROLLph1.pdf), the proposed multi-use paths will be limited to a 300 meter stretch between Woolwich and Riverview Drive. Since 2017, we have suggested these lanes be extended a short block east to Marlborough Road and enhanced as part of a "Safe Zone" (https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10159008133792463&set=p.10159008133792463). A new traffic light at Marlborough would allow people living on the east side of the river to safely cross the new wider/faster road by foot, bike or car. Adding lower speed limits, paint, rumble strips and a new crosswalk location west of the river would benefit drivers and vulnerable road users.

The "Safe Zone" also replaces the unnecessary $2 million Emma-Earl Bridge (EEB) freeing up these additional tax dollars for far more important active transportation priorities (e.g. where Trans-Canada Trail meets Eramosa Road -- dangerously dropping cyclists and pedestrians in the middle of speeding traffic without a crosswalk). Please see all Speedvale/EEB details at https://www.facebook.com/groups/safespeedvale