Gatefield/Chilcotin & Gladwin Intersection Improvements

Share Gatefield/Chilcotin & Gladwin Intersection Improvements on Facebook Share Gatefield/Chilcotin & Gladwin Intersection Improvements on X (formerly Twitter) Share Gatefield/Chilcotin & Gladwin Intersection Improvements on Linkedin Email Gatefield/Chilcotin & Gladwin Intersection Improvements link

The City of Abbotsford is planning improvements at the intersection of Gatefield/Chilcotin and Gladwin Road to make it safer, more accessible, and easier to navigate for everyone. The improvement project will:

  • replace the existing pedestrian signal with a full traffic signal
  • upgrade pedestrian crossing facilities and include accessibility enhancements
  • improve traffic flow
  • update street lighting for improved safety

The project will coordinate with utilities and other related infrastructure upgrades. View the Intersection Improvement design, and ask us a question!

The City of Abbotsford is planning improvements at the intersection of Gatefield/Chilcotin and Gladwin Road to make it safer, more accessible, and easier to navigate for everyone. The improvement project will:

  • replace the existing pedestrian signal with a full traffic signal
  • upgrade pedestrian crossing facilities and include accessibility enhancements
  • improve traffic flow
  • update street lighting for improved safety

The project will coordinate with utilities and other related infrastructure upgrades. View the Intersection Improvement design, and ask us a question!

Ask us a Question!

If you have a question about this project, submit it here and our team will respond.

