Traffic in the Mission

[Bsuds]

New 2,600 units development at KLO and Pandosy.

So when did a 280 unit development turn into 2600 units? As well as it's not by Pandosy but by Immaculata school.
Even at that it will affect traffic in the area no doubt but will have little or no effect on traffic to the South Mission where there is a need for another access.

Weren't there plans at one point to do something along Swamp road into that area?

[Rickshaw1]

I have lived in Kettle Valley for 8 years and I can tell you right off the top, I live in one of the smallest, cheapest houses up here. I am not rich, not at all. I chose to live here because I thought it would be a good place, a safe place, to raise my kids. My kids are well-adjusted kids, who have lived in Rutland and Surrey. We are far from "elitists" and only moved here because it was safe, pretty and quiet.

When we moved here the fires of 2003 had already long happened. But we noticed early on that traffic was an issue, especially at 8-9 am around Anne Mclymont elementary (sorry for any spelling errors) Then a few years ago the lower mission improved the roads around the school but they didn't widen it. Instead it seemed it was more for beauty. Whatever, I chose to live here and I realized I had to deal with a single lane road out of the upper Mission.

But when I moved here I had no idea there would be talk of ripping up the soccer field and building even more smaller homes, townhouses etc. Now we are faced with another 100-160 additional vehicles going up and down the hill. The same single lane hill that had to accommodate the people fleeing the fires of 2003. The substantially lower amount of people who will have to flee now in the case of an emergency. I am not in favour of building more and more homes up here. The City, however, seems to love this idea. The only counsellors I see that seem to have an issue with this proposal are Mr Sieben and Ms Gray.

Now to all the people who like to spew what seem to be jealous vitriol at Upper Mission residents, I ask you take a step back and if you want to comment, comment on facts, not snarky, needling remarks to the "rich folks" that live up here. I can tell you right off the hop that I will not apologize for "trying" to give my kids a safe neighbourhood to live in. Not at all. But to peg ALL KV residents as rich people is unfair and unjust. Some of us live here because it is pretty, quiet and safe and accept the fact that some inconveniences come with living up the hill. But to continually add more and more homes without regard to the safety of the residents is another thing altogether. I am not sorry I live up here. WE may be the poorest family up here but it's our right to live where we want. But no matter where we live, it shouldn't be an issue that we expect the City not to allow too many homes, therefore, more cars etc in said neighbourhood.

So for all the people who keep spewing remarks that reek of jealousy, stop. You may live in an area with a more expensive home, etc and that's great for you. Nobody should be ridiculed for living where they do and nobody should assume everyone who lives in said area is the same type of person who lives next door. And for all of you who seem to think upper mission homes are for the elite, we have been looking to move down the hill into the lower mission and to do so it would cost us a solid $100-$150 thousand more to do so, living in a similar sized home. Our kids are getting older and being closer to their high school would be ideal but seemingly not the case at this time.

I think it is fair though to say that in KV, while there may be plenty of room to build more homes which means more tax dollars for the City, it doesn't mean there is enough road space to accommodate another 100-160 cars going up and down the hill. The Mayor thinks it's ok, but this resident does not. Even if I didn't live here I could agree that unless the artery going up to KV is doubled, no more homes should be built up here.

[lightspeed]

I have lived in Kettle Valley for 8 years and I can tell you right off the top, I live in one of the smallest, cheapest houses up here. I am not rich, not at all. I chose to live here because I thought it would be a good place, a safe place, to raise my kids. My kids are well-adjusted kids, who have lived in Rutland and Surrey. We are far from "elitists" and only moved here because it was safe, pretty and quiet.

When we moved here the fires of 2003 had already long happened. But we noticed early on that traffic was an issue, especially at 8-9 am around Anne Mclymont elementary (sorry for any spelling errors) Then a few years ago the lower mission improved the roads around the school but they didn't widen it. Instead it seemed it was more for beauty. Whatever, I chose to live here and I realized I had to deal with a single lane road out of the upper Mission.

But when I moved here I had no idea there would be talk of ripping up the soccer field and building even more smaller homes, townhouses etc. Now we are faced with another 100-160 additional vehicles going up and down the hill. The same single lane hill that had to accommodate the people fleeing the fires of 2003. The substantially lower amount of people who will have to flee now in the case of an emergency. I am not in favour of building more and more homes up here. The City, however, seems to love this idea. The only counsellors I see that seem to have an issue with this proposal are Mr Sieben and Ms Gray.

