Rossland proposed washington revitalization

It certainley looks better, love the green space, but the bike lane is not needed, put a bit of cash into the star gulch trail for the cycles

Agree with you L dave

I suspect part of the reason for the bike lane, and the green strip parallel to the traffic lanes in particular, has to do with access to the improved utilities being installed...easier to access mains/pipes if they are run beneath bike lanes/flowerbeds than main road maybe?

I also think a wider sidewalk with a nearby bike lane that goes directly by our most significant school in town is a good idea, especially with the possible (probable?) eventual development of the old Emcon lot.

While the trails system is great and could always see some more love, there are people in town with mobility challenges that would be well served by a design like this one; whether elderly folks, huckers enjoying a term in an air-cast, or people pushing strollers, more self-propeled-friendly options look good to me.

I really like the idea. anybody know if its been posted as to how much it will affect taxes?

I bike, but I don't think we need a bike lane.  That seems a bit excessive for a street that has a maximum speed limit of 30km/hour.  The green space looks nice though.

Maybe they should take that money they plan to use to build that bike lane, and build a side walk on Thompson instead.

Put safety before luxury.

Sidewalks are needed more than bike lanes.

It's not a "bike lane" it's a widened pedestrian right of way: View 3, "Proposed" = pedestrians w stroller.

A "bike lane" would be a lane with no partition between cyclists and automobile traffic, a committed lane for cyclist use only that runs parallel to proposed sidewalks but clearly on/at street level.

In the proposed design there is a clear delineation between the sidewalkand street traffic in the form of the greenery planted curb-side.

Don't be confused by the paving stones either, they're just an alternative to poured concrete and, again, would assist in more easily accessing new infrastructure beneath. I don't think they're there to separate bike, jogger, bear or aggressive inline skating traffic.

In terms of safety, the mixed use sidewalk would run the length of Washington where there is no current sidewalk, thus making this obvious major thoroughfare a lot safer to drunkenly stumble home on- See Views 5&6. 

I agree that Thompson could use some sidewalks, but the infrastructure upgrade to Washington-Plewman is imperative, integral and impending. The sidewalks (not bike lanes) that would be both added and improved are a good thing, especially given how treacherous Washington can be in the winter-time; At least Thompson is flat. It's the people driving it like a drag-strip that are the danger, not the grade and curves at all.

what about inproving the sightlines at 2nd, the change in pitch is too steep and creates a blind spot if you are turning.

Let's not forget why the construction is proposed for Washington St. The road needs to be dug up and underground utilities need to be replaced. Here is the opportunity to make safety improvements for all users of the road. A route for pedestrian, cyclists and vehicle to safely share.  It’s a great concept to begin with. Just needs a bit of fine tuning. The cost versus benefit to reshaping the main raod and conencting side streets just to remove some blind spots isn't affordable.

Narrowing the lane widths, calms the traffic. The curb and gutter controls the storm water runoff. The widened multi-use pathways with a landscape strip (hard and soft) creates some vehicles separation. If you’ve ever cycled or walked up Washington and Plewman, you can appreciate that little extra buffer of space.

If the u/g utilities on Washington St were in good condition, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Similar circumstances to downtown. Downtown was the Cadillac of landscaping models. Washington could be considered as one of the more affordable ‘soft’ luxury KIA models.

Anyone know what the current width vs the proposed 3.5m / lane width is?

i just know in winter going up washington is all slip and slide at full speed in my FWD car. As for 2nd ave, yep, talk about blind spot when your driving a sedan/hatchback, u can barely see people zipping up the hill (not that it's their fault in winter considering the steep grade).

Lets maybe put this money towards the skate park.

You know what that would be awesome. I dont skate but I would love the kids to have a new place to exercise :)

ive been waiting for that skate park to become realized for ages! Realistically maybe we can cut down on the pretty shit and redo some of Washington and find spare change for a proper skate park that benefits the kids :) especially since RSS hasn't really had many upgrades and omg go look at a photo of RSS 20 years ago vs now, makes u wonder where all that money toward education went eh

I know the proposed skate park has been on the wish list for a long time. I think it's a great idea. What exactly is causing the delay? Strictly money or are there other issues?

Skate park is a great idea. But so are sidewalks. Maybe we should build sidewalks, before recreation. There was another post where someone mentioned Rossland being 'backwards' - this is another example.

Lets get with the times, and build sidewalks on the busy streets...... safety first.

Sidewalks??? I think rossland has survived many years without them. Teach your kids common sense when waking on busy streets. 

Rossland also survived many years without indoor plumbing.  Sidewalks are one of those things a modern city has gotta have.  Especially since, while we're teaching common sense, there's a few drivers hereabouts who could sign upto learn some.

 Since when does teaching kids common sense allow them to avoid speeding cars that swerve off the road because there texting while driving? Side walks are a great idea and money well spent. They promote walking and provide a safer means for people that want to get to places without driving. If I live in area wihtout a sidewalk Im more likely to drive rather than walk with my small children. More sidewalks encourage walking and in turn get more vehicles off the road that may run children over that are walking in places without sidealks. If that doesnt make sense then you'd have to question the City IQ around here.

View 5 in the design concept looks kind of sketchy. Narrowing the road that much on a corner, if theres snow on the road, with too many people with their eyes glued to their phones... I dunno...

And the last image too, what happens when that whole area is used for the bobsled races. And what about the city plows and snowblowers, thats usually where they turn around to go back down washington.