Email
loader image
Forgot password?
Didn't receive confirmation?
Register Now
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share Thank you for your reply, but it does leave me wanting, so I have some follow up comments and questions. At the time of this writing the Let's Talk page was not updated current to my question and your reply, so I'm hopeful these don't come out of order and become confusing for readers. We can take this conversation to another platform if it is more convenient for you. This is related to my query about a fourth crossing along the south side of the intersection which would take this from a three crossing to the more common four crossing intersection. Let's untangle your response, "Each additional pedestrian crossing introduces an additional signal phase or pedestrian interval within the cycle. This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases. Either outcome increases delay and reduces intersection efficiency for all users, including pedestrians and transit." A pedestrian who wants to cross Gladwin between the two south corners will stop traffic on Gladwin for the same amount of time to cross Gladwin regardless if it were on a north-side or south-side crossing. However, forcing the pedestrian to navigate first to the north side before crossing Gladiwn and then again back to the south side, means that they will have imposed THREE pedestrian cycles into the intersection in order to make the crossing where a south-side crossing would do it in ONE. Please explain to me like I am six, how what feels like an attempt at a counter argument isn't actually in support of adding the south side crossing. Also explain to me how the side-street crossings imposed by the three-crossing design doesn't impede flow and otherwise expose pedestrians to interaction with traffic turning off of Gladwin--I applaud the narrower crossings, however eliminating a need to cross is even more effective at reducing interactions, is it not? Your response that, "A single diagonal or consolidated crossing would increase conflict complexity with turning vehicles and require longer clearance times across a larger area of the intersection." is irrelevant, as it was never suggested. I can only assume you brought it up to confuse the matter. Then you go on to say, "While a fourth crossing would reduce walking distance between two specific corners, it would increase signal complexity and introduce additional phase timing constraints, which reduces overall operational efficiency and does not provide a net safety benefit under standard signal design practice.", to which I've already established that question of your efficiency logic above, but would now like to ask how much more complicated this is than any of the other several hundred four-crossing intersections we already have in Abbotsford, and which are a de facto standard in North American cities. Your statement doesn't hold water. Please explain to me how the complexity of a four crossing intersection is either beyond the City's capabilities; not warranted for the efficiency improvement it would bring by reducing pedestrian time at the intersection; or would increase the cost of the project to unreasonable levels to make such safety and efficiency out of reach. Lastly, I would like to point out that you've avoided the question on how this fits with the City's goal of improving Active Transportation, however I think the line in your response, "This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases.", speaks volumes. Explain to me how you are not letting this opportunity to make an improvement for Active Transportation under the overhead of an existing project where we will have to pay much more to do it at a later date. on Facebook Share Thank you for your reply, but it does leave me wanting, so I have some follow up comments and questions. At the time of this writing the Let's Talk page was not updated current to my question and your reply, so I'm hopeful these don't come out of order and become confusing for readers. We can take this conversation to another platform if it is more convenient for you. This is related to my query about a fourth crossing along the south side of the intersection which would take this from a three crossing to the more common four crossing intersection. Let's untangle your response, "Each additional pedestrian crossing introduces an additional signal phase or pedestrian interval within the cycle. This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases. Either outcome increases delay and reduces intersection efficiency for all users, including pedestrians and transit." A pedestrian who wants to cross Gladwin between the two south corners will stop traffic on Gladwin for the same amount of time to cross Gladwin regardless if it were on a north-side or south-side crossing. However, forcing the pedestrian to navigate first to the north side before crossing Gladiwn and then again back to the south side, means that they will have imposed THREE pedestrian cycles into the intersection in order to make the crossing where a south-side crossing would do it in ONE. Please explain to me like I am six, how what feels like an attempt at a counter argument isn't actually in support of adding the south side crossing. Also explain to me how the side-street crossings imposed by the three-crossing design doesn't impede flow and otherwise expose pedestrians to interaction with traffic turning off of Gladwin--I applaud the narrower crossings, however eliminating a need to cross is even more effective at reducing interactions, is it not? Your response that, "A single diagonal or consolidated crossing would increase conflict complexity with turning vehicles and require longer clearance times across a larger area of the intersection." is irrelevant, as it was never suggested. I can only assume you brought it up to confuse the matter. Then you go on to say, "While a fourth crossing would reduce walking distance between two specific corners, it would increase signal complexity and introduce additional phase timing constraints, which reduces overall operational efficiency and does not provide a net safety benefit under standard signal design practice.", to which I've already established that question of your efficiency logic above, but would now like to ask how much more complicated this is than any of the other several hundred four-crossing intersections we already have in Abbotsford, and which are a de facto standard in North American cities. Your statement doesn't hold water. Please explain to me how the complexity of a four crossing intersection is either beyond the City's capabilities; not warranted for the efficiency improvement it would bring by reducing pedestrian time at the intersection; or would increase the cost of the project to unreasonable levels to make such safety and efficiency out of reach. Lastly, I would like to point out that you've avoided the question on how this fits with the City's goal of improving Active Transportation, however I think the line in your response, "This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases.", speaks volumes. Explain to me how you are not letting this opportunity to make an improvement for Active Transportation under the overhead of an existing project where we will have to pay much more to do it at a later date. on X (formerly Twitter) Share Thank you for your reply, but it does leave me wanting, so I have some follow up comments and questions. At the time of this writing the Let's Talk page was not updated current to my question and your reply, so I'm hopeful these don't come out of order and become confusing for readers. We can take this conversation to another platform if it is more convenient for you. This is related to my query about a fourth crossing along the south side of the intersection which would take this from a three crossing to the more common four crossing intersection. Let's untangle your response, "Each additional pedestrian crossing introduces an additional signal phase or pedestrian interval within the cycle. This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases. Either outcome increases delay and reduces intersection efficiency for all users, including pedestrians and transit." A pedestrian who wants to cross Gladwin between the two south corners will stop traffic on Gladwin for the same amount of time to cross Gladwin regardless if it were on a north-side or south-side crossing. However, forcing the pedestrian to navigate first to the north side before crossing Gladiwn and then again back to the south side, means that they will have imposed THREE pedestrian cycles into the intersection in order to make the crossing where a south-side crossing would do it in ONE. Please explain to me like I am six, how what feels like an attempt at a counter argument isn't actually in support of adding the south side crossing. Also explain to me how the side-street crossings imposed by the three-crossing design doesn't impede flow and otherwise expose pedestrians to interaction with traffic turning off of Gladwin--I applaud the narrower crossings, however eliminating a need to cross is even more effective at reducing interactions, is it not? Your response that, "A single diagonal or consolidated crossing would increase conflict complexity with turning vehicles and require longer clearance times across a larger area of the intersection." is irrelevant, as it was never suggested. I can only assume you brought it up to confuse the matter. Then you go on to say, "While a fourth crossing would reduce walking distance between two specific corners, it would increase signal complexity and introduce additional phase timing constraints, which reduces overall operational efficiency and does not provide a net safety benefit under standard signal design practice.", to which I've already established that question of your efficiency logic above, but would now like to ask how much more complicated this is than any of the other several hundred four-crossing intersections we already have in Abbotsford, and which are a de facto standard in North American cities. Your statement doesn't hold water. Please explain to me how the complexity of a four crossing intersection is either beyond the City's capabilities; not warranted for the efficiency improvement it would bring by reducing pedestrian time at the intersection; or would increase the cost of the project to unreasonable levels to make such safety and efficiency out of reach. Lastly, I would like to point out that you've avoided the question on how this fits with the City's goal of improving Active Transportation, however I think the line in your response, "This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases.", speaks volumes. Explain to me how you are not letting this opportunity to make an improvement for Active Transportation under the overhead of an existing project where we will have to pay much more to do it at a later date. on Linkedin Email Thank you for your reply, but it does leave me wanting, so I have some follow up comments and questions. At the time of this writing the Let's Talk page was not updated current to my question and your reply, so I'm hopeful these don't come out of order and become confusing for readers. We can take this conversation to another platform if it is more convenient for you. This is related to my query about a fourth crossing along the south side of the intersection which would take this from a three crossing to the more common four crossing intersection. Let's untangle your response, "Each additional pedestrian crossing introduces an additional signal phase or pedestrian interval within the cycle. This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases. Either outcome increases delay and reduces intersection efficiency for all users, including pedestrians and transit." A pedestrian who wants to cross Gladwin between the two south corners will stop traffic on Gladwin for the same amount of time to cross Gladwin regardless if it were on a north-side or south-side crossing. However, forcing the pedestrian to navigate first to the north side before crossing Gladiwn and then again back to the south side, means that they will have imposed THREE pedestrian cycles into the intersection in order to make the crossing where a south-side crossing would do it in ONE. Please explain to me like I am six, how what feels like an attempt at a counter argument isn't actually in support of adding the south side crossing. Also explain to me how the side-street crossings imposed by the three-crossing design doesn't impede flow and otherwise expose pedestrians to interaction with traffic turning off of Gladwin--I applaud the narrower crossings, however eliminating a need to cross is even more effective at reducing interactions, is it not? Your response that, "A single diagonal or consolidated crossing would increase conflict complexity with turning vehicles and require longer clearance times across a larger area of the intersection." is irrelevant, as it was never suggested. I can only assume you brought it up to confuse the matter. Then you go on to say, "While a fourth crossing would reduce walking distance between two specific corners, it would increase signal complexity and introduce additional phase timing constraints, which reduces overall operational efficiency and does not provide a net safety benefit under standard signal design practice.", to which I've already established that question of your efficiency logic above, but would now like to ask how much more complicated this is than any of the other several hundred four-crossing intersections we already have in Abbotsford, and which are a de facto standard in North American cities. Your statement doesn't hold water. Please explain to me how the complexity of a four crossing intersection is either beyond the City's capabilities; not warranted for the efficiency improvement it would bring by reducing pedestrian time at the intersection; or would increase the cost of the project to unreasonable levels to make such safety and efficiency out of reach. Lastly, I would like to point out that you've avoided the question on how this fits with the City's goal of improving Active Transportation, however I think the line in your response, "This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases.", speaks volumes. Explain to me how you are not letting this opportunity to make an improvement for Active Transportation under the overhead of an existing project where we will have to pay much more to do it at a later date. link