Now to all the people who like to spew what seem to be jealous vitriol at Upper Mission residents, I ask you take a step back and if you want to comment, comment on facts, not snarky, needling remarks to the "rich folks" that live up here. I can tell you right off the hop that I will not apologize for "trying" to give my kids a safe neighbourhood to live in. Not at all. But to peg ALL KV residents as rich people is unfair and unjust. Some of us live here because it is pretty, quiet and safe and accept the fact that some inconveniences come with living up the hill. But to continually add more and more homes without regard to the safety of the residents is another thing altogether. I am not sorry I live up here. WE may be the poorest family up here but it's our right to live where we want. But no matter where we live, it shouldn't be an issue that we expect the City not to allow too many homes, therefore, more cars etc in said neighbourhood.

So for all the people who keep spewing remarks that reek of jealousy, stop. You may live in an area with a more expensive home, etc and that's great for you. Nobody should be ridiculed for living where they do and nobody should assume everyone who lives in said area is the same type of person who lives next door. And for all of you who seem to think upper mission homes are for the elite, we have been looking to move down the hill into the lower mission and to do so it would cost us a solid $100-$150 thousand more to do so, living in a similar sized home. Our kids are getting older and being closer to their high school would be ideal but seemingly not the case at this time.

I think it is fair though to say that in KV, while there may be plenty of room to build more homes which means more tax dollars for the City, it doesn't mean there is enough road space to accommodate another 100-160 cars going up and down the hill. The Mayor thinks it's ok, but this resident does not. Even if I didn't live here I could agree that unless the artery going up to KV is doubled, no more homes should be built up here.

Chill out. You state your position well.

Some of the UM rhetoric is just banter. There are a lot of twee/snobby/Desperate Housewives sort of folks up there. The type of people who don't do themselves any favours when UM gets a bashing.

Good luck looking around for an alternative. I'm unsure why it would cost so much more in LM. I would have expected less, due to the UM real estate hype?

[dirtybiker]

What I take from this post from Rickshaw1

Now my house is built and have moved in, I am against any other houses
being built and more people moving in.

I do understand, I also know it is not realistic.

There is a back-log of people who also want to have a safe, pretty, quiet place to call home
in which to raise their well adjusted kids.

[Grandan]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#186197

Kelowna city council heard loud and clear during last week's public hearing concerns about traffic in the upper Mission.

Residents in Kettle Valley cited traffic issues as one of the main reasons they opposed an additional 80-plus homes on Quilchena Drive.

Now, council wants to know what the impact of a full build would look like from a transportation standpoint.

"What we heard from the Kettle Valley residents is they are feeling the pressure of the transportation network. Knowing these neighbourhoods were pre-planned, what would be the impact of the full build out of them," said Coun. Luke Stack.

"I don't know how many lots are remaining that have been technically approved but have not come on stream."

The plan for that area of the city was developed in 1992. And, although it was built out over a long period of time, city manager Ron Mattiussi said having council look over the plans and the various decisions made by previous councils would be useful.

"In 1992, we looked at whether we were going to twin both Gordon and Lakeshore. The decision was to push the traffic over to Gordon and not, in fact, widen Lakeshore," said Mattiussi.

"A review of those policies and the decisions would be timely, especially as part of the plan is nearing build out within the area that was planned in 1992."

Coun. Gail Given pointed out construction of certain road networks were triggered by the timing of development in the area.

Council agreed knowing what is left and the trigger it would have on other road networks would be beneficial.

So in effect, the City is pointing the finger back at previous councils who approved the expansion of development so far south away from services. Back in 1992 I made that same argument on the basis that it was evident from the outset that traffic problems were exactly what this development was going to create. It fell on deaf ears.
The situation we have now is that commercial development along the Hwy 97 corridor and adjacent side roads has exploded over the past 5 years drawing business and community services even further away from the Mission. DCC's in the Mission are much higher than in the central core, are they high enough to cover the true cost of roads for this splinter community in the sticks?

[dirtybiker]

Bare minimum access and service for maximum build out.

Gordon, Lakeshore and Swamp could all be 4 lane and not keep up.

It is not the only development around that is suffering the same short sighted fate.

If you spend all the money on table settings, you can't afford to put anything on the plates.
(ie, frivolous expenditures on fluff with nothing left over for infrastructure.)

Far poorer Cities than ours have far greater transportation networks.

[Grandan]

Bare minimum access and service for maximum build out.

Gordon, Lakeshore and Swamp could all be 4 lane and not keep up.

It is not the only development around that is suffering the same short sighted fate.

If you spend all the money on table settings, you can't afford to put anything on the plates.
(ie, frivolous expenditures on fluff with nothing left over for infrastructure.)

Far poorer Cities than ours have far greater transportation networks.

