In introduction, I got enough support for the previous RANT that I have decided to initiate a regular series of episodes, each documenting one of my experiences with government activity, in both the good or bad ending, as they related to our negative approach to governance. I'll talk about the ones where they try to do something right, but end up being so incompetent, that they actually achieve the opposite of the intended result, and I'll discuss others where they eventually serve the public interest. Like this one.
Of course there is an underlying level of lack of care or incompetence that infects most of the examples, and that is the lack of will on the part of those in charge, often our elected representatives, to correct the wrong, or wrongs, caused by staff bumbling, incompetence, or disdain for the public they are supposed to be serving. Often, the entire issue is generated by something being approached from the philosophical position of NO from the start, with no initiative or intent to serve the public good by using their intelligence or authority.
Here is a story about access to our public highways, and how the reflex of the culture of NO was misapplied for a long time before some common sense arrived, the application of which has resulted in significant works of public good.
Highways, like the 101, 103 and 118, are obviously not desirable to have driveways and turnoffs or intersections connecting to them. Traffic is moving fast, reaction times are less, and drivers tend to behave with a sense of complacency, making them more vulnerable to sudden moves by others. Traditional highway and traffic engineering principles, most unchanged for generations, are all based on a very set hierarchy of the travelled way. The closer you get to your house, the smaller and slower the road. They tend to assume perfect conditions and prairie-like geography in their geometric simplicity.
Nova Scotia has adopted a practice of building the big "100 series" highways along the same transportation corridor as one of the former single digit "Trunk Roads", such as Trunk 3, with its corresponding Highway 103, and so on. Connector Road are built to connect the Trunk roads, which have many smaller roads, local roads and driveways that provide access to the system of transportation, to the 100 series highways. In the rigour typical of a system that seeks to rule by restriction, relying on a culture of NO to maintain the integrity of their "design", these connector roads are almost always deemed to be "Limited Access" and normally have an "Access Management Plan" prepared when they are being built that shows where you are allowed to connect. Anywhere else: NO.
The access management plan becomes enshrined in the policy of the Provincial Department responsible for our roads and highways, currently called the Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, a name clearly conceived by people with far too much time on their hand who did well in elementary school spelling bees.
This plan has often been prepared by an engineer, a road design person, using offset distances from other road elements as their main guide. It will show, for example, a place where the road is permitted to be accessed using an approved intersection at a set distance (often 400 m) from the end of the taper of an off ramp from the 100 series highway. It then will not show another such access point at a set distance, but only then if there is one more such distance available between the next access point and the Trunk Road being connected to.
A situation similar to this existed for some time on the Hammonds Plains Road (Route 333) from Exit 5 on the 103 down the hill (at times steep) to Trunk 3. The access management plan showed approved access points at the location where the connector road left the original alignment of the 333 and became a newly minted Hubley Mill Lake Road. It also allowed access to he connector at a similar location, again where the original 333 alignment intersected the newly built connector, newly termed French Village Station Road.
The engineer who did the plan in the first place also indicated that access would be permitted at a four way intersection in these locations, although they were originally only 3-way, "T" intersections. One of those access points was gladly taken advantage of by the landowner it now provided access for, and a new residential subdivision was created from a new road called Fox Hollow Drive (though they should have called it Estabrooks Drive, but that's another story). The Province took advantage of this location and built two new schools. Private tax generating development has followed up with a private school, another subdivision, and a gas station and car wash.
Unfortunately the other location that had been approved did not really mesh well with land ownership on the opposite side of the three way. A private driveway was developed by two lot owners that they share for personal access. Meanwhile, up at the top of the hill, on that side, was a large piece of government owned land on one full quadrant of a major interchange that was seeing rapid development on two of the remaining quadrants.
For years, government and private sector approached the Department, trying to work out access to these land up on the hill, but every time they asked, they were told NO. That there was an access point approved, and that the land could be access by building there, and making a new parallel road back up the hill to the lands that were now increasing in value, and still owned by the Crown. This direction was given despite the fact that the access point was a private driveway, the lands it immediately abutted were not owned by the Crown, and the actual feasibility of building a road back up the steep hill was doubtful. But no matter, every time anyone asked, the answer was an abrupt NO.
It turned out that the peson who was responsible for saying NO, on a regular basis for almost 10 years, happened to be the same engineer who, as a junior engineer not long out of school, had created the "access" management plan. Perhaps he can be excused for thinking himself infallible.
Eventually, this person retired and was replaced by a new Area Manager, and the Department had established the position of Access Manager. A new Regional High School had been announced for this part of HRM, and the Province was out looking for the best place to put it. The committee assigned to find a site agreed that that flat piece of land, up near the exit, close to the rink, the library, and yes, the McDonalds, made sense for the new high school, and the bonus was, it was already owned by the Province! Except that the access point that same government would allow was almost a kilometer away, far down at the base of the hill.
The engineer working to review the site for the school visited the place, and walked along the limited access road, watching traffic move along in front of the desired location, and then accelerate down the hill towards where the approved access point was. He stood at the access point and watched cars come down the hill, and concluded that it could never be safe for a slow moving school bus to have to lumber out into the road to head up that hill to the 103. So they called the new Access Management Engineer and asked them to measure the safety of this "approved" spot, and then, while they were there, measure a place that would serve the preferred school site very well.
The result was what is now called Scholar's Road, home to the new Sir John A. MacDonald High School, a new controllable signalized intersection, and the new fire hall for the area. In addition, it provides a future access, by simple pre-designed extension, to the remainder of these lands for future use as public open space, complete with a stunning view of St. Margarets Bay.
Someone had finally not said NO out of reflex. Someone had listened to the facts, done some real engineering, and instead of taking the lazy way out, they figured out a way to not just say YES, but create an improvement for the people of the Province, those people they serve, by looking at how to get to a beneficial outcome, instead of how to protect their plan. And in this case, they actually had the wherewithal and the authority to change the plan, to override policy for the common good.
The land remains in public ownership, and is not the private domain of a developer's clients. It is public land in public use, in a fair, safe and effective manner. And the policy of controlling access for safety and traffic flow remains.
Because instead of asking "Why?", someone said "Why not?"
No comments:
Post a Comment