    Thank you for your reply, but it does leave me wanting, so I have some follow up comments and questions. At the time of this writing the Let's Talk page was not updated current to my question and your reply, so I'm hopeful these don't come out of order and become confusing for readers. We can take this conversation to another platform if it is more convenient for you. This is related to my query about a fourth crossing along the south side of the intersection which would take this from a three crossing to the more common four crossing intersection. Let's untangle your response, "Each additional pedestrian crossing introduces an additional signal phase or pedestrian interval within the cycle. This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases. Either outcome increases delay and reduces intersection efficiency for all users, including pedestrians and transit." A pedestrian who wants to cross Gladwin between the two south corners will stop traffic on Gladwin for the same amount of time to cross Gladwin regardless if it were on a north-side or south-side crossing. However, forcing the pedestrian to navigate first to the north side before crossing Gladiwn and then again back to the south side, means that they will have imposed THREE pedestrian cycles into the intersection in order to make the crossing where a south-side crossing would do it in ONE. Please explain to me like I am six, how what feels like an attempt at a counter argument isn't actually in support of adding the south side crossing. Also explain to me how the side-street crossings imposed by the three-crossing design doesn't impede flow and otherwise expose pedestrians to interaction with traffic turning off of Gladwin--I applaud the narrower crossings, however eliminating a need to cross is even more effective at reducing interactions, is it not? Your response that, "A single diagonal or consolidated crossing would increase conflict complexity with turning vehicles and require longer clearance times across a larger area of the intersection." is irrelevant, as it was never suggested. I can only assume you brought it up to confuse the matter. Then you go on to say, "While a fourth crossing would reduce walking distance between two specific corners, it would increase signal complexity and introduce additional phase timing constraints, which reduces overall operational efficiency and does not provide a net safety benefit under standard signal design practice.", to which I've already established that question of your efficiency logic above, but would now like to ask how much more complicated this is than any of the other several hundred four-crossing intersections we already have in Abbotsford, and which are a de facto standard in North American cities. Your statement doesn't hold water. Please explain to me how the complexity of a four crossing intersection is either beyond the City's capabilities; not warranted for the efficiency improvement it would bring by reducing pedestrian time at the intersection; or would increase the cost of the project to unreasonable levels to make such safety and efficiency out of reach. Lastly, I would like to point out that you've avoided the question on how this fits with the City's goal of improving Active Transportation, however I think the line in your response, "This increases overall cycle length or reduces available green time for vehicle phases.", speaks volumes. Explain to me how you are not letting this opportunity to make an improvement for Active Transportation under the overhead of an existing project where we will have to pay much more to do it at a later date.