Far poorer cities than Kelowna have far greater transportation networks because they were built in the distant past, they were built on flat land, there were not as many bodies of water to cross and their civic government does not require them to build fancy wiggly sidewalks, install fancy streetscapes and subsidize other parts of town.
Kelowna is relatively young as far as cities go and building extensive settlements on the perimeter of a city before infilling the nearby lands first shows a total lack of planning foresight.

[PDT]

Ron Mattiussi should be taking some responsibility for all this. He was the City of Kelowna's Director of Planning and Corporate Services from 1995 to 2006 and since then has been at the very top, as the City Manager. He has had 22 years in positions to make sure we're on the right track.

[GordonH]

If only city had planned ahead to future growth instead of flying by seat of there pants. But hey they saved money at the time by not having expansion grids already laid out.
Just take a drive around and see how many streets done line up very well.

Of course I've mentioned this before on how Harvey should have had a number of overpasses & West Kelowna should had many more underpasses. Just to have better traffic flow

[Grandan]

If only city had planned ahead to future growth instead of flying by seat of there pants. But hey they saved money at the time by not having expansion grids already laid out.
Just take a drive around and see how many streets done line up very well.

Of course I've mentioned this before on how Harvey should have had a number of overpasses & West Kelowna should had many more underpasses. Just to have better traffic flow

I lived in Prince George in the '70's where the City paid for the major arterial road network and sold off the land to developers.
Kelowna uses the piecemeal system which is why you see dribbs and drabs of sidewalk or curb and gutter sitting in isolation.
Roads that go nowhere or stop abruptly.
Developers are paying for infrastucture improvements and they include roads such as the Glenmore-Clifton over the mountain connector which is 100% developer paid for despite the fact that more people use that road than just those living on the mountaintop.
The city has applied the demands of development inequitably in the past. The City put the boots to outsiders and went easy on home boys. They play favourites with neighbourhoods.
I think that the South Mission being given the priority over other parts of the city was wrong and we are seeing and have seen for some time how wrong this was. The Okanagan Mountain fire was just a preview of what can go wrong when you step out of turn. The city was the author of it's own misfortune and the residents of the Mission are paying the price. Newcomers to Kelowna could not possibly know just how bad traffic can be in and out of the South Mission.

[Crazytrain]

I live in the ponds and my kids go to school in the lower mission. We used to park on a cul de sac near the school. It was great, almost like an unofficial school parking lot. Now all of a sudden there are no parking signs up everywhere. How can the city do this? I shouldn't be expected to park 100 metres from the school after sitting in traffic for 15 minutes trying to get down the hill.

[Fancy]

I live in the ponds and my kids go to school in the lower mission. We used to park on a cul de sac near the school. It was great, almost like an unofficial school parking lot. Now all of a sudden there are no parking signs up everywhere. How can the city do this? I shouldn't be expected to park 100 metres from the school after sitting in traffic for 15 minutes trying to get down the hill.

A cul-de-sac is not an overflow for school parking. Obviously the parents have abused the homeowners rights which has happened in other parts of the city. Good for the homeowners. I'd wager parents are not parking properly as you can't park in front of or within 3 metres of a driveway. I know parents and people working nearby have done this and it does get tiresome for those particular homeowners.

[lightspeed]

I live in the ponds and my kids go to school in the lower mission. We used to park on a cul de sac near the school. It was great, almost like an unofficial school parking lot. Now all of a sudden there are no parking signs up everywhere. How can the city do this? I shouldn't be expected to park 100 metres from the school after sitting in traffic for 15 minutes trying to get down the hill.

Don't be so inconsiderate. People live thereabouts, and they don't want you clogging up their streets.

Now because of you, there are signs everywhere. At taxpayers expense. More eyesores, more parking nazi's hassling good everyday folk.

[Fancy]

I still trying to wrap my head around that post. How long does it take to walk 100 metres? A minute or two? Whatever happened to dropping off and picking up? Why can't parents lobby their own school for that convenience? I know a few schools have the capability especially if parents carpool.

[Crazytrain]

I live in the ponds and my kids go to school in the lower mission. We used to park on a cul de sac near the school. It was great, almost like an unofficial school parking lot. Now all of a sudden there are no parking signs up everywhere. How can the city do this? I shouldn't be expected to park 100 metres from the school after sitting in traffic for 15 minutes trying to get down the hill.

Don't be so inconsiderate. People live thereabouts, and they don't want you clogging up their streets.

Now because of you, there are signs everywhere. At taxpayers expense. More eyesores, more parking nazi's hassling good everyday folk.

The residents were total jerks about where we parked already, they were really inconsiderate.