Dunno. It looks good on paper(digitalized) but I'm sure there'll be some sketchy times...

If the City is proposing this design, I'm sure they have taken snow removal and operational issues into consideration. I don't think we should be too concerned about those topics. Also the road grading ie. the hinge point at the steamshovel, the face that there is reverse crossfall coming around the corner at 6th Ave... If theres a road design it should address all of these things. I don't think the City needs our input on how to grade the road. I think they are looking for our input on how the proposed upgrades will function for us. Do we agree that narrow roads are the way to go. less asphalt, less cost. Do we want sidewalks and a bike lane? Do we want parking? Do we want a bikeable connection from downtown to Centennial Parking lot?  Do we want landscaping up and down washington?

So funny everybodys arguing and critiquing a cartoon image. The rendering was suppose to get people to bring their ideas forward, which some people have done, not critique the cartoon. Its meant to give the community an idea of what a a new washington street could look like not what it will look like. Some guy came up with this on his computer in 20 minutes and wasnt put out htere to show  what the finished product was going to look like.  

This isnt the blueprint for the washignton street contruction. Seriously think about it.

View 5 in the design?? Cmon its a Cartoon!!!!

Funny that doesn't look like a cartoon, more like a proof of concept sketch based on project guidelines. 

anyway, if you want to feed back your opinion you can complete their survey at the posted URL

Yes, sidewalks!! It's ridiculous that Thompson doesn't have a sidewalk. It's dangerous. Speed is NOT moderated whatsoever, cars are parked all over the place, signage is non-existent or too hard to see, and there is no sidewalk.

Yes - this project is about fixing important infrastructure, and is much needed. But there are other basic needs in this community that are not being addressed, that should be.

I think that given that the infrastructure needs to be replaced and the city has specifically recieved grant money for this proposed project that the proposed changes are reasonable. Lets not dilute the topic with sidewalks in other areas and skateparks. Of course those things need to be addressed, mainly sidewalks in my opinion (skateparks are a luxury and should be payed for after regular maintenace and safety concerns are addressed) These type of very expensive projects have to happen one at a time. I don't personally want to deal with the failure of out dated infrastructure which would result from not following through in a timely manner on a project such as this. Think lost precious water due to old pipes, backuped sewer, broken water mains, flooded homes, and major inconvience. That is more pressing then sidewalks in other areas of town. 

I think that given that the infrastructure needs to be replaced and the city has specifically recieved grant money for this proposed project that the proposed changes are reasonable. Lets not dilute the topic with sidewalks in other areas and skateparks. Of course those things need to be addressed, mainly sidewalks in my opinion (skateparks are a luxury and should be payed for after regular maintenace and safety concerns are addressed) These type of very expensive projects have to happen one at a time. I don't personally want to deal with the failure of out dated infrastructure which would result from not following through in a timely manner on a project such as this. Think lost precious water due to old pipes, backuped sewer, broken water mains, flooded homes, and major inconvience. That is more pressing then sidewalks in other areas of town. 

D3m0n5

Proof of concept sketch? That makes no sense. You just made that up.

Conceptual sketching is something you use to get a feel for something you want to build or design. They are meant to be loose ideas to try things to see what they may look like. 

If you click on the 3 links above the pictures from the url link, just below the introduction, there is more information showing the layout and whats proposed. I'm sure the details in the rendered pictures arent definite, ie type of trees shrubs etc..but the lane widths. sidewalk widths and bike lane widths are whats being proposed. So i would expect it is quite accurate..as far as dimentions and layout goes..right?

I agree SolarK, contrary to what R.Mexico says, I can't see anyone spending the time to design concept renderings if they're just "cartoons". 

 You cant look at the picture and say the road looks to narrow because its a design concept not a blueprint. So go out there with  a tape measure if your concerned

This infrastructure project, to fix whats underneath the street, is obviously necessary - we all know that.

The whole purpose of this discussion, is to chat about what is happening above the street - and the necessity of these attributes. If you click on the above link, and afterwards click on the "Information Sheet", the first point this info sheet lists is that from 1st Ave to 4th Ave there will be a "separate and raised 3m wide bicycle lane plus a 2m wide sidewalk". Think of how wide 5 metres is! Who needs that much space to walk, run, bike, push a stroller? No one.

What is the point of this? It seems excessive, and not a necessary way to spend $$. Remember the Columbia project? How much more money was spent, than initially planned? How much debt are we in as a result? Why not keep things simple, and to the point. Remember the point of this project - to fix the pipes etc. under the street. The plan for above -  a new sidewalk all the way to the Centennial trail head, adding some greenery, fixing the mess of a 5-way intersection.....all of that is great, and I'd say, pretty necessary. Keep it simple, neat, and efficient. Don't get carried away with spending extra money on something that isn't going to make much of a difference, like a bicycle laneway spanning a few blocks.

Suggesting that any of this money go to the Skatepark, is completley off-topic and irrelevant. This isn't money that can go towards anything other than this infrastructure project.

I was simply saying, that I don't think it is a good idea to "pamper up" some parts of town with bicycle laneways, when other parts of town can be seen as being completley behind the times and unsafe. (How many intersections don't even have signage, as another example? This can be a nightmare for any toursits visiting our community, and new residents for that matter).

Seems like overkill and higher property taxes. Why not just repair the old pipes, have access points(manholes where needed) and just repave Washington. The rest is lots of money spent on things not really needed, but more of a luxury. Landscaping, irrigation etc isn't needed. Drought conditions won't get better, irrigation will be a waste of money. Yes it all looks pretty but it's a luxury not needed.

