Speed issue parked to allow for legal input
Clearview council has voted to refer approved speed reductions to staff, directing them to seek legal advice on liability, insurability, and whether council was required to follow its Traffic Calming Policy when making the decisions.
The move is another turn on a long and winding road that is close to resulting in the lowering of posted speeds from 80 km/hr down to 60 km/hr on Fairgrounds Road, River Road/Concession 6 and the 10th Concession.
The speed limit debate was back on the agenda Monday because Councillor Connie Leishman put forward a motion to reconsider the decision. This allowed council to then refer the items back to staff, which passed unanimously.
Although the 10th Concession was not specifically discussed at Monday’s council meeting, it was swept up in the referral process after Gord Zeggil, in an effort to put a stop to the speed reductions, tabled a legal opinion in support of his claim that council disregarded its own Traffic Calming Policy when making the decision, specifically with regard to public consultation.
Staff will investigate if the policy is relevant to the topic of rural roads, which have come to serve as routes for through-traffic. Deputy director of public works Dan Perreault said speed reduction is not a measure outlined in the policy.
“Arbitrary, unrealistic and non-uniform limits have created a socially acceptable disregard for the speed limits,” said Zeggil during a March 21 deputation, presenting data that unrealistic speed limits will actually increase the risk of collisions and decrease compliance, and increase safety risks to pedestrians and cyclists. “A reasonable speed limit offers an effective enforcement tool to the police by clearly separating the occasional violator from the reasonable majority.”
Zeggil solicited a legal opinion from Steven J. O’Melia of Miller Thomson Lawyers that said the policy should have been followed.
“…It is our opinion that township council has not followed the rules it established for itself in its Traffic Calming Policy. Not doing so renders any decisions that are made pursuant to that flawed process more vulnerable to a legal challenge. While the outcome of such a challenge can never be predicted with certainty, it is clear that the township’s failure to adhere to its own rules would form part of the judicial consideration, writes O’Melia in a letter dated March 21.
“It is not too late for the township to correct these deficiencies by carrying out the process set out in the policy prior to making a decision on a bylaw to implement proposed speed reductions.” Zeggil said the township’s traffic study fails to prove that the roads are not safe and that he estimates more than $1 million will be spent on implementing the speed reductions.
He is a member of an opposition group questioning the support for the speed reduction, when there is growing dissent.
“Clearly, the process to review and potentially reduce the speed limits has not been an open and transparent undertaking. The majority interests of the working people, businesses and farmers have not been properly considered,” said Zeggil. “In my opinionthere has been political lobbying and fear mongering within our council that has affected the decision-making process as it relates to the traffic study. I am asking council to reject the proposed bylaws and get back to the business of running our township in an open, honest and transparent manner. Please respect the wishes of the majority of Clearview Township taxpayers and stop the speed reductions.”
Mayor Doug Measures extended his respect to Zeggil for bringing to his attention the procedural failure to follow the Traffic Calming Policy.
“Elected officials are citizens doing citizens’ work,” said Measures. “That’s what we are trying to do here, and it’s complicated and frankly, there’s a lot of procedural gymnastics that go on to get to motions at a council table that move this municipality forward.”
He said he believes the roads are safe but also urged people to “slow the hell down.”
Thom Paterson was the only council member to vote against the motion to reconsider.
He said design restrictions were another important factor in determining speed.
“One of the things I worry about when we get too polarized on this issue – if we start undermining some of the decisions that we make now, to actually find a framework to work better on these decisions – I’m afraid we’re going to have more political decisions by council than solid traffic design decisions from our staff, that council and the public can look at,” said Paterson. “Yes, it’s easy to point out all the difficulties, some of the inconsistencies, and some of the areas that are hard to understand but it’s a lot harder to find the right solutions to keep our roads safe.”
Council has asked that staff bring the issue back to the table by June 30.
