Not only does the Community not want this project, but there are also some major flaws with the current plan, the biggest of which is the safety factor.
Below is a drawing that illustrates the safety issues:
- The new entrance is on a bend on a busy road that is very busy.
- There is no sidewalk of the entrance side (south) of the road, so pedestrians will have to cross the street.
- There is no cross walk (and if there were one, it would still be unsafe as it is on a bend)
- The entrance is just a metres from the intersection of Minerva & Decew.
The Committee claims that the pedestrian entrance is at the east and west entrances of the Park, however Pedestrians will use this entrance. Furthermore, they stated that the Township and County Engineers didn't see an issue with the entrance. The reality is that the 4 issues noted above make this an unsafe entrance to the park.
Bicycles, pedestrians and cars will all choose to enter the park here particularly when there is a ball game and a soccer game at the same time. Think of when a ball game and a soccer game are over at the same time, traffic to and from the soccer fields, pedestrians, bicycles and cars will all be navigating that tight area with no facility for pedestrians to safely cross the street. The first pedestrian issue that occurs will result in the insurance companies targeting the Township for not addressing pedestrian traffic. Not sure how the Engineers from the Township and County thought that there isn't a safety issue but there is... it is blatantly obvious. That road has it's issues without an entrance on the bend, it is already a safety factor.
Illustration of the current "Royal Reno" plan
Legend: Green - the park area White - existing features Pink - phase two features Purple - existing buildings Grey - Royal Reno phase 1
So, if we were to move forward with the "Royal Reno", how could we go about it in a safer manner? Well, if you look at the drawing below, you will see some ideas of how you could construct the pavilion and parking with an entrance that offers a safe alternative entrance to the park.
This plan includes:
- New entrance to the park at the end of Wellington street.
- New crosswalk across Roth st to the sidewalk on Wellington street
- Walking path on the south side of the proposed road (which is currently there just not yet paved)
- Move the parking from the North side of the pavilion to the south side
So, now imagine that a soccer game and a ball game leave the park at the same time. Pedestrians, bicycles and cars came come and go from the park in a safe manner. via the east and west entrances to the park. It makes sense doesn't it?????
Illustration of the proposed Safer "Royal Reno" plan
Legend: Green - the park area White - existing features Pink - phase two features Purple - existing buildings Grey - Royal Reno phase 1
I totally agreed with your comments.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the committee could look at scaling down this project and just renovate existing, maybe add a 2nd storey.
The existing entrances should be kept open. Any changes could put our fair in jeopardy.
The step-dance people seem to want to leave the park alone as their comments where, "this is the nicest park they go to" and "facilities are adequate".
Interesting: at last council meeting July 4th, committee was given the go ahead for tenders on construction. They were told everyone is on "board" with this!!!!!
Maybe time for another letter to the editor and/or petition to stop this unnessary project.
Bob Routly
I have some questions about your statements on behalf of the community...
ReplyDeleteYou state "[t]he general consensus of the Community of Tavistock is that we don't need a new Pavilion", and "[n]ot only does the Community not want this project". Can I ask where these conclusions came from? Was there a meeting or poll that generated this data and conclusion?
I believe that the new pavilion is a community driven and community sponsored project. The donations for the project that are displayed on the board at the main intersection are donations from the community. So there must be some portion of the community that are behind this project.
I am certain that you are correct that there are portions of the community that do not want the pavilion, and that there are portions that want a different pavilion, just as there are those that want the pavilion. But I am not aware of any overwhelming objection to the project. If there is, it would be good to know about it. And (I believe) the pavilion committee is made up members of the community, so I'm guessing they want this kind of input from the community as well. Have you sent this to the committee, or asked them direct?
There is no conspiracy here - nobody on the pavilion committee has a hidden agenda (unless I'm being naive, but I don't think I am).
I'm just concerned that you are unintentionally creating a conflict here that doesn't need to exist. And, I am also willing to be convinced otherwise if there is information that shows it.
mike
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Mike,
ReplyDeleteAgain, thank you for your interest in this topic. It does affect all residents of Tavistock from the perspective of safety and tax dollars.
The comment regarding the "general consensus" is based on a couple of factors;
1. While collecting signatures on the petition in opposiotion of the Angled Parking project, I asked reisdents about the Pavilion Project and all but two were opposed to the project to some measure .
2. Since receiving the fundaraising package, I have spoke to dozens of people and again all but just a few are opposed to the project to some degree. Having said this, most are opposed to the project entirely (I don't have the actual numbers).
3. Also, of the 12 visitors to this blog, 8 have voted "Cancel the project outright, we don't need another pavilion.". That is 75% of those that have voted.
Your second point about the support coming from the community. Yes there is financial support from the community, however I have spoken to a number of people that have given to the project only because they give to every community project, but are still opposed the project. Also, we are only just past 50% of the funds required to build the project, yet Council has decided to drive forward.... where is the remaing 250000+ coming from??
You have got to admit $1,000,000 is A LOT of money for an Outdoor building!
More over, these concerns (as well as all the others noted in this blog) were communicated to the Committee in June, to which the response took 10 days to receive. I responded to that email when received which has not yet been responded to (sent to the Committee on June 7, 2012). So, all of these issues and objections have been communicated to the appropriate people through the appropriate channels with no result thus far, hence the reason for publishing this on this blog.
Conflict is not the intention here, voicing the concerns of the Community that I have spoke with is the intention of this article and the goal of the blog in which it is published.
Regards,
Jon