    WarrenK asked 28 days ago

    Thank you for your detailed follow up comments and for taking the time to carefully review the proposed design. We appreciate your interest in improving pedestrian safety and active transportation along the Gladwin Road corridor.

    The decision to provide three pedestrian crossings at this intersection was not based solely on minimizing the number of pedestrian phases. Rather, it was based on the overall management of vehicle and pedestrian movements at an intersection that serves a nearby school and experiences significant turning activity during peak periods.

    A key design consideration is the management of left turn movements from Chilcotin Drive. Introducing a south leg pedestrian crossing would require accommodating additional conflicting movements within the signal operation or introducing additional signal timing, both of which would reduce the effectiveness of the proposed traffic management strategy. The selected configuration allows the intersection to operate more safely by minimizing conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles.

    Another important consideration is that there is currently no sidewalk on the south side of Chilcotin Drive west of the intersection. As a result, a south side crossing would not connect to an existing pedestrian facility. The current design therefore prioritizes crossings that connect directly to the existing sidewalk network and provide continuous accessible pedestrian routes.

    The City recognizes that if sidewalks are constructed along the south side of Chilcotin Drive as part of a future project, the need for a south side pedestrian crossing could be reassessed at that time. Providing a crossing where there is a continuous pedestrian network would allow the City to evaluate the operational and safety benefits within the context of the completed corridor.

    The City remains committed to improving active transportation. The proposed intersection improvements include curb extensions, accessibility upgrades, and enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities intended to improve safety and comfort for people walking while balancing the operational requirements of a signalized intersection adjacent to a school.

    Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. Feedback such as yours is valuable and will be retained as part of the project record and considered in future planning and design initiatives for the corridor.