 I just nominated that for the most idiotic bhubble comment of the year.

We should put you in charge. 

Since when are sidewalks and not having power poles in the middle of the street a luxury? 

Coming from a guy who thinks concept renderings are 'cartoons"...

You've already earned that title R.Mexico.

You should google "cartoon" 

I'll do it for you:

 "A cartoon is a form of two-dimensional illustrated visual art" or" a preparatory design, drawing, or painting"

At least now we aIl know what D stands for.

This is not the time to be focussing on the fine details, this takes away the intent of the PLANNING CONCEPT. A multi-dimensional idea that has evolved from the mind to a written message, then to 2-D image on paper for others to view. The 3 dimensional cartoons are a created to further assist with visualizing the conceptual idea. Public feedback will assist with refining the concept. It’s a much cheaper than construction first and then ask for comments later.

Are you thinking about the overall intent of the concept or were you looking at the pole anchor and street sign in the center of the crosswalk? That's how unpopular politicians win elections.

Redoing what is above is directly related to the need to dig underneath. You cannot seperate the two, some people in the discussion seemed to be missing the point: something has to go back in place of what has been taken up.

If the case is that the bike lane is to imporve access to whats underneath as Tyler Austin Bradely has suggested as a possibility, then the current concept drawings make sense. It also make sense if you consider that Washignton street provides direct accesses to a trail system for those who are biking. As biking is a major part of life for many Rosslanders and is becoming a major reason for people to visit and spend their money in our small town then you have to consider that easy and safe access to those trails as well as a a beautiful look are what will draw people in and keep them coming back. A strategic economic decision, but one that will keep the businesses in this town alive. I am specifically thinking of the draw for familes with children going to ride the trails. Rossland streets are not terribly busy as a whole, but as Washignton is a major accesses route it has more regular traffic. A seperate bike lane to use when acessesing trails with children on bikes, who may need to get off and walk make that route safer, having additonal bike space means that the sidewalk is not over crowded. The additonal green space may seem like a luxury, but it serves the purpose of asthetics, which makes a difference when tourists come to visit. It is important to look at the bigger picture and consider if the money being spent on the "luxury" items is actually more of a necesssity to continuing to keep this town current and appealing to those who may want to vacation here and potentially invest and live here.

Ooops, I forgot to add in a major part of what I was trying to say: that I agree with Miche, if the bike lane is only four blocks I don't see the point, unless it provides accesses. If we are going to put in a bike lane and the additionals it needs to go all the way, thats where the rest of my comment follows...

I like to ride my bike, but maybe I'm a lazy cyclist, and so are all my friends that ride. We never ride up Washington, as it is far to busy, and steep. There are far more enjoyable and less busy ways to pedal to the top of town. Skip the bike lane on Washington, and put up "bike route" signs with arrows on the "better"(my and many others opinons)route. Signs reqire no maitenence after installation. Who in thier right mind would take thier children up Washington on a bicycle?

Colin... Four of the six homes on Plewman have children under ten that use the road daily.  We see non-stop foot and bike traffic.  A shared bike lane and side walk are needed.  So unfortunetly we don't have a choice to use our 'right mind' in regards to our children riding up the road.  We live on it.  

You're absolutely right though. The road is very busy and is not designed nor maintained for the amount of traffic that it handles.  Unfortunately many people use it as their main access route through town to the highway.  The roads maintained by the province for such use are Columbia and the highway. That is the biggest issue.  Too many people use it daily that don't even live in upper Rossland, or Rossland. 

 The new design has the sidewalk on the curve that cars are pitched into in the winter.  This is a concern as people feel a false sense of safety with sidewalks and will not understand the danger they are in walking on that sidewalk in poor winter conditions.  

 The new design does not slow traffic down in any way at the MacLeod, Kirkup, Plewman, Spokane intersection. Therefor flow of traffic coming into Plewman will come at the same speed/rate. An issue that we foresee is that the road will be narrowed so traffic will be coming in too fast for the new tight design, making it more dangerous in the winter and for us residents living on Plewman.

 The city kept re-assuring us at the meeting that the new design is built to slow down traffic and to try and encourage residents to use the highway and Columbia as their main route rather then Plewman/Washington.  

Issues our family have with the new design are that it shifts the road into the existing boulevard that we currently use as part of our driveway, and residents have since the home has been built with city blessings.  So our personal home will need to figure out a new landscape/parking configuration.  The city is willing to 'help' move dirt, but not re-landscape or plan changes needed because of its 'revitilization'.  We are hoping that they will be willing to work with us on shifting the road back to its existing placement so that it will not greatly effect our property value, be very expensive and stressful on our family. 

 PS.  Thank you so much to the city for placing slower speed limits and residents that have respected the new speed limits.  We have noticed a difference and really appreciate it. 

I totally agree with Jess. I live on kirkup and see too many concerns. Narrowing the road on a corner. Too many semi's, dumptrucks, some even pulling a trailer with heavy equipment, speeding drivers, too many using Plewman/washington as a quick trip rather than the highway, every Winter you can count on people getting stuck halfway up Plewman with their front wheel drives begging for traction, not to mention seeing cops up here is like finding the Holy Grail. I can't see any of these concerns get any better by narrowing roads and adding sidewalks. A few years ago a lady I know went off the road at Plewman and Washington, in winter, and ended up in someones yard. Even driving an AWD subaru, wasn't speeding just hit some nasty ice on the corner. Yes, the corner they plan on narrowing... maybe a sidewalk would've helped, maybe it would've turned her car into a bouncing pinball. Too many drivers speed down the highway, fly down Kirkup, hit the brakes hard at Plewman, speed up again on Washington, just to get to Columbia quicker. We seriously need to see cops up here.

