Royalty Oaks project: Why?
Recently, Islanders were offered tours of the proposed Royalty Oaks project at St. Peter’s Road and the TCH bypass. Project enthusiasts boast several planned "improvements", but the primary stated objective is to “accommodate an additional right turn lane onto Route 2”, thus alleviating 5 p.m. west-bound congestion.
Taking the tour, one learns what is to be added in terms of concrete and pavement (several lanes and a footpath), what is to be lost in terms of protected land (.72 acres) and trees (many ... some quite old), what is the timeline (this summer) and what it will cost ($4-5 million according to our government guides).
Lots of "what" questions answered, but most "why" questions went unanswered by our cordial guides whose knowledge base was road building, not planning and priorities. And so, as the severely curtailed public feedback window on this project expires, many "why" questions remain.
Why are we removing protection from a rare patch of treasured Acadian forest and possibly weakening our standards for protected areas, with only a few days of hopelessly limited public consultation, all for the sake of possibly easing late afternoon traffic flow in one direction?
Why is there such a rush to begin construction of this project which, it must be noted, lies within the riding of the environment minister? And why are the project plans so hard to find on the Transportation Department’s website? They should be on the TIE Department main page, not buried in a governmental link-maze.
Why does the "horsetrading" of protected and unprotected land fragments described in these rather superficial planning documents result in the creation of a potentially commercial property next to Murphy’s Pharmacy and the KFC?
Why are we still trying to fight traffic congestion by encouraging more traffic? Why not mitigate congestion with plans creating less traffic, not more highway space. Why do our planners overlook the fact that traffic, like bureaucracy, expands to fill available space?
Heavy traffic is inconvenient, noisy and dangerous. Less obvious but even worse, it is a significant contributor to global warming. We have recently re-thought and redesigned almost every aspect of our daily lives in order to meet an impending challenge. Global warming remains in many ways a more threatening challenge. Why are we not focusing on CO2 reduction, and instead encouraging further CO2 creation with a significantly expanded intersection?
Finally, why not save the millions in Royalty Oaks project cash and use the current congestion problem at this intersection as the catalyst for behavioural change aimed at easing rush-hour traffic throughout the city?
Why not rejig a few work schedules? Between QEH, DVA, TIE and maybe half dozen other major employers, a half-hour delay or advance in start/quit times might significantly ease the daily rush-hour spasms in all directions.
Why not take a million or so of the project’s capital budget and devote it to augmented public transit? Why not take another million and incentivize car-pooling by somehow compensating ride-sharers? We would still be several million to the good and Royalty Oaks would remain, as it should, undisturbed.
Lots of “what” questions answered, but most “why” questions went unanswered by our cordial guides whose knowledge base was road building, not planning and priorities.