  • Share I agree with the points of other questions below regarding making this stretch of road safer, not just this intersection. The curb extensions look like a great idea on the side roads, but more of that would help. Has the entire stretch of Gladwin Road (at least between Downes and Haida or perhaps even all the way to Maclure) been considered for a road diet, i.e. changing to 1 travel lane each way, 1 centre turning lane, and 1 bike lane each way? All the time when I travel the road (and I do so regularly) the only reason to have two lanes is for cars turning right or left, so reducing the number of lanes and how wide the road feels could help slow down traffic. Thank you for your consideration! on Facebook Share I agree with the points of other questions below regarding making this stretch of road safer, not just this intersection. The curb extensions look like a great idea on the side roads, but more of that would help. Has the entire stretch of Gladwin Road (at least between Downes and Haida or perhaps even all the way to Maclure) been considered for a road diet, i.e. changing to 1 travel lane each way, 1 centre turning lane, and 1 bike lane each way? All the time when I travel the road (and I do so regularly) the only reason to have two lanes is for cars turning right or left, so reducing the number of lanes and how wide the road feels could help slow down traffic. Thank you for your consideration! on X (formerly Twitter) Share I agree with the points of other questions below regarding making this stretch of road safer, not just this intersection. The curb extensions look like a great idea on the side roads, but more of that would help. Has the entire stretch of Gladwin Road (at least between Downes and Haida or perhaps even all the way to Maclure) been considered for a road diet, i.e. changing to 1 travel lane each way, 1 centre turning lane, and 1 bike lane each way? All the time when I travel the road (and I do so regularly) the only reason to have two lanes is for cars turning right or left, so reducing the number of lanes and how wide the road feels could help slow down traffic. Thank you for your consideration! on Linkedin Email I agree with the points of other questions below regarding making this stretch of road safer, not just this intersection. The curb extensions look like a great idea on the side roads, but more of that would help. Has the entire stretch of Gladwin Road (at least between Downes and Haida or perhaps even all the way to Maclure) been considered for a road diet, i.e. changing to 1 travel lane each way, 1 centre turning lane, and 1 bike lane each way? All the time when I travel the road (and I do so regularly) the only reason to have two lanes is for cars turning right or left, so reducing the number of lanes and how wide the road feels could help slow down traffic. Thank you for your consideration! link

    I agree with the points of other questions below regarding making this stretch of road safer, not just this intersection. The curb extensions look like a great idea on the side roads, but more of that would help. Has the entire stretch of Gladwin Road (at least between Downes and Haida or perhaps even all the way to Maclure) been considered for a road diet, i.e. changing to 1 travel lane each way, 1 centre turning lane, and 1 bike lane each way? All the time when I travel the road (and I do so regularly) the only reason to have two lanes is for cars turning right or left, so reducing the number of lanes and how wide the road feels could help slow down traffic. Thank you for your consideration!

    Eggman111 asked 23 days ago

    hank you for taking the time to provide your thoughtful comments and suggestions.

    The City appreciates your interest in improving safety along the Gladwin Road corridor. The current project is focused specifically on addressing safety and operational concerns at the Gladwin Road and Chilcotin Drive intersection. As such, the proposed improvements have been developed to address the identified issues within the limits of this project.

    The broader corridor improvements you have suggested, including a potential road diet and the addition of dedicated cycling facilities, would require a comprehensive corridor study that considers existing and future traffic operations, roadway function, active transportation needs, transit operations, emergency access, and long-term transportation planning objectives. These considerations extend beyond the scope of the current intersection improvement project.

    Your comments have been shared with the City Transportation Planning team and will be retained for consideration during future planning studies and corridor improvement initiatives for Gladwin Road.

    Thank you again for your valuable feedback and for contributing to the public engagement process.

  • Share Since you’re doing this to improve the safety of this intersection please consider a request to install somewhat of a traffic-calming device southbound on Gladwin in order to slow down all of the speeding vehicles that we experience too often on this stretch of road. Without this installing a regular traffic signal at this location is unlikely to make it safer. on Facebook Share Since you’re doing this to improve the safety of this intersection please consider a request to install somewhat of a traffic-calming device southbound on Gladwin in order to slow down all of the speeding vehicles that we experience too often on this stretch of road. Without this installing a regular traffic signal at this location is unlikely to make it safer. on X (formerly Twitter) Share Since you’re doing this to improve the safety of this intersection please consider a request to install somewhat of a traffic-calming device southbound on Gladwin in order to slow down all of the speeding vehicles that we experience too often on this stretch of road. Without this installing a regular traffic signal at this location is unlikely to make it safer. on Linkedin Email Since you’re doing this to improve the safety of this intersection please consider a request to install somewhat of a traffic-calming device southbound on Gladwin in order to slow down all of the speeding vehicles that we experience too often on this stretch of road. Without this installing a regular traffic signal at this location is unlikely to make it safer. link

    Since you’re doing this to improve the safety of this intersection please consider a request to install somewhat of a traffic-calming device southbound on Gladwin in order to slow down all of the speeding vehicles that we experience too often on this stretch of road. Without this installing a regular traffic signal at this location is unlikely to make it safer.

    Steve V asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your comment and for highlighting concerns regarding vehicle speeds on Gladwin Road.

    As part of the Gatefield Chilcotin and Gladwin intersection improvements, the consultant is reviewing traffic operations, intersection safety, and approach conditions.