I did't mean to offend anyone. A sidewalk with a tall curb is definitely needed especially for all the little tykes, up at the top of town, but a bike lane is not. Having both, seems like a huge waste of $$$$.

I think that is the point.

I too agree that there needs to be a sidewalk - it isn't whether or not they should put one in. But let's not be excessive, and let's not afford a luxury to one part of town, when other parts of town are so lacking.

5 metres is extremely wide. If we built a 5m wide sidewalk and bike laneway on Thompson, there wouldn't be any space for cars.

Sweet, simple and functional. And attractive, that seems to be a top priority.

And yes, RCMP monitoring speed limits up here would do wonders.

Based on the plans linked to the page on the Cities site, the 5m ish wide bike and sidewalk path is only being proposed up to Jubilee, or the school. Above Jubilee it is a shared bike/ped way that is 3-3.5m wide. I know it sucks when the City developes the frontage infront of a home...but it's the Cities property to develope, and they have good reason for developing it. I don't mean to be insensitive, but just because a property owner has been treating the Cities boulevard as there own property, doesn't make it there own property. There are some concerning issues with that section of Washington St/Plewmans. The corner at 6th is graded the wrong way, to the outside, which is why when its slippery vehicles blow throug that corner. It should be tipped toward the inside. I would be shocked if this condition wasn't addressed and fixed with the new design.  That being said, I doubt the road is just thrown willy nilly where its shown. It's likely there for good reason. ie safety.  The logic behind narrowing the road is that it makes people drive slower. and if the route is slower then its less convienant and will hopefully deter people who dont live along this route from using it.

Based on the plans linked to the page on the Cities site, the 5m ish wide bike and sidewalk path is only being proposed up to Jubilee, or the school. Above Jubilee it is a shared bike/ped way that is 3-3.5m wide. I know it sucks when the City developes the frontage infront of a home...but it's the Cities property to develope, and they have good reason for developing it. I don't mean to be insensitive, but just because a property owner has been treating the Cities boulevard as there own property, doesn't make it there own property. There are some concerning issues with that section of Washington St/Plewmans. The corner at 6th is graded the wrong way, to the outside, which is why when its slippery vehicles blow throug that corner. It should be tipped toward the inside. I would be shocked if this condition wasn't addressed and fixed with the new design.  That being said, I doubt the road is just thrown willy nilly where its shown. It's likely there for good reason. ie safety.  The logic behind narrowing the road is that it makes people drive slower. and if the route is slower then its less convienant and will hopefully deter people who dont live along this route from using it.

No disrespt to the naysayers (except those that want to re-direct these resources to a skate park...i think that's just borederline asinine) 

I think the reason people don't bike or walk up Washington is precisely because there is not a protected, pleasant walking/biking space.  I think the concept looks amazing and, being right beside a school, Washington street can and should benefit from a multi-use sidewalk.  It's a vital portal through town and it's a shame to never see anyone, especially kids, able and willing to use it because it's just not safe at present.  It's a vital and historic artery through town that you never, ever see people using.  

If you look at the complaints Gregor Robinson received trying to add a bike lane to Burrard bridge and new bike paths to the city of Vancouver's downtown core, people (drivers and non) were up in arms because there was no perceived need for such an expense.  Fast fwrd to the present, the city has embraced them because people didn't necessarily realize what they were missing.  

This would connect the Centenial trail with the rest of town, allow kids to walk to school safely and everyone else a pleassant walking route through town, and it would be a public good that would benefit nearly everyone in the community both, aesthetically and physically year round.  

I'm not trying to suggest that the naysayers don't know what you're missing - but you don't know what you're missing.  :) 

I love it.

p.s I wish you could edit these posts because i sincerely regret using "asinine" to describe anyone's opinion and i meant no disrespect.  I was totally out of line as i don't feel that it was constructive, nor was it in the spirit of a polite and cordial conversation such as this one.  

Talking like that to people in your community shows a real lack of character.  I would ask that you please consider it REDACTED.  

I haven't bothered reading every single comment on here thus far...so my apologies.  However, I will say that many of the questions and comments I 'have' read were discussed and at least somewhat addressed at the public charette meeting held at the Art Gallery a week or two ago.  I will try to summarize for those you could not make it:

Perhaps most importantly, the city made the statement that the primary concern is of course the u/g infrastructure.  Nobody really argues that point, as it needs to be done.  Most of the discussion was spent, like this thread, on what happens above ground.

First, the City reps started off with the statement that the main goal is to 'delineate' where the road begins and ends up and along Washington St., as essentially there are no curbs.  This, in conjunction with Washington Street's currently wide berth and fairly direct route, provides drivers with somewhat of a false impression that it is "highway-like" and should be treated as the primary path from downtown to connect to the highway above.  This is especially so for locals of course, as could be expected.  Part of the city's stated goal is to reduce the impression that this is meant to be a direct route to the highway, as they do actually want drivers to use Columbia out to the gas station, and get on the highway there.  How successful they will be with that goal, I'm fairly skeptical...but they intend to try at least.  Therefore, this thought may help you understand better why they intend to also narrow the driveable portion of Washington in this proposed initial design.

