For those readers who are interested however here are a few facts for the record.
1. The noise barrier has been in discussion for at least 10 years.
Much of the time was consumed by taking decibel readings and measurements and clarifying exactly what the Regions previously undefined noise policy was going to be.
2. There were several public meetings with the area residents - one was at AuroraTown Hall where we met with Regional staff and consulting engineers.
3. Each homeowners property was inspected and a determination made as to the noise-reduction effectiveness of a barrier and any environmental effects the barrier would have.
Where the barrier was of no use - such as homes with driveways onto Bathurst, homes too far below grade or homes already protected by the natural terrain - a barrier was not put in.
Existing fences on the barrier "right of way" were removed.
Each home lot plan was detailed even to the point of which existing trees had to be removed and which trees would be planted as replacements.
Maybe York Region staff didn't keep Aurora council informed but as far as I'm concerned they were very forthcoming and open in their communications with residents.
Did it take too long to happen?
perhaps.
Is it perfect?
perhaps not.
But it's a vast improvment for homes that have seen Bathurst go from a country cowpath into a very busy four lane thoroughfare.
One could always argue about the cost and whether or not the area "deserved" to get a noise barrier but bear in mind a couple of points.
The noise barrier is in keeping with the Regions noise policy regarding homes abutting 4 lane roads and yes I know - new subs have the cost "built-in".
Expect more arguments when Leslie and Bloomington are made four lane one day.
Also expect a barrier on the west side of Bathurst when King gets developed.
Also - the train whistle argument doesn't quite hold. Train whistles aren't banned in certain areas - they affect anyone that lives near the tracks just as traffic noise affects anyone living next to four lane roads.
Telling some residents that they'll have to put up with the noise is like telling some "whistle" residents that they should have bought a house along a different section of the track where whisltes aren't allowed.
Sorry to be long-winded but one shouldn't assume this was a "midnight madness" quickie job on the part of the Region.
If you want to know more contact the Region's engineering department - talk to the residents in the area.
It's not a secret.
******************************
I challenge none of the facts above. I was there for some discussion in a Council meeting with some of the Bathurst Street residents.
I enjoyed watching regional officials interacting with Aurora residents.
Considering the potential for unimaginable cost precedent
throughout the Region of installing barrier fencing at publicexpense
long after subdivisions had been completed, I did not envy the problem.
I as mistaken. They had no problem. They simply said Yes.
As I watch that fence being built, mile after mile, I cannot comprehend how the Region accepted that responsibility.
It's not unusual for a municipality to receive a complaint from a new resident about the traffic.He bought a house on a major artery, probably on a Sunday morning, and finds out after, it is not a quiet little layby safe for his children to play.
He demands the municipality divert the traffic onto somebody else's street.
We cannot do that.The street was designed to be a major collector. Traffic increases with time.Traffic flow cannot be changed.
If there was a mistake, it was made by the homebuyer.
If he cannot live in the house he bought because of traffic he didn't see, a new decision is his to make.
The municipal public purse will simply not stretch to take care of all the surprises people discover after they have purchased a
home.
Aurora's homeowners are paying for the Region's project.
People having a having a hard time finding resources to repair roofs, driveways fences,cut down dangerous trees , pay the mortgage. and senior's with no mortgage, forced to give up homes because property taxes are beyond their means.
The crippling taxes include paying for the handsome, expensive, acoustic amenity the Region is building for Bathurst Street homeowners at the expense of the rest of us
That my friend, is one of the reasons for the burr under my saddle about regional spending.
Don't make the mistake of dismissing it with a grain of salt.
The ground is not too steady under your feet.
I have heard how Regional staff nurture and care for regional Councillors. How they bend over backwards to cater to every little whim.
I have seen examples.
Posts
2 comments:
"Aurora's homeowners are paying for the Region's project."
And so are Vaughan's residents, and Richmond Hill's, and Markham's and so on. I would think they should be more pissed than Aurora's residents. We do not live in a vacuum.
I submit to you however that the majority of these residents have a valid complaint. Some of these houses were built in a time when Bathurst was a 2 lane road, not the 4 lane aterial roadway it is now. The environment was changed on them, they did not buy with the environment as it is now. I do not blame the homeowner - as you do here.
I would expect that the subject of prudent spending at the Regional level is a source of endless questions, arguments and counter-arguments.
I certainly do not want to extend this discussion endlessly but I would like to make a few points.
Anyone can view the 5 page noise barrier policy on the Region's website.
It is dated 2006.
No doubt the policy is partially the result of noise concerns from folks like us in the Bathurst area.
In short - the Region will install a barrier under certain circumstances:
IF the noise increases to a certain level.
IF it can be shown a barrier will be effective.
IF there are no other alternatives.
The Region will pay IF the noise is a result of a Capital Improvement to CERTAIN Regional roads - such as expanding Bathurst to four lanes.
In addition, under certain circumstances, and subject to funding approval, a "neighbourhood initiative" noise barrier could still be installed if enough neighbours agreed to put up half the cost.
An example of that would be if Bathurst was still two lanes but area residents thought it was getting too noisy anyway.
I expect Councillor Buck would argue that the Region shouldn't be paying for any of it.
I also expect some would agree.
However.
The policy is clear and applies to any neighbourhoods in the Region that qualify.
This is not a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" or "one of the Bathurst residents must know someone" deal.
Under the policy we qualified so we got it.
Can the Town of Aurora say the same about the traffic calming project in Northeast Aurora?
Does the Town have a standard traffic calming policy that applies equally to all?
Wasn't that project a classic example of "squeaky wheel" that should have been "neighbourhood initiative"?
Now it appears as if we might all have to pay to remove these very same chicanes that were once so "necessary"?
The amount of tax dollars involved in the traffic calming situation is certainly less than the noise barrier but the principle is the same:
Establishing and following a written policy for all is preferable, in my opinion at least, to the "squeaky wheels with friends on council" approach, even if that policy is a result of prodding from concerned residents.
And unlike a "favour", a written policy can be debated, argued, amended or replaced.
Again, I apologize for the wordiness.
Post a Comment