Despite a committee vote last week that recommended the opposite, city council voted on Tuesday to grant exemptions for a number of streets in London, Ont., set to receive new sidewalks this summer.
The sidewalks became a hot topic during a civic works committee meeting last week that heard from more than 30 Londoners who voiced varying views on the proposed promenades.
Some worried about the resulting tree loss from the sidewalk installation while others worried the sidewalks wouldn’t be maintained.
Accessibility issues were also found on both sides of the debate, with some Londoners arguing the sidewalks would help those with disabilities while others argued the opposite.
Some 11 roadways, along with their proposed sidewalks, were up for debate during Tuesday’s meeting of council. The proposed sidewalks are tied to the upcoming reconstruction of underground infrastructure in the affected areas.
The debate surrounding a proposed sidewalk for Imperial Road was unique in that a motion was put forward to have the location of its sidewalk moved rather than prevent its installation.
Ward 5 Coun. Maureen Cassidy, who represents the area that contains Imperial Road, acknowledged that while a large number of her constituents do not want a sidewalk, the alternative may result in “no pedestrian realm, at all.”
“I wonder if this is a case where perfect is the envy of good,” Cassidy told council.
Council voted to have Imperial Road’s proposed sidewalk moved from the west side of the street to the east, which city engineer Kelly Scherr said would result in a greater tree loss due to installation.
“There are nine removed if the sidewalk is on the west side, three due to tree health. There are 12 in total that come out if it is on the east side,” Scherr said.
Debates surrounding other sidewalks heard some councillors reiterate objections from constituents.
“The people that are living those lives in the neighbourhoods I represent have said to me, in the strongest possible terms, that they don’t want sidewalks, they don’t feel safe on sidewalks,” said Ward 6 Coun. Phil Squire speaking of constituents with disabilities.
“Fourteen years almost I’ve represented this area, I’ve never once had a call from anyone … not once have they asked for a sidewalk from anywhere connected to this area,” Ward 10 Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen said about a proposed sidewalk for Bartlett Crescent.
“They understand they have to have road construction, fine, and they’re going to lose a couple trees, but they don’t need a sidewalk going halfway around a dead-end street. Are you kidding?” Ward 14 Coun. Steven Hillier said in regards to plans for East Afton Place.
Those opposed to granting exemptions for the roadways primed for sidewalks expressed concern that a precedent was being set by the process at hand.
“I do not support undermining our policies here, that’s how it feels. It’s taken years to come up with our plans, years of public engagement. … I’m not going to throw it away,” Ward 9 Coun. Anna Hopkins said.
“It is incomprehensible to me that we’re in 2021 and we’re talking about building roads without sidewalks,” Ward 4 Coun. Jesse Helmer said.
“Last year, we gave an exemption to Runnymede Crescent and I said at the time that it was going to lead to a flurry of exemption requests, and look at where we’re at this year.”
Of the 11 proposed sidewalks up for discussion, seven were cut while three were kept.
Plans for a potential sidewalk at Culver Place went untouched, but that area is still being reviewed by city staff to see if one will be installed.
STREETS NOT ALLOWED SIDEWALKS:
- Abbey Rise (plus Scarlett connection to Wychwood)
- Bartlett Crescent
- Friars Way
- St. Anthony Road
- Tarbart Terrace
- Doncaster Place
- East Afton Place
STREETS ALLOWED SIDEWALKS
- Imperial Road (on east side)
- Paymaster Avenue
- Elm Street