Second topic, the sight lines on 2nd at the Steamshovel.  They will be improved as the city intends to cut the lip off to some extent.  I asked Mr. Maturo how much the road will be lowered, and if it would effectively create raised sidewalks requiring short walls or hand rails or something along those lines (as obviously you cannot lower the adjacent structures).  He said those details haven't yet been ironed out, but they did not envision lowering the road enough to need to consider features of that nature.  Inches were discussed, not feet.  This says to me that the sight lines will be "marginally" improved...perhaps just enough to see the roof of an oncoming vehicle from above.

Much of the evening was actually spent around the design at the top of Washington Street, closer to Plewman/Kirkup and how to make that as safe, yet useable, as possible.  Concerns were expressed around the "sharpening" of the right hand turn onto McLeod/Kirkup, particularly in winter, when vehicles are also prone to slippage and stalling as it is.  Other concerns expressed also included the placement of the sidewalk on the east side of Washington in that area, where cars often slide off in that direction.  In other words, safety concerns for pedestrians, and whether other measures need to be taken to protect them in that vicinity especially.  The idea of a traffic circle was brought forward, to calm/slow traffic at the large (typically Rossland), multiple-way intersection at McLeod/Kirkup/Spokane etc., and also help provide vehicles further 'guidance' in that area.  Not a bad idea I thought, but apparently the main stoppage point with that approach is Spokane and its required downhill access from Washington St.  The only way a traffic circle would work there is if you could close Spokane off at the top.  However, this is problematic for the folks that reside at the very top of Spokane as it can be inaccessible to upwards traffic sometimes in the winter due to its grade.

Some other things were of course discussed, such as total cost, where the money is coming from etc.  The Mayor explained the sizeable grant they have received, and also that there are other grant applications pending.  However, the likelihood of the other grants coming through are somewhat less probable.  They will be putting this project out to tender shortly, so costs will be discussed more thoroughly at that point...however they seemed to have a good idea what to expect going into that phase.

Comments on the 'bike' path at this meeting were about 50/50 I'd say.  Personally, with my wife and I living directly along the steep lower part of Washington between 1st and 2nd (and her working there every single day and able to see directly out the large windows at the salon), I'd consider ourselves pretty good judges on how heavily it is used by all methods of travellers including but not limited to vehicles, bicycles, strollers, skateboards, long boards, drunken individuals, hitchhikers, bears etc.  I think many might be surprised at just how heavily this route is travelled, particularly from 7am to about 7pm.  Personally, I am "lukewarm" on the idea of a bike lane...not for or opposed per say.  However, if it is truly to be intended as a "bike" lane, you might as well call it a "3 season uphill-only lane" because I pretty much guarantee that the majority of riders would still use the road on the downhill, or the Centre Star Gulch.  Myself included.  However, I can see how for kids of RSS school age and stollers, I don't think it is a bad idea.  What happens in winter though?  Hopefully that area will be used for snow storage until such time that it can be removed from Washington St., as it is an issue for those of us that reside and work on Washington for sure.

One comment that I personally found a little troubling was the city's statement that it will be much easier and somewhat cheaper this time around because they "don't have to worry about access to businesses during the project".  Partly true of course...but I'm hoping they haven't completely forgotten about those of us that in fact do have businesses along Washington.  It is zoned commercially after all, and so should be considered that way for a project of this nature.  Maybe it was just a "slip of the tongue", but regardless that statement wasn't entirely accurate.  It isn't just this statement that irked me a little, but it is a combination of other things as well that have led us to perceive that businesses outside of those on Columbia are generally afterthoughts (except maybe when taxes are due).  I do hope my perception is inaccurate, but I'm currently leaning that way.

Anyhow, thats the summary, and a few personal statements along with it.  Take it as you will.

Cheers 

Thanks for these comments- Its a good summary of the public event. I made the comment about it being an easier project because there are less businesses on Washington than there are on Columbia. Its a statement of fact but not meant to imply that businesses along the corridor will be ignored or given less attention than we gave those on  Columbia- there are just fewer in the construction location. Don't worry- all the connections will be properly serviced! :)

Thanks for addressing that concern, Kathy.

Hi all,

Sinjin, you can add skiers (both downhill and cross country), snowshoers, and gt racers to the different methods of travel on Washington St. In fact, the "3 season uphill-only" would be a perfect fit for our winters.

Whenever there is enough snow on the sidewalks my son and I always ski down Washington St. to catch the free ski hill shuttle, and if the multi-use lane is not sanded it could provide a direct route for crosscountry skiers and snowshoers to actually ski or snowshoe all the way up to Centennial, how cool is that? How many towns have a cross-country-ski/snowshoe lane?

Also, if the multi-use lane stays at the proposed width it could be banked to make some pretty mean gt race course...just saying.    :)

jorge.

As I understand the financing for this project, the WSA estimate for the infrastructure upgrades, paving, curbs and replacing existing sidewalks is a little over $3,000,000. This does not include; bike lanes, additional sidewalks, landscaping, etc. The City has a grant for $2,180,000 so this  project could be done for $820,000 cost to taxpayers. Instead, the City wants to take out a 30 year loan for $4,000,000 (at 3.5% this will cost Rossland taxpayers about $6,500,000) so they can add a bike lane, sidewalk,  bump-outs, flowers, etc. Seems like a lot. They suggest that these additional changes will make Washington St safer.  If they really wnat to do that, put up some stop signs and speed bumps. If you want to oppose the $4 Million loan you can do so by going to the City website http://www.rossland.ca/home and click on Alternate Approval Process- Electors Response Form http://www.rossland.ca/alternative-approval-process-electors-response-form. If enough people fill out this form, it will force the City to reconsider the financing of the project. It is not a vote against the project itself. You have until Nov 13 to do this.

Your numbers are out I think. Sidewalks, biking lanes and landscaping doesn't cost $4M.  The vast majority of the project cost is unavoidable. (pipes and roads). sidewalks and bike lanes will be a small percentage of the overall cost. Saying "No" to the loan, however much it is, means we leave the 100+yr old watermain waiting to explode, and, we'd be saying "no thanks" to the $2.2M grant we were given. Thats free money for our community.

This was also brought up at the public charette.  According to the city, the landscaping and bike path doesn't really add very much cost to the project (possibly even none), as you'd have to prepare the sub-layer and further pave as well as provide some sort of curb and sidewalk regardless of where it ends up (i.e. prepping sub-layer and paving compared to doing any landscaping is approx a wash in capital cost).  Also, someone above mentioned possibly allowing some services to be more easily accessible if run under the non-paved section of Washington?  Not sure if that is in fact accurate though, as it was not discussed directly at the charette meeting.

ps:  To add one other thing to the above, regardless if you are accurate or not with your numbers <moneyboy> based on the City's previous comments and SolarK's comment above, do you actually have confirmation on the rate at which the city can borrow funds?  As a municipality, I know Rossland is able to borrow at a much lower interest rate compared to what a normal citizen or business can.  Therefore, wouldn't 3.5% be quite high?  For instance, individuals can borrow at lower rates than this on personal home mortgages.

Reply to SolarK. The number for repairing the; water, sewer, storm drains, existing sidewalks and paving is in a study by WSA Engineering that is available on the Rossland City wedsite. http://www.rossland.ca/sites/default/files/city-services_development-services_washington-st-infrastructure-upgrading-and-repair-study_2011-02-16.pdf. The final number as of Nov 2010 is $3,012,621.50. This amount will fix the infrastructure that needs fixing, repave to road, etc. Instead of using the grant of 2.2M and making up the difference, it looks like the City has seized this opportunity to throw in some very expensive additions which is why they are asking for $4M. We would not be saying "no thanks" to the grant. The exact wording on Alternate Approval Process- Electors Response is, "This is not a petition against the Washington Street Infrastructure Renewal project- it is a response regarding the financing of the project." The City should be able to repair the infrastructure (which needs to be done, no question) for  $3M. less the $2.2M grant is $820.000. So why is the City asking to borrow $4M? Lacking other information, I can only conclude that it is for the bike lanes, sidewalks, landscaping, etc. that they have added the original project. It would be really nice to see an updated financial study.

Reply to sinjin. I can't see how putting a sidewalk up the East side Washington from 4th to Plewman would not be expensive. A bunch of bedrock, fill, etc. The closing of streets, rerouting traffic at the top of Plewman has to be a lot more expensve than simply paving the current road. As for services under a concrete sidewalk, I think it would be cheaper to put them under the paved road. Besides, they would have to dig much deeper (think bedrock) under the sidewalk to lay the pipes than they would for just the sidewalk itself (I asume that they plan to use as much of the original pipe route as they can).

I am assuming that the City would be financing a 30 yr $4M manucipal bond as this is typically how cities borrow money. These are very different than the mortgage on your house (the bank can repossess your house). I looked at a 5.5% 2040 City of Toronto bond (3.4% yield) as well as current yields for BC provincial bonds (avg yield 3.2%). Small towns typically pay a premium (more risk and less liquidity) so I think the 3.5% will be low if anything. If anybody knows for sure please post it. Regardless, I think the question remains, "Why do we need to borrow $4M when $820,000 will do?"

I agree moneyboy. I think the simple answer is, and just my opinion, is because the city is relying on tourists. Seeing how pretty Washington is with the pretty sidewalks, pretty landscaping etc. I hate the idea of being that much in debt and seeing my taxes increase again. Simpler is better. Fix the pipes, repave the road, redo the sidewalk. All else seems like just eye candy for tourists and not really helping me out much.

I looked into how the City borrows. The use a company called Municipal Finance Authority who charges 0.6%  or $24,000 in the case of a $4M loan. Current rate on a 30 yr. is 3.68% so the $4M loan will cost us $6,611,796. I also found out the city has another $4M loan from MFA that was used to pay for Columbia Ave. The City has long term debt of $6,594,869 (2014 annual report). For the approx 3,600 people living here, that is $1832/person. The average municipal debt load in BC is $1,100 with no region over $2,000 (Kamaloops Daily News Oct. 25, 2010 "The Slippery Slope of Debt") . This next $4M will put us well beyond that ($2,942).

BTW, there is a survey on the City website under Washington St. Design Concepts (http://www.rossland.ca/washington-st-design-survey). You can give an "agree" or "strongly disagree" to the costly "extras".

If you think we should not borrow the $4M and just go for the necessary repairs, fill out the Alternate Approval Form as mentioned above and drop it off at City Hall. Nov 13 deadline. http://www.rossland.ca/sites/default/files/city-hall_public-notice_alternative-approval-process_2015-10-05.pdf

Moneyboy, thanks for the link! That estimate is a definite reason for hope! Its 5 years old but hopefully still somewhat accurate.  My understanding of the $2.18M grant was that it was 2/3rds of the project cost. 1/3 provincial and 1/3 federal...but the "project" was the replacement of the watermain, since it is really really old.  Thats what was said at the announcement downtown a few months ago. They gave our small population the large grant because it is somewhat of an emergancy. Now, since we're digging up half the road and replacing the watermain, we might as well replace the rest of the pipes/sewers/manholes and rebuilt the entire road, hence the additional cost...So the city is borrowing x millions for that additioanl pipe/road replacement.

