| |
About Us
Worship
Outreach
Resources
|
|
Worship is perhaps what we think of first when
we think of our Christian ministry. It is the main way we
fulfill the Great Commandment: to love God with all our
heart, soul, strength and mind. In worship we acknowledge
that God is worthy of our praise. To know that we are
loved by God, made for God, and that our life is a gift
from God leads us to want to worship.
In the bread and the wine Jesus assures us of his real
presence and profound love for us. By offering ourselves
to God, our worship shapes us and helps transform us into
an even more Christ-like form.
Services
We typically alternate between Morning Prayer and Holy
Communion services.
Our services are on Sundays at 10 am.
Our address is 5005 C&E Trail, Lacombe T4L 1N5
When possible we also offer recorded sermons and/or
Morning Prayer services. The link for our services is:
OPEN LETTER
Concerning Lacombe's Intersection Design Change at
Highway 12 and C&E Trail
You may have noticed that there are new left-turn lane
lines painted on the road at the intersection of Highway
12 and C&E Trail. The Anglican Parish of St Cyprian
has been against this development plan since we were
informed of it this Spring. We think there are three
problems with this plan.
First, there is a problem with the process. There was no
public consultation on the project with affected
property owners. Second, there is a problem with the
justification of the project. Lacombe’s engineers
misrepresented the project. In the end they did not meet
any traffic design safety standards. And third, there is
a problem with city oversight of this project. There has
been no response by city council concerning
misrepresentation, lack of justification, and negative
impact of the project.
The Parish of St Cyprian is an Anglican Church that has
been in Lacombe for 125 years. The church was built in
1901 and moved 75 years ago our current location at the
corner of Highway 12 and C&E Trail.
We were informed this Spring that Lacombe wanted to
redevelop the intersection at Highway 12 and C&E
Trail. This is an $8,500 project that turns the former
four lanes (two traffic and two parking lanes) into
three lanes, two for opposing lanes of traffic and one
central turn lane.
For us this plan removes 50% of our street parking. The
overall impact is worse. There is a total of 16 street
parking spots around the intersection that will be
removed. This will have a profoundly negative impact on
our property use. Like downtown businesses in Lacombe,
for our 75 years at this location we have depended on
street parking to operate.
Initially the justification for the loss of this parking
was safety. From the Manager of Engineering to the Chief
Administrative Officer, the claim was that they came to
this decision by considering and meeting highway design
safety standards.
Both individuals have claimed that the relevant
Transport Association of Canada (TAC) safety conditions
were met: “These conditions were met in 2015, 2017 and
2018” (May 3, 2023); add “The accident conditions were
met in 2015, 2017 and 2018” (October 24, 2023).
And it was because they claimed to have met these
standards that we were told that the negative impacts to
property owners were outweighed. At no time, however,
has anyone in administration or on council been able to
give any account of how the negative impacts were
quantified or weighed in the balance.
We wanted proof that the TAC safety conditions were in
fact met. And proof that there were the appropriate
number of left-turn accidents on all four left turns
should be readily accessible, if this was at the heart
of the planning process as they claim. Every city
concerned with traffic safety regularly meets either
safety or volume conditions when trying to improve
traffic safety at intersections. It is normal operating
procedure for cities.
We went to the Lacombe Police Service (LPS) and asked
them for accident information about this intersection.
They wouldn’t share their data or their report to the
city. They said we had to ask the city for that
information. When I called city hall, I was put through
to someone’s messaging service in “legal.” The front
desk wasn’t sure they should share this kind of data
either. I have yet to hear back from that message.
So we decided we had to go directly to council. We went
to an “open mic” session. We made our 5-minute pitch. We
said we also value traffic safety. We knew one of those
reported accidents was a someone who crashed into our
street sign. We told council that we were resigned to
lose some street parking on the condition that they met
the safety standard they claimed to have met. However,
if the city can’t meet those safety conditions, then it
should not go ahead with the plan. That was our
argument. We received smiles, thank yous, and someone
will follow up with us.
I received the follow up phone call. I was told again
that the TAC safety conditions were met and, yes,
negative impacts to property owners were considered and
deemed to have been “more than offset.” But when I
pressed, no criteria or assessment of negative impacts
was forthcoming. And when asked about the Lacombe Police
Services accident data, I was told that the LPS accident
report did not log accident scenarios. So, I said there
was therefore no way the city can support their claim to
have met the TAC safety conditions, unless some other
source or assessment was available. That received no
response.
After the call I decided that I had to let council know
about their failure to meet their claimed safety
conditions. I wrote an email to the mayor and city
council. I detailed the reasons why I thought the city
engineers have failed to met TAC safety conditions. I
then repeated our claim that the project should
therefore be reconsidered, especially considering the
obvious and unchallenged negative impact to property
owners.
My reasoning was this: If Transport Association of
Canada safety conditions for adding left-turn lanes were
in fact met, then Lacombe would be able prove that four
or more collisions related to left turns per year, or
six or more occurred within two years for any particular
left turn. But since the LPS accident report does not
give accident scenarios, there is no way to meet TAC
safety conditions.
There is no way to establish that six or more accidents
occurred on left turns, never mind on which left turn
they might have occurred. Even if these nine accidents
were all making a particular left turn, that would mean
that the conditions for only one left turn lane could be
justified. Yet the project has added four left turn
lanes!
Only one councillor took my email seriously (for which
we are nevertheless thankful). The councillor pressed
the administration for a response to our repeated
request for proof. In the email reply I received from
the Chief Administrative Officer I was told that we had
apparently not been clear enough about our requests. And
upon reflection the administration agreed that the LPS
data was insufficient to meet TAC safety conditions. But
the origin story had now changed.
Now the project was said to have only ever have been
based on “local” information. It was now claimed that
the administration never intended to make any claim that
the addition of four left-turn lanes at the intersection
of Highway 12 and C&E Trail will prevent accidents
or improve traffic safety. The redesign plan was
apparently just based on “anecdotal” information and not
on any kind of professional traffic safety assessment.
If this is the case, then there is simply no reason for
the city planners to have wasted time and money with
this intersection redesign. And it also means nothing
about the project’s purpose or justification offsets the
negative impacts to property owners’ land use.
Council has made it sound like public consultation is
something they value: “Council believes that land
development is a partnership. [...] It may require
circling back to repeat previous stages, integrate
feedback and revisit certain elements. The time invested
in respectful and meaningful consultation up front will
likely save a good deal of adversity and expense in the
long run” (Public Consultation Policy 61/211 (09)).
Nevertheless, there was no consultation before this
project was approved by council. There has been no
circling back around to integrate salient feedback, like
their lack of justification for the project and the
unmitigated negative impacts of the project.
The TAC safety conditions have not been met. There is no
traffic study, engineering report, or any other accident
data available to justify this project. Even though
council now knows that they approved this project based
on unsubstantiated claims of meeting TAC safety
standards, there has been no follow up with us, no
revisiting the plan, and no course correction. This
project no longer has any claim to compelling reason to
be implemented.
Lacombe City Council has, in our opinion, failed to
demonstrate accountability for its part in approving a
misrepresented and ultimately unjustified project.
|
|