    Your request to consider a traffic calming measure on southbound Gladwin has been noted and will be provided to the project team and consultant for review during the ongoing design development. Any potential measures would need to be assessed for feasibility, safety performance, and consistency with applicable design standards.

    We appreciate your input as the project moves forward.

  • Share What is the time frame gor this project? This is a very dangerous intersection for both pedestrians and cars. There is s blind corner and people drive easy over the little hill. There have been several accidents over the years. on Facebook Share What is the time frame gor this project? This is a very dangerous intersection for both pedestrians and cars. There is s blind corner and people drive easy over the little hill. There have been several accidents over the years. on X (formerly Twitter) Share What is the time frame gor this project? This is a very dangerous intersection for both pedestrians and cars. There is s blind corner and people drive easy over the little hill. There have been several accidents over the years. on Linkedin Email What is the time frame gor this project? This is a very dangerous intersection for both pedestrians and cars. There is s blind corner and people drive easy over the little hill. There have been several accidents over the years. link

    What is the time frame gor this project? This is a very dangerous intersection for both pedestrians and cars. There is s blind corner and people drive easy over the little hill. There have been several accidents over the years.

    Aspenpark asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your question. The City is currently working toward delivering the Gladwin Road and Chilcotin Drive intersection improvements as part of the current construction program. However, construction timing is dependent on several factors, including final design completion, approvals, procurement, contractor availability, and overall project delivery capacity.

    While the intent is to proceed as soon as practical, there is a possibility that construction could be deferred to next year if scheduling or resource constraints arise. Project updates and confirmed timelines will be shared on the project page as they become available.

  • Share Hello, I’m wondering along with this project, could we see a pedestrian crossing on Harwood Cree/Nainamo Cres (crossing Gladwin). This is just up the road from Chehalis & Gatefield. With the amount of traffic, schools and kids in the area (including my two), I think it’s worth having as people go way to fast and others will try to cross. Thank you on Facebook Share Hello, I’m wondering along with this project, could we see a pedestrian crossing on Harwood Cree/Nainamo Cres (crossing Gladwin). This is just up the road from Chehalis & Gatefield. With the amount of traffic, schools and kids in the area (including my two), I think it’s worth having as people go way to fast and others will try to cross. Thank you on X (formerly Twitter) Share Hello, I’m wondering along with this project, could we see a pedestrian crossing on Harwood Cree/Nainamo Cres (crossing Gladwin). This is just up the road from Chehalis & Gatefield. With the amount of traffic, schools and kids in the area (including my two), I think it’s worth having as people go way to fast and others will try to cross. Thank you on Linkedin Email Hello, I’m wondering along with this project, could we see a pedestrian crossing on Harwood Cree/Nainamo Cres (crossing Gladwin). This is just up the road from Chehalis & Gatefield. With the amount of traffic, schools and kids in the area (including my two), I think it’s worth having as people go way to fast and others will try to cross. Thank you link

    Hello, I’m wondering along with this project, could we see a pedestrian crossing on Harwood Cree/Nainamo Cres (crossing Gladwin). This is just up the road from Chehalis & Gatefield. With the amount of traffic, schools and kids in the area (including my two), I think it’s worth having as people go way to fast and others will try to cross. Thank you

    Tyler asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your suggestion and for highlighting your concerns in this area.

    We are happy to note your request for a potential pedestrian crossing at Harwood Creek and Nanaimo Crescent. While this is outside the scope of the current Gatefield Chilcotin and Gladwin intersection improvements project. This location can be reviewed through the Citys separate traffic safety and pedestrian crossing review process.

    We encourage you to contact the Engineering Department directly so the request can be logged and assessed through the appropriate process. Your comments will also be shared with the project team for awareness.

  • Share When is Stage 4 expected to commence? on Facebook Share When is Stage 4 expected to commence? on X (formerly Twitter) Share When is Stage 4 expected to commence? on Linkedin Email When is Stage 4 expected to commence? link

    When is Stage 4 expected to commence?

    SDavis asked about 1 month ago

    Stage 4 is anticipated is to begin within a couple of weeks.