Also, if we decide that we would be better off limiting our borrowing to lets say $1M, and then we tender the project and the bids come in high, as they tend to do in our area...and we havent got enough money to award it....what happens then?

Remember that the bulk of the original (2010) estimated costs to replace the u/g infrastructure are likely adjusted and updated for budgeting purposes and grant applciations. How the project is financed is another very large topic for discussion.

See http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/04/17/Liberate-Bank-of-Canada/  

For street design questions. Let’s pretend for a moment that your old hand me down vehicle just packed it in. You need to buy a more reliable one to get to work. The cheaper vehicle option comes with a brand new engine (not fuel efficient), but it only has one door and a driver’s seat with no storage space. You'll be spending more time outdoors and entertain lots of visitors. An orignal upgraded model with the extra items and fuel efficient engine.It can be included in the order for an additional cost with a buyer's discount. A retrofit of the same vehicle and repair of damages afterwards might cost double the amount paid for the new vehicle. Not constructing some sort of dedicated safe pedestrian route with storm water management at this time isn’t a very good planning or a long term financing practice.

I wanted to point out that there are also some other likely spin-off benefits from the city spending some money "prettying" things up a bit along Washington.  First, and most obviously, the city spending money incentivizes private citizens and businesses to spend some as well.  For instance, I doubt you would have seen the rapid and substantial commercial property improvements to the scale at which is suddenly occurring along Columbia without the city having done what it did.  I'm more specifically speaking about the most obvious ones, such as the Sourdough building at the corner of Columbia & Washington, the old Ross Vegas building (which is now being completely redone throughout, with exterior being done next summer apparently), and stuff is now quietly happening at the Le Roi mall building too.  Even the thrift store built an addition and redid the interior.  Improvements continue to be made at the old Bank of Montreal building as well.  Those are just the things I'm aware of.  I'm not saying all of those things happened or are happening entirely because of the improvements along Columbia, but I'd bet it doesn't hurt and I'm sure it helps prevent owners of these properties from second guessing further investment.  In the end, everyone benefits from these business/building improvements downtown.

I'm sure three or five years ago, people couldn't precisely predict these exact spin-off improvements happening as none of us possess a crystal ball.  I believe that similar things could eventually occur up along Washington and onto the middle bench/Emcon/RSS area if the city does prettify things a bit.  I think many would agree that this part of town could use a little attention, make it more usable/pleasant for all of us.  The bonus is it would be nicer for visitors, giving them a better perception of Rossland as a whole.  This improved perception undoubtedly helps draw in outside investment too.  Perception is reality after all.  ;-)  

That all said, I'm definitely with y'all on not spending an unreasonable amount to achieve it...so the financial picture of this project is certainly worth paying close attention to.  It sounds like we'll soon be paying a fair bit more for water/sewer services as it is (not related to this project), and I doubt many residents of Rossland will want to also incur unreasonable property tax increases on top of those proposed increases.  

In the end, I think a lot of priority should be put on expanding the tax base, encouraging more people to move to town (especially full-timers), therefore encouraging more business growth etc.  This helps keep schools open, keeps businesses from shutting their doors (and maybe expand), allows for more recreational expenditures, and ensures a vibrant community moving forward.  If you aren't growing (even slowly), you are dying.

I suppose the discussion then, should be about whether or not a project of this nature helps achieve the above goals.  If not, then spend as little as possible and just make the basic improvements.  If it does add value, then allow for spending a reasonable amount of money as the town will end up benefitting overall.  Yes, I realize that this is likely an over-simplified outlook...but maybe it will help spur discussion in that direction.       

Reply to SolarK and Howser. The study by WSA (http://www.rossland.ca/sites/default/files/city-services_development-ser...) includes;  sanitary, storm and domestic water as well as replacing existing sidewalks and appropriate stormwater basins and curbs. If the grant is only for Domestic water then somebody has to allocate costs accordingly :). The Nov. 2010 numbers are $2.1 M for the infrastructure, $727,184 contingency and $207,767 for engineering. According to the 2014 Annual report, the City has Cash & Short Term investments of $8.1M so if they run over the 30% contingency, they should be able to cover the costs until they get additional financing. Notice they did not get the $4M for downtown until 2014.  

sinjin has a good point about the spin-off benefits certainly something to consider.  The downside for people wanting to move here or start a business is our already high taxes and cost of utilities. There should be some middle ground but, as the Washington St. project currently stands, the cost seems over the top to me. 

What I find really frustrating is the City Council has not given us a comprehensive plan on how much each part of this is really going to cost. I'm sure they have more information than the 2010 study as they are starting next year. Somewhere I read that they are going to keep the telephone poles because it would cost too much to bury the lines.  Why not post financial information on their website? If they really don't know how much it is going to cost, we are back to the same scenario as Columbia Ave.? What happened to the "Transparency" we were promised? Is $4M even enough?. The survey on their website is also lacking critical information. Do you want bump-outs is a lot different than Do you want bump-outs that cost $X each. How can we give an informed answer unless we know the costs? 