  • Share Timeline for completion? The pedestrian crossing recently activated at Old Riverside and Gladwin, while much appreciated, took far to long to complete and activate. on Facebook Share Timeline for completion? The pedestrian crossing recently activated at Old Riverside and Gladwin, while much appreciated, took far to long to complete and activate. on X (formerly Twitter) Share Timeline for completion? The pedestrian crossing recently activated at Old Riverside and Gladwin, while much appreciated, took far to long to complete and activate. on Linkedin Email Timeline for completion? The pedestrian crossing recently activated at Old Riverside and Gladwin, while much appreciated, took far to long to complete and activate. link

    Timeline for completion? The pedestrian crossing recently activated at Old Riverside and Gladwin, while much appreciated, took far to long to complete and activate.

    Ingrid asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your question. The City is currently working toward delivering the Gladwin Road and Chilcotin Drive intersection improvements as part of the current construction program. However, construction scheduling is dependent on several factors, including final design, approvals, procurement, contractor availability, and overall project delivery capacity.

    While the intent is to proceed as soon as practical, there is a possibility that construction could be deferred to next year if scheduling or resource constraints arise. Project updates and confirmed timelines will be shared on the project page as they become available.

  • Share Will you ensure the timing on this light is deconflicted so pedestrians get a head start and become visible to drivers before drivers get their green light? I understand this is a Vision Zero best practice on Facebook Share Will you ensure the timing on this light is deconflicted so pedestrians get a head start and become visible to drivers before drivers get their green light? I understand this is a Vision Zero best practice on X (formerly Twitter) Share Will you ensure the timing on this light is deconflicted so pedestrians get a head start and become visible to drivers before drivers get their green light? I understand this is a Vision Zero best practice on Linkedin Email Will you ensure the timing on this light is deconflicted so pedestrians get a head start and become visible to drivers before drivers get their green light? I understand this is a Vision Zero best practice link

    Will you ensure the timing on this light is deconflicted so pedestrians get a head start and become visible to drivers before drivers get their green light? I understand this is a Vision Zero best practice

    Gmckone asked about 1 month ago

    Signal timing and phasing are developed during the detailed design process and are reviewed to ensure the intersection operates safely and efficiently for all users, including pedestrians.

    The proposed signal design will be developed in accordance with applicable engineering standards, guidelines, and best practices. Factors considered during signal design include pedestrian safety, vehicle operations, visibility, accessibility, and overall intersection performance.

    Specific signal timing details, including pedestrian crossing intervals and vehicle phasing, will be finalized as part of the signal design process.

    Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback.

  • Share On the approach to this intersection what is planned to protect vulnerable road user like people on bikes and scooters? Gladwin is straight and wide which makes for "raceway" conditions. Chilcotin could make an important part of East West travel for people seeking lower traffic streets to ride safely. on Facebook Share On the approach to this intersection what is planned to protect vulnerable road user like people on bikes and scooters? Gladwin is straight and wide which makes for "raceway" conditions. Chilcotin could make an important part of East West travel for people seeking lower traffic streets to ride safely. on X (formerly Twitter) Share On the approach to this intersection what is planned to protect vulnerable road user like people on bikes and scooters? Gladwin is straight and wide which makes for "raceway" conditions. Chilcotin could make an important part of East West travel for people seeking lower traffic streets to ride safely. on Linkedin Email On the approach to this intersection what is planned to protect vulnerable road user like people on bikes and scooters? Gladwin is straight and wide which makes for "raceway" conditions. Chilcotin could make an important part of East West travel for people seeking lower traffic streets to ride safely. link

    On the approach to this intersection what is planned to protect vulnerable road user like people on bikes and scooters? Gladwin is straight and wide which makes for "raceway" conditions. Chilcotin could make an important part of East West travel for people seeking lower traffic streets to ride safely.

    Gmckone asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your question.

    The scope of this project is focused on upgrading the existing pedestrian signal at the Gladwin Road and Chilcotin Drive/Gatefield Avenue intersection to a full traffic signal, along with associated intersection improvements. The project also includes curb bulges on the side street approaches to improve intersection operations and pedestrian crossings.

    The project does not include dedicated cycling facilities or corridor-wide traffic calming measures on Gladwin Road. However, the proposed traffic signal will provide controlled crossing opportunities for pedestrians and other road users at the intersection.

    Your comments regarding cyclist and scooter safety, as well as vehicle speeds along Gladwin Road, have been noted and will be shared with City staff for consideration as part of future transportation planning and network improvement initiatives.

    Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback.

Page last updated: 17 Jun 2026, 10:29 AM