Since we are all so focused on $$$ and reasonable so, another factor to consider is timing. Jobs that are put out to tender early get better pricing than jobs that are put out later. It makes sense. If we put this job out to tender now, when none of the contractors have any work lined up for next year, I bet we would get more bids and that they would be more competative.  If we wait until the contractors have secured some work for next year, and they don't "need" this job, bids drop out and prices increase. If we are anticipating that this will be a multimillion dollar project, maybe we should decide on what were doing and do it or dont do it.  This project has been talked about for months and it sounds like we're still at a early stage. Squabbling over 10s of thousands of dollars could cost us 100s of thousands of dollars.

It looks like the estimate we have from WSA is a Class D estimate (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/biens-property/sngp-npms/bi-rp/conn-know/co...) and is not suitable for tendering. It fact, we seem to be a long way from that as there are 3 (?) more stages of estimates before tendering. This might explain the lack of information on how much various aspects will really cost and is probably why the City has posted the survey to find out do we really want all of the "extras".  Since the water/sewer infrastructure needs to be replaced throughout Rossland (more borrowing?), getting extras at this point seems like overspending- to me. 

BTW, it looks like we have to borrow another $1.8M to pay our share of the sewer pipe over the Columbia project. If this is another 30 yr. loan at 3.68%, it will cost us $2.9 M. This loan will essentially double our parcel taxes ($60 to $117 is the example given). The City using Thoughtexchange (http://cityofrossland.thoughtexchange.info/water-and-sewer/) and a Meeting on Thurs, Nov 12 at the Seniors Center 7:00pm to answer questions on the water/sewer problem.

 I have lived in rossland all my life, 20 years of that time on kirkup ave .. washington is a disaster in winter with the skiers trying to make it a short cut to the hill,needless to say they ice it up and have to back down or slide back down so not saving anytime at all..narrowing this street is going to make it a bigger hazard..the only salution is to make it one way from 7th. ave up to macloed..if not it will be a nightmare come winter..

The survey results are out, (http://www.rossland.ca/sites/default/files/agenda_cow_october-26-_2015-1...). Looks like people want all the bells & whistles. A few Class D estimates were given for the bike lanes/sidewalks. Pretty sure this does not include removal of old or preparing bed for the new. So, we should be prepared for another tax hike and more debt. At this rate, it will not be long before we will have more debt/capita than any town in BC. FYI, Warfield is now paying $415/YR. for water, sewer, garbage & recycling (includes increase due to Columbia pipeline). I figure I will be paying $800 this year and who knows about next year when the new rates go into effect. Why don't I ever read about new programs to cut taxes?

The survey results are out, (http://www.rossland.ca/sites/default/files/agenda_cow_october-26-_2015-1...). Looks like people want all the bells & whistles. A few Class D estimates were given for the bike lanes/sidewalks. Pretty sure this does not include removal of old or preparing bed for the new. So, we should be prepared for another tax hike and more debt. At this rate, it will not be long before we will have more debt/capita than any town in BC. FYI, Warfield is now paying $415/YR. for water, sewer, garbage & recycling (includes increase due to Columbia pipeline). I figure I will be paying $800 this year and who knows about next year when the new rates go into effect. Why don't I ever read about new programs to cut taxes?

The survey results are out, (http://www.rossland.ca/sites/default/files/agenda_cow_october-26-_2015-1...). Looks like people want all the bells & whistles. A few Class D estimates were given for the bike lanes/sidewalks. Pretty sure this does not include removal of old or preparing bed for the new. So, we should be prepared for another tax hike and more debt. At this rate, it will not be long before we will have more debt/capita than any town in BC. FYI, Warfield is now paying $415/YR. for water, sewer, garbage & recycling (includes increase due to Columbia pipeline). I figure I will be paying $800 this year and who knows about next year when the new rates go into effect. Why don't I ever read about new programs to cut taxes?

Hey all- good discussion. There will be a Committee-of-the-whole meeting at 5pm on Monday Oct 26th. Council will be discussing the Washington Street design. Please join us. There is a public input session at the start where you can give us your views. The estimate we are using (from Oct 2015) shows the total project at $5.8m. This includes everything; design, engineering, contingency of 15%, removal of old stuff, construction of new stuff, etc. Personally, I think it would be a bad idea to cut out the sidewalks or the landscaping because they add both safety and improve the attractiveness of our town. However I did a very rough subtraction from the estimate to delete those items since some folks consider them unnecessary. It might save around $500k out of the $5.8m but I'm not an engineer so I can't be sure. I'm getting my assumptions checked out by staff next week. The number is probably high. I may have been substracting stuff that is essential to the project. As part of the landscaping and irrigation component I deleted the underground tank that will collect stormwater to irrigate all the downown plants- This tank system is an eligible part of the grant we got and its installation will save us from using treated water to irrigate. The bike lanes don't add $ because if we didn't designate the lane for bikes we'd be paving it for cars. Doing bike lanes is actually less costly because it doesn't take as much subsurface work and expense. Plus for the bike and pedestrian elements there is an excellent chance we can get some more grant money from a different grant program. 

Also a note about the borrowing- we asked for permission to borrow UP TO $4m. The intent is that we will not need to borrow this much. Our grant is for almost $2.2m and we have some reserves set aside. We won't actually know the final price and the amount we need to borrow until the tender is out and the bids are in. As we've all learned from other projects, you can't really know how much a project will cost until you get a contactor to commit to a price to build it.

I hope this answers a